Summary:

All articles in House section

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1998
(House of Representatives - May 20, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H2960-H3065] CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1998 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 152 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 84. [[Page H2961]] {time} 1610 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. 84) establishing the Congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal year 1998 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, with Mr. Boehner in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is considered read the first time. General debate shall be confined to the congressional budget and shall not exceed 5 hours and 20 minutes, including 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], and 20 minutes controlled by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge]. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, there is 20 minutes that has been allocated to my portion of this general debate. Is it correct to understand that it will be 20 minutes at the end of the general debate? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will consult with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], and the chairman of the committee to determine at what point that debate would occur. Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, when will we have such consultation? The CHAIRMAN. As soon as the gentleman and the chairman of the committee can approach the Chair and have that discussion. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that, out of the time allocated to me, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] be yielded 25 minutes and that he be allowed to control that time; that the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] on behalf of the Joint Economic Committee be yielded 10 minutes and that he be allowed to control that time; that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] be yielded 20 minutes and that he be allowed to control that time; that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] be yielded 30 minutes and that she be allowed to control that time; and finally, that I would reserve the remaining 35 minutes to myself. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina? There was no objection. {time} 1615 Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a moment that many of us have been waiting for for a long time. The fact is, several years ago I suggested that the time would arrive when Republicans and Democrats could come together; that we could, in fact, put the good of the country and the good of our children ahead of our own basic desires, to pass a bill that would balance the budget, would give tax relief to the American people, would strengthen the American family, and would be a giant first step towards solving many of the problems that have confounded us for many years. The President came to this Chamber about at the beginning of the year and he declared the era of big Government at an end. The Republicans and the Democrats have worked together, and frankly, that rhetoric now is going to be underlaid by a budget program that in fact does declare the end to the era of big Government. This agreement is predicated and founded on very conservative economics, predicting a 2.1-percent growth in this economy, the economy growing far in excess of 5 percent. For those that did not know this, it may come as a surprise for some, but we really believe that a 2.1- percent growth rate over the life of this document, which means at some point the economy will grow faster and at other points in time the economy will grow slower, is an excellent conclusion to draw. And in fact, a 2.1 percent growth rate that underlies this agreement is far more conservative than all the blue chip economic estimates that we have heard across this country. Second, in the area of savings, over the course of the next decade under this agreement, in the programs of entitlements that have eroded our ability to control our wage growth, in order to give us faster wage growth, our inability to be able to give our children a chance, it is not the end-all, but boy, is it a giant first step, with $600 billion in entitlement savings over the course of the next decade, including extending the life of Medicare for up to 10 years and being able to accomplish what the Republicans set out to accomplish in 1995. It is not just about numbers. There in fact are structural reforms to this Medicare Program, including prospective payments for skilled nursing facilities and home health care, the fastest growing items in the Medicare budget; the creation of physician networks, so physicians can compete with the insurance companies to offer people more opportunity, more choice, more benefits; the fact that we are going to have an adjustment in the reimbursements to the managed care operations by letting rural America have more incentives to offer more choice to people in rural America; the fact that we moved the home health care and made sure that part of those costs were going to be included in the premium, and phased in over a period of time. As Members will see, there are structural changes in this Medicare Program. Are there going to be more changes needed in the future? There is no question that as the baby boomers begin to retire we have a huge challenge. That is precisely why I authored a provision that calls for the creation of a baby boomer study program to figure out how to deal with the major problems of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. There will be a big challenge, but let us not let that challenge take away from what we have been able to accomplish in this agreement today. Make no mistake about it, never before in the history of the U.S. Congress have we saved more money in entitlements than in this agreement. In the area of the programs that run the Government of the United States, some people say we have not saved enough. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to the taxpayers' money we always have to be working at saving more. But let me just put it in perspective. Nondefense discretionary, the programs that operate the government of the United States, will grow over the next 5 years at an average of one-half percent a year. Do Members get that? They will grow at one- half percent a year. Over the last 10 years they have grown at 10 percent. So to take the growth in those programs from 10 percent over the last 10 years to a half a percent over the next 5 years is a very, very significant accomplishment. Will we come back at some point and try to do more to defang the Government, to defang those parts of the Government that have harassed people? Not suggesting that all of it does, but in those areas where Government has put a burden on the shoulders of the people as they have tried to heal their communities and heal their families, of course that should be our role, to set the people free in this country. So what we have in this budget is good fiscal restraint, $600 billion in entitlement savings and only one-half percent a year growth in the programs that run the Government. Coupled with that, of course, is the first balanced budget in over 30 years, which will result in the year 2002 in only the second balanced budget over the course of the last 40 years. Also included in this document, and we should all be aware of this, is something that many people said could not be done. That is to give the people power by letting them keep more of what they earn. Included in this document is $135 billion in tax cuts over 5 years, and at least $350 billion in tax cuts over the next 10 years. That will be enough. It will be enough to give the American people something we have been promising for many years now. It will give them a capital gains tax cut, so that in America we will reward risk-taking, and we will give the American people the tools with which to compete and win in the international job market. Let me just suggest to the Members that to improve the reasons to risk take and the incentives to risk take, [[Page H2962]] and to give people a reason to invest in America, will mean that the infrastructure of America will be able to accommodate faster economic growth without inflation. There are many other things we need to do to improve the infrastructure of America so our country can grow faster and reward more people from one end of this country to the other, but we believe that the capital gains tax cut is one of those elements, coupled with a balanced budget, that results in lower interest rates and more investment and more productivity and more wealth for every single American. Included in here is the family tax credit, because we believe the best Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the United States is the American family. Is it not going to be great, I say to the gentleman from Tennessee, when this Sunday he goes to church and he sees a man and his wife leave the church with three young kids, and they get into that old Chevrolet and you can actually see the car kind of go down and up as they get in, and maybe on the back of the bumper is an old Billy Graham bumper sticker left over from a rally 3 years ago, and he knows in his soul that under a child tax credit the American family is going to have more, some money for their college, some money for new clothes, some money to help the family. Of course, there will be estate relief in here, too, so when you die and you have worked a lifetime to build something, to pass it on to your family, the Government is not going to take it all away. Let me just suggest, whether it is a small business or the family farm, we do not want the people to not just have death but death and taxes to the max. We do not solve the whole problem of the estate, this overtaxation of estates in this, but we are making a good first step. The President got one of his priorities in the area of education. Let me just suggest, for those mothers and fathers who have had to take that second job to help their kid get a college education, this program has some help for them. They need help. But let me ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to start aggressively asking the higher education officials in this country why their costs are racing out of control. Let me ask the moms and dads and the students to start asking the same question. But in the meantime, we are going to help. What do we get here at the end of the day? First, the first balanced budget in over 30 years; real tax relief that we think will improve the lives of America's workers; real tax relief that we believe will improve the lives of the American family; real tax relief that will give a reward to people for working hard for a lifetime; help for people to realize the American dream through education; and at the same time, the most significant savings in entitlements in the history of this country, and controlling the growth to a half a percent a year of those programs that run the Federal Government, and a giant first step toward moving into the next century by stabilizing the fiscal policies of the United States of America. It has been a long road. It has been very difficult. I want to compliment the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Martin Sabo], maybe the most forgotten man today in the Chamber, but not by me, because Martin worked hard in 1995, in 1993, and in 1994 and in 1995 and in 1996; a total class gentleman. Over the course of the last 2 years we have worked closely together to try to figure out how we could narrow most of our differences. It is a tremendous pleasure to have worked with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. John Spratt]. He has had a very difficult time trying to make sure that he could keep his caucus together and listen to his leader who at times he had to represent, and other parts of the caucus who he had to represent. Hats off to John Spratt; and to John Hilley, my great friend down at the White House, to Franklin Raines and Gene Sperling, it was the best, to be able to put aside the partisan bickering and reach an agreement; and to the President, to the President who did not have to really do this. He decided that he wanted to move forward and reach agreement. He sent his trusted aide, Erskine Bowles, to the Hill. With Pete Dominici and the gentleman from Georgia. [Mr. Newt Gingrich] and Trent Lott and this big team, we were able to put it together. No one should think for a second that this is the end of the game. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is just the beginning, but a very great beginning and a very big step toward providing a more prosperous, toward providing a more confident, toward providing a more secure America, and convincing the American people that when we put the politics aside and we listen to them and their calls for so many years for this body to get control of the spending of this country and to return some of their power, when we listen to them, at the end of the day Republicans and Democrats came together to reach agreement on something that I believe the American people will look at and say, for once you have done well. For once you have put the politics aside and you have agreed to work together and serve America. Let us support this great budget resolution today. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly this afternoon to state that I will not vote for this budget, but before giving Members the reasons for that, I want to commend the Members on both sides of the aisle. I especially want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. John Spratt], and I want to commend the President for working so hard to bring about this agreement, which is an important achievement for our country. Having done this in 1990 and again in 1993, I know how hard it is. {time} 1630 I know how many compromises have to be made and how many decisions have to be made to make something like this come together. But at the end of it, it is a decision on this budget that each of us must make for what is best for our constituents, the 500,000 people that each of us represents and what in our hearts and minds is best for them and best for the country. I would like to start with a little history of why we are where we are. This all started, in my view, back in 1981. Congress then, in a bipartisan way, made a decision on a budget that had certain increases in spending and tax cuts, which many of us said at the time would create large deficits out in the future. The prediction was that there would be deficits of $100 and $200 and $300 billion. And unfortunately those predictions came true. It has taken us 17 years from that basic decision in 1981 to get on the threshold of being able to balance the budget. In 1990, we entered into a bipartisan budget agreement, much like has been done now, and at the time we raised taxes and we cut spending in a bipartisan way, and we made a big step, about a $500 billion deficit reduction. We did that again in 1993; I might add, at that time, with all Democratic votes, not one vote from the other side of the aisle. At the time many Republican leaders said they believed that budget we passed in 1993 would wreck the economy and would cause higher unemployment and higher deficits. I want to point out that because of the interaction of what we do on the deficit and what it does with the economy, that indeed those forecasts were wrong, that even with tax increases and spending cuts, we have had a remarkable economic performance in the last 4 or 5 years. In fact, in 1993, the prediction was the deficit for this year would be $300 billion. A year ago the prediction was the deficit would be $169 billion. In January of this year, we thought the deficit for this year would be $124 billion. Just last week CBO said it is down to $67 billion. There is an interaction, there is an inextricable link between the deficit and what we do and how we get rid of the deficit and what happens in the economy. And I believe that the investments we made in education and in capital investment and in health care that we made in the deficit reduction act of 1993 were an integral part of helping the private sector economy grow over the last 5 years so that we have had real economic growth and [[Page H2963]] more revenue coming into the government. So the question then and now is not whether to do this, it is how we do it. It is how we do it. What are the myriad of decisions, what are the texture of the decisions we put together to try to get the budget into order. In my view, this budget agreement is a budget of many deficits: a deficit of principle, a deficit of fairness, a deficit of tax justice, and worst of all, a deficit of dollars. First, I think it is unfair. I think that when we have done these budgets, we have always tried to have shared sacrifice. We have said to the American people in the highest sense of patriotism that everybody has to sacrifice in order to get the budget straightened out. That is what we did in 1990. That is what we did in 1993. That is not what this budget does. Recently I was going door to door in my district. I met a young couple who had just bought a house. They were happy because the wife had just gotten pregnant and they were expecting this new family. I asked them what their concerns were. They said their concern was that between them they have 5 jobs, 5 jobs. That is kind of the way the economy is working for ordinary Americans today. In order to make ends meet, people have to work more jobs and more hours. And the woman said to me, ``You know, our concern is that when the baby comes, I would like to stay home and raise the child for 2 or 3 years, but with 5 jobs, I have got to quit two of those jobs to do it. And if we do that, we cannot make our house payment.'' That is reality 1997. On another door-to-door trip in my district I met a woman who was on Social Security and Medicare. She said, ``You know, I do not want to be a whiner, and I do not want to complain, but I only get $450 a month. And I have got to buy a lot of prescription drugs to stay going. I just want you to know, I cannot pay my water bill now, and I do not have hot water. And if I have cuts along the way in Medicare or Social Security, I may lose the apartment I am staying in''. That is reality 1997. This budget could have done better by either of those people I have talked about. We could have done more in this budget on Head Start, on after school programs for that family I am talking about. We could have done better for that senior citizen so she could get by better. But in this budget there is structured a tax cut. And if I am reading the agreement between the parties correctly, that tax cut will necessarily result in the top 1 percent of taxpayers in this country getting a tax reduction of about $6,000. And when I talk about the top 1 percent, I am talking about folks making an average of $650,000 a year. Is it shared sacrifice to say to them, you get a huge tax cut every year, $6,000, but the young family who is trying to make ends meet, we cannot help them enough? We cannot give them a larger tax cut. We cannot give them the kind of help that they need getting through their life every day. It is not fair. I wish it were fairer. Second, I think it fails to invest in the future. What do I mean by that? We are in a tough global competition. We have got our work cut out for us. We have to really be good. I agree, we need tax cuts, but they ought to go to the people who need them, desperately need them. And they ought to go to the people who are working hard every day to compete in that global economy. But we also need investments in this budget. Let me just name three to take examples. First, education. Everybody knows we have got to have better educated people to compete in the global economy, to get productivity increases, to get growth increases. Early on in the budget talks we talked about repairing school buildings and putting money into the structures in which our children learn. That was thrown out of the budget. We did not have enough money to do that. We talked endlessly in this Chamber about Head Start, about investing in the smallest, youngest children. We talked about Head Start zero to three. We just had a conference in the White House where we find that late mental research proves that the more you can do with young, young, young children, the better the result will be. But this budget does not fully fund Head Start and does not even make a beginning on Head Start zero to three. Let us talk about children's health, a very good part of this budget, $15 billion, to try to get half the children who do not have health care to have health care. But in the very same budget there is about an equal cut in Medicaid in what is called disproportionate share, a fancy name for trying to give money to hospitals that have a disproportionate share of poverty folks coming there to get help. Guess which hospitals get the lion's share of disproportionate share? The children's hospitals. We give with one hand; we take away with another. It is not good enough. Third, investment in the capital investments. We hear about capital gains. What about capital structures? Billions of dollars come into this budget every year from the gasoline tax to the Federal highway trust fund and every year we spend moneys for these needed structures, but we never spend what comes in. And this budget does not either. In my district of St. Louis, our city fathers and mothers got together and said, what does this region need? They came up with $20 billion worth of needs in St. Louis for capital investment alone. They have no idea where it is going to come from. We can do better in investing in our future. Third, this budget does not come into balance. I believe with all my heart that the people who worked on it want it to come into balance. And I hope it does, but let me say something. If we have exploding tax cuts that are put into law and they are not met with spending cuts that will be designed to reach them, then the numbers are not going to work. Remember 1981 and what happened. The last thing we need to do is to advertise this as a deficit reduction plan that will reduce the deficit and then we do not get there. The coalition members wanted to go to the floor this afternoon and have an amendment that had an enforcement process that said, if the numbers do not work for any reason, because the economy does not work or something else, that we will start cutting across the board both spending programs and tax programs in order to see that we really get the balance that we want and that we have advertised. That is not going to be allowed to even be voted on. In conclusion, I do not believe this budget is fair. I do not believe it invests properly in the future of our country and our economy and our people. I do not believe the numbers will work, and I do not think there is a system in place to make sure that they do. Let me say this final word. This is a decision and it is a hard decision that all of us have to make. For me, as I cast this vote, I have one thing in my mind and one thing only, and that is the people that I represent in the third District of Missouri. I have in my mind that young family who is working hard, real hard every day and wants to make ends meet and wants to have a future. I have in my mind that senior citizen who wants to stay out of the nursing home and stay in her home and live the life of independence that she wants. I have in mind the children, the children who are the future and the strength and the greatest resource of this country. Each of us in our own way, as we go through this debate and vote tonight, has to ask ourselves, what is the right thing for my constituents and for my country? Nothing else is asked. That is the question we have to answer. This is not politics. This is not some election. This is about the future of the country and what in our conscience, our heart and our mind is the best and right thing to do. I will vote against this budget. I think we can do better. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I do want to commend the minority leader on his speech and would like to say to him that I can respect a vision of government that is entirely different than mine and entirely different than the majority in the House. But he should know that in the addendum, point 9 in the reconciliation process, if it is determined that the target of a balanced budget cannot be achieved, all parties to the agreement commit to seek additional savings necessary to achieve balance. Furthermore, of course, we believe that the tax cuts in fact will provide us [[Page H2964]] with higher economic growth but, beyond that, having an economic plan underlaid by a 2.1 percent growth rate over the course of this agreement is about as conservative an estimate as we can find among any of the groups. I would not only challenge the gentleman's vision of what builds America, which is not more government spending and more government programs, but in addition, though, severely challenge the fact that somehow we have exploding deficits that will not allow us or exploding tax cuts that will not allow us to get in balance. That is simply not true and will not occur. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann]. Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of this committee and also the ranking minority member from the other side of the aisle, this is great work. It is great for the future of this country. I would agree with the comments of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] that this is really about the future of America. We just have a very different vision of who it is that can best spend money in this country, we here in Washington or the people themselves. I have a presentation but I want to start talking about a family in my district. It is a middle income family. It is a family with three kids. They are about to start college. It is a family whose parents both get up and go to work every single day of the week. {time} 1645 I talked to this family about this budget plan, too, and, frankly, they did not understand billions and trillions very well, and they did not understand CBO and OMB and all that stuff, but what they did understand is how this budget plan was going to impact them directly out in Janesville, WI. Because this middle income family that gets up every morning to go to work understood perfectly well what it meant when we said for every child that is still at home they will receive a $500 credit. They understood perfectly well on their $40,000-a-year income what $1,000 meant coming into their house. Not only that, they understood, when they talked about their oldest son going off to college, they understood what a $1,500 tax credit meant to them for a total of, maybe we will not get all $2,500 to them, but over $2,000 coming back to this family. That is what it means to the hard-working families, the middle income families who get up every morning to go to work. And it does have a real impact on them. I guess the difference of opinion here is who it is who can best spend the money, the family out in Janesville keeping the money in their own house, or the people in Washington investing it in the future. My opinion is those families out in Janesville, WI can do a pretty good job of taking care of their own money. I do have a presentation I want to give, because I strongly support this agreement. This agreement balances the budget for the first time in a generation. We have our families who pay $500 every month to do nothing but to pay the interest on the Federal debt, and certainly it is time we allow those families to keep more of their own money. It does balance. Starting with 1998 forward, the deficit goes down every year. It restores Medicaid for at least a decade and probably longer as the tax cuts take effect and the economy booms. The tax cuts. Letting the American people keep more of their own money. It is in here, $500 per child. We are looking at a reduction of capital gains tax, reforming the death tax, and a college tax tuition credit of some sort. There is no congressionally mandated CPI adjustment. That is to say to our senior citizens, there is nothing in this plan that would adjust their cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security next year. It has been taken out. It was talked about briefly but is not in the plan. It was taken out. We heard the seniors and we heard their concerns. The plan also includes in the language, at the end of it, a sense of Congress that would allow us to not only balance the budget by 2002 but also pay off the Federal debt between now and the year 2023, so that we can pass this Nation on to our children debt free. Think of that dream in America: a Nation that we pass on to our children not burdened with debt but debt free. So instead of paying $500 a month in interest into Washington to do nothing but pay the interest on the debt, families can keep that $500 a month and do as they see fit with the money. As we pay off the Federal debt, another very important thing happens: The money that has been taken out of the Social Security trust fund is put back. And that is very, very significant as we look at the solvency of the Social Security system. To understand how good this budget is, I think we have to look at where we have come from. I brought a chart from way back in 1991, when I first started running for office. This chart shows the Gramm-Rudman- Hollings plan of 1985, and it shows the green line here is their plan to get to a balanced budget. The red line shows what actually happened, and we can notice they never got to a balanced budget. They never even hit their targets. In 1987 they revised Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and, again, the green line shows their plan to get to a balanced budget, and the red line shows what actually happened. They never hit their targets, period. What is happening out here since 1995? This is somewhat staggering. When I went back to put this together I was somewhat shocked to see what was actually happening out here since 1995. The picture is so different than 1985 and 1987 that we almost have to see it to understand how real this thing is. In 1995, we promised the American people that we would have deficits, as in the red columns on here, $154 billion in 1996. The blue on this thing, the blue columns, those are what is actually happening. And we can notice we not only hit our projection, but we are ahead of schedule. Think how far we have come since 1985 and 1987. We not only hit the target, we are ahead of schedule in 1996. We are over $100 billion ahead of schedule in 1997. And each year, under this plan, we stay ahead of that promise to the American people that we made in 1995. Our promise is being fulfilled. The reason that this is happening is because we are curtailing the growth of spending in this great Nation we live in. Spending that was going up rapidly, as we see in the red column, is not going up as fast anymore. It is still going up faster than I would like to see but not as fast as it was. Nondefense discretionary spending was going up. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. KASICH. And, Mr. Chairman, I will give the gentleman a little more time to put that chart back up there. Let us take a look at what the fiscal year 1996 to 2002 plan is. Mr. NEUMANN. It was going up by 5.2 percent a year in the 7 years before we got here. Under this plan, and the first 2 years since 1995, it is now going up by 3.2 percent. Let us put that in inflation-adjusted dollars. It was going up 1.8; it is now going up 0.6. The growth of Government has been reduced by two-thirds. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, let me just say that under this plan that is currently on the table, those increases will drop to 0.5 percent. This will be the lowest increase in the programs that run the Government of the United States in history. Someone has told me, and we are still trying to check these numbers, less than half of the growth in spending in nondefense discretionary under President Ronald Reagan. So I think it was a significant accomplishment to be able to slow it to that degree, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. NEUMANN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I also think we should talk about nondefense discretionary spending. That is the part of the budget we have the most control over. That was rising by 6.7 percent annually before we took over, in the 7 years before we got here. It is now going up less than 1 percent a year. And in inflation-adjusted dollars, it was going up by 3.2. It is now actually shrinking by 1.5 percent. I will say that again. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the nondefense discretionary spending, the part of the budget we have the most control over, is actually shrinking. I will wrap up my part of this presentation with something that is pretty special here. This chart shows what [[Page H2965]] would have happened in 1995 if there had been no changes in the law. This line shows where the deficit was headed in 1995. This yellow line in the chart shows what happened in the first 12 months, how much progress was made during the year of 1995. Then we put this plan into place, as to what we hoped could happen. That is the green line. And I brought a marker with me today, because a year ago we produced this chart and we said we were ahead of schedule. Notice that our deficit is actually below the green line. And people said, yeah, yeah, yeah, that is 1 year. I want to conclude my part of this presentation by drawing in where we are now in our second year on this plan to reach a balanced budget. We are way down here. And we can notice that we are not only ahead of schedule for the first year, we are ahead of schedule for the second year. And when we pass this plan, we will stay ahead of schedule for each and every year from now through the year 2002. What that means for our children in this country is that we will have a balanced budget, we can start paying down the debt, and our children can once again look forward to the opportunity to have a chance at living the American dream in this great Nation that we live in. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, for the first time in 15 years, in the 15 years I have served in this House, we are within reach of a balanced budget. Last September 30, 1996, when we closed the books on fiscal 1996, the deficit stood at $107.8 billion. And now that we have gotten the revenues on April 15 from this year's tax payments, CBO and OMB both believe that the deficit this year will drop to $70 billion or below-- $70 billion or less. We can finish the job. We can balance the budget. But only if we have a plan, for without one the deficit will start drifting back upward again. We have before us today a hard wrought compromise of a plan. When I say hard wrought, I mean it. It was produced through nearly 4 months of negotiations. Hard fought negotiations. But throughout they were civil and cordial, and I commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. John Kasich] who worked with us in complete cooperation and good faith throughout the negotiations to bring it to this end, which is a genuine compromise. Before turning to that plan, I would like to just pause a minute and talk about what brings us to this point. I want to go back to a particular date, January 13, 1993, 1 week before George Bush left office. He sent us that day his economic report of the President, and in it Michael Boskin, his chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, predicted that the deficit for that year, fiscal 1993, would be $332 billion. This was the deficit that President Clinton found on the doorstep awaiting him when we arrived at the White House 1 week later. On February 17, the President laid on the doorstep of the Congress a plan for cutting that deficit roughly by half over the next 5 years. It was not a popular plan. It was certainly not a painless plan. It cost my party dearly for supporting it. It passed the Congress only by the skin of its teeth. The critics claimed this budget would cut off the economy at its knees. But the financial markets were impressed, so much so that long bond rates came down by 100 to 120 basis points. And when the books were closed on fiscal 1993, that first fiscal year, the deficit was not $332 billion as Boskin predicted, it was $255 billion. A year later, the first full year under that budget plan, the deficit was $203 billion. At year end 1995, it was down again to $164 billion. And as I said, last September it was $107.8 billion. The deficit has been cut now for 5 years in a row. That is not smoke and mirrors, that is not sleight of hand, that is a matter of record. As Yogi Berra liked to say, ``You can look it up.'' The deficit has been cut by 65 percent. And at 1.4 percent of our GDP, it is at its lowest level since the early 1970's. That is progress by anybody's yardstick. That is why we are within reach, credibly, of a balanced budget. That is why we are here today, to finish a job, because it would be a shame not to try. And that is why it is important that we do it right and not blow this opportunity. Mr. Chairman, if it were left to me alone, I would do a budget along the lines my good friends, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the Blue Dogs laid out last year, for which I voted, which had no net tax cuts at all, none at least until we had our goal firmly in grasp. That would not mean no tax cuts, just no net tax cuts. But this is a divided government, and to do a deal, none of us gets to do it alone. We have a choice between gridlock and compromise. And what we have before us is just that, it is a compromise. It is not a perfect solution. It is the art of the possible. But if we let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we will not get anything good done on the deficit this year. This compromise differs from most compromises by design, by conscious design, because what we sought in negotiating it was to let each party claim some clear victory. Rather than come out with just gray results, compromise to the point that they lost their identity and pleased nobody, this package allows the Republicans a clear victory. It allows them the chance to do significant tax cuts. It allows Democrats, my party, the chance to do initiatives in children's health care, the chance to do initiatives in education that we could not do if we tried to do it alone. That is why I say this budget is balanced in two senses. If the economy stays stable, this budget should take us to a balanced budget by the year 2002. But in the meantime, this resolution is not so fixated on the deficit that it forgets this country has other problems too that need to be addressed. Hard-working families are worried about how they are going to pay for the cost of their children's education. Tuition is soaring. This resolution promises more help than anything that has been passed in this Congress in the past 25 years. There are 10 million children, mostly in working families, who have no health insurance. This resolution sets aside $16 billion to come up with ways to cover at least half of those children within the next 5 years. To those in my party, my fellow Democrats, who are still summing up the pluses and the minuses in this budget resolution, I urge them to keep initiatives like these in mind and ask themselves if we could have achieved this, if we could have done this if we went it alone as a minority, by ourselves. I ask them to look at NDD, nondefense discretionary spending. It goes from $548 to $562 billion. We should ask ourselves, measured against last year's budget resolution, if we could have done this well if we did it alone. Look at what we have done with Medicare and preventive care, with Medicaid and moderating the reductions. Throughout this budget the Democratic stamp is firmly and clearly in place. I do not think we could have done this well by going it alone, and that is why I say we should support it. That is why this resolution is a good deal for us but, more importantly, it is a good deal for this country. It is a balanced plan to balance the budget. I say let us finish what we started in 1993. Let us adopt this House Concurrent Resolution 84. Let us balance the budget by the year 2002, and let us take the credit we deserve as Democrats for this accomplishment. {time} 1700 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to clarify for the Members the unanimous-consent request from the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] who broke up his time throughout the remainder of the evening. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has 25 minutes remaining on his time. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] will have 25 minutes. Joint Economic Committee members will have 10 minutes. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] will have 40 minutes, 20 minutes under the rule and 20 minutes of additional time as requested by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt]. The Congressional Black Caucus will have 30 minutes. And then the gentleman [[Page H2966]] from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] will have 30 minutes and have the right to close on his side of the aisle. The Chair would encourage Members controlling time under this consent arrangement to use their time in the blocks that have been allocated, if at all possible. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair just explain how much time has been consumed? I understand that when the majority leader was yielded 5 minutes, he spoke for 13; and that is our process, but he was allocated 5 minutes against the time. How much time has been consumed by both sides? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has 24 minutes remaining of the 30 minutes in his block under his unanimous- consent arrangement. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 2 hours and 11 minutes remaining. Mr. SHAYS. That is not all that helpful, Mr. Chairman. Of the total amount of time on each side, how much has been allocated? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not understand the gentleman's inquiry. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to know how much time has been consumed on both sides. That is the question. I did not ask how much is remaining. How much is consumed? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has used 11 minutes. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, how much time have we used on this side? The CHAIRMAN. On the other side of the aisle, 19 minutes have been consumed. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker]. Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the bipartisan budget agreement before us today. This budget resolution has particular significance for me. I am the only Member of this body who has worked with the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], from both sides of the aisle. For 5 years, I served on the Committee on the Budget as the Democratic member, struggling to produce such a document. While we never succeeded, I think it is appropriate at this time to remember the commitment of colleagues, some of whom are no longer in this body, who worked for such an agreement. Specifically, I want to express appreciation to Tim Penny, whose work I believe laid the foundation for the success that our chairman has brought to fruition. Also, both Leon Panetta and the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Martin Sabo, in my opinion, worked to produce the most fiscally conservative resolutions possible in their eras. I hope each realizes his contribution to this long process. My last year as a Democratic member of the committee was spent working on the other side of the aisle to demonstrate that bipartisanship was possible but, more importantly, necessary to success. Unfortunately, it was not viable at the time. Now, in my first year as a Republican member of this committee, it is with great pleasure that I endorse a truly bipartisan agreement. The fiscal year 1998 budget resolution was reported by the Committee on the Budget on a 31 to 7 vote. It was supported by 11 Democrats on the committee. The ranking member of the committee, who deserves a tremendous amount of credit, was a major player in its development. This document is bipartisan and it is a culminating moment in my service in the House. I know that some of my fellow conservatives may be disappointed in this agreement. It does not go as far as we would like for it to go in reforming the role of government in our lives. But you must realize that we have colleagues on the opposite end of the political spectrum who are perhaps even more distressed with some of the contents of this resolution. Some will call this resolution compromise, as if it were something foul or distasteful. Others will call this capitulation and will revel in debating who recapitulated, the President or the Congress. But I do not refer to this budget by either of those terms. To me it is a realistic achievement. It is what is doable. It is the product of something known as the Democratic process. It is called governing. Unless any of us forget, let me remind you that less than 3 years ago we did not even debate budget resolutions that reached balance at any point in the future. Today, we are debating a budget that reaches balance in 2002, provides real savings in entitlement programs, creates no new entitlements and provides for a permanent reduction in taxes. We are doing this in a bipartisan fashion which greatly enhances the chances of making these efforts actual law. This debate today is not nearly the final word on the issue. We must now move forward in the legislative process. Every committee in this body will make a significant contribution on producing at least one, hopefully two, reconciliation bills which we will debate later in the summer. We must also produce and pass 13 appropriation bills, none of which will be easy. We will have this and other debates many times over as we proceed. We will each see victories and we will each see defeats. That is the nature of American-style democracy. It is not particularly pretty to watch, but it will work. But today what is crucially important to recognize is that for the first time in a very long time, we are considering a bipartisan balanced budget proposal. This is historical. This is a victory for all Americans. More importantly, it is a celebration of our system of government and of our future generations. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the former chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Let me say a special word of gratitude and thanks to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] for their great job in bringing this compromise budget proposal to us today. It is not easy, but it is a job well done and the country is well served by your efforts. By passing this budget agreement today, we will be entering the final stages of a 7-year effort to get this country's fiscal house in order. The effort began in 1990 with the budget agreement between President Bush and congressional Democrats. It took another giant step forward in 1993, when President Clinton and congressional Democrats passed the largest deficit reduction package in history. And today, by passing this budget resolution, we will move toward finishing the job of balancing the budget. When all is said and done, the record will show that the only people to have voted for all three of these budgets will be congressional Democrats. And, in fact, most of the people who will have voted for two out of three will be congressional Democrats. Before the 1993 deficit reduction package was passed, the deficit stood at $290 billion. But congressional Democrats acted to change that and the country has reaped the benefits ever since. Thanks to that 5- year plan, the deficit is now expected to fall for a fifth straight year to its lowest level since 1979. By the end of 1997, the 1993 plan will have cut almost $700 billion in projected deficits. Indeed, without that success, we would not be in a position to consider balancing the budget by the year 2002. The economy has also responded to the 1993 plan by creating more than 12 million new jobs, raising wages, lowering unemployment, and keeping inflation in check. Most of us cannot remember a time when our economy was stronger and more likely to provide a better future for our citizens. I firmly believe this would not have happened if we had not acted to reduce the deficit significantly. The budget before us continues the fiscal discipline of the last 7 years. At the same time, it gives us the opportunity to correct some of the excesses of last year's welfare bill. It will help restore fairness for legal immigrants who had benefits taken away from them unfairly. It will provide the opportunity to restore food stamps for people unable to find jobs. This is a good resolution. Let us pass it. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]. (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. [[Page H2967]] Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 84, the balanced budget agreement of 1997. When Babe Ruth retired in 1935, a lot of folks thought no one would ever break his record of 714 home runs. But in 1974, Hank Aaron hit number 715. And a lot of folks thought no one would ever break Lou Gehrig's consecutive game streak of 2,130 games. But in 1995, Cal Ripken broke that record, and he is still going strong. A lot of folks were beginning to think that Congress would never break its record of deficit spending year after year, and for 27 years they were right. But today, we have a chance to break that dismal record. Today, we have a chance to end our 27-year losing streak of deficit spending. This alone is enough reason to merit support for this budget agreement. But this agreement does much more than just break the deficit streak. It helps preserve Medicare and keep it solvent for the next 10 years, it provides tax relief for the American family by providing a $500 child tax credit and educational tax credits, it helps small businesses and farmers by providing relief from the death tax, which causes so many family farms and family businesses to be sold instead of being handed down to the next generation, it provides more incentives for savings by allowing us to expand the individual retirement account, and it will help create jobs by providing much needed capital gains tax relief. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to take advantage of this historical moment, this bipartisan agreement, and break this dismal record of deficit spending that started in 1969. Vote ``yes'' on this historical document. This is a record breaking day for the U.S. Congress. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], the vice chair of the Democratic Caucus. Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, as a supporter of the controversial 1990 Bush budget and a supporter of the budget resolution of the equally controversial budget of 1993, I rise tonight to support this budget resolution, hoping it has the same end. CBO recently announced that, in fact, the deficit for this year would be below $70 billion, the lowest in 16 years, a 77-percent reduction in deficit since President Clinton became President. This is tremendous progress. {time} 1715 This is tremendous progress. But it would not have happened if it was not for the decisions made by those in 1990 and 1993. I support this resolution because I want to see the job finished. I want to see the budget balanced. But we must say tonight again and again, the hard work has just begun. We must draft implementing legislation that keeps the promise of a balanced budget in the years following 2002. We must insist that the Committee on Ways and Means craft a package that provides needed tax relief to American families. This will be no easy task. In particular, the tax package needs to be crafted in a way that makes it possible to provide the promised tax cuts while at the same time actually measuring in the correct way the cost of these tax cuts. It would be tragic indeed if after years of work the tax cuts were drafted in such a manner that the revenue losses drive up the deficit after 2008. I think we should agree in a bipartisan fashion that such an outcome is not in the interest of the Nation. I stand here tonight and the rancor is not the same as it was in 1990, and it certainly is not the same as it was in 1993. I do not miss the rancor, but, Mr. Chairman, I will say I would rather have the rancor and the commitment to reduce the deficit. I certainly hope tonight that in this budget resolution I am going to vote for, that promises are kept, please, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip and a member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this resolution, and I commend everyone on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in putting it together. Today we are faced with another historic decision. We can move forward by passing this resolution or we can stumble backwards by defeating it. This budget resolution accomplishes two very important things: First, it balances the budget; second, it cuts taxes for working families in America. Together these two priorities comprise the cornerstone of the Republican agenda. To characterize this as anything less than a victory for commonsense conservatism, I think, is an exercise in fantasy. I would remind my colleagues that this is not the end of the beginning nor is it the beginning of the end. Instead it is the first step in a very long process to preserve and protect the future fiscal health of this Nation. Like the 12-step program of Alcoholics Anonymous, the first step is the most important step, but each step on the way is equally important. We have a long way to go until we swear off wasteful Washington spending for good. Critics have found much to criticize in this budget. They have picked it apart with complaints as diverse as the people who make up this country. Some have said that spending is too high. Others have said that spending is too low. Some complain that our tax cuts are too generous. Others condemn them as inefficient. In a perfect world, if I were king, this would be a different budget. I am certain that if the minority whip, the gentleman from Michigan, were king, he could construct a budget far different from mine. But this is not a monarchy. Neither the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] nor I are kings. This agreement is the best we can get with the situation that we find ourselves in. It cuts taxes, it saves Medicare, it slows spending, and it balances the budget. In my view this budget resolution is kind of like Tiger Woods and his tee shot. It is not too far to the right nor is it too far to the left and it takes us a lot further than we previously thought we could go before. A cynic, Oscar Wilde once said, is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Cynics who condemn this budget miss its true value. For the first time in modern memory, the President of one party and a Congress controlled by the other party have agreed to balance the budget and to cut taxes in a very specific budget resolution. I call that a victory for the American people. To those Democrats who support this resolution, let me just simply say, welcome to the fight and we greatly appreciate your support. And to those few Republicans who may oppose this budget, let me just say, do not grasp defeat from the jaws of victory. To those Americans who have lost faith in the political process, let me just say, every once in a while the process works. This is one of those times. Vote for this resolution and together let us move on to the next step of balancing the budget and cutting taxes for the American people. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui]. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and certainly the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and certainly the President and his staff for putting together this agreement. I would call it a historic agreement, and it is. If, in fact, it is implemented as it is agreed to, then it will be a very good budget because it will carry out the priorities of both sides. It will have a modest tax cut and at the same time it will provide relief for legal immigrants that was taken away in 1996, it will provide new initiatives for children's health care, and certainly it will provide more resources for education in the form of Pell grants and increases of 25 percent in many of the areas of education. On the other hand, I must point out that I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] for saying that many Democrats will be joining him, but for the last 7 years, in 1990, and 1993, it was the Democrats that basically carried deficit reduction. In 1990, as my colleagues recall when President Bush was President we reduced the deficit by some $600 billion. In 1993, with President Clinton, we reduced it by some $490 billion. That is why we are here today with a $67 billion deficit and on our way to balance. But I will say I am a little concerned, and I want to make one caveat. This is just a piece of paper. It has no force of law. The President does not even have to sign it. The [[Page H2968]] real test will be the 13 appropriations bills and the reconciliation bill and also the reconciliation bills on the tax cut. Bear in mind, 1981, when Ronald Reagan said, ``We're going to balance the budget, we're going to cut taxes and we're going to increase defense.'' He said he was going to balance the budget by 1984. My colleagues know that did not happen. I just heard some of my friends on the other side of the aisle talking about the tax cuts, the capital gains tax cuts, the cuts in the estate tax, the child credit of $500, and also the IRA's. If we add all those up as introduced in the Contract With America, we are talking about 600 billion dollars' worth of tax cuts over the next 10 years. We will find ourselves in the same mess we did in the 1980's unless we are willing to implement this agreement as it was agreed upon by all the parties. I reserve the right, I think with my colleagues, that on the individual appropriations and individual reconciliation, we certainly will be in a position to examine those very closely. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for yielding me this time and congratulate the gentleman on a job very well done. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget resolution as the next step to balancing the Federal budget. Considered in light of the CBO deficit projections just 4 years ago, this accomplishment is nothing short of miraculous. Four years ago, the deficit was actually $290 billion. The projection for 1997 that year was that the deficit would be $319 billion. But for the courageous action of President Clinton and the Members of this House and Senate, the other body, we were able to pass a bill that, in fact, brought the deficit in much, much lower than that. We have now a controllable deficit thanks to the action that we took in 1993. I would like to speak for a moment about the tax and revenue portions of the agreement. The concern has been raised that we must not repeat the mistakes that we made in 1981. I was not a Member of this House in 1981, but I reviewed the action of that year. The tax cuts proposed by President Reagan and approved by the Congress were estimated at that time to reduce Federal revenues by $863 billion over 5 years. Let me say that again. The tax cut of 1981 totaled $863 billion over 5 years. That was with 1981 dollars. The tax cuts provided under the agreement embodied in this resolution are limited to $85 billion over 5 years, which is less than 10 percent of the size of the 1981 tax cuts. It is a far more cautious and responsible tax package than the 1981 legislation. Another key provision of this agreement is the treatment of Medicare. The budget resolution we consider today provides for real Medicare reform that will lower the cost to our seniors and provide quality care for our Nation's seniors. Chief among the improvements is a preventive health care package that will help our seniors with their health care needs. We also solve other real problems in providing health benefits for children. We provide needs for students. This is a good budget agreement that puts together ways of improving our

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1998
(House of Representatives - May 20, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H2960-H3065] CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1998 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 152 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 84. [[Page H2961]] {time} 1610 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. 84) establishing the Congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal year 1998 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, with Mr. Boehner in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is considered read the first time. General debate shall be confined to the congressional budget and shall not exceed 5 hours and 20 minutes, including 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], and 20 minutes controlled by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge]. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, there is 20 minutes that has been allocated to my portion of this general debate. Is it correct to understand that it will be 20 minutes at the end of the general debate? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will consult with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], and the chairman of the committee to determine at what point that debate would occur. Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, when will we have such consultation? The CHAIRMAN. As soon as the gentleman and the chairman of the committee can approach the Chair and have that discussion. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that, out of the time allocated to me, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] be yielded 25 minutes and that he be allowed to control that time; that the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] on behalf of the Joint Economic Committee be yielded 10 minutes and that he be allowed to control that time; that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] be yielded 20 minutes and that he be allowed to control that time; that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] be yielded 30 minutes and that she be allowed to control that time; and finally, that I would reserve the remaining 35 minutes to myself. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina? There was no objection. {time} 1615 Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a moment that many of us have been waiting for for a long time. The fact is, several years ago I suggested that the time would arrive when Republicans and Democrats could come together; that we could, in fact, put the good of the country and the good of our children ahead of our own basic desires, to pass a bill that would balance the budget, would give tax relief to the American people, would strengthen the American family, and would be a giant first step towards solving many of the problems that have confounded us for many years. The President came to this Chamber about at the beginning of the year and he declared the era of big Government at an end. The Republicans and the Democrats have worked together, and frankly, that rhetoric now is going to be underlaid by a budget program that in fact does declare the end to the era of big Government. This agreement is predicated and founded on very conservative economics, predicting a 2.1-percent growth in this economy, the economy growing far in excess of 5 percent. For those that did not know this, it may come as a surprise for some, but we really believe that a 2.1- percent growth rate over the life of this document, which means at some point the economy will grow faster and at other points in time the economy will grow slower, is an excellent conclusion to draw. And in fact, a 2.1 percent growth rate that underlies this agreement is far more conservative than all the blue chip economic estimates that we have heard across this country. Second, in the area of savings, over the course of the next decade under this agreement, in the programs of entitlements that have eroded our ability to control our wage growth, in order to give us faster wage growth, our inability to be able to give our children a chance, it is not the end-all, but boy, is it a giant first step, with $600 billion in entitlement savings over the course of the next decade, including extending the life of Medicare for up to 10 years and being able to accomplish what the Republicans set out to accomplish in 1995. It is not just about numbers. There in fact are structural reforms to this Medicare Program, including prospective payments for skilled nursing facilities and home health care, the fastest growing items in the Medicare budget; the creation of physician networks, so physicians can compete with the insurance companies to offer people more opportunity, more choice, more benefits; the fact that we are going to have an adjustment in the reimbursements to the managed care operations by letting rural America have more incentives to offer more choice to people in rural America; the fact that we moved the home health care and made sure that part of those costs were going to be included in the premium, and phased in over a period of time. As Members will see, there are structural changes in this Medicare Program. Are there going to be more changes needed in the future? There is no question that as the baby boomers begin to retire we have a huge challenge. That is precisely why I authored a provision that calls for the creation of a baby boomer study program to figure out how to deal with the major problems of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. There will be a big challenge, but let us not let that challenge take away from what we have been able to accomplish in this agreement today. Make no mistake about it, never before in the history of the U.S. Congress have we saved more money in entitlements than in this agreement. In the area of the programs that run the Government of the United States, some people say we have not saved enough. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to the taxpayers' money we always have to be working at saving more. But let me just put it in perspective. Nondefense discretionary, the programs that operate the government of the United States, will grow over the next 5 years at an average of one-half percent a year. Do Members get that? They will grow at one- half percent a year. Over the last 10 years they have grown at 10 percent. So to take the growth in those programs from 10 percent over the last 10 years to a half a percent over the next 5 years is a very, very significant accomplishment. Will we come back at some point and try to do more to defang the Government, to defang those parts of the Government that have harassed people? Not suggesting that all of it does, but in those areas where Government has put a burden on the shoulders of the people as they have tried to heal their communities and heal their families, of course that should be our role, to set the people free in this country. So what we have in this budget is good fiscal restraint, $600 billion in entitlement savings and only one-half percent a year growth in the programs that run the Government. Coupled with that, of course, is the first balanced budget in over 30 years, which will result in the year 2002 in only the second balanced budget over the course of the last 40 years. Also included in this document, and we should all be aware of this, is something that many people said could not be done. That is to give the people power by letting them keep more of what they earn. Included in this document is $135 billion in tax cuts over 5 years, and at least $350 billion in tax cuts over the next 10 years. That will be enough. It will be enough to give the American people something we have been promising for many years now. It will give them a capital gains tax cut, so that in America we will reward risk-taking, and we will give the American people the tools with which to compete and win in the international job market. Let me just suggest to the Members that to improve the reasons to risk take and the incentives to risk take, [[Page H2962]] and to give people a reason to invest in America, will mean that the infrastructure of America will be able to accommodate faster economic growth without inflation. There are many other things we need to do to improve the infrastructure of America so our country can grow faster and reward more people from one end of this country to the other, but we believe that the capital gains tax cut is one of those elements, coupled with a balanced budget, that results in lower interest rates and more investment and more productivity and more wealth for every single American. Included in here is the family tax credit, because we believe the best Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the United States is the American family. Is it not going to be great, I say to the gentleman from Tennessee, when this Sunday he goes to church and he sees a man and his wife leave the church with three young kids, and they get into that old Chevrolet and you can actually see the car kind of go down and up as they get in, and maybe on the back of the bumper is an old Billy Graham bumper sticker left over from a rally 3 years ago, and he knows in his soul that under a child tax credit the American family is going to have more, some money for their college, some money for new clothes, some money to help the family. Of course, there will be estate relief in here, too, so when you die and you have worked a lifetime to build something, to pass it on to your family, the Government is not going to take it all away. Let me just suggest, whether it is a small business or the family farm, we do not want the people to not just have death but death and taxes to the max. We do not solve the whole problem of the estate, this overtaxation of estates in this, but we are making a good first step. The President got one of his priorities in the area of education. Let me just suggest, for those mothers and fathers who have had to take that second job to help their kid get a college education, this program has some help for them. They need help. But let me ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to start aggressively asking the higher education officials in this country why their costs are racing out of control. Let me ask the moms and dads and the students to start asking the same question. But in the meantime, we are going to help. What do we get here at the end of the day? First, the first balanced budget in over 30 years; real tax relief that we think will improve the lives of America's workers; real tax relief that we believe will improve the lives of the American family; real tax relief that will give a reward to people for working hard for a lifetime; help for people to realize the American dream through education; and at the same time, the most significant savings in entitlements in the history of this country, and controlling the growth to a half a percent a year of those programs that run the Federal Government, and a giant first step toward moving into the next century by stabilizing the fiscal policies of the United States of America. It has been a long road. It has been very difficult. I want to compliment the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Martin Sabo], maybe the most forgotten man today in the Chamber, but not by me, because Martin worked hard in 1995, in 1993, and in 1994 and in 1995 and in 1996; a total class gentleman. Over the course of the last 2 years we have worked closely together to try to figure out how we could narrow most of our differences. It is a tremendous pleasure to have worked with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. John Spratt]. He has had a very difficult time trying to make sure that he could keep his caucus together and listen to his leader who at times he had to represent, and other parts of the caucus who he had to represent. Hats off to John Spratt; and to John Hilley, my great friend down at the White House, to Franklin Raines and Gene Sperling, it was the best, to be able to put aside the partisan bickering and reach an agreement; and to the President, to the President who did not have to really do this. He decided that he wanted to move forward and reach agreement. He sent his trusted aide, Erskine Bowles, to the Hill. With Pete Dominici and the gentleman from Georgia. [Mr. Newt Gingrich] and Trent Lott and this big team, we were able to put it together. No one should think for a second that this is the end of the game. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is just the beginning, but a very great beginning and a very big step toward providing a more prosperous, toward providing a more confident, toward providing a more secure America, and convincing the American people that when we put the politics aside and we listen to them and their calls for so many years for this body to get control of the spending of this country and to return some of their power, when we listen to them, at the end of the day Republicans and Democrats came together to reach agreement on something that I believe the American people will look at and say, for once you have done well. For once you have put the politics aside and you have agreed to work together and serve America. Let us support this great budget resolution today. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly this afternoon to state that I will not vote for this budget, but before giving Members the reasons for that, I want to commend the Members on both sides of the aisle. I especially want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. John Spratt], and I want to commend the President for working so hard to bring about this agreement, which is an important achievement for our country. Having done this in 1990 and again in 1993, I know how hard it is. {time} 1630 I know how many compromises have to be made and how many decisions have to be made to make something like this come together. But at the end of it, it is a decision on this budget that each of us must make for what is best for our constituents, the 500,000 people that each of us represents and what in our hearts and minds is best for them and best for the country. I would like to start with a little history of why we are where we are. This all started, in my view, back in 1981. Congress then, in a bipartisan way, made a decision on a budget that had certain increases in spending and tax cuts, which many of us said at the time would create large deficits out in the future. The prediction was that there would be deficits of $100 and $200 and $300 billion. And unfortunately those predictions came true. It has taken us 17 years from that basic decision in 1981 to get on the threshold of being able to balance the budget. In 1990, we entered into a bipartisan budget agreement, much like has been done now, and at the time we raised taxes and we cut spending in a bipartisan way, and we made a big step, about a $500 billion deficit reduction. We did that again in 1993; I might add, at that time, with all Democratic votes, not one vote from the other side of the aisle. At the time many Republican leaders said they believed that budget we passed in 1993 would wreck the economy and would cause higher unemployment and higher deficits. I want to point out that because of the interaction of what we do on the deficit and what it does with the economy, that indeed those forecasts were wrong, that even with tax increases and spending cuts, we have had a remarkable economic performance in the last 4 or 5 years. In fact, in 1993, the prediction was the deficit for this year would be $300 billion. A year ago the prediction was the deficit would be $169 billion. In January of this year, we thought the deficit for this year would be $124 billion. Just last week CBO said it is down to $67 billion. There is an interaction, there is an inextricable link between the deficit and what we do and how we get rid of the deficit and what happens in the economy. And I believe that the investments we made in education and in capital investment and in health care that we made in the deficit reduction act of 1993 were an integral part of helping the private sector economy grow over the last 5 years so that we have had real economic growth and [[Page H2963]] more revenue coming into the government. So the question then and now is not whether to do this, it is how we do it. It is how we do it. What are the myriad of decisions, what are the texture of the decisions we put together to try to get the budget into order. In my view, this budget agreement is a budget of many deficits: a deficit of principle, a deficit of fairness, a deficit of tax justice, and worst of all, a deficit of dollars. First, I think it is unfair. I think that when we have done these budgets, we have always tried to have shared sacrifice. We have said to the American people in the highest sense of patriotism that everybody has to sacrifice in order to get the budget straightened out. That is what we did in 1990. That is what we did in 1993. That is not what this budget does. Recently I was going door to door in my district. I met a young couple who had just bought a house. They were happy because the wife had just gotten pregnant and they were expecting this new family. I asked them what their concerns were. They said their concern was that between them they have 5 jobs, 5 jobs. That is kind of the way the economy is working for ordinary Americans today. In order to make ends meet, people have to work more jobs and more hours. And the woman said to me, ``You know, our concern is that when the baby comes, I would like to stay home and raise the child for 2 or 3 years, but with 5 jobs, I have got to quit two of those jobs to do it. And if we do that, we cannot make our house payment.'' That is reality 1997. On another door-to-door trip in my district I met a woman who was on Social Security and Medicare. She said, ``You know, I do not want to be a whiner, and I do not want to complain, but I only get $450 a month. And I have got to buy a lot of prescription drugs to stay going. I just want you to know, I cannot pay my water bill now, and I do not have hot water. And if I have cuts along the way in Medicare or Social Security, I may lose the apartment I am staying in''. That is reality 1997. This budget could have done better by either of those people I have talked about. We could have done more in this budget on Head Start, on after school programs for that family I am talking about. We could have done better for that senior citizen so she could get by better. But in this budget there is structured a tax cut. And if I am reading the agreement between the parties correctly, that tax cut will necessarily result in the top 1 percent of taxpayers in this country getting a tax reduction of about $6,000. And when I talk about the top 1 percent, I am talking about folks making an average of $650,000 a year. Is it shared sacrifice to say to them, you get a huge tax cut every year, $6,000, but the young family who is trying to make ends meet, we cannot help them enough? We cannot give them a larger tax cut. We cannot give them the kind of help that they need getting through their life every day. It is not fair. I wish it were fairer. Second, I think it fails to invest in the future. What do I mean by that? We are in a tough global competition. We have got our work cut out for us. We have to really be good. I agree, we need tax cuts, but they ought to go to the people who need them, desperately need them. And they ought to go to the people who are working hard every day to compete in that global economy. But we also need investments in this budget. Let me just name three to take examples. First, education. Everybody knows we have got to have better educated people to compete in the global economy, to get productivity increases, to get growth increases. Early on in the budget talks we talked about repairing school buildings and putting money into the structures in which our children learn. That was thrown out of the budget. We did not have enough money to do that. We talked endlessly in this Chamber about Head Start, about investing in the smallest, youngest children. We talked about Head Start zero to three. We just had a conference in the White House where we find that late mental research proves that the more you can do with young, young, young children, the better the result will be. But this budget does not fully fund Head Start and does not even make a beginning on Head Start zero to three. Let us talk about children's health, a very good part of this budget, $15 billion, to try to get half the children who do not have health care to have health care. But in the very same budget there is about an equal cut in Medicaid in what is called disproportionate share, a fancy name for trying to give money to hospitals that have a disproportionate share of poverty folks coming there to get help. Guess which hospitals get the lion's share of disproportionate share? The children's hospitals. We give with one hand; we take away with another. It is not good enough. Third, investment in the capital investments. We hear about capital gains. What about capital structures? Billions of dollars come into this budget every year from the gasoline tax to the Federal highway trust fund and every year we spend moneys for these needed structures, but we never spend what comes in. And this budget does not either. In my district of St. Louis, our city fathers and mothers got together and said, what does this region need? They came up with $20 billion worth of needs in St. Louis for capital investment alone. They have no idea where it is going to come from. We can do better in investing in our future. Third, this budget does not come into balance. I believe with all my heart that the people who worked on it want it to come into balance. And I hope it does, but let me say something. If we have exploding tax cuts that are put into law and they are not met with spending cuts that will be designed to reach them, then the numbers are not going to work. Remember 1981 and what happened. The last thing we need to do is to advertise this as a deficit reduction plan that will reduce the deficit and then we do not get there. The coalition members wanted to go to the floor this afternoon and have an amendment that had an enforcement process that said, if the numbers do not work for any reason, because the economy does not work or something else, that we will start cutting across the board both spending programs and tax programs in order to see that we really get the balance that we want and that we have advertised. That is not going to be allowed to even be voted on. In conclusion, I do not believe this budget is fair. I do not believe it invests properly in the future of our country and our economy and our people. I do not believe the numbers will work, and I do not think there is a system in place to make sure that they do. Let me say this final word. This is a decision and it is a hard decision that all of us have to make. For me, as I cast this vote, I have one thing in my mind and one thing only, and that is the people that I represent in the third District of Missouri. I have in my mind that young family who is working hard, real hard every day and wants to make ends meet and wants to have a future. I have in my mind that senior citizen who wants to stay out of the nursing home and stay in her home and live the life of independence that she wants. I have in mind the children, the children who are the future and the strength and the greatest resource of this country. Each of us in our own way, as we go through this debate and vote tonight, has to ask ourselves, what is the right thing for my constituents and for my country? Nothing else is asked. That is the question we have to answer. This is not politics. This is not some election. This is about the future of the country and what in our conscience, our heart and our mind is the best and right thing to do. I will vote against this budget. I think we can do better. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I do want to commend the minority leader on his speech and would like to say to him that I can respect a vision of government that is entirely different than mine and entirely different than the majority in the House. But he should know that in the addendum, point 9 in the reconciliation process, if it is determined that the target of a balanced budget cannot be achieved, all parties to the agreement commit to seek additional savings necessary to achieve balance. Furthermore, of course, we believe that the tax cuts in fact will provide us [[Page H2964]] with higher economic growth but, beyond that, having an economic plan underlaid by a 2.1 percent growth rate over the course of this agreement is about as conservative an estimate as we can find among any of the groups. I would not only challenge the gentleman's vision of what builds America, which is not more government spending and more government programs, but in addition, though, severely challenge the fact that somehow we have exploding deficits that will not allow us or exploding tax cuts that will not allow us to get in balance. That is simply not true and will not occur. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann]. Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of this committee and also the ranking minority member from the other side of the aisle, this is great work. It is great for the future of this country. I would agree with the comments of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] that this is really about the future of America. We just have a very different vision of who it is that can best spend money in this country, we here in Washington or the people themselves. I have a presentation but I want to start talking about a family in my district. It is a middle income family. It is a family with three kids. They are about to start college. It is a family whose parents both get up and go to work every single day of the week. {time} 1645 I talked to this family about this budget plan, too, and, frankly, they did not understand billions and trillions very well, and they did not understand CBO and OMB and all that stuff, but what they did understand is how this budget plan was going to impact them directly out in Janesville, WI. Because this middle income family that gets up every morning to go to work understood perfectly well what it meant when we said for every child that is still at home they will receive a $500 credit. They understood perfectly well on their $40,000-a-year income what $1,000 meant coming into their house. Not only that, they understood, when they talked about their oldest son going off to college, they understood what a $1,500 tax credit meant to them for a total of, maybe we will not get all $2,500 to them, but over $2,000 coming back to this family. That is what it means to the hard-working families, the middle income families who get up every morning to go to work. And it does have a real impact on them. I guess the difference of opinion here is who it is who can best spend the money, the family out in Janesville keeping the money in their own house, or the people in Washington investing it in the future. My opinion is those families out in Janesville, WI can do a pretty good job of taking care of their own money. I do have a presentation I want to give, because I strongly support this agreement. This agreement balances the budget for the first time in a generation. We have our families who pay $500 every month to do nothing but to pay the interest on the Federal debt, and certainly it is time we allow those families to keep more of their own money. It does balance. Starting with 1998 forward, the deficit goes down every year. It restores Medicaid for at least a decade and probably longer as the tax cuts take effect and the economy booms. The tax cuts. Letting the American people keep more of their own money. It is in here, $500 per child. We are looking at a reduction of capital gains tax, reforming the death tax, and a college tax tuition credit of some sort. There is no congressionally mandated CPI adjustment. That is to say to our senior citizens, there is nothing in this plan that would adjust their cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security next year. It has been taken out. It was talked about briefly but is not in the plan. It was taken out. We heard the seniors and we heard their concerns. The plan also includes in the language, at the end of it, a sense of Congress that would allow us to not only balance the budget by 2002 but also pay off the Federal debt between now and the year 2023, so that we can pass this Nation on to our children debt free. Think of that dream in America: a Nation that we pass on to our children not burdened with debt but debt free. So instead of paying $500 a month in interest into Washington to do nothing but pay the interest on the debt, families can keep that $500 a month and do as they see fit with the money. As we pay off the Federal debt, another very important thing happens: The money that has been taken out of the Social Security trust fund is put back. And that is very, very significant as we look at the solvency of the Social Security system. To understand how good this budget is, I think we have to look at where we have come from. I brought a chart from way back in 1991, when I first started running for office. This chart shows the Gramm-Rudman- Hollings plan of 1985, and it shows the green line here is their plan to get to a balanced budget. The red line shows what actually happened, and we can notice they never got to a balanced budget. They never even hit their targets. In 1987 they revised Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and, again, the green line shows their plan to get to a balanced budget, and the red line shows what actually happened. They never hit their targets, period. What is happening out here since 1995? This is somewhat staggering. When I went back to put this together I was somewhat shocked to see what was actually happening out here since 1995. The picture is so different than 1985 and 1987 that we almost have to see it to understand how real this thing is. In 1995, we promised the American people that we would have deficits, as in the red columns on here, $154 billion in 1996. The blue on this thing, the blue columns, those are what is actually happening. And we can notice we not only hit our projection, but we are ahead of schedule. Think how far we have come since 1985 and 1987. We not only hit the target, we are ahead of schedule in 1996. We are over $100 billion ahead of schedule in 1997. And each year, under this plan, we stay ahead of that promise to the American people that we made in 1995. Our promise is being fulfilled. The reason that this is happening is because we are curtailing the growth of spending in this great Nation we live in. Spending that was going up rapidly, as we see in the red column, is not going up as fast anymore. It is still going up faster than I would like to see but not as fast as it was. Nondefense discretionary spending was going up. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. KASICH. And, Mr. Chairman, I will give the gentleman a little more time to put that chart back up there. Let us take a look at what the fiscal year 1996 to 2002 plan is. Mr. NEUMANN. It was going up by 5.2 percent a year in the 7 years before we got here. Under this plan, and the first 2 years since 1995, it is now going up by 3.2 percent. Let us put that in inflation-adjusted dollars. It was going up 1.8; it is now going up 0.6. The growth of Government has been reduced by two-thirds. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, let me just say that under this plan that is currently on the table, those increases will drop to 0.5 percent. This will be the lowest increase in the programs that run the Government of the United States in history. Someone has told me, and we are still trying to check these numbers, less than half of the growth in spending in nondefense discretionary under President Ronald Reagan. So I think it was a significant accomplishment to be able to slow it to that degree, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. NEUMANN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I also think we should talk about nondefense discretionary spending. That is the part of the budget we have the most control over. That was rising by 6.7 percent annually before we took over, in the 7 years before we got here. It is now going up less than 1 percent a year. And in inflation-adjusted dollars, it was going up by 3.2. It is now actually shrinking by 1.5 percent. I will say that again. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the nondefense discretionary spending, the part of the budget we have the most control over, is actually shrinking. I will wrap up my part of this presentation with something that is pretty special here. This chart shows what [[Page H2965]] would have happened in 1995 if there had been no changes in the law. This line shows where the deficit was headed in 1995. This yellow line in the chart shows what happened in the first 12 months, how much progress was made during the year of 1995. Then we put this plan into place, as to what we hoped could happen. That is the green line. And I brought a marker with me today, because a year ago we produced this chart and we said we were ahead of schedule. Notice that our deficit is actually below the green line. And people said, yeah, yeah, yeah, that is 1 year. I want to conclude my part of this presentation by drawing in where we are now in our second year on this plan to reach a balanced budget. We are way down here. And we can notice that we are not only ahead of schedule for the first year, we are ahead of schedule for the second year. And when we pass this plan, we will stay ahead of schedule for each and every year from now through the year 2002. What that means for our children in this country is that we will have a balanced budget, we can start paying down the debt, and our children can once again look forward to the opportunity to have a chance at living the American dream in this great Nation that we live in. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, for the first time in 15 years, in the 15 years I have served in this House, we are within reach of a balanced budget. Last September 30, 1996, when we closed the books on fiscal 1996, the deficit stood at $107.8 billion. And now that we have gotten the revenues on April 15 from this year's tax payments, CBO and OMB both believe that the deficit this year will drop to $70 billion or below-- $70 billion or less. We can finish the job. We can balance the budget. But only if we have a plan, for without one the deficit will start drifting back upward again. We have before us today a hard wrought compromise of a plan. When I say hard wrought, I mean it. It was produced through nearly 4 months of negotiations. Hard fought negotiations. But throughout they were civil and cordial, and I commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. John Kasich] who worked with us in complete cooperation and good faith throughout the negotiations to bring it to this end, which is a genuine compromise. Before turning to that plan, I would like to just pause a minute and talk about what brings us to this point. I want to go back to a particular date, January 13, 1993, 1 week before George Bush left office. He sent us that day his economic report of the President, and in it Michael Boskin, his chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, predicted that the deficit for that year, fiscal 1993, would be $332 billion. This was the deficit that President Clinton found on the doorstep awaiting him when we arrived at the White House 1 week later. On February 17, the President laid on the doorstep of the Congress a plan for cutting that deficit roughly by half over the next 5 years. It was not a popular plan. It was certainly not a painless plan. It cost my party dearly for supporting it. It passed the Congress only by the skin of its teeth. The critics claimed this budget would cut off the economy at its knees. But the financial markets were impressed, so much so that long bond rates came down by 100 to 120 basis points. And when the books were closed on fiscal 1993, that first fiscal year, the deficit was not $332 billion as Boskin predicted, it was $255 billion. A year later, the first full year under that budget plan, the deficit was $203 billion. At year end 1995, it was down again to $164 billion. And as I said, last September it was $107.8 billion. The deficit has been cut now for 5 years in a row. That is not smoke and mirrors, that is not sleight of hand, that is a matter of record. As Yogi Berra liked to say, ``You can look it up.'' The deficit has been cut by 65 percent. And at 1.4 percent of our GDP, it is at its lowest level since the early 1970's. That is progress by anybody's yardstick. That is why we are within reach, credibly, of a balanced budget. That is why we are here today, to finish a job, because it would be a shame not to try. And that is why it is important that we do it right and not blow this opportunity. Mr. Chairman, if it were left to me alone, I would do a budget along the lines my good friends, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the Blue Dogs laid out last year, for which I voted, which had no net tax cuts at all, none at least until we had our goal firmly in grasp. That would not mean no tax cuts, just no net tax cuts. But this is a divided government, and to do a deal, none of us gets to do it alone. We have a choice between gridlock and compromise. And what we have before us is just that, it is a compromise. It is not a perfect solution. It is the art of the possible. But if we let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we will not get anything good done on the deficit this year. This compromise differs from most compromises by design, by conscious design, because what we sought in negotiating it was to let each party claim some clear victory. Rather than come out with just gray results, compromise to the point that they lost their identity and pleased nobody, this package allows the Republicans a clear victory. It allows them the chance to do significant tax cuts. It allows Democrats, my party, the chance to do initiatives in children's health care, the chance to do initiatives in education that we could not do if we tried to do it alone. That is why I say this budget is balanced in two senses. If the economy stays stable, this budget should take us to a balanced budget by the year 2002. But in the meantime, this resolution is not so fixated on the deficit that it forgets this country has other problems too that need to be addressed. Hard-working families are worried about how they are going to pay for the cost of their children's education. Tuition is soaring. This resolution promises more help than anything that has been passed in this Congress in the past 25 years. There are 10 million children, mostly in working families, who have no health insurance. This resolution sets aside $16 billion to come up with ways to cover at least half of those children within the next 5 years. To those in my party, my fellow Democrats, who are still summing up the pluses and the minuses in this budget resolution, I urge them to keep initiatives like these in mind and ask themselves if we could have achieved this, if we could have done this if we went it alone as a minority, by ourselves. I ask them to look at NDD, nondefense discretionary spending. It goes from $548 to $562 billion. We should ask ourselves, measured against last year's budget resolution, if we could have done this well if we did it alone. Look at what we have done with Medicare and preventive care, with Medicaid and moderating the reductions. Throughout this budget the Democratic stamp is firmly and clearly in place. I do not think we could have done this well by going it alone, and that is why I say we should support it. That is why this resolution is a good deal for us but, more importantly, it is a good deal for this country. It is a balanced plan to balance the budget. I say let us finish what we started in 1993. Let us adopt this House Concurrent Resolution 84. Let us balance the budget by the year 2002, and let us take the credit we deserve as Democrats for this accomplishment. {time} 1700 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to clarify for the Members the unanimous-consent request from the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] who broke up his time throughout the remainder of the evening. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has 25 minutes remaining on his time. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] will have 25 minutes. Joint Economic Committee members will have 10 minutes. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] will have 40 minutes, 20 minutes under the rule and 20 minutes of additional time as requested by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt]. The Congressional Black Caucus will have 30 minutes. And then the gentleman [[Page H2966]] from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] will have 30 minutes and have the right to close on his side of the aisle. The Chair would encourage Members controlling time under this consent arrangement to use their time in the blocks that have been allocated, if at all possible. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair just explain how much time has been consumed? I understand that when the majority leader was yielded 5 minutes, he spoke for 13; and that is our process, but he was allocated 5 minutes against the time. How much time has been consumed by both sides? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has 24 minutes remaining of the 30 minutes in his block under his unanimous- consent arrangement. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 2 hours and 11 minutes remaining. Mr. SHAYS. That is not all that helpful, Mr. Chairman. Of the total amount of time on each side, how much has been allocated? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not understand the gentleman's inquiry. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to know how much time has been consumed on both sides. That is the question. I did not ask how much is remaining. How much is consumed? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has used 11 minutes. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, how much time have we used on this side? The CHAIRMAN. On the other side of the aisle, 19 minutes have been consumed. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker]. Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the bipartisan budget agreement before us today. This budget resolution has particular significance for me. I am the only Member of this body who has worked with the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], from both sides of the aisle. For 5 years, I served on the Committee on the Budget as the Democratic member, struggling to produce such a document. While we never succeeded, I think it is appropriate at this time to remember the commitment of colleagues, some of whom are no longer in this body, who worked for such an agreement. Specifically, I want to express appreciation to Tim Penny, whose work I believe laid the foundation for the success that our chairman has brought to fruition. Also, both Leon Panetta and the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Martin Sabo, in my opinion, worked to produce the most fiscally conservative resolutions possible in their eras. I hope each realizes his contribution to this long process. My last year as a Democratic member of the committee was spent working on the other side of the aisle to demonstrate that bipartisanship was possible but, more importantly, necessary to success. Unfortunately, it was not viable at the time. Now, in my first year as a Republican member of this committee, it is with great pleasure that I endorse a truly bipartisan agreement. The fiscal year 1998 budget resolution was reported by the Committee on the Budget on a 31 to 7 vote. It was supported by 11 Democrats on the committee. The ranking member of the committee, who deserves a tremendous amount of credit, was a major player in its development. This document is bipartisan and it is a culminating moment in my service in the House. I know that some of my fellow conservatives may be disappointed in this agreement. It does not go as far as we would like for it to go in reforming the role of government in our lives. But you must realize that we have colleagues on the opposite end of the political spectrum who are perhaps even more distressed with some of the contents of this resolution. Some will call this resolution compromise, as if it were something foul or distasteful. Others will call this capitulation and will revel in debating who recapitulated, the President or the Congress. But I do not refer to this budget by either of those terms. To me it is a realistic achievement. It is what is doable. It is the product of something known as the Democratic process. It is called governing. Unless any of us forget, let me remind you that less than 3 years ago we did not even debate budget resolutions that reached balance at any point in the future. Today, we are debating a budget that reaches balance in 2002, provides real savings in entitlement programs, creates no new entitlements and provides for a permanent reduction in taxes. We are doing this in a bipartisan fashion which greatly enhances the chances of making these efforts actual law. This debate today is not nearly the final word on the issue. We must now move forward in the legislative process. Every committee in this body will make a significant contribution on producing at least one, hopefully two, reconciliation bills which we will debate later in the summer. We must also produce and pass 13 appropriation bills, none of which will be easy. We will have this and other debates many times over as we proceed. We will each see victories and we will each see defeats. That is the nature of American-style democracy. It is not particularly pretty to watch, but it will work. But today what is crucially important to recognize is that for the first time in a very long time, we are considering a bipartisan balanced budget proposal. This is historical. This is a victory for all Americans. More importantly, it is a celebration of our system of government and of our future generations. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the former chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Let me say a special word of gratitude and thanks to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] for their great job in bringing this compromise budget proposal to us today. It is not easy, but it is a job well done and the country is well served by your efforts. By passing this budget agreement today, we will be entering the final stages of a 7-year effort to get this country's fiscal house in order. The effort began in 1990 with the budget agreement between President Bush and congressional Democrats. It took another giant step forward in 1993, when President Clinton and congressional Democrats passed the largest deficit reduction package in history. And today, by passing this budget resolution, we will move toward finishing the job of balancing the budget. When all is said and done, the record will show that the only people to have voted for all three of these budgets will be congressional Democrats. And, in fact, most of the people who will have voted for two out of three will be congressional Democrats. Before the 1993 deficit reduction package was passed, the deficit stood at $290 billion. But congressional Democrats acted to change that and the country has reaped the benefits ever since. Thanks to that 5- year plan, the deficit is now expected to fall for a fifth straight year to its lowest level since 1979. By the end of 1997, the 1993 plan will have cut almost $700 billion in projected deficits. Indeed, without that success, we would not be in a position to consider balancing the budget by the year 2002. The economy has also responded to the 1993 plan by creating more than 12 million new jobs, raising wages, lowering unemployment, and keeping inflation in check. Most of us cannot remember a time when our economy was stronger and more likely to provide a better future for our citizens. I firmly believe this would not have happened if we had not acted to reduce the deficit significantly. The budget before us continues the fiscal discipline of the last 7 years. At the same time, it gives us the opportunity to correct some of the excesses of last year's welfare bill. It will help restore fairness for legal immigrants who had benefits taken away from them unfairly. It will provide the opportunity to restore food stamps for people unable to find jobs. This is a good resolution. Let us pass it. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]. (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. [[Page H2967]] Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 84, the balanced budget agreement of 1997. When Babe Ruth retired in 1935, a lot of folks thought no one would ever break his record of 714 home runs. But in 1974, Hank Aaron hit number 715. And a lot of folks thought no one would ever break Lou Gehrig's consecutive game streak of 2,130 games. But in 1995, Cal Ripken broke that record, and he is still going strong. A lot of folks were beginning to think that Congress would never break its record of deficit spending year after year, and for 27 years they were right. But today, we have a chance to break that dismal record. Today, we have a chance to end our 27-year losing streak of deficit spending. This alone is enough reason to merit support for this budget agreement. But this agreement does much more than just break the deficit streak. It helps preserve Medicare and keep it solvent for the next 10 years, it provides tax relief for the American family by providing a $500 child tax credit and educational tax credits, it helps small businesses and farmers by providing relief from the death tax, which causes so many family farms and family businesses to be sold instead of being handed down to the next generation, it provides more incentives for savings by allowing us to expand the individual retirement account, and it will help create jobs by providing much needed capital gains tax relief. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to take advantage of this historical moment, this bipartisan agreement, and break this dismal record of deficit spending that started in 1969. Vote ``yes'' on this historical document. This is a record breaking day for the U.S. Congress. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], the vice chair of the Democratic Caucus. Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, as a supporter of the controversial 1990 Bush budget and a supporter of the budget resolution of the equally controversial budget of 1993, I rise tonight to support this budget resolution, hoping it has the same end. CBO recently announced that, in fact, the deficit for this year would be below $70 billion, the lowest in 16 years, a 77-percent reduction in deficit since President Clinton became President. This is tremendous progress. {time} 1715 This is tremendous progress. But it would not have happened if it was not for the decisions made by those in 1990 and 1993. I support this resolution because I want to see the job finished. I want to see the budget balanced. But we must say tonight again and again, the hard work has just begun. We must draft implementing legislation that keeps the promise of a balanced budget in the years following 2002. We must insist that the Committee on Ways and Means craft a package that provides needed tax relief to American families. This will be no easy task. In particular, the tax package needs to be crafted in a way that makes it possible to provide the promised tax cuts while at the same time actually measuring in the correct way the cost of these tax cuts. It would be tragic indeed if after years of work the tax cuts were drafted in such a manner that the revenue losses drive up the deficit after 2008. I think we should agree in a bipartisan fashion that such an outcome is not in the interest of the Nation. I stand here tonight and the rancor is not the same as it was in 1990, and it certainly is not the same as it was in 1993. I do not miss the rancor, but, Mr. Chairman, I will say I would rather have the rancor and the commitment to reduce the deficit. I certainly hope tonight that in this budget resolution I am going to vote for, that promises are kept, please, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip and a member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this resolution, and I commend everyone on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in putting it together. Today we are faced with another historic decision. We can move forward by passing this resolution or we can stumble backwards by defeating it. This budget resolution accomplishes two very important things: First, it balances the budget; second, it cuts taxes for working families in America. Together these two priorities comprise the cornerstone of the Republican agenda. To characterize this as anything less than a victory for commonsense conservatism, I think, is an exercise in fantasy. I would remind my colleagues that this is not the end of the beginning nor is it the beginning of the end. Instead it is the first step in a very long process to preserve and protect the future fiscal health of this Nation. Like the 12-step program of Alcoholics Anonymous, the first step is the most important step, but each step on the way is equally important. We have a long way to go until we swear off wasteful Washington spending for good. Critics have found much to criticize in this budget. They have picked it apart with complaints as diverse as the people who make up this country. Some have said that spending is too high. Others have said that spending is too low. Some complain that our tax cuts are too generous. Others condemn them as inefficient. In a perfect world, if I were king, this would be a different budget. I am certain that if the minority whip, the gentleman from Michigan, were king, he could construct a budget far different from mine. But this is not a monarchy. Neither the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] nor I are kings. This agreement is the best we can get with the situation that we find ourselves in. It cuts taxes, it saves Medicare, it slows spending, and it balances the budget. In my view this budget resolution is kind of like Tiger Woods and his tee shot. It is not too far to the right nor is it too far to the left and it takes us a lot further than we previously thought we could go before. A cynic, Oscar Wilde once said, is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Cynics who condemn this budget miss its true value. For the first time in modern memory, the President of one party and a Congress controlled by the other party have agreed to balance the budget and to cut taxes in a very specific budget resolution. I call that a victory for the American people. To those Democrats who support this resolution, let me just simply say, welcome to the fight and we greatly appreciate your support. And to those few Republicans who may oppose this budget, let me just say, do not grasp defeat from the jaws of victory. To those Americans who have lost faith in the political process, let me just say, every once in a while the process works. This is one of those times. Vote for this resolution and together let us move on to the next step of balancing the budget and cutting taxes for the American people. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui]. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and certainly the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and certainly the President and his staff for putting together this agreement. I would call it a historic agreement, and it is. If, in fact, it is implemented as it is agreed to, then it will be a very good budget because it will carry out the priorities of both sides. It will have a modest tax cut and at the same time it will provide relief for legal immigrants that was taken away in 1996, it will provide new initiatives for children's health care, and certainly it will provide more resources for education in the form of Pell grants and increases of 25 percent in many of the areas of education. On the other hand, I must point out that I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] for saying that many Democrats will be joining him, but for the last 7 years, in 1990, and 1993, it was the Democrats that basically carried deficit reduction. In 1990, as my colleagues recall when President Bush was President we reduced the deficit by some $600 billion. In 1993, with President Clinton, we reduced it by some $490 billion. That is why we are here today with a $67 billion deficit and on our way to balance. But I will say I am a little concerned, and I want to make one caveat. This is just a piece of paper. It has no force of law. The President does not even have to sign it. The [[Page H2968]] real test will be the 13 appropriations bills and the reconciliation bill and also the reconciliation bills on the tax cut. Bear in mind, 1981, when Ronald Reagan said, ``We're going to balance the budget, we're going to cut taxes and we're going to increase defense.'' He said he was going to balance the budget by 1984. My colleagues know that did not happen. I just heard some of my friends on the other side of the aisle talking about the tax cuts, the capital gains tax cuts, the cuts in the estate tax, the child credit of $500, and also the IRA's. If we add all those up as introduced in the Contract With America, we are talking about 600 billion dollars' worth of tax cuts over the next 10 years. We will find ourselves in the same mess we did in the 1980's unless we are willing to implement this agreement as it was agreed upon by all the parties. I reserve the right, I think with my colleagues, that on the individual appropriations and individual reconciliation, we certainly will be in a position to examine those very closely. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for yielding me this time and congratulate the gentleman on a job very well done. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget resolution as the next step to balancing the Federal budget. Considered in light of the CBO deficit projections just 4 years ago, this accomplishment is nothing short of miraculous. Four years ago, the deficit was actually $290 billion. The projection for 1997 that year was that the deficit would be $319 billion. But for the courageous action of President Clinton and the Members of this House and Senate, the other body, we were able to pass a bill that, in fact, brought the deficit in much, much lower than that. We have now a controllable deficit thanks to the action that we took in 1993. I would like to speak for a moment about the tax and revenue portions of the agreement. The concern has been raised that we must not repeat the mistakes that we made in 1981. I was not a Member of this House in 1981, but I reviewed the action of that year. The tax cuts proposed by President Reagan and approved by the Congress were estimated at that time to reduce Federal revenues by $863 billion over 5 years. Let me say that again. The tax cut of 1981 totaled $863 billion over 5 years. That was with 1981 dollars. The tax cuts provided under the agreement embodied in this resolution are limited to $85 billion over 5 years, which is less than 10 percent of the size of the 1981 tax cuts. It is a far more cautious and responsible tax package than the 1981 legislation. Another key provision of this agreement is the treatment of Medicare. The budget resolution we consider today provides for real Medicare reform that will lower the cost to our seniors and provide quality care for our Nation's seniors. Chief among the improvements is a preventive health care package that will help our seniors with their health care needs. We also solve other real problems in providing health benefits for children. We provide needs for students. This is a good budget agreement that puts together ways of imp

Summary:

All articles in House section

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1998
(House of Representatives - May 20, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H2960-H3065] CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1998 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 152 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 84. [[Page H2961]] {time} 1610 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. 84) establishing the Congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal year 1998 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, with Mr. Boehner in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is considered read the first time. General debate shall be confined to the congressional budget and shall not exceed 5 hours and 20 minutes, including 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], and 20 minutes controlled by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge]. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, there is 20 minutes that has been allocated to my portion of this general debate. Is it correct to understand that it will be 20 minutes at the end of the general debate? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will consult with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], and the chairman of the committee to determine at what point that debate would occur. Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, when will we have such consultation? The CHAIRMAN. As soon as the gentleman and the chairman of the committee can approach the Chair and have that discussion. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that, out of the time allocated to me, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] be yielded 25 minutes and that he be allowed to control that time; that the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] on behalf of the Joint Economic Committee be yielded 10 minutes and that he be allowed to control that time; that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] be yielded 20 minutes and that he be allowed to control that time; that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] be yielded 30 minutes and that she be allowed to control that time; and finally, that I would reserve the remaining 35 minutes to myself. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina? There was no objection. {time} 1615 Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a moment that many of us have been waiting for for a long time. The fact is, several years ago I suggested that the time would arrive when Republicans and Democrats could come together; that we could, in fact, put the good of the country and the good of our children ahead of our own basic desires, to pass a bill that would balance the budget, would give tax relief to the American people, would strengthen the American family, and would be a giant first step towards solving many of the problems that have confounded us for many years. The President came to this Chamber about at the beginning of the year and he declared the era of big Government at an end. The Republicans and the Democrats have worked together, and frankly, that rhetoric now is going to be underlaid by a budget program that in fact does declare the end to the era of big Government. This agreement is predicated and founded on very conservative economics, predicting a 2.1-percent growth in this economy, the economy growing far in excess of 5 percent. For those that did not know this, it may come as a surprise for some, but we really believe that a 2.1- percent growth rate over the life of this document, which means at some point the economy will grow faster and at other points in time the economy will grow slower, is an excellent conclusion to draw. And in fact, a 2.1 percent growth rate that underlies this agreement is far more conservative than all the blue chip economic estimates that we have heard across this country. Second, in the area of savings, over the course of the next decade under this agreement, in the programs of entitlements that have eroded our ability to control our wage growth, in order to give us faster wage growth, our inability to be able to give our children a chance, it is not the end-all, but boy, is it a giant first step, with $600 billion in entitlement savings over the course of the next decade, including extending the life of Medicare for up to 10 years and being able to accomplish what the Republicans set out to accomplish in 1995. It is not just about numbers. There in fact are structural reforms to this Medicare Program, including prospective payments for skilled nursing facilities and home health care, the fastest growing items in the Medicare budget; the creation of physician networks, so physicians can compete with the insurance companies to offer people more opportunity, more choice, more benefits; the fact that we are going to have an adjustment in the reimbursements to the managed care operations by letting rural America have more incentives to offer more choice to people in rural America; the fact that we moved the home health care and made sure that part of those costs were going to be included in the premium, and phased in over a period of time. As Members will see, there are structural changes in this Medicare Program. Are there going to be more changes needed in the future? There is no question that as the baby boomers begin to retire we have a huge challenge. That is precisely why I authored a provision that calls for the creation of a baby boomer study program to figure out how to deal with the major problems of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. There will be a big challenge, but let us not let that challenge take away from what we have been able to accomplish in this agreement today. Make no mistake about it, never before in the history of the U.S. Congress have we saved more money in entitlements than in this agreement. In the area of the programs that run the Government of the United States, some people say we have not saved enough. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to the taxpayers' money we always have to be working at saving more. But let me just put it in perspective. Nondefense discretionary, the programs that operate the government of the United States, will grow over the next 5 years at an average of one-half percent a year. Do Members get that? They will grow at one- half percent a year. Over the last 10 years they have grown at 10 percent. So to take the growth in those programs from 10 percent over the last 10 years to a half a percent over the next 5 years is a very, very significant accomplishment. Will we come back at some point and try to do more to defang the Government, to defang those parts of the Government that have harassed people? Not suggesting that all of it does, but in those areas where Government has put a burden on the shoulders of the people as they have tried to heal their communities and heal their families, of course that should be our role, to set the people free in this country. So what we have in this budget is good fiscal restraint, $600 billion in entitlement savings and only one-half percent a year growth in the programs that run the Government. Coupled with that, of course, is the first balanced budget in over 30 years, which will result in the year 2002 in only the second balanced budget over the course of the last 40 years. Also included in this document, and we should all be aware of this, is something that many people said could not be done. That is to give the people power by letting them keep more of what they earn. Included in this document is $135 billion in tax cuts over 5 years, and at least $350 billion in tax cuts over the next 10 years. That will be enough. It will be enough to give the American people something we have been promising for many years now. It will give them a capital gains tax cut, so that in America we will reward risk-taking, and we will give the American people the tools with which to compete and win in the international job market. Let me just suggest to the Members that to improve the reasons to risk take and the incentives to risk take, [[Page H2962]] and to give people a reason to invest in America, will mean that the infrastructure of America will be able to accommodate faster economic growth without inflation. There are many other things we need to do to improve the infrastructure of America so our country can grow faster and reward more people from one end of this country to the other, but we believe that the capital gains tax cut is one of those elements, coupled with a balanced budget, that results in lower interest rates and more investment and more productivity and more wealth for every single American. Included in here is the family tax credit, because we believe the best Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the United States is the American family. Is it not going to be great, I say to the gentleman from Tennessee, when this Sunday he goes to church and he sees a man and his wife leave the church with three young kids, and they get into that old Chevrolet and you can actually see the car kind of go down and up as they get in, and maybe on the back of the bumper is an old Billy Graham bumper sticker left over from a rally 3 years ago, and he knows in his soul that under a child tax credit the American family is going to have more, some money for their college, some money for new clothes, some money to help the family. Of course, there will be estate relief in here, too, so when you die and you have worked a lifetime to build something, to pass it on to your family, the Government is not going to take it all away. Let me just suggest, whether it is a small business or the family farm, we do not want the people to not just have death but death and taxes to the max. We do not solve the whole problem of the estate, this overtaxation of estates in this, but we are making a good first step. The President got one of his priorities in the area of education. Let me just suggest, for those mothers and fathers who have had to take that second job to help their kid get a college education, this program has some help for them. They need help. But let me ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to start aggressively asking the higher education officials in this country why their costs are racing out of control. Let me ask the moms and dads and the students to start asking the same question. But in the meantime, we are going to help. What do we get here at the end of the day? First, the first balanced budget in over 30 years; real tax relief that we think will improve the lives of America's workers; real tax relief that we believe will improve the lives of the American family; real tax relief that will give a reward to people for working hard for a lifetime; help for people to realize the American dream through education; and at the same time, the most significant savings in entitlements in the history of this country, and controlling the growth to a half a percent a year of those programs that run the Federal Government, and a giant first step toward moving into the next century by stabilizing the fiscal policies of the United States of America. It has been a long road. It has been very difficult. I want to compliment the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Martin Sabo], maybe the most forgotten man today in the Chamber, but not by me, because Martin worked hard in 1995, in 1993, and in 1994 and in 1995 and in 1996; a total class gentleman. Over the course of the last 2 years we have worked closely together to try to figure out how we could narrow most of our differences. It is a tremendous pleasure to have worked with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. John Spratt]. He has had a very difficult time trying to make sure that he could keep his caucus together and listen to his leader who at times he had to represent, and other parts of the caucus who he had to represent. Hats off to John Spratt; and to John Hilley, my great friend down at the White House, to Franklin Raines and Gene Sperling, it was the best, to be able to put aside the partisan bickering and reach an agreement; and to the President, to the President who did not have to really do this. He decided that he wanted to move forward and reach agreement. He sent his trusted aide, Erskine Bowles, to the Hill. With Pete Dominici and the gentleman from Georgia. [Mr. Newt Gingrich] and Trent Lott and this big team, we were able to put it together. No one should think for a second that this is the end of the game. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is just the beginning, but a very great beginning and a very big step toward providing a more prosperous, toward providing a more confident, toward providing a more secure America, and convincing the American people that when we put the politics aside and we listen to them and their calls for so many years for this body to get control of the spending of this country and to return some of their power, when we listen to them, at the end of the day Republicans and Democrats came together to reach agreement on something that I believe the American people will look at and say, for once you have done well. For once you have put the politics aside and you have agreed to work together and serve America. Let us support this great budget resolution today. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly this afternoon to state that I will not vote for this budget, but before giving Members the reasons for that, I want to commend the Members on both sides of the aisle. I especially want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. John Spratt], and I want to commend the President for working so hard to bring about this agreement, which is an important achievement for our country. Having done this in 1990 and again in 1993, I know how hard it is. {time} 1630 I know how many compromises have to be made and how many decisions have to be made to make something like this come together. But at the end of it, it is a decision on this budget that each of us must make for what is best for our constituents, the 500,000 people that each of us represents and what in our hearts and minds is best for them and best for the country. I would like to start with a little history of why we are where we are. This all started, in my view, back in 1981. Congress then, in a bipartisan way, made a decision on a budget that had certain increases in spending and tax cuts, which many of us said at the time would create large deficits out in the future. The prediction was that there would be deficits of $100 and $200 and $300 billion. And unfortunately those predictions came true. It has taken us 17 years from that basic decision in 1981 to get on the threshold of being able to balance the budget. In 1990, we entered into a bipartisan budget agreement, much like has been done now, and at the time we raised taxes and we cut spending in a bipartisan way, and we made a big step, about a $500 billion deficit reduction. We did that again in 1993; I might add, at that time, with all Democratic votes, not one vote from the other side of the aisle. At the time many Republican leaders said they believed that budget we passed in 1993 would wreck the economy and would cause higher unemployment and higher deficits. I want to point out that because of the interaction of what we do on the deficit and what it does with the economy, that indeed those forecasts were wrong, that even with tax increases and spending cuts, we have had a remarkable economic performance in the last 4 or 5 years. In fact, in 1993, the prediction was the deficit for this year would be $300 billion. A year ago the prediction was the deficit would be $169 billion. In January of this year, we thought the deficit for this year would be $124 billion. Just last week CBO said it is down to $67 billion. There is an interaction, there is an inextricable link between the deficit and what we do and how we get rid of the deficit and what happens in the economy. And I believe that the investments we made in education and in capital investment and in health care that we made in the deficit reduction act of 1993 were an integral part of helping the private sector economy grow over the last 5 years so that we have had real economic growth and [[Page H2963]] more revenue coming into the government. So the question then and now is not whether to do this, it is how we do it. It is how we do it. What are the myriad of decisions, what are the texture of the decisions we put together to try to get the budget into order. In my view, this budget agreement is a budget of many deficits: a deficit of principle, a deficit of fairness, a deficit of tax justice, and worst of all, a deficit of dollars. First, I think it is unfair. I think that when we have done these budgets, we have always tried to have shared sacrifice. We have said to the American people in the highest sense of patriotism that everybody has to sacrifice in order to get the budget straightened out. That is what we did in 1990. That is what we did in 1993. That is not what this budget does. Recently I was going door to door in my district. I met a young couple who had just bought a house. They were happy because the wife had just gotten pregnant and they were expecting this new family. I asked them what their concerns were. They said their concern was that between them they have 5 jobs, 5 jobs. That is kind of the way the economy is working for ordinary Americans today. In order to make ends meet, people have to work more jobs and more hours. And the woman said to me, ``You know, our concern is that when the baby comes, I would like to stay home and raise the child for 2 or 3 years, but with 5 jobs, I have got to quit two of those jobs to do it. And if we do that, we cannot make our house payment.'' That is reality 1997. On another door-to-door trip in my district I met a woman who was on Social Security and Medicare. She said, ``You know, I do not want to be a whiner, and I do not want to complain, but I only get $450 a month. And I have got to buy a lot of prescription drugs to stay going. I just want you to know, I cannot pay my water bill now, and I do not have hot water. And if I have cuts along the way in Medicare or Social Security, I may lose the apartment I am staying in''. That is reality 1997. This budget could have done better by either of those people I have talked about. We could have done more in this budget on Head Start, on after school programs for that family I am talking about. We could have done better for that senior citizen so she could get by better. But in this budget there is structured a tax cut. And if I am reading the agreement between the parties correctly, that tax cut will necessarily result in the top 1 percent of taxpayers in this country getting a tax reduction of about $6,000. And when I talk about the top 1 percent, I am talking about folks making an average of $650,000 a year. Is it shared sacrifice to say to them, you get a huge tax cut every year, $6,000, but the young family who is trying to make ends meet, we cannot help them enough? We cannot give them a larger tax cut. We cannot give them the kind of help that they need getting through their life every day. It is not fair. I wish it were fairer. Second, I think it fails to invest in the future. What do I mean by that? We are in a tough global competition. We have got our work cut out for us. We have to really be good. I agree, we need tax cuts, but they ought to go to the people who need them, desperately need them. And they ought to go to the people who are working hard every day to compete in that global economy. But we also need investments in this budget. Let me just name three to take examples. First, education. Everybody knows we have got to have better educated people to compete in the global economy, to get productivity increases, to get growth increases. Early on in the budget talks we talked about repairing school buildings and putting money into the structures in which our children learn. That was thrown out of the budget. We did not have enough money to do that. We talked endlessly in this Chamber about Head Start, about investing in the smallest, youngest children. We talked about Head Start zero to three. We just had a conference in the White House where we find that late mental research proves that the more you can do with young, young, young children, the better the result will be. But this budget does not fully fund Head Start and does not even make a beginning on Head Start zero to three. Let us talk about children's health, a very good part of this budget, $15 billion, to try to get half the children who do not have health care to have health care. But in the very same budget there is about an equal cut in Medicaid in what is called disproportionate share, a fancy name for trying to give money to hospitals that have a disproportionate share of poverty folks coming there to get help. Guess which hospitals get the lion's share of disproportionate share? The children's hospitals. We give with one hand; we take away with another. It is not good enough. Third, investment in the capital investments. We hear about capital gains. What about capital structures? Billions of dollars come into this budget every year from the gasoline tax to the Federal highway trust fund and every year we spend moneys for these needed structures, but we never spend what comes in. And this budget does not either. In my district of St. Louis, our city fathers and mothers got together and said, what does this region need? They came up with $20 billion worth of needs in St. Louis for capital investment alone. They have no idea where it is going to come from. We can do better in investing in our future. Third, this budget does not come into balance. I believe with all my heart that the people who worked on it want it to come into balance. And I hope it does, but let me say something. If we have exploding tax cuts that are put into law and they are not met with spending cuts that will be designed to reach them, then the numbers are not going to work. Remember 1981 and what happened. The last thing we need to do is to advertise this as a deficit reduction plan that will reduce the deficit and then we do not get there. The coalition members wanted to go to the floor this afternoon and have an amendment that had an enforcement process that said, if the numbers do not work for any reason, because the economy does not work or something else, that we will start cutting across the board both spending programs and tax programs in order to see that we really get the balance that we want and that we have advertised. That is not going to be allowed to even be voted on. In conclusion, I do not believe this budget is fair. I do not believe it invests properly in the future of our country and our economy and our people. I do not believe the numbers will work, and I do not think there is a system in place to make sure that they do. Let me say this final word. This is a decision and it is a hard decision that all of us have to make. For me, as I cast this vote, I have one thing in my mind and one thing only, and that is the people that I represent in the third District of Missouri. I have in my mind that young family who is working hard, real hard every day and wants to make ends meet and wants to have a future. I have in my mind that senior citizen who wants to stay out of the nursing home and stay in her home and live the life of independence that she wants. I have in mind the children, the children who are the future and the strength and the greatest resource of this country. Each of us in our own way, as we go through this debate and vote tonight, has to ask ourselves, what is the right thing for my constituents and for my country? Nothing else is asked. That is the question we have to answer. This is not politics. This is not some election. This is about the future of the country and what in our conscience, our heart and our mind is the best and right thing to do. I will vote against this budget. I think we can do better. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I do want to commend the minority leader on his speech and would like to say to him that I can respect a vision of government that is entirely different than mine and entirely different than the majority in the House. But he should know that in the addendum, point 9 in the reconciliation process, if it is determined that the target of a balanced budget cannot be achieved, all parties to the agreement commit to seek additional savings necessary to achieve balance. Furthermore, of course, we believe that the tax cuts in fact will provide us [[Page H2964]] with higher economic growth but, beyond that, having an economic plan underlaid by a 2.1 percent growth rate over the course of this agreement is about as conservative an estimate as we can find among any of the groups. I would not only challenge the gentleman's vision of what builds America, which is not more government spending and more government programs, but in addition, though, severely challenge the fact that somehow we have exploding deficits that will not allow us or exploding tax cuts that will not allow us to get in balance. That is simply not true and will not occur. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann]. Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of this committee and also the ranking minority member from the other side of the aisle, this is great work. It is great for the future of this country. I would agree with the comments of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] that this is really about the future of America. We just have a very different vision of who it is that can best spend money in this country, we here in Washington or the people themselves. I have a presentation but I want to start talking about a family in my district. It is a middle income family. It is a family with three kids. They are about to start college. It is a family whose parents both get up and go to work every single day of the week. {time} 1645 I talked to this family about this budget plan, too, and, frankly, they did not understand billions and trillions very well, and they did not understand CBO and OMB and all that stuff, but what they did understand is how this budget plan was going to impact them directly out in Janesville, WI. Because this middle income family that gets up every morning to go to work understood perfectly well what it meant when we said for every child that is still at home they will receive a $500 credit. They understood perfectly well on their $40,000-a-year income what $1,000 meant coming into their house. Not only that, they understood, when they talked about their oldest son going off to college, they understood what a $1,500 tax credit meant to them for a total of, maybe we will not get all $2,500 to them, but over $2,000 coming back to this family. That is what it means to the hard-working families, the middle income families who get up every morning to go to work. And it does have a real impact on them. I guess the difference of opinion here is who it is who can best spend the money, the family out in Janesville keeping the money in their own house, or the people in Washington investing it in the future. My opinion is those families out in Janesville, WI can do a pretty good job of taking care of their own money. I do have a presentation I want to give, because I strongly support this agreement. This agreement balances the budget for the first time in a generation. We have our families who pay $500 every month to do nothing but to pay the interest on the Federal debt, and certainly it is time we allow those families to keep more of their own money. It does balance. Starting with 1998 forward, the deficit goes down every year. It restores Medicaid for at least a decade and probably longer as the tax cuts take effect and the economy booms. The tax cuts. Letting the American people keep more of their own money. It is in here, $500 per child. We are looking at a reduction of capital gains tax, reforming the death tax, and a college tax tuition credit of some sort. There is no congressionally mandated CPI adjustment. That is to say to our senior citizens, there is nothing in this plan that would adjust their cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security next year. It has been taken out. It was talked about briefly but is not in the plan. It was taken out. We heard the seniors and we heard their concerns. The plan also includes in the language, at the end of it, a sense of Congress that would allow us to not only balance the budget by 2002 but also pay off the Federal debt between now and the year 2023, so that we can pass this Nation on to our children debt free. Think of that dream in America: a Nation that we pass on to our children not burdened with debt but debt free. So instead of paying $500 a month in interest into Washington to do nothing but pay the interest on the debt, families can keep that $500 a month and do as they see fit with the money. As we pay off the Federal debt, another very important thing happens: The money that has been taken out of the Social Security trust fund is put back. And that is very, very significant as we look at the solvency of the Social Security system. To understand how good this budget is, I think we have to look at where we have come from. I brought a chart from way back in 1991, when I first started running for office. This chart shows the Gramm-Rudman- Hollings plan of 1985, and it shows the green line here is their plan to get to a balanced budget. The red line shows what actually happened, and we can notice they never got to a balanced budget. They never even hit their targets. In 1987 they revised Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and, again, the green line shows their plan to get to a balanced budget, and the red line shows what actually happened. They never hit their targets, period. What is happening out here since 1995? This is somewhat staggering. When I went back to put this together I was somewhat shocked to see what was actually happening out here since 1995. The picture is so different than 1985 and 1987 that we almost have to see it to understand how real this thing is. In 1995, we promised the American people that we would have deficits, as in the red columns on here, $154 billion in 1996. The blue on this thing, the blue columns, those are what is actually happening. And we can notice we not only hit our projection, but we are ahead of schedule. Think how far we have come since 1985 and 1987. We not only hit the target, we are ahead of schedule in 1996. We are over $100 billion ahead of schedule in 1997. And each year, under this plan, we stay ahead of that promise to the American people that we made in 1995. Our promise is being fulfilled. The reason that this is happening is because we are curtailing the growth of spending in this great Nation we live in. Spending that was going up rapidly, as we see in the red column, is not going up as fast anymore. It is still going up faster than I would like to see but not as fast as it was. Nondefense discretionary spending was going up. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. KASICH. And, Mr. Chairman, I will give the gentleman a little more time to put that chart back up there. Let us take a look at what the fiscal year 1996 to 2002 plan is. Mr. NEUMANN. It was going up by 5.2 percent a year in the 7 years before we got here. Under this plan, and the first 2 years since 1995, it is now going up by 3.2 percent. Let us put that in inflation-adjusted dollars. It was going up 1.8; it is now going up 0.6. The growth of Government has been reduced by two-thirds. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, let me just say that under this plan that is currently on the table, those increases will drop to 0.5 percent. This will be the lowest increase in the programs that run the Government of the United States in history. Someone has told me, and we are still trying to check these numbers, less than half of the growth in spending in nondefense discretionary under President Ronald Reagan. So I think it was a significant accomplishment to be able to slow it to that degree, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. NEUMANN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I also think we should talk about nondefense discretionary spending. That is the part of the budget we have the most control over. That was rising by 6.7 percent annually before we took over, in the 7 years before we got here. It is now going up less than 1 percent a year. And in inflation-adjusted dollars, it was going up by 3.2. It is now actually shrinking by 1.5 percent. I will say that again. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the nondefense discretionary spending, the part of the budget we have the most control over, is actually shrinking. I will wrap up my part of this presentation with something that is pretty special here. This chart shows what [[Page H2965]] would have happened in 1995 if there had been no changes in the law. This line shows where the deficit was headed in 1995. This yellow line in the chart shows what happened in the first 12 months, how much progress was made during the year of 1995. Then we put this plan into place, as to what we hoped could happen. That is the green line. And I brought a marker with me today, because a year ago we produced this chart and we said we were ahead of schedule. Notice that our deficit is actually below the green line. And people said, yeah, yeah, yeah, that is 1 year. I want to conclude my part of this presentation by drawing in where we are now in our second year on this plan to reach a balanced budget. We are way down here. And we can notice that we are not only ahead of schedule for the first year, we are ahead of schedule for the second year. And when we pass this plan, we will stay ahead of schedule for each and every year from now through the year 2002. What that means for our children in this country is that we will have a balanced budget, we can start paying down the debt, and our children can once again look forward to the opportunity to have a chance at living the American dream in this great Nation that we live in. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, for the first time in 15 years, in the 15 years I have served in this House, we are within reach of a balanced budget. Last September 30, 1996, when we closed the books on fiscal 1996, the deficit stood at $107.8 billion. And now that we have gotten the revenues on April 15 from this year's tax payments, CBO and OMB both believe that the deficit this year will drop to $70 billion or below-- $70 billion or less. We can finish the job. We can balance the budget. But only if we have a plan, for without one the deficit will start drifting back upward again. We have before us today a hard wrought compromise of a plan. When I say hard wrought, I mean it. It was produced through nearly 4 months of negotiations. Hard fought negotiations. But throughout they were civil and cordial, and I commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. John Kasich] who worked with us in complete cooperation and good faith throughout the negotiations to bring it to this end, which is a genuine compromise. Before turning to that plan, I would like to just pause a minute and talk about what brings us to this point. I want to go back to a particular date, January 13, 1993, 1 week before George Bush left office. He sent us that day his economic report of the President, and in it Michael Boskin, his chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, predicted that the deficit for that year, fiscal 1993, would be $332 billion. This was the deficit that President Clinton found on the doorstep awaiting him when we arrived at the White House 1 week later. On February 17, the President laid on the doorstep of the Congress a plan for cutting that deficit roughly by half over the next 5 years. It was not a popular plan. It was certainly not a painless plan. It cost my party dearly for supporting it. It passed the Congress only by the skin of its teeth. The critics claimed this budget would cut off the economy at its knees. But the financial markets were impressed, so much so that long bond rates came down by 100 to 120 basis points. And when the books were closed on fiscal 1993, that first fiscal year, the deficit was not $332 billion as Boskin predicted, it was $255 billion. A year later, the first full year under that budget plan, the deficit was $203 billion. At year end 1995, it was down again to $164 billion. And as I said, last September it was $107.8 billion. The deficit has been cut now for 5 years in a row. That is not smoke and mirrors, that is not sleight of hand, that is a matter of record. As Yogi Berra liked to say, ``You can look it up.'' The deficit has been cut by 65 percent. And at 1.4 percent of our GDP, it is at its lowest level since the early 1970's. That is progress by anybody's yardstick. That is why we are within reach, credibly, of a balanced budget. That is why we are here today, to finish a job, because it would be a shame not to try. And that is why it is important that we do it right and not blow this opportunity. Mr. Chairman, if it were left to me alone, I would do a budget along the lines my good friends, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the Blue Dogs laid out last year, for which I voted, which had no net tax cuts at all, none at least until we had our goal firmly in grasp. That would not mean no tax cuts, just no net tax cuts. But this is a divided government, and to do a deal, none of us gets to do it alone. We have a choice between gridlock and compromise. And what we have before us is just that, it is a compromise. It is not a perfect solution. It is the art of the possible. But if we let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we will not get anything good done on the deficit this year. This compromise differs from most compromises by design, by conscious design, because what we sought in negotiating it was to let each party claim some clear victory. Rather than come out with just gray results, compromise to the point that they lost their identity and pleased nobody, this package allows the Republicans a clear victory. It allows them the chance to do significant tax cuts. It allows Democrats, my party, the chance to do initiatives in children's health care, the chance to do initiatives in education that we could not do if we tried to do it alone. That is why I say this budget is balanced in two senses. If the economy stays stable, this budget should take us to a balanced budget by the year 2002. But in the meantime, this resolution is not so fixated on the deficit that it forgets this country has other problems too that need to be addressed. Hard-working families are worried about how they are going to pay for the cost of their children's education. Tuition is soaring. This resolution promises more help than anything that has been passed in this Congress in the past 25 years. There are 10 million children, mostly in working families, who have no health insurance. This resolution sets aside $16 billion to come up with ways to cover at least half of those children within the next 5 years. To those in my party, my fellow Democrats, who are still summing up the pluses and the minuses in this budget resolution, I urge them to keep initiatives like these in mind and ask themselves if we could have achieved this, if we could have done this if we went it alone as a minority, by ourselves. I ask them to look at NDD, nondefense discretionary spending. It goes from $548 to $562 billion. We should ask ourselves, measured against last year's budget resolution, if we could have done this well if we did it alone. Look at what we have done with Medicare and preventive care, with Medicaid and moderating the reductions. Throughout this budget the Democratic stamp is firmly and clearly in place. I do not think we could have done this well by going it alone, and that is why I say we should support it. That is why this resolution is a good deal for us but, more importantly, it is a good deal for this country. It is a balanced plan to balance the budget. I say let us finish what we started in 1993. Let us adopt this House Concurrent Resolution 84. Let us balance the budget by the year 2002, and let us take the credit we deserve as Democrats for this accomplishment. {time} 1700 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to clarify for the Members the unanimous-consent request from the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] who broke up his time throughout the remainder of the evening. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has 25 minutes remaining on his time. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] will have 25 minutes. Joint Economic Committee members will have 10 minutes. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] will have 40 minutes, 20 minutes under the rule and 20 minutes of additional time as requested by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt]. The Congressional Black Caucus will have 30 minutes. And then the gentleman [[Page H2966]] from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] will have 30 minutes and have the right to close on his side of the aisle. The Chair would encourage Members controlling time under this consent arrangement to use their time in the blocks that have been allocated, if at all possible. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair just explain how much time has been consumed? I understand that when the majority leader was yielded 5 minutes, he spoke for 13; and that is our process, but he was allocated 5 minutes against the time. How much time has been consumed by both sides? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has 24 minutes remaining of the 30 minutes in his block under his unanimous- consent arrangement. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 2 hours and 11 minutes remaining. Mr. SHAYS. That is not all that helpful, Mr. Chairman. Of the total amount of time on each side, how much has been allocated? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not understand the gentleman's inquiry. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to know how much time has been consumed on both sides. That is the question. I did not ask how much is remaining. How much is consumed? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has used 11 minutes. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, how much time have we used on this side? The CHAIRMAN. On the other side of the aisle, 19 minutes have been consumed. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker]. Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the bipartisan budget agreement before us today. This budget resolution has particular significance for me. I am the only Member of this body who has worked with the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], from both sides of the aisle. For 5 years, I served on the Committee on the Budget as the Democratic member, struggling to produce such a document. While we never succeeded, I think it is appropriate at this time to remember the commitment of colleagues, some of whom are no longer in this body, who worked for such an agreement. Specifically, I want to express appreciation to Tim Penny, whose work I believe laid the foundation for the success that our chairman has brought to fruition. Also, both Leon Panetta and the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Martin Sabo, in my opinion, worked to produce the most fiscally conservative resolutions possible in their eras. I hope each realizes his contribution to this long process. My last year as a Democratic member of the committee was spent working on the other side of the aisle to demonstrate that bipartisanship was possible but, more importantly, necessary to success. Unfortunately, it was not viable at the time. Now, in my first year as a Republican member of this committee, it is with great pleasure that I endorse a truly bipartisan agreement. The fiscal year 1998 budget resolution was reported by the Committee on the Budget on a 31 to 7 vote. It was supported by 11 Democrats on the committee. The ranking member of the committee, who deserves a tremendous amount of credit, was a major player in its development. This document is bipartisan and it is a culminating moment in my service in the House. I know that some of my fellow conservatives may be disappointed in this agreement. It does not go as far as we would like for it to go in reforming the role of government in our lives. But you must realize that we have colleagues on the opposite end of the political spectrum who are perhaps even more distressed with some of the contents of this resolution. Some will call this resolution compromise, as if it were something foul or distasteful. Others will call this capitulation and will revel in debating who recapitulated, the President or the Congress. But I do not refer to this budget by either of those terms. To me it is a realistic achievement. It is what is doable. It is the product of something known as the Democratic process. It is called governing. Unless any of us forget, let me remind you that less than 3 years ago we did not even debate budget resolutions that reached balance at any point in the future. Today, we are debating a budget that reaches balance in 2002, provides real savings in entitlement programs, creates no new entitlements and provides for a permanent reduction in taxes. We are doing this in a bipartisan fashion which greatly enhances the chances of making these efforts actual law. This debate today is not nearly the final word on the issue. We must now move forward in the legislative process. Every committee in this body will make a significant contribution on producing at least one, hopefully two, reconciliation bills which we will debate later in the summer. We must also produce and pass 13 appropriation bills, none of which will be easy. We will have this and other debates many times over as we proceed. We will each see victories and we will each see defeats. That is the nature of American-style democracy. It is not particularly pretty to watch, but it will work. But today what is crucially important to recognize is that for the first time in a very long time, we are considering a bipartisan balanced budget proposal. This is historical. This is a victory for all Americans. More importantly, it is a celebration of our system of government and of our future generations. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the former chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Let me say a special word of gratitude and thanks to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] for their great job in bringing this compromise budget proposal to us today. It is not easy, but it is a job well done and the country is well served by your efforts. By passing this budget agreement today, we will be entering the final stages of a 7-year effort to get this country's fiscal house in order. The effort began in 1990 with the budget agreement between President Bush and congressional Democrats. It took another giant step forward in 1993, when President Clinton and congressional Democrats passed the largest deficit reduction package in history. And today, by passing this budget resolution, we will move toward finishing the job of balancing the budget. When all is said and done, the record will show that the only people to have voted for all three of these budgets will be congressional Democrats. And, in fact, most of the people who will have voted for two out of three will be congressional Democrats. Before the 1993 deficit reduction package was passed, the deficit stood at $290 billion. But congressional Democrats acted to change that and the country has reaped the benefits ever since. Thanks to that 5- year plan, the deficit is now expected to fall for a fifth straight year to its lowest level since 1979. By the end of 1997, the 1993 plan will have cut almost $700 billion in projected deficits. Indeed, without that success, we would not be in a position to consider balancing the budget by the year 2002. The economy has also responded to the 1993 plan by creating more than 12 million new jobs, raising wages, lowering unemployment, and keeping inflation in check. Most of us cannot remember a time when our economy was stronger and more likely to provide a better future for our citizens. I firmly believe this would not have happened if we had not acted to reduce the deficit significantly. The budget before us continues the fiscal discipline of the last 7 years. At the same time, it gives us the opportunity to correct some of the excesses of last year's welfare bill. It will help restore fairness for legal immigrants who had benefits taken away from them unfairly. It will provide the opportunity to restore food stamps for people unable to find jobs. This is a good resolution. Let us pass it. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]. (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. [[Page H2967]] Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 84, the balanced budget agreement of 1997. When Babe Ruth retired in 1935, a lot of folks thought no one would ever break his record of 714 home runs. But in 1974, Hank Aaron hit number 715. And a lot of folks thought no one would ever break Lou Gehrig's consecutive game streak of 2,130 games. But in 1995, Cal Ripken broke that record, and he is still going strong. A lot of folks were beginning to think that Congress would never break its record of deficit spending year after year, and for 27 years they were right. But today, we have a chance to break that dismal record. Today, we have a chance to end our 27-year losing streak of deficit spending. This alone is enough reason to merit support for this budget agreement. But this agreement does much more than just break the deficit streak. It helps preserve Medicare and keep it solvent for the next 10 years, it provides tax relief for the American family by providing a $500 child tax credit and educational tax credits, it helps small businesses and farmers by providing relief from the death tax, which causes so many family farms and family businesses to be sold instead of being handed down to the next generation, it provides more incentives for savings by allowing us to expand the individual retirement account, and it will help create jobs by providing much needed capital gains tax relief. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to take advantage of this historical moment, this bipartisan agreement, and break this dismal record of deficit spending that started in 1969. Vote ``yes'' on this historical document. This is a record breaking day for the U.S. Congress. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], the vice chair of the Democratic Caucus. Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, as a supporter of the controversial 1990 Bush budget and a supporter of the budget resolution of the equally controversial budget of 1993, I rise tonight to support this budget resolution, hoping it has the same end. CBO recently announced that, in fact, the deficit for this year would be below $70 billion, the lowest in 16 years, a 77-percent reduction in deficit since President Clinton became President. This is tremendous progress. {time} 1715 This is tremendous progress. But it would not have happened if it was not for the decisions made by those in 1990 and 1993. I support this resolution because I want to see the job finished. I want to see the budget balanced. But we must say tonight again and again, the hard work has just begun. We must draft implementing legislation that keeps the promise of a balanced budget in the years following 2002. We must insist that the Committee on Ways and Means craft a package that provides needed tax relief to American families. This will be no easy task. In particular, the tax package needs to be crafted in a way that makes it possible to provide the promised tax cuts while at the same time actually measuring in the correct way the cost of these tax cuts. It would be tragic indeed if after years of work the tax cuts were drafted in such a manner that the revenue losses drive up the deficit after 2008. I think we should agree in a bipartisan fashion that such an outcome is not in the interest of the Nation. I stand here tonight and the rancor is not the same as it was in 1990, and it certainly is not the same as it was in 1993. I do not miss the rancor, but, Mr. Chairman, I will say I would rather have the rancor and the commitment to reduce the deficit. I certainly hope tonight that in this budget resolution I am going to vote for, that promises are kept, please, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip and a member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this resolution, and I commend everyone on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in putting it together. Today we are faced with another historic decision. We can move forward by passing this resolution or we can stumble backwards by defeating it. This budget resolution accomplishes two very important things: First, it balances the budget; second, it cuts taxes for working families in America. Together these two priorities comprise the cornerstone of the Republican agenda. To characterize this as anything less than a victory for commonsense conservatism, I think, is an exercise in fantasy. I would remind my colleagues that this is not the end of the beginning nor is it the beginning of the end. Instead it is the first step in a very long process to preserve and protect the future fiscal health of this Nation. Like the 12-step program of Alcoholics Anonymous, the first step is the most important step, but each step on the way is equally important. We have a long way to go until we swear off wasteful Washington spending for good. Critics have found much to criticize in this budget. They have picked it apart with complaints as diverse as the people who make up this country. Some have said that spending is too high. Others have said that spending is too low. Some complain that our tax cuts are too generous. Others condemn them as inefficient. In a perfect world, if I were king, this would be a different budget. I am certain that if the minority whip, the gentleman from Michigan, were king, he could construct a budget far different from mine. But this is not a monarchy. Neither the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] nor I are kings. This agreement is the best we can get with the situation that we find ourselves in. It cuts taxes, it saves Medicare, it slows spending, and it balances the budget. In my view this budget resolution is kind of like Tiger Woods and his tee shot. It is not too far to the right nor is it too far to the left and it takes us a lot further than we previously thought we could go before. A cynic, Oscar Wilde once said, is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Cynics who condemn this budget miss its true value. For the first time in modern memory, the President of one party and a Congress controlled by the other party have agreed to balance the budget and to cut taxes in a very specific budget resolution. I call that a victory for the American people. To those Democrats who support this resolution, let me just simply say, welcome to the fight and we greatly appreciate your support. And to those few Republicans who may oppose this budget, let me just say, do not grasp defeat from the jaws of victory. To those Americans who have lost faith in the political process, let me just say, every once in a while the process works. This is one of those times. Vote for this resolution and together let us move on to the next step of balancing the budget and cutting taxes for the American people. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui]. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and certainly the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and certainly the President and his staff for putting together this agreement. I would call it a historic agreement, and it is. If, in fact, it is implemented as it is agreed to, then it will be a very good budget because it will carry out the priorities of both sides. It will have a modest tax cut and at the same time it will provide relief for legal immigrants that was taken away in 1996, it will provide new initiatives for children's health care, and certainly it will provide more resources for education in the form of Pell grants and increases of 25 percent in many of the areas of education. On the other hand, I must point out that I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] for saying that many Democrats will be joining him, but for the last 7 years, in 1990, and 1993, it was the Democrats that basically carried deficit reduction. In 1990, as my colleagues recall when President Bush was President we reduced the deficit by some $600 billion. In 1993, with President Clinton, we reduced it by some $490 billion. That is why we are here today with a $67 billion deficit and on our way to balance. But I will say I am a little concerned, and I want to make one caveat. This is just a piece of paper. It has no force of law. The President does not even have to sign it. The [[Page H2968]] real test will be the 13 appropriations bills and the reconciliation bill and also the reconciliation bills on the tax cut. Bear in mind, 1981, when Ronald Reagan said, ``We're going to balance the budget, we're going to cut taxes and we're going to increase defense.'' He said he was going to balance the budget by 1984. My colleagues know that did not happen. I just heard some of my friends on the other side of the aisle talking about the tax cuts, the capital gains tax cuts, the cuts in the estate tax, the child credit of $500, and also the IRA's. If we add all those up as introduced in the Contract With America, we are talking about 600 billion dollars' worth of tax cuts over the next 10 years. We will find ourselves in the same mess we did in the 1980's unless we are willing to implement this agreement as it was agreed upon by all the parties. I reserve the right, I think with my colleagues, that on the individual appropriations and individual reconciliation, we certainly will be in a position to examine those very closely. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for yielding me this time and congratulate the gentleman on a job very well done. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget resolution as the next step to balancing the Federal budget. Considered in light of the CBO deficit projections just 4 years ago, this accomplishment is nothing short of miraculous. Four years ago, the deficit was actually $290 billion. The projection for 1997 that year was that the deficit would be $319 billion. But for the courageous action of President Clinton and the Members of this House and Senate, the other body, we were able to pass a bill that, in fact, brought the deficit in much, much lower than that. We have now a controllable deficit thanks to the action that we took in 1993. I would like to speak for a moment about the tax and revenue portions of the agreement. The concern has been raised that we must not repeat the mistakes that we made in 1981. I was not a Member of this House in 1981, but I reviewed the action of that year. The tax cuts proposed by President Reagan and approved by the Congress were estimated at that time to reduce Federal revenues by $863 billion over 5 years. Let me say that again. The tax cut of 1981 totaled $863 billion over 5 years. That was with 1981 dollars. The tax cuts provided under the agreement embodied in this resolution are limited to $85 billion over 5 years, which is less than 10 percent of the size of the 1981 tax cuts. It is a far more cautious and responsible tax package than the 1981 legislation. Another key provision of this agreement is the treatment of Medicare. The budget resolution we consider today provides for real Medicare reform that will lower the cost to our seniors and provide quality care for our Nation's seniors. Chief among the improvements is a preventive health care package that will help our seniors with their health care needs. We also solve other real problems in providing health benefits for children. We provide needs for students. This is a good budget agreement that puts together ways of improving our

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1998
(House of Representatives - May 20, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H2960-H3065] CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1998 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 152 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 84. [[Page H2961]] {time} 1610 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. 84) establishing the Congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal year 1998 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, with Mr. Boehner in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is considered read the first time. General debate shall be confined to the congressional budget and shall not exceed 5 hours and 20 minutes, including 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], and 20 minutes controlled by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge]. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, there is 20 minutes that has been allocated to my portion of this general debate. Is it correct to understand that it will be 20 minutes at the end of the general debate? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will consult with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], and the chairman of the committee to determine at what point that debate would occur. Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, when will we have such consultation? The CHAIRMAN. As soon as the gentleman and the chairman of the committee can approach the Chair and have that discussion. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that, out of the time allocated to me, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] be yielded 25 minutes and that he be allowed to control that time; that the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] on behalf of the Joint Economic Committee be yielded 10 minutes and that he be allowed to control that time; that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] be yielded 20 minutes and that he be allowed to control that time; that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] be yielded 30 minutes and that she be allowed to control that time; and finally, that I would reserve the remaining 35 minutes to myself. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina? There was no objection. {time} 1615 Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a moment that many of us have been waiting for for a long time. The fact is, several years ago I suggested that the time would arrive when Republicans and Democrats could come together; that we could, in fact, put the good of the country and the good of our children ahead of our own basic desires, to pass a bill that would balance the budget, would give tax relief to the American people, would strengthen the American family, and would be a giant first step towards solving many of the problems that have confounded us for many years. The President came to this Chamber about at the beginning of the year and he declared the era of big Government at an end. The Republicans and the Democrats have worked together, and frankly, that rhetoric now is going to be underlaid by a budget program that in fact does declare the end to the era of big Government. This agreement is predicated and founded on very conservative economics, predicting a 2.1-percent growth in this economy, the economy growing far in excess of 5 percent. For those that did not know this, it may come as a surprise for some, but we really believe that a 2.1- percent growth rate over the life of this document, which means at some point the economy will grow faster and at other points in time the economy will grow slower, is an excellent conclusion to draw. And in fact, a 2.1 percent growth rate that underlies this agreement is far more conservative than all the blue chip economic estimates that we have heard across this country. Second, in the area of savings, over the course of the next decade under this agreement, in the programs of entitlements that have eroded our ability to control our wage growth, in order to give us faster wage growth, our inability to be able to give our children a chance, it is not the end-all, but boy, is it a giant first step, with $600 billion in entitlement savings over the course of the next decade, including extending the life of Medicare for up to 10 years and being able to accomplish what the Republicans set out to accomplish in 1995. It is not just about numbers. There in fact are structural reforms to this Medicare Program, including prospective payments for skilled nursing facilities and home health care, the fastest growing items in the Medicare budget; the creation of physician networks, so physicians can compete with the insurance companies to offer people more opportunity, more choice, more benefits; the fact that we are going to have an adjustment in the reimbursements to the managed care operations by letting rural America have more incentives to offer more choice to people in rural America; the fact that we moved the home health care and made sure that part of those costs were going to be included in the premium, and phased in over a period of time. As Members will see, there are structural changes in this Medicare Program. Are there going to be more changes needed in the future? There is no question that as the baby boomers begin to retire we have a huge challenge. That is precisely why I authored a provision that calls for the creation of a baby boomer study program to figure out how to deal with the major problems of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. There will be a big challenge, but let us not let that challenge take away from what we have been able to accomplish in this agreement today. Make no mistake about it, never before in the history of the U.S. Congress have we saved more money in entitlements than in this agreement. In the area of the programs that run the Government of the United States, some people say we have not saved enough. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to the taxpayers' money we always have to be working at saving more. But let me just put it in perspective. Nondefense discretionary, the programs that operate the government of the United States, will grow over the next 5 years at an average of one-half percent a year. Do Members get that? They will grow at one- half percent a year. Over the last 10 years they have grown at 10 percent. So to take the growth in those programs from 10 percent over the last 10 years to a half a percent over the next 5 years is a very, very significant accomplishment. Will we come back at some point and try to do more to defang the Government, to defang those parts of the Government that have harassed people? Not suggesting that all of it does, but in those areas where Government has put a burden on the shoulders of the people as they have tried to heal their communities and heal their families, of course that should be our role, to set the people free in this country. So what we have in this budget is good fiscal restraint, $600 billion in entitlement savings and only one-half percent a year growth in the programs that run the Government. Coupled with that, of course, is the first balanced budget in over 30 years, which will result in the year 2002 in only the second balanced budget over the course of the last 40 years. Also included in this document, and we should all be aware of this, is something that many people said could not be done. That is to give the people power by letting them keep more of what they earn. Included in this document is $135 billion in tax cuts over 5 years, and at least $350 billion in tax cuts over the next 10 years. That will be enough. It will be enough to give the American people something we have been promising for many years now. It will give them a capital gains tax cut, so that in America we will reward risk-taking, and we will give the American people the tools with which to compete and win in the international job market. Let me just suggest to the Members that to improve the reasons to risk take and the incentives to risk take, [[Page H2962]] and to give people a reason to invest in America, will mean that the infrastructure of America will be able to accommodate faster economic growth without inflation. There are many other things we need to do to improve the infrastructure of America so our country can grow faster and reward more people from one end of this country to the other, but we believe that the capital gains tax cut is one of those elements, coupled with a balanced budget, that results in lower interest rates and more investment and more productivity and more wealth for every single American. Included in here is the family tax credit, because we believe the best Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the United States is the American family. Is it not going to be great, I say to the gentleman from Tennessee, when this Sunday he goes to church and he sees a man and his wife leave the church with three young kids, and they get into that old Chevrolet and you can actually see the car kind of go down and up as they get in, and maybe on the back of the bumper is an old Billy Graham bumper sticker left over from a rally 3 years ago, and he knows in his soul that under a child tax credit the American family is going to have more, some money for their college, some money for new clothes, some money to help the family. Of course, there will be estate relief in here, too, so when you die and you have worked a lifetime to build something, to pass it on to your family, the Government is not going to take it all away. Let me just suggest, whether it is a small business or the family farm, we do not want the people to not just have death but death and taxes to the max. We do not solve the whole problem of the estate, this overtaxation of estates in this, but we are making a good first step. The President got one of his priorities in the area of education. Let me just suggest, for those mothers and fathers who have had to take that second job to help their kid get a college education, this program has some help for them. They need help. But let me ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to start aggressively asking the higher education officials in this country why their costs are racing out of control. Let me ask the moms and dads and the students to start asking the same question. But in the meantime, we are going to help. What do we get here at the end of the day? First, the first balanced budget in over 30 years; real tax relief that we think will improve the lives of America's workers; real tax relief that we believe will improve the lives of the American family; real tax relief that will give a reward to people for working hard for a lifetime; help for people to realize the American dream through education; and at the same time, the most significant savings in entitlements in the history of this country, and controlling the growth to a half a percent a year of those programs that run the Federal Government, and a giant first step toward moving into the next century by stabilizing the fiscal policies of the United States of America. It has been a long road. It has been very difficult. I want to compliment the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Martin Sabo], maybe the most forgotten man today in the Chamber, but not by me, because Martin worked hard in 1995, in 1993, and in 1994 and in 1995 and in 1996; a total class gentleman. Over the course of the last 2 years we have worked closely together to try to figure out how we could narrow most of our differences. It is a tremendous pleasure to have worked with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. John Spratt]. He has had a very difficult time trying to make sure that he could keep his caucus together and listen to his leader who at times he had to represent, and other parts of the caucus who he had to represent. Hats off to John Spratt; and to John Hilley, my great friend down at the White House, to Franklin Raines and Gene Sperling, it was the best, to be able to put aside the partisan bickering and reach an agreement; and to the President, to the President who did not have to really do this. He decided that he wanted to move forward and reach agreement. He sent his trusted aide, Erskine Bowles, to the Hill. With Pete Dominici and the gentleman from Georgia. [Mr. Newt Gingrich] and Trent Lott and this big team, we were able to put it together. No one should think for a second that this is the end of the game. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is just the beginning, but a very great beginning and a very big step toward providing a more prosperous, toward providing a more confident, toward providing a more secure America, and convincing the American people that when we put the politics aside and we listen to them and their calls for so many years for this body to get control of the spending of this country and to return some of their power, when we listen to them, at the end of the day Republicans and Democrats came together to reach agreement on something that I believe the American people will look at and say, for once you have done well. For once you have put the politics aside and you have agreed to work together and serve America. Let us support this great budget resolution today. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly this afternoon to state that I will not vote for this budget, but before giving Members the reasons for that, I want to commend the Members on both sides of the aisle. I especially want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. John Spratt], and I want to commend the President for working so hard to bring about this agreement, which is an important achievement for our country. Having done this in 1990 and again in 1993, I know how hard it is. {time} 1630 I know how many compromises have to be made and how many decisions have to be made to make something like this come together. But at the end of it, it is a decision on this budget that each of us must make for what is best for our constituents, the 500,000 people that each of us represents and what in our hearts and minds is best for them and best for the country. I would like to start with a little history of why we are where we are. This all started, in my view, back in 1981. Congress then, in a bipartisan way, made a decision on a budget that had certain increases in spending and tax cuts, which many of us said at the time would create large deficits out in the future. The prediction was that there would be deficits of $100 and $200 and $300 billion. And unfortunately those predictions came true. It has taken us 17 years from that basic decision in 1981 to get on the threshold of being able to balance the budget. In 1990, we entered into a bipartisan budget agreement, much like has been done now, and at the time we raised taxes and we cut spending in a bipartisan way, and we made a big step, about a $500 billion deficit reduction. We did that again in 1993; I might add, at that time, with all Democratic votes, not one vote from the other side of the aisle. At the time many Republican leaders said they believed that budget we passed in 1993 would wreck the economy and would cause higher unemployment and higher deficits. I want to point out that because of the interaction of what we do on the deficit and what it does with the economy, that indeed those forecasts were wrong, that even with tax increases and spending cuts, we have had a remarkable economic performance in the last 4 or 5 years. In fact, in 1993, the prediction was the deficit for this year would be $300 billion. A year ago the prediction was the deficit would be $169 billion. In January of this year, we thought the deficit for this year would be $124 billion. Just last week CBO said it is down to $67 billion. There is an interaction, there is an inextricable link between the deficit and what we do and how we get rid of the deficit and what happens in the economy. And I believe that the investments we made in education and in capital investment and in health care that we made in the deficit reduction act of 1993 were an integral part of helping the private sector economy grow over the last 5 years so that we have had real economic growth and [[Page H2963]] more revenue coming into the government. So the question then and now is not whether to do this, it is how we do it. It is how we do it. What are the myriad of decisions, what are the texture of the decisions we put together to try to get the budget into order. In my view, this budget agreement is a budget of many deficits: a deficit of principle, a deficit of fairness, a deficit of tax justice, and worst of all, a deficit of dollars. First, I think it is unfair. I think that when we have done these budgets, we have always tried to have shared sacrifice. We have said to the American people in the highest sense of patriotism that everybody has to sacrifice in order to get the budget straightened out. That is what we did in 1990. That is what we did in 1993. That is not what this budget does. Recently I was going door to door in my district. I met a young couple who had just bought a house. They were happy because the wife had just gotten pregnant and they were expecting this new family. I asked them what their concerns were. They said their concern was that between them they have 5 jobs, 5 jobs. That is kind of the way the economy is working for ordinary Americans today. In order to make ends meet, people have to work more jobs and more hours. And the woman said to me, ``You know, our concern is that when the baby comes, I would like to stay home and raise the child for 2 or 3 years, but with 5 jobs, I have got to quit two of those jobs to do it. And if we do that, we cannot make our house payment.'' That is reality 1997. On another door-to-door trip in my district I met a woman who was on Social Security and Medicare. She said, ``You know, I do not want to be a whiner, and I do not want to complain, but I only get $450 a month. And I have got to buy a lot of prescription drugs to stay going. I just want you to know, I cannot pay my water bill now, and I do not have hot water. And if I have cuts along the way in Medicare or Social Security, I may lose the apartment I am staying in''. That is reality 1997. This budget could have done better by either of those people I have talked about. We could have done more in this budget on Head Start, on after school programs for that family I am talking about. We could have done better for that senior citizen so she could get by better. But in this budget there is structured a tax cut. And if I am reading the agreement between the parties correctly, that tax cut will necessarily result in the top 1 percent of taxpayers in this country getting a tax reduction of about $6,000. And when I talk about the top 1 percent, I am talking about folks making an average of $650,000 a year. Is it shared sacrifice to say to them, you get a huge tax cut every year, $6,000, but the young family who is trying to make ends meet, we cannot help them enough? We cannot give them a larger tax cut. We cannot give them the kind of help that they need getting through their life every day. It is not fair. I wish it were fairer. Second, I think it fails to invest in the future. What do I mean by that? We are in a tough global competition. We have got our work cut out for us. We have to really be good. I agree, we need tax cuts, but they ought to go to the people who need them, desperately need them. And they ought to go to the people who are working hard every day to compete in that global economy. But we also need investments in this budget. Let me just name three to take examples. First, education. Everybody knows we have got to have better educated people to compete in the global economy, to get productivity increases, to get growth increases. Early on in the budget talks we talked about repairing school buildings and putting money into the structures in which our children learn. That was thrown out of the budget. We did not have enough money to do that. We talked endlessly in this Chamber about Head Start, about investing in the smallest, youngest children. We talked about Head Start zero to three. We just had a conference in the White House where we find that late mental research proves that the more you can do with young, young, young children, the better the result will be. But this budget does not fully fund Head Start and does not even make a beginning on Head Start zero to three. Let us talk about children's health, a very good part of this budget, $15 billion, to try to get half the children who do not have health care to have health care. But in the very same budget there is about an equal cut in Medicaid in what is called disproportionate share, a fancy name for trying to give money to hospitals that have a disproportionate share of poverty folks coming there to get help. Guess which hospitals get the lion's share of disproportionate share? The children's hospitals. We give with one hand; we take away with another. It is not good enough. Third, investment in the capital investments. We hear about capital gains. What about capital structures? Billions of dollars come into this budget every year from the gasoline tax to the Federal highway trust fund and every year we spend moneys for these needed structures, but we never spend what comes in. And this budget does not either. In my district of St. Louis, our city fathers and mothers got together and said, what does this region need? They came up with $20 billion worth of needs in St. Louis for capital investment alone. They have no idea where it is going to come from. We can do better in investing in our future. Third, this budget does not come into balance. I believe with all my heart that the people who worked on it want it to come into balance. And I hope it does, but let me say something. If we have exploding tax cuts that are put into law and they are not met with spending cuts that will be designed to reach them, then the numbers are not going to work. Remember 1981 and what happened. The last thing we need to do is to advertise this as a deficit reduction plan that will reduce the deficit and then we do not get there. The coalition members wanted to go to the floor this afternoon and have an amendment that had an enforcement process that said, if the numbers do not work for any reason, because the economy does not work or something else, that we will start cutting across the board both spending programs and tax programs in order to see that we really get the balance that we want and that we have advertised. That is not going to be allowed to even be voted on. In conclusion, I do not believe this budget is fair. I do not believe it invests properly in the future of our country and our economy and our people. I do not believe the numbers will work, and I do not think there is a system in place to make sure that they do. Let me say this final word. This is a decision and it is a hard decision that all of us have to make. For me, as I cast this vote, I have one thing in my mind and one thing only, and that is the people that I represent in the third District of Missouri. I have in my mind that young family who is working hard, real hard every day and wants to make ends meet and wants to have a future. I have in my mind that senior citizen who wants to stay out of the nursing home and stay in her home and live the life of independence that she wants. I have in mind the children, the children who are the future and the strength and the greatest resource of this country. Each of us in our own way, as we go through this debate and vote tonight, has to ask ourselves, what is the right thing for my constituents and for my country? Nothing else is asked. That is the question we have to answer. This is not politics. This is not some election. This is about the future of the country and what in our conscience, our heart and our mind is the best and right thing to do. I will vote against this budget. I think we can do better. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I do want to commend the minority leader on his speech and would like to say to him that I can respect a vision of government that is entirely different than mine and entirely different than the majority in the House. But he should know that in the addendum, point 9 in the reconciliation process, if it is determined that the target of a balanced budget cannot be achieved, all parties to the agreement commit to seek additional savings necessary to achieve balance. Furthermore, of course, we believe that the tax cuts in fact will provide us [[Page H2964]] with higher economic growth but, beyond that, having an economic plan underlaid by a 2.1 percent growth rate over the course of this agreement is about as conservative an estimate as we can find among any of the groups. I would not only challenge the gentleman's vision of what builds America, which is not more government spending and more government programs, but in addition, though, severely challenge the fact that somehow we have exploding deficits that will not allow us or exploding tax cuts that will not allow us to get in balance. That is simply not true and will not occur. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann]. Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of this committee and also the ranking minority member from the other side of the aisle, this is great work. It is great for the future of this country. I would agree with the comments of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] that this is really about the future of America. We just have a very different vision of who it is that can best spend money in this country, we here in Washington or the people themselves. I have a presentation but I want to start talking about a family in my district. It is a middle income family. It is a family with three kids. They are about to start college. It is a family whose parents both get up and go to work every single day of the week. {time} 1645 I talked to this family about this budget plan, too, and, frankly, they did not understand billions and trillions very well, and they did not understand CBO and OMB and all that stuff, but what they did understand is how this budget plan was going to impact them directly out in Janesville, WI. Because this middle income family that gets up every morning to go to work understood perfectly well what it meant when we said for every child that is still at home they will receive a $500 credit. They understood perfectly well on their $40,000-a-year income what $1,000 meant coming into their house. Not only that, they understood, when they talked about their oldest son going off to college, they understood what a $1,500 tax credit meant to them for a total of, maybe we will not get all $2,500 to them, but over $2,000 coming back to this family. That is what it means to the hard-working families, the middle income families who get up every morning to go to work. And it does have a real impact on them. I guess the difference of opinion here is who it is who can best spend the money, the family out in Janesville keeping the money in their own house, or the people in Washington investing it in the future. My opinion is those families out in Janesville, WI can do a pretty good job of taking care of their own money. I do have a presentation I want to give, because I strongly support this agreement. This agreement balances the budget for the first time in a generation. We have our families who pay $500 every month to do nothing but to pay the interest on the Federal debt, and certainly it is time we allow those families to keep more of their own money. It does balance. Starting with 1998 forward, the deficit goes down every year. It restores Medicaid for at least a decade and probably longer as the tax cuts take effect and the economy booms. The tax cuts. Letting the American people keep more of their own money. It is in here, $500 per child. We are looking at a reduction of capital gains tax, reforming the death tax, and a college tax tuition credit of some sort. There is no congressionally mandated CPI adjustment. That is to say to our senior citizens, there is nothing in this plan that would adjust their cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security next year. It has been taken out. It was talked about briefly but is not in the plan. It was taken out. We heard the seniors and we heard their concerns. The plan also includes in the language, at the end of it, a sense of Congress that would allow us to not only balance the budget by 2002 but also pay off the Federal debt between now and the year 2023, so that we can pass this Nation on to our children debt free. Think of that dream in America: a Nation that we pass on to our children not burdened with debt but debt free. So instead of paying $500 a month in interest into Washington to do nothing but pay the interest on the debt, families can keep that $500 a month and do as they see fit with the money. As we pay off the Federal debt, another very important thing happens: The money that has been taken out of the Social Security trust fund is put back. And that is very, very significant as we look at the solvency of the Social Security system. To understand how good this budget is, I think we have to look at where we have come from. I brought a chart from way back in 1991, when I first started running for office. This chart shows the Gramm-Rudman- Hollings plan of 1985, and it shows the green line here is their plan to get to a balanced budget. The red line shows what actually happened, and we can notice they never got to a balanced budget. They never even hit their targets. In 1987 they revised Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and, again, the green line shows their plan to get to a balanced budget, and the red line shows what actually happened. They never hit their targets, period. What is happening out here since 1995? This is somewhat staggering. When I went back to put this together I was somewhat shocked to see what was actually happening out here since 1995. The picture is so different than 1985 and 1987 that we almost have to see it to understand how real this thing is. In 1995, we promised the American people that we would have deficits, as in the red columns on here, $154 billion in 1996. The blue on this thing, the blue columns, those are what is actually happening. And we can notice we not only hit our projection, but we are ahead of schedule. Think how far we have come since 1985 and 1987. We not only hit the target, we are ahead of schedule in 1996. We are over $100 billion ahead of schedule in 1997. And each year, under this plan, we stay ahead of that promise to the American people that we made in 1995. Our promise is being fulfilled. The reason that this is happening is because we are curtailing the growth of spending in this great Nation we live in. Spending that was going up rapidly, as we see in the red column, is not going up as fast anymore. It is still going up faster than I would like to see but not as fast as it was. Nondefense discretionary spending was going up. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. KASICH. And, Mr. Chairman, I will give the gentleman a little more time to put that chart back up there. Let us take a look at what the fiscal year 1996 to 2002 plan is. Mr. NEUMANN. It was going up by 5.2 percent a year in the 7 years before we got here. Under this plan, and the first 2 years since 1995, it is now going up by 3.2 percent. Let us put that in inflation-adjusted dollars. It was going up 1.8; it is now going up 0.6. The growth of Government has been reduced by two-thirds. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, let me just say that under this plan that is currently on the table, those increases will drop to 0.5 percent. This will be the lowest increase in the programs that run the Government of the United States in history. Someone has told me, and we are still trying to check these numbers, less than half of the growth in spending in nondefense discretionary under President Ronald Reagan. So I think it was a significant accomplishment to be able to slow it to that degree, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. NEUMANN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I also think we should talk about nondefense discretionary spending. That is the part of the budget we have the most control over. That was rising by 6.7 percent annually before we took over, in the 7 years before we got here. It is now going up less than 1 percent a year. And in inflation-adjusted dollars, it was going up by 3.2. It is now actually shrinking by 1.5 percent. I will say that again. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the nondefense discretionary spending, the part of the budget we have the most control over, is actually shrinking. I will wrap up my part of this presentation with something that is pretty special here. This chart shows what [[Page H2965]] would have happened in 1995 if there had been no changes in the law. This line shows where the deficit was headed in 1995. This yellow line in the chart shows what happened in the first 12 months, how much progress was made during the year of 1995. Then we put this plan into place, as to what we hoped could happen. That is the green line. And I brought a marker with me today, because a year ago we produced this chart and we said we were ahead of schedule. Notice that our deficit is actually below the green line. And people said, yeah, yeah, yeah, that is 1 year. I want to conclude my part of this presentation by drawing in where we are now in our second year on this plan to reach a balanced budget. We are way down here. And we can notice that we are not only ahead of schedule for the first year, we are ahead of schedule for the second year. And when we pass this plan, we will stay ahead of schedule for each and every year from now through the year 2002. What that means for our children in this country is that we will have a balanced budget, we can start paying down the debt, and our children can once again look forward to the opportunity to have a chance at living the American dream in this great Nation that we live in. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, for the first time in 15 years, in the 15 years I have served in this House, we are within reach of a balanced budget. Last September 30, 1996, when we closed the books on fiscal 1996, the deficit stood at $107.8 billion. And now that we have gotten the revenues on April 15 from this year's tax payments, CBO and OMB both believe that the deficit this year will drop to $70 billion or below-- $70 billion or less. We can finish the job. We can balance the budget. But only if we have a plan, for without one the deficit will start drifting back upward again. We have before us today a hard wrought compromise of a plan. When I say hard wrought, I mean it. It was produced through nearly 4 months of negotiations. Hard fought negotiations. But throughout they were civil and cordial, and I commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. John Kasich] who worked with us in complete cooperation and good faith throughout the negotiations to bring it to this end, which is a genuine compromise. Before turning to that plan, I would like to just pause a minute and talk about what brings us to this point. I want to go back to a particular date, January 13, 1993, 1 week before George Bush left office. He sent us that day his economic report of the President, and in it Michael Boskin, his chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, predicted that the deficit for that year, fiscal 1993, would be $332 billion. This was the deficit that President Clinton found on the doorstep awaiting him when we arrived at the White House 1 week later. On February 17, the President laid on the doorstep of the Congress a plan for cutting that deficit roughly by half over the next 5 years. It was not a popular plan. It was certainly not a painless plan. It cost my party dearly for supporting it. It passed the Congress only by the skin of its teeth. The critics claimed this budget would cut off the economy at its knees. But the financial markets were impressed, so much so that long bond rates came down by 100 to 120 basis points. And when the books were closed on fiscal 1993, that first fiscal year, the deficit was not $332 billion as Boskin predicted, it was $255 billion. A year later, the first full year under that budget plan, the deficit was $203 billion. At year end 1995, it was down again to $164 billion. And as I said, last September it was $107.8 billion. The deficit has been cut now for 5 years in a row. That is not smoke and mirrors, that is not sleight of hand, that is a matter of record. As Yogi Berra liked to say, ``You can look it up.'' The deficit has been cut by 65 percent. And at 1.4 percent of our GDP, it is at its lowest level since the early 1970's. That is progress by anybody's yardstick. That is why we are within reach, credibly, of a balanced budget. That is why we are here today, to finish a job, because it would be a shame not to try. And that is why it is important that we do it right and not blow this opportunity. Mr. Chairman, if it were left to me alone, I would do a budget along the lines my good friends, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the Blue Dogs laid out last year, for which I voted, which had no net tax cuts at all, none at least until we had our goal firmly in grasp. That would not mean no tax cuts, just no net tax cuts. But this is a divided government, and to do a deal, none of us gets to do it alone. We have a choice between gridlock and compromise. And what we have before us is just that, it is a compromise. It is not a perfect solution. It is the art of the possible. But if we let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we will not get anything good done on the deficit this year. This compromise differs from most compromises by design, by conscious design, because what we sought in negotiating it was to let each party claim some clear victory. Rather than come out with just gray results, compromise to the point that they lost their identity and pleased nobody, this package allows the Republicans a clear victory. It allows them the chance to do significant tax cuts. It allows Democrats, my party, the chance to do initiatives in children's health care, the chance to do initiatives in education that we could not do if we tried to do it alone. That is why I say this budget is balanced in two senses. If the economy stays stable, this budget should take us to a balanced budget by the year 2002. But in the meantime, this resolution is not so fixated on the deficit that it forgets this country has other problems too that need to be addressed. Hard-working families are worried about how they are going to pay for the cost of their children's education. Tuition is soaring. This resolution promises more help than anything that has been passed in this Congress in the past 25 years. There are 10 million children, mostly in working families, who have no health insurance. This resolution sets aside $16 billion to come up with ways to cover at least half of those children within the next 5 years. To those in my party, my fellow Democrats, who are still summing up the pluses and the minuses in this budget resolution, I urge them to keep initiatives like these in mind and ask themselves if we could have achieved this, if we could have done this if we went it alone as a minority, by ourselves. I ask them to look at NDD, nondefense discretionary spending. It goes from $548 to $562 billion. We should ask ourselves, measured against last year's budget resolution, if we could have done this well if we did it alone. Look at what we have done with Medicare and preventive care, with Medicaid and moderating the reductions. Throughout this budget the Democratic stamp is firmly and clearly in place. I do not think we could have done this well by going it alone, and that is why I say we should support it. That is why this resolution is a good deal for us but, more importantly, it is a good deal for this country. It is a balanced plan to balance the budget. I say let us finish what we started in 1993. Let us adopt this House Concurrent Resolution 84. Let us balance the budget by the year 2002, and let us take the credit we deserve as Democrats for this accomplishment. {time} 1700 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to clarify for the Members the unanimous-consent request from the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] who broke up his time throughout the remainder of the evening. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has 25 minutes remaining on his time. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] will have 25 minutes. Joint Economic Committee members will have 10 minutes. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] will have 40 minutes, 20 minutes under the rule and 20 minutes of additional time as requested by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt]. The Congressional Black Caucus will have 30 minutes. And then the gentleman [[Page H2966]] from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] will have 30 minutes and have the right to close on his side of the aisle. The Chair would encourage Members controlling time under this consent arrangement to use their time in the blocks that have been allocated, if at all possible. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair just explain how much time has been consumed? I understand that when the majority leader was yielded 5 minutes, he spoke for 13; and that is our process, but he was allocated 5 minutes against the time. How much time has been consumed by both sides? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has 24 minutes remaining of the 30 minutes in his block under his unanimous- consent arrangement. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 2 hours and 11 minutes remaining. Mr. SHAYS. That is not all that helpful, Mr. Chairman. Of the total amount of time on each side, how much has been allocated? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not understand the gentleman's inquiry. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to know how much time has been consumed on both sides. That is the question. I did not ask how much is remaining. How much is consumed? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has used 11 minutes. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, how much time have we used on this side? The CHAIRMAN. On the other side of the aisle, 19 minutes have been consumed. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker]. Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the bipartisan budget agreement before us today. This budget resolution has particular significance for me. I am the only Member of this body who has worked with the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], from both sides of the aisle. For 5 years, I served on the Committee on the Budget as the Democratic member, struggling to produce such a document. While we never succeeded, I think it is appropriate at this time to remember the commitment of colleagues, some of whom are no longer in this body, who worked for such an agreement. Specifically, I want to express appreciation to Tim Penny, whose work I believe laid the foundation for the success that our chairman has brought to fruition. Also, both Leon Panetta and the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Martin Sabo, in my opinion, worked to produce the most fiscally conservative resolutions possible in their eras. I hope each realizes his contribution to this long process. My last year as a Democratic member of the committee was spent working on the other side of the aisle to demonstrate that bipartisanship was possible but, more importantly, necessary to success. Unfortunately, it was not viable at the time. Now, in my first year as a Republican member of this committee, it is with great pleasure that I endorse a truly bipartisan agreement. The fiscal year 1998 budget resolution was reported by the Committee on the Budget on a 31 to 7 vote. It was supported by 11 Democrats on the committee. The ranking member of the committee, who deserves a tremendous amount of credit, was a major player in its development. This document is bipartisan and it is a culminating moment in my service in the House. I know that some of my fellow conservatives may be disappointed in this agreement. It does not go as far as we would like for it to go in reforming the role of government in our lives. But you must realize that we have colleagues on the opposite end of the political spectrum who are perhaps even more distressed with some of the contents of this resolution. Some will call this resolution compromise, as if it were something foul or distasteful. Others will call this capitulation and will revel in debating who recapitulated, the President or the Congress. But I do not refer to this budget by either of those terms. To me it is a realistic achievement. It is what is doable. It is the product of something known as the Democratic process. It is called governing. Unless any of us forget, let me remind you that less than 3 years ago we did not even debate budget resolutions that reached balance at any point in the future. Today, we are debating a budget that reaches balance in 2002, provides real savings in entitlement programs, creates no new entitlements and provides for a permanent reduction in taxes. We are doing this in a bipartisan fashion which greatly enhances the chances of making these efforts actual law. This debate today is not nearly the final word on the issue. We must now move forward in the legislative process. Every committee in this body will make a significant contribution on producing at least one, hopefully two, reconciliation bills which we will debate later in the summer. We must also produce and pass 13 appropriation bills, none of which will be easy. We will have this and other debates many times over as we proceed. We will each see victories and we will each see defeats. That is the nature of American-style democracy. It is not particularly pretty to watch, but it will work. But today what is crucially important to recognize is that for the first time in a very long time, we are considering a bipartisan balanced budget proposal. This is historical. This is a victory for all Americans. More importantly, it is a celebration of our system of government and of our future generations. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the former chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Let me say a special word of gratitude and thanks to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] for their great job in bringing this compromise budget proposal to us today. It is not easy, but it is a job well done and the country is well served by your efforts. By passing this budget agreement today, we will be entering the final stages of a 7-year effort to get this country's fiscal house in order. The effort began in 1990 with the budget agreement between President Bush and congressional Democrats. It took another giant step forward in 1993, when President Clinton and congressional Democrats passed the largest deficit reduction package in history. And today, by passing this budget resolution, we will move toward finishing the job of balancing the budget. When all is said and done, the record will show that the only people to have voted for all three of these budgets will be congressional Democrats. And, in fact, most of the people who will have voted for two out of three will be congressional Democrats. Before the 1993 deficit reduction package was passed, the deficit stood at $290 billion. But congressional Democrats acted to change that and the country has reaped the benefits ever since. Thanks to that 5- year plan, the deficit is now expected to fall for a fifth straight year to its lowest level since 1979. By the end of 1997, the 1993 plan will have cut almost $700 billion in projected deficits. Indeed, without that success, we would not be in a position to consider balancing the budget by the year 2002. The economy has also responded to the 1993 plan by creating more than 12 million new jobs, raising wages, lowering unemployment, and keeping inflation in check. Most of us cannot remember a time when our economy was stronger and more likely to provide a better future for our citizens. I firmly believe this would not have happened if we had not acted to reduce the deficit significantly. The budget before us continues the fiscal discipline of the last 7 years. At the same time, it gives us the opportunity to correct some of the excesses of last year's welfare bill. It will help restore fairness for legal immigrants who had benefits taken away from them unfairly. It will provide the opportunity to restore food stamps for people unable to find jobs. This is a good resolution. Let us pass it. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]. (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. [[Page H2967]] Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 84, the balanced budget agreement of 1997. When Babe Ruth retired in 1935, a lot of folks thought no one would ever break his record of 714 home runs. But in 1974, Hank Aaron hit number 715. And a lot of folks thought no one would ever break Lou Gehrig's consecutive game streak of 2,130 games. But in 1995, Cal Ripken broke that record, and he is still going strong. A lot of folks were beginning to think that Congress would never break its record of deficit spending year after year, and for 27 years they were right. But today, we have a chance to break that dismal record. Today, we have a chance to end our 27-year losing streak of deficit spending. This alone is enough reason to merit support for this budget agreement. But this agreement does much more than just break the deficit streak. It helps preserve Medicare and keep it solvent for the next 10 years, it provides tax relief for the American family by providing a $500 child tax credit and educational tax credits, it helps small businesses and farmers by providing relief from the death tax, which causes so many family farms and family businesses to be sold instead of being handed down to the next generation, it provides more incentives for savings by allowing us to expand the individual retirement account, and it will help create jobs by providing much needed capital gains tax relief. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to take advantage of this historical moment, this bipartisan agreement, and break this dismal record of deficit spending that started in 1969. Vote ``yes'' on this historical document. This is a record breaking day for the U.S. Congress. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], the vice chair of the Democratic Caucus. Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, as a supporter of the controversial 1990 Bush budget and a supporter of the budget resolution of the equally controversial budget of 1993, I rise tonight to support this budget resolution, hoping it has the same end. CBO recently announced that, in fact, the deficit for this year would be below $70 billion, the lowest in 16 years, a 77-percent reduction in deficit since President Clinton became President. This is tremendous progress. {time} 1715 This is tremendous progress. But it would not have happened if it was not for the decisions made by those in 1990 and 1993. I support this resolution because I want to see the job finished. I want to see the budget balanced. But we must say tonight again and again, the hard work has just begun. We must draft implementing legislation that keeps the promise of a balanced budget in the years following 2002. We must insist that the Committee on Ways and Means craft a package that provides needed tax relief to American families. This will be no easy task. In particular, the tax package needs to be crafted in a way that makes it possible to provide the promised tax cuts while at the same time actually measuring in the correct way the cost of these tax cuts. It would be tragic indeed if after years of work the tax cuts were drafted in such a manner that the revenue losses drive up the deficit after 2008. I think we should agree in a bipartisan fashion that such an outcome is not in the interest of the Nation. I stand here tonight and the rancor is not the same as it was in 1990, and it certainly is not the same as it was in 1993. I do not miss the rancor, but, Mr. Chairman, I will say I would rather have the rancor and the commitment to reduce the deficit. I certainly hope tonight that in this budget resolution I am going to vote for, that promises are kept, please, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip and a member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this resolution, and I commend everyone on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in putting it together. Today we are faced with another historic decision. We can move forward by passing this resolution or we can stumble backwards by defeating it. This budget resolution accomplishes two very important things: First, it balances the budget; second, it cuts taxes for working families in America. Together these two priorities comprise the cornerstone of the Republican agenda. To characterize this as anything less than a victory for commonsense conservatism, I think, is an exercise in fantasy. I would remind my colleagues that this is not the end of the beginning nor is it the beginning of the end. Instead it is the first step in a very long process to preserve and protect the future fiscal health of this Nation. Like the 12-step program of Alcoholics Anonymous, the first step is the most important step, but each step on the way is equally important. We have a long way to go until we swear off wasteful Washington spending for good. Critics have found much to criticize in this budget. They have picked it apart with complaints as diverse as the people who make up this country. Some have said that spending is too high. Others have said that spending is too low. Some complain that our tax cuts are too generous. Others condemn them as inefficient. In a perfect world, if I were king, this would be a different budget. I am certain that if the minority whip, the gentleman from Michigan, were king, he could construct a budget far different from mine. But this is not a monarchy. Neither the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] nor I are kings. This agreement is the best we can get with the situation that we find ourselves in. It cuts taxes, it saves Medicare, it slows spending, and it balances the budget. In my view this budget resolution is kind of like Tiger Woods and his tee shot. It is not too far to the right nor is it too far to the left and it takes us a lot further than we previously thought we could go before. A cynic, Oscar Wilde once said, is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Cynics who condemn this budget miss its true value. For the first time in modern memory, the President of one party and a Congress controlled by the other party have agreed to balance the budget and to cut taxes in a very specific budget resolution. I call that a victory for the American people. To those Democrats who support this resolution, let me just simply say, welcome to the fight and we greatly appreciate your support. And to those few Republicans who may oppose this budget, let me just say, do not grasp defeat from the jaws of victory. To those Americans who have lost faith in the political process, let me just say, every once in a while the process works. This is one of those times. Vote for this resolution and together let us move on to the next step of balancing the budget and cutting taxes for the American people. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui]. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and certainly the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and certainly the President and his staff for putting together this agreement. I would call it a historic agreement, and it is. If, in fact, it is implemented as it is agreed to, then it will be a very good budget because it will carry out the priorities of both sides. It will have a modest tax cut and at the same time it will provide relief for legal immigrants that was taken away in 1996, it will provide new initiatives for children's health care, and certainly it will provide more resources for education in the form of Pell grants and increases of 25 percent in many of the areas of education. On the other hand, I must point out that I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] for saying that many Democrats will be joining him, but for the last 7 years, in 1990, and 1993, it was the Democrats that basically carried deficit reduction. In 1990, as my colleagues recall when President Bush was President we reduced the deficit by some $600 billion. In 1993, with President Clinton, we reduced it by some $490 billion. That is why we are here today with a $67 billion deficit and on our way to balance. But I will say I am a little concerned, and I want to make one caveat. This is just a piece of paper. It has no force of law. The President does not even have to sign it. The [[Page H2968]] real test will be the 13 appropriations bills and the reconciliation bill and also the reconciliation bills on the tax cut. Bear in mind, 1981, when Ronald Reagan said, ``We're going to balance the budget, we're going to cut taxes and we're going to increase defense.'' He said he was going to balance the budget by 1984. My colleagues know that did not happen. I just heard some of my friends on the other side of the aisle talking about the tax cuts, the capital gains tax cuts, the cuts in the estate tax, the child credit of $500, and also the IRA's. If we add all those up as introduced in the Contract With America, we are talking about 600 billion dollars' worth of tax cuts over the next 10 years. We will find ourselves in the same mess we did in the 1980's unless we are willing to implement this agreement as it was agreed upon by all the parties. I reserve the right, I think with my colleagues, that on the individual appropriations and individual reconciliation, we certainly will be in a position to examine those very closely. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for yielding me this time and congratulate the gentleman on a job very well done. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget resolution as the next step to balancing the Federal budget. Considered in light of the CBO deficit projections just 4 years ago, this accomplishment is nothing short of miraculous. Four years ago, the deficit was actually $290 billion. The projection for 1997 that year was that the deficit would be $319 billion. But for the courageous action of President Clinton and the Members of this House and Senate, the other body, we were able to pass a bill that, in fact, brought the deficit in much, much lower than that. We have now a controllable deficit thanks to the action that we took in 1993. I would like to speak for a moment about the tax and revenue portions of the agreement. The concern has been raised that we must not repeat the mistakes that we made in 1981. I was not a Member of this House in 1981, but I reviewed the action of that year. The tax cuts proposed by President Reagan and approved by the Congress were estimated at that time to reduce Federal revenues by $863 billion over 5 years. Let me say that again. The tax cut of 1981 totaled $863 billion over 5 years. That was with 1981 dollars. The tax cuts provided under the agreement embodied in this resolution are limited to $85 billion over 5 years, which is less than 10 percent of the size of the 1981 tax cuts. It is a far more cautious and responsible tax package than the 1981 legislation. Another key provision of this agreement is the treatment of Medicare. The budget resolution we consider today provides for real Medicare reform that will lower the cost to our seniors and provide quality care for our Nation's seniors. Chief among the improvements is a preventive health care package that will help our seniors with their health care needs. We also solve other real problems in providing health benefits for children. We provide needs for students. This is a good budget agreement that puts together ways of imp