Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. I think the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] in a moment will speak to perhaps a different percentage, but I thought it would be interesting to discuss a little bit how we got to the 10- percent figure because we did start looking at higher numbers. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] has worked in local government and was very helpful in terms of working all this out. What we were trying to do basically was to get a threshold number that would make the local communities realize that they are buying into something. We have all seen the complete open-ended block grants for everybody----

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CASTLE. The answer is it is a cash match. It is not an in-kind match in any way whatsoever.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I also, by the way, congratulate the Committee on Rules and all those who discussed this, because I think this is an important piece of legislation, a little more complex than some people realize, and I think the amendment process will allow that discussion to take place. I think we are going to have a good time with that and perhaps learn a lot about it. I also think that the statutory line-item veto is a good step. I believe in the double-step process. I believe that a President should understand if he or she vetoes something, it is going to come back over here and if indeed it is overridden by a majority, a veto would have to happen again, and it would be a two-thirds vote at that point. I think that is going to make people sit up and take notice. The history of the line-item veto in the United States of America is long and is very important. It was first proposed by President Grant in 1873 and by more than a dozen Presidents since. Ronald Reagan said as Governor, ``I found this item veto is a powerful tool against wasteful or extravagant spending.'' It was introduced in this body in 1876 and there have been 200 resolutions since that particular period of time. It has a significant history. I did exercise the line-item veto as Governor of the State of Delaware. President Clinton did it as Governor of the State of Arkansas. We know that 43 Governors have this. I do not know of a single State that is trying to rescind it. I do not know of a single legislature or Governor who is really fighting it. What it really means, in truth, is that you sit down and work out your budget together and you bring the executive branch into the process. After all, the executive, or the President in this case, presents a budget, the President lives by the budget, and the President is the one that has to carry it out with their various agencies. I think the President should be involved in setting that budget process and also, if there are the pork-barrel projects that we hear about, I believe the President of the United States should be one named as an involved party and having been a party to that. That is what happens in this particular instance. This will in my judgment address unnecessary expenditures. But it will not balance our budget. It is not going to do that. I do not think we should overemphasize that. I finally do not think that this is an extreme shift of activity as we have heard from time to time. It is really not much of a power tilt. In fact, I think the President may underutilize it rather than overutilize it. I would encourage all of us to support the line-item veto legislation.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take probably less than 5 minutes to bring forth a couple of points that have been made here. One is, I do not think there is anybody in this Chamber who is any less protective than anybody else of the 435 of us of the three separate branches of government. I think it is something we have all learned and we all recognize. I have never heard anyone in this Chamber at any time before I got here or since I have been here who has in any way attacked that particular premise, and my judgment is that this legislation, the line-item veto legislation, does not really attack that particular premise. I believe that the three branches of government continue to be protected. If we were really concerned about the involvement of the President with respect to the Federal judiciary, I would think we would have legislation before us to take away the right of the President to appoint the members of the Federal judiciary, who I might add are paid very well, they are paid for life, and they have lifetime appointments. So I do not think they feel very threatened by what this Congress may do in this particular legislation. Obviously, as has been explained here, I think the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] explained it, the money we are dealing with here is really funding of some of the clerical and other functions of the judiciary. It is clearly an issue of concern to them, but I do not think in any way could this Congress or the President of the United States either overturn or influence the judiciary with changes in that particular area. But I have looked back, and it has been said on this floor before and it should be repeated, that as far as I know, none of the line-item vetoes in any of our 43 States pertains to an exception for the judiciary. It just does not exist. I do not know of any exceptions for any parts of those governments. Generally when a line-item veto has been granted, when it has been sought in the history of this Congress, it has been sought for the entire spending programs that may be in a budget, and nobody has been exempted before, no part of the budget has been exempted before. I should also point out that under this particular legislative line- item veto, that Congress can override a presidential veto. Yes, you have to go through a majority vote and a two-thirds vote, but indeed it can happen. I would suggest by that that if a President would do what some Members have insinuated that a President might do or possibly could do, they would do this at high political risk. There is not a single Member who is opposed to that who would not rise to it and say that the President had no right to line-item veto that particular item. We feel that was wrong and we feel that President should pay for it. I think politically they would pay for it. I would also point out that in the framework of the work that is done by the Budget Committees and within this Congress and by the President, we have always set the budget of the judiciary. It is something that has always been up to the other two branches of Government. It is not set by the judiciary. I think we need to remember that as we continue to debate this argument. Also, if we start here with the judiciary, and admittedly we are talking about a branch of Government so it seems to have a greater ring of importance to it, but the bottom line is, if we start there, are we going to start to exempt other areas of importance. How about a President who does not like defense? Are we going to start to deal with that, or EPA or something of that nature? I think for all of these reasons that the argument is actually, while it is important and the earnestness of those who are making it is absolutely sincere and real, and I believe that, my view is that this particular argument, while it is not de minimis, is of much less importance in terms of the ability to influence the judiciary than has been made here today. For all these reasons, I oppose this particular amendment. And I assert that the line-item veto should continue as it is, unfettered by any exemptions to it so the President and the Congress can work together to have better budgetary processes in this country.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to the argument of the gentlewoman from Texas. She makes, I think, some valid points. But the bottom line is that of all the unfunded mandates that probably are a source of a problem for the governors of the various States and some local officials, Medicaid probably tops the list. As the gentlewoman has stated so clearly, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with this program as it comes from Washington. There is huge inflexibility in the Medicaid program as you deal with the indigent, long-term care. There are a lot of problems that need to be addressed, that we are asked to address more than possibly could be. This is a shared program with the States depending on the wealth of the States. It is a budget breaker. There is tremendous inflation built into Medicaid to begin with, probably more than any other Federal program that exists out there. In addition to that, you add the new coverage to it and you mandate it back to the States, and governors trying to put together their budgets have one after another gone broke dealing with this particular issue. The medical needs in particular children because they are not doing a very good job. Other States have particular procedures they are concerned about. The States may be adjusting some of these procedures by a charity or some other way, and yet the Federal Government comes along and mandates that this is ``what you must do.'' It adds to the cost unnecessarily. It is very much like the Safe Drinking Water Act and others which are getting to the point beyond the reasonable in the requests that we are making back to the States. I think it also important to assert the arguments made all along here on the other amendments which we have heard. We are not going back and undoing anything at this point. In time of real need we could waive a point of order and enact measures if indeed other Medicaid procedures are found which are not yet discovered. But this is another unfunded mandate, this is a number one unfunded mandate out there, and this is probably the one that has triggered this bill as much as anything else. While we need to continue to work together as the gentlewoman from Texas has stated, the States and the Federal Government to provide medical care, unfunded mandates are not the answer. I would urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I particularly thank the truly distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the balanced budget amendment. I am a name cosponsor with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] on theirs, but I also support the Barton three-fifths tax limitation as well. But it is the concept of what we are doing. Let me just say I would like to congratulate this entire House of Representatives on considering the most significant chance to end doing business as usual down here that we have probably ever considered, and doing it early on in January. I think it makes a huge difference. I thought the way I could spend what is left of my 3 minutes is to just tell you a story about what has brought me to be so supportive of the balanced budget amendment, my own personal experiences. I am from the State of Delaware. I was in the legislature of the State of Delaware. I was there in the 1970's. During that period of time, we had some difficult problems. We never balanced our budget. We borrowed money in virtually any way you could possibly borrow money, short-term, long-term, whatever it may be. We had the highest personal income taxes in the entire United States of America, 19.8 percent State taxes, this is. Businesses were leaving Delaware as fast as they could make up their minds to be able to get out. Then we came along, and some individuals, and I was not involved in this, adopted a balanced budget amendment. We have the three-fifths tax limitation. We adopted the line-item veto. We have rainy-day. We have other cushions. We have everything you could possibly imagine. Since that time, since we woke up in the end of the 1970's, we have balanced our budget 18 straight times in the State of Delaware. We have reduced our taxes five times in the State of Delaware. We have created more jobs than practically any other State on a percentage basis; I know, we are a small State. We did reduce poverty more than any other State during the 1980's. We became a financial success story. It is not easy. It was very tough to do this. In addition to all those constitutional amendments and changes, we had to struggle with small pay increases, in fact, no pay increase one year for State employees. We eliminated waste. We had an early retirement option. It was a very difficult matter to carry out. We expended Medicaid perhaps a little more slowly than some other States did. We did create economic opportunities, because we saw the other opportunities, because we saw the other side, if we could bring in revenues, and we have different banking laws in the State of Delaware which have helped us attract jobs to our State, and we have made fiscal adjustments each and every year to keep our budget in balance. We are absolutely convinced that this is the way to go, and I am convinced this is what we should do in Washington, DC. What if we do not pass the balanced budget amendment? What if we just go judgment, the easier choice will be made virtually every time, that is, to extend, to expand, and to add programs. The debt will bury our future generations, and the inefficiencies, because of political malaise, to make the tough decisions will simply carry on. For all of these reasons, I believe that each and every one of us should tomorrow realize that this is not just a procedural vote. It will lead to many, many years of very difficult votes, both of which are going to benefit the people of the United States of America. I hope we will all support the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will speak briefly, and then I will yield to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], hopefully to close out this argument. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor]. His amendment is a good one, one which should not be accepted, but I congratulate him for initiating one of the greatest arguments on federalism I have heard on the floor in the time I have been here or seen anyplace. Mr. Chairman, there is a basic fairness doctrine and issue that I think we have to address as we look at this particular amendment, and as we look at a succession of amendments which are going to deal with the environment, which are going to deal with health care, which are going to deal with a variety of issues which people are going to try to exempt from an unfunded mandate statute and say this should not have gone through it because of the importance of the subject, because it is interstate, or whatever it may be. The bottom line is that this Congress for many, many years, particularly in the last 25 or 30 years, has used the methodology of unfunded mandates to hand back to the State governments in particular, sometimes other governments, certain responsibilities without sharing the burden of paying for them or only sharing it in part. The local governments have said, A, we cannot afford it, and B, in some instances it does not apply where we are. State governments are responsible, too. They have handed it back to the counties and municipalities as well, and they also have to deal with this particular issue. The bottom line is this has been going on for far too long. We could argue the exception of any one of these issues if we wished, but we really need to start addressing it in this particular piece of legislation, which essentially is information and accounting which will put before us and the public, and particularly the Governors and the county executives and mayors and those who are concerned about it, what the costs are and what the issues are. Then we can decide do we move forward in that direction or do we come back and say perhaps we cannot afford to fund this, and it is an unfunded mandate, and we should not go forward, and the public would be better served if we did not. It makes it a fair argument. It is basically fairness and soundness in government. That is what it is all about. Unfortunately, an amendment like this, which is extremely well intended, which has some good functions, cannot fall any differently than any other aspects of this. Everything should fall into the same category of being examined. Therefore, no matter how beneficial the arguments are, no matter how strong and compelling the so-called logic may be, we really need to address unfunded mandates in the Congress of the United States. It is my hope that this amendment would be defeated, and any subsequent amendments would as well. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I congratulate everybody who had anything to do with this legislation, but particularly those who worked sort of in the dark a year ago when nobody was supporting it. You have done a wonderful job. If we can pass the balanced-budget amendment next week, if we can pass the unfunded mandate bill next week, this body will have started the reduction of spending and control unequaled since the beginning of this country. I know, as a Governor of a State, when I put together our budget in Delaware, for a number of years 20 percent of it went into unfunded Federal mandates, some $300 million out of a budget of $1.4 billion. Mayors, county executives and Governors are elected for a reason. They should put programs into place that will benefit their States, their counties and their towns, and they should not be told from here in Washington exactly what they should do and how it should be done. They should be given the choice of how to move forward. We have seen restrictions with Medicaid costs, we have seen it with welfare requirements, Clean Water Act. We need to get the complete picture. I believe if we can pass this legislation, we will have gotten there.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple matter dealing with baseline budgeting versus the truth in budgeting which we are trying to get done here. I think the American public needs to understand with what we are dealing. In our baseline budgeting now we add inflation, we add demographic increases, we add differences in programs that may come along. But the bottom line is we do not look at the same dollars we had the year before. It is tough to balance a budget in Washington, DC. We have authorizations, we have appropriations, we have authorizations, we have appropriations, we have the debt which we have to pay. We borrow from the Social Security trust fund. We have something called tax expenditures, which is really a way of saying that we are reducing the amount of money we are going to collect. And the time has come to get this to the point where we understand it. If we go to truth in budgeting, we are going to be like every household in the United States of America, we are going to be like every business in the United States of America, we are going to be like virtually every other governmental budget in the United States of America. We are going to take the numbers from the year before and we going to build our budget to that. If we have to add to it, so be it, we will add to it. But we will not be misleading the American people. We will know that any reduction below the baseline or current severance level is a real cut or increase, and that is what we have to do. Mr. Speaker, I hope we will all support this as the beginning of better budget practices in the United States of America.