Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Pete Geren]. (Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure once again to take the floor of this House at this time of year to say just a few words about the pages. This is their final day, and it is customary for us to say a word or two about the service that they have provided for us. I will have an opportunity to say a few words to them this evening, because I am especially privileged and honored to have been chosen by them to be their speaker at their graduation or end-of-year exercises this evening, and I promised them that I would not speak for more than an hour and a half this evening, so perhaps if I say a few of the words here this morning, we can cut it a little short this evening. I know that the pages have very mixed feelings about their departure. On the good side, they do not have to get up at 5:30 in the morning in order to get to school. They do not have to listen to more of these boring speeches on the floor of the House of Representatives. They do not have more flags they have to deliver to the offices. But I know they also are going to be missing this wonderful learning environment that they have been in and, of course, leaving behind so many friends that they have made. But I can tell you, and I speak, as the pages know, with some experience, having served here as a page many years ago, all too many years ago. We will not name how many years ago it was, having served here as a page all those years ago. I know that the friendships that you have made here will endure, will endure if you work at it, and I know the memories that you have of this will certainly continue. But, of course, it is the lessons that you learn from all of this that are important. You have had an opportunity to see firsthand how government works. You have had an opportunity to see the good and the bad of this place, the good and the bad that are in people, whether it is in government, in the House of Representatives, or any place in our people's body, and it reflects in many ways the good and sometimes the bad that we see in our own society. So I want to say thank you this morning to each and every one of you for what you have done to make our daily lives a little better. I would be remiss if I did not particularly mention the two pages, and I am privileged to have two here this year, that have worked so hard and have been my pages, Francie Julien from Amphitheater High School in Tucson, and Nancy Grimm from University High School, and since they are mine, I mention them, but in mentioning them I am really mentioning each and every one of you for the wonderful jobs and the service that you have given us. You really do do us a great service. You know, it takes a huge operation to make this place run, to keep it going. There are people that are all over this House of Representatives and this Congress of the United States, from the very rooftop of this building to the bowels of the building, that, in an unsung way, keep the place going every day, and you are part of that, you are a very visible part of it. You are visible to the public as you make your way around this building delivering the messages and the packages and doing the errands that you do. You are very visible to us here on the floor of the House of Representatives. You play a huge role in making our lives easier and making it work for us. And that is why you are so important to us in that sense. But you are important to us in a much more important way, I think, that sometimes escapes the notice of you, and perhaps even of us. You are here as a daily reminder to us of what this work that we do is all about, because you represent the next generation of America, and I think that we need to be reminded daily that the votes that we cast, the votes that we cast to make sure that this is a sound government, a sound society for the future, the votes that we cast are done not for ourselves but for our children, for the next generation, and you are the next generation. That is, after all, what this is all about, maintaining the future of our country. So I wish you well in your endeavors in school next year and in the endeavors that go beyond that. Some of you, I suspect, well, I do not expect it, I guarantee it, there will be one or more of you among you that will be back here someday in the Congress of the United States serving in this body just as I have done, working as a staff person here on the Hill. So I do not have to say do not forget us. You will not forget us. But you have to do the work of keeping up the friendships and of maintaining the contacts and relearning the lessons that you have learned from here, of maintaining the involvement and your concern in government. You have a responsibility to take the lessons that you have learned here and will continue to learn throughout life and pass those lessons along to the next generation, for you, too, will be parents someday. You will have your own families, and that is the important, most important thing we do, not what we do here, not what we do in our workplace, but what we do in terms of passing the values of our society on to the next generation. You have made a very good start of it, and I wish you all very well, and I am looking forward very much for the chance to talk to you again this evening. Good luck, Godspeed, come back and see us.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, regular order. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct. The effect by excluding the revenue effects of the Contract With America is to deny the tax relief that we give in this legislation. What we have heard this morning from several of the speakers on the other side is the usual class warfare; the idea of it is going to be the rich that benefit, and it is the poor and the middle class that get cut. It is not an argument with validity, but we have heard it over and over again. And the idea of trying to create this kind of class division in our society is a tired, old argument that I do not think sells anymore. There are two points I want to make with regard to this, about why we have tax relief in this budget and why I think it is so critical. The first is one that I am asked very frequently when I am home, and I think my colleagues get as well, and it is a legitimate question from our constituents: Why, if the deficit is so important, why are you giving tax relief now? Why do you not just focus on getting the deficit down? I think I have an answer to that. I think the answer is in the action that [[Page H5705]] the Senate took on their budget resolution, because the Senate budget resolution gets to a balanced budget in the same time that we do, no sooner, in 7 years. But it does not give any kind of tax relief. If there are going to be painful cuts in all of this, why should not the people get something back from it? It does not get us any faster to a balanced budget to give no tax relief, so why do we not give some tax relief? The second is the point that my colleague the distinguished chairman of the committee made earlier, that people deserve to have some of this back. This was brought home to me in a very poignant way by a letter I received this week from a friend of mine. He was a Navy buddy. We correspond at Christmas card time, but this is the first letter I have had from him I think in 20 or 25 years. He lives in New Jersey. He is writing to me, I think out of frustration as much as anything else, telling me why in this last election for the first time he became a Republican. He says: My concern is the same as others I know. We obey laws, pay taxes--I had to borrow $8,000 to pay an increase in my 1993 income tax as my employer graduate tuition reimbursement payments were taxed as regular income--practice good citizenship and still recognize our future is increasingly less certain despite how hard we try to prepare. My mortgage with interest payments, property tax and tuition for Karen's education exceed my after tax income. I now have my own deficit to deal with. Barbara's income has to cover my rent and living expenses so I may work in Massachusetts. Automobile, property, and personal casualty insurance exceeds $5,000 annually. And my home has lost 25 percent valuation since 1988. I have difficulty believing that the inadequate and at times inappropriate work by government in regulations, crime and the legal systems has not contributed significantly to those costs. I absolutely resent the incompetence and mishandling of public funds by Government. I dislike the arrogance of some public officials and those politicians who act out their fantasies or beliefs with seemingly total disregard to the consequences we have to live with as they proceed to intrude in our lives and create unreasonable and unfair barriers to opportunity. For too long government has been disconnected from the day-to-day reality that average Americans share and experience. Mr. Speaker, this letter came to me unsolicited. I cannot think of any words more eloquent than these, anything that has been spoken on the floor of this House during this entire debate, that says it more eloquently as to why we are doing what we are doing, why we are trying to give back to the American taxpayers, to the overburdened, oppressed American taxpayers, some of what they have given. It is time that Americans took back some of what Government takes from them. That is what this budget resolution is about. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from New York for their contribution to this debate. This has been a historic debate. I also want to respond to the last speaker on the other side who talked about again, we have heard it over and over again, the cuts in Medicare and in Medicaid, and yet under our plan Medicaid spending would increase from $444 billion that we spent over the last 7 years to $668 billion over the next 7 years, and Medicare spending would, on a per beneficiary basis, go up from $4,700 per beneficiary to $6,300. Mr. Chairman, only in Washington, only in Washington, not the State of Washington where the gentleman comes from, but only in Washington, DC, can we call that cuts. Only in Washington would we consider that kind of increase to be cuts. The gentleman also talked about the assumptions, say it simply is not true. You can have a 4.4-percent private health insurance increase, but HCFA, the health care financing agency, says that is exactly what it is; that is their document, not ours. We have a lot in common in this debate on this amendment versus the committee's amendment or the committee's budget. Both of us got to a balanced budget, and both of us call for debt reduction following that. And that, after all, Mr. Chairman, is what this is all about, not just getting to zero deficit, but to get that huge burden of debt off of our backs and off of the generation that will follow us, off of their backs. And both of us call for doing that. Surely this debate is about our future. We say reduce spending, get to a balanced budget, do it by reducing spending, return some of the tax dollars, the hard-earned tax dollars that belong to the American citizens, return it to the people of America, return it to the people of America. We can and we will achieve a balanced budget at the end of 7 years, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker, the gentlewoman from California, spoke about Lucy Foster not being able to travel to my district, to Tucson. I just want to assure her that she is going to be able to make it, because Medicare spending is not going to be slashed. In fact, in California it is going from $21 billion to $31 billion in the year 2002. That is a 46 percent increase per beneficiary, from $5,800, to $7,688 under our plan. That is certainly no cut. Lucy, welcome to Tucson.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to acknowledge that the last speaker who voted ``yes'' on the balanced budget amendment also voted for the Clinton tax bill, which added $431 million in taxes to the citizens of his district. We are trying to reduce those taxes.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about the time on all sides.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker on the other side was talking about the Medicare cuts. But I think it is worth noting, and we have said it before, but it just needs to be repeated, that under our plan the average increase per beneficiary would go up from $4,700 to $6,300. In the State of Washington the total Medicare spending would go from $2.5 billion to $3.7 billion, and the per capita spending would be $3,700 to $4,800, an increase of $1,089. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard]. (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield half of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and that he would be able to yield to other Members from that time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] and request to be recognized as such.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute of my remaining time to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Hobson].

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me begin by saying that I commend the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] and the other members of his group for the effort that they have made, and I do think that they have certainly made something that would have to be considered a substantial improvement over what the President submitted in his budget. This, after all, the proposal before us, does reach a balanced budget, but I think it is seriously flawed. It is seriously flawed in several respects, and let me just highlight for the moment, as we begin this debate, what I would say are some of the errors or the flaws in this proposal. In the first case, it does spend considerably more than the committee's budget proposal does, 102 billion more in spending. That is actual spending. Now again, let us recognize that we get to the same balanced budget but it has more spending in it. It contains total discretionary spending nearly identical with that of the committee budget, but it spends more than $50 billion more on welfare over 5 years than the committee would propose to do. It also cuts defense spending by $55 billion below that that is in the committee level. I think all the Members of this body who have, certainly those that have been around here a few years or who have looked at budgets over the last several years can see the decline that we have had in defense spending. I think most of us recognize that there is a point below which you do not cut spending without significantly damaging the national security of this country. Where that is exactly, I think, is open for debate. But I think most of us, most in this body would agree that the 55 billion additional cut coming on top of the one steady decreasing baseline that we have seen over the last 10 years in the budget, in defense spending, is precipitous, is probably not warranted and certainly is subject to a lot more debate before we could justify that kind of cut. The alternative proposal that we are debating now also contains $8 billion in fees, including an airport slot fee and a Commodity Futures Trading Commission transaction fee. These fees, we would suggest, are really not much more than some kind of tax on certain groups. There are $96 billion more on Medicare than in the committee budget, but it does nothing. It has no plan to really reform the program. Thus, it fails to ensure any kind of long-term solvency for the Medicare program. The proposal that is offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] would spend $49 billion committee proposes in its mark. It provides most importantly, and this is where we get to the bottom line because we do both agree, we have a zero at the end for a balanced budget, most importantly with the discretionary cuts that it has, which are going to be painful. They are going to be difficult. This committee, this proposal has no tax relief for families or for seniors, no incentives for economic growth. In other words, it preserves entirely the $250 billion tax increase that this Congress enacted in 1993 as part of President Clinton's tax increase proposal. I think when we are talking about this kind of cut in discretionary spending, and we acknowledge, we must acknowledge that there are going to be difficulties, there is going to be pain. And you cannot do this easily, that when we do this, that we should acknowledge, we should say to people, there is going to be some reward at the end. There is something for you in this. And the something for you should be for American families to have some kind of tax relief, for senior citizens some kind of tax relief, and for the economy, for the country to have some kind of tax incentives for economic growth. None of that, none of that is going to be found in the alternative budget proposal that we are debating here today. So I would say, Mr. Chairman, that this proposal, while certainly it represents a step forward from what the president submitted to this Congress, is far, falls far short of what we should be doing in terms of balancing the budget, reforming Medicare, and giving tax relief to American taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, earlier the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] was again talking about the office of coordinator of education for homeless children. Let me just read that sentence from the Department of Education's budget: This program provides formula grants to States to operate an Office of Coordinator of Education for Homeless Children and Youth and to develop and carry out a State plan for the education of homeless children. The education comes out of Head Start, out of title I; it does not come out of this. We are talking about cutting out a bureaucracy. The tax cuts, we are going to be talking now about the tax part of this thing, go to take [[Page H5126]] care of senior citizens and children, senior citizens and children, the next generation of Americans and that generation now which deserves our help, the senior citizens.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, just to respond to the comments that were just made. First, Mr. Chairman, we are hearing from one side that we do not have any plan at all. A blank piece of paper was held up. We do not have any plan, we cannot see what the Republicans are talking about on Medicare. Now we hear the specific figures of what the Medicare cuts are going to mean in terms of additional costs. Which way is it? Do we know the specific dollars or do we not? Which way is it? I would point out the gentlewoman from Arkansas has been talking about the alternative budget proposal that they are going to have, but it does not include any of the tax relief for senior citizens; and for the State of Arkansas, our tax cuts would mean $257 million less taxes for senior citizens in the State of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon]. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)