Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman well knows, we have discussed this amendment at length at the subcommittee level, and I believe at the full committee level as well. While I would generally tend to agree with the gentleman, that certainly if this is an early version of many transfers that will occur as part of the budget-balancing process that we will go through during the months and years ahead, certainly it would be good to start this in a way that is the most fiscally prudent. That is exactly the reason that I oppose the gentleman's amendment. It is noteworthy, I believe, to point out here that it was in 1983 that the Federal Government decided that we [[Page H5639]] no longer had the resources to justify the implementation of a Federal program at this hatchery. In that year, the State of Arkansas decided that since it was a very important program to that region of the country, that the State of Arkansas would supplement what the Federal Government had previously spent, and continue the program on forward. To the extent that this bill changes that situation, it does so for one very good reason. That is that the hatchery is in dire need of upgrading and renovation, and perhaps some additional facilities to be built on the premises which require financial considerations. Those considerations can be forthcoming only when the State of Arkansas has title to the property. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, this bill becomes very necessary. In order to ensure the Federal equity position, however, it is noted in the bill that there is a clause which ensures that if the hatcheries would ever revert to the Federal Government, that they would be in as good or better condition than they are at the time of transfer. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of other reasons that I could go on and explain at some length, but certainly the gentleman will have ample opportunity to help Members on both sides of the aisle find savings as we make our way through this budget process. This, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, is not the place to be penny-wise and dollar foolish, and risk the very existance of this very vital hatchery facility.

Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time, I would point out to all here on the floor and other interested parties that, as a matter of fact, it could well be the case that the State of Arkansas could well not afford to be able to purchase the facility, in which case the entire program would be jeopardized.

Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Arkansas.

Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Arkansas.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this noncontroversial legislation. H.R. 584 was introduced by Mr. Leach. It would convey the Fairport National Fish Hatchery from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the State of Iowa. It is my understanding that this facility was built in the 1930's, and as you can imagine, it is in need of improvement. Due to Federal budget constraints, the State of Iowa agreed to assume operational control of the facility in 1973. The State of Iowa has managed, maintained, and staffed the Fairport Fish Hatchery for the past 22 years, and has made some cosmetic changes. If the State of Iowa had not stepped in when the Federal Government found its management too costly, this hatchery would have closed and its fishery resources would have ceased to exist. Now the State of Iowa would like the authority to modernize the facility, which would be accomplished by this legislation. H.R. 584 will formalize a permanent transfer of title between the Federal and State Government. The State of Iowa has committed over $2 million to the operation of this facility over the past 22 years. Further, it has spent $220,000 on necessary improvements to the hatchery. This is a noncontroversial bill and will accomplish its goal without amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. Mr. Chairman, this proposal was debated at length during our subcommittee and full committee deliberations, and it was also deliberated at some length earlier today on the amendment when the gentleman offered an amendment on the Arkansas bill. While on the surface the amendment may appear to have certain amount of appeal, there are certain facts that are indisputable. I think I will just reference them very quickly. First, Iowa has operated this hatchery with State funds for decades and have done so effectively for more than 23 years--22 years. Furthermore, Iowa has spent millions of dollars to operate the hatchery and to improve the infrastructure surrounding it. Second, this bill contains language requiring the property to revert to the Federal Government in as good or if not better condition at the time that any transfer may be contemplated. Third, this is not the first time the Federal fish hatchery has been transferred to a State at no cost. It has been done several times, as recently as the last Congress. This bill simply transfers an asset from one level of government to another to continue the partnership that is so important relative to this hatchery. Fourth, recent real estate appraisals have not been conducted on this facility, and it would cost the Federal Government thousands of dollars to make such an assessment and would be a waste of the taxpayers' money. Finally, this bill is an important partnership with the State, and we will benefit, and it will benefit, thousands of Americans who enjoy recreational opportunities that abound from it. So, I believe the choice is clear. By supporting the Miller amendment precious funds would be squandered on real estate assessments and appraisals. The hatchery would be in jeopardy of closing if the State of Iowa decided not to purchase it, and these important fish stocking programs would cease to exist, and so I urge a no vote on this amendment and support the committee's position.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I suspect this debate will be somewhat shorter than the last one. I cannot think of anything that can be said that has not already been said, including references to outside organizations and other such debate. But this bill, which is brought to us by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] with reference to the New London National Fish Hatchery in Minnesota, is substantively the same as the previous two bills. It is of the same level of importance as the previous two bills. I would hope that, once again, this bill would proceed to be passed without amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I hate to burn up the time, but I just feel as if I have to just say a word. When the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] made note that these bills were being considered under an open rule, which for people who are not familiar with that gives any Member of the House the opportunity to stand, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] has on two occasions so far, and undoubtedly will again on this bill, to offer an amendment of his or her choice, this has come about because as I experienced during the time that I was here as a Member of the minority for 10 years, we did not enjoy, as Members of the minority, the opportunity to offer amendments very often under an open rule. Some here may remember a few months ago there was a document that became quite the talk of the town called the Contract With America. Part of the Contract With America was a provision or statement or series of statements that promised that we would open the process. This is an example of, where possible, we are trying to open the process. If it were not for this open process, it is true that we would have consumed perhaps an hour total on these three bills, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] would have been precluded his opportunity to make his statement in the form of amendments on these bills. So there has been a great deal said in this session about promises made and promises kept. It is not always comfortable on either side to spend the time or the effort to keep promises. But today is a part of the promises that were made during the 1994 campaign, and once again a promise kept. So I hope the gentleman will appreciate the opportunity that the new majority has provided for the purposes of these types of discussions and these types of amendment procedures, which are a relatively new phenomenon around here. We are quite proud to say we are keeping our promise.

Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SAXTON. I believe you the gentleman meant to say ``commend the majority.''

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this hour of debate is to focus on the economic implications of the budget proposal before us. I believe that this debate today is truly a very historic debate, and to the extent that the Committee on the Budget has worked very diligently, I congratulate them on bringing us to this historic point. For the first time since the 1980's Congress is preparing to confront the tidal wave of red ink drowning our country's future. Listening to the prophets of doom, one comes away with the impression that balancing the budget is an exercise in group sacrifice, when in fact we believe it is just the opposite. Balance the budget is only painful if we accept the premise that every American is dependent upon the Federal Government. We reject that premise. A true understanding of the economic rationale for balancing the budget is that by reducing spending we are freeing the economy from the burdens of the state. We are renewing the time-honored American values of independence, responsibility, and hard work. However, we are faced with a dilemma. Do we once again attempt to balance the budget by hobbling the economy with higher taxes, or do we balance the budget in a manner consistent with economic prosperity? That is the big question, and I submit to my colleagues today that the American people told us last November to balance the budget in a way that makes the economy grow, and they told us to reduce taxes at the same time. The American people understand that these two goals are consistent, and so it is essential for us to do both. Why is it important to balance the budget with lower taxes? Because balanced budgets alone have limited power to unleash the competitive power of America's workers, which is the basis of our economic prosperity, not big Government. The President and his administration have crowed about how wonderful this recovery has been. Let us take a minute to focus on the history of economic recoveries. Economic recoveries do what their name implies: They restore the economic performance of a poor economy to the economic performance of a good economy. Traditionally, during economic recoveries, productivity, incomes, and job growth are higher than the norm. On the other hand, the current economic recovery has continued for several quarters. However, it has not created the prosperity of other economic recoveries. Far from it. In the first 3 years of the expansion of this recovery, real gross domestic product grew by less than half, less than half of the growth of GDPs in other recoveries. The Clinton recovery has been a failure in restoring productivity and in restoring incomes. Productivity grew by an average rate of about 3.1 percent in the two decades immediately following World War II. However, during the 1970's, productivity decreased alarmingly. Growth was again restored during the Reagan expansion. However, since President Reagan, productivity has declined to the level of the 1970's, which is totally unacceptable. In the current recovery, productivity gains in the service sector, have, in fact, been negative. Incomes have also been flat in the current economic recovery. Real median income increases dropped in 1991, 1992, and 1993, unique, unique for a sustained expansion. The only other time in American history post-World War II when GDP grew and family incomes fell was in 1979 during the Carter administration. The Clinton recovery also is not providing Americans with quality jobs. If real median family incomes are falling, this means that new jobs created by this recovery offer wages below the average. What has the Clinton administration done to counter this trend? They have piled additional burdens on American families with higher taxes and more regulations. The major reason for stagnating incomes is that failure of the economy to provide adequate capital for a robust economy and robust economic growth. Net fixed investment ran about 5 percent of GDP in the 1980's, but has fallen to under 4 percent, 3.8 percent, to be more exact, today. Economists have debated the reasons for the slowdown of investment, but they are almost unanimous in believing that it is the high taxes on capital income that is primarily responsible for lowering investment and subsequently lowering incomes. When confronted with the positive steps made by the House with the Contract With America and now with this budget proposal, many of our friends across the aisle and down Pennsylvania Avenue have resorted to the timeworn class warfare arguments. The Secretary of Labor is a great example. Secretary Reich has labeled the problem of stagnating incomes the problems of the ``anxious class.'' Unfortunately, the administration has not learned the lessons of the anxious class. The anxious class spoke in November 1994. They said they are afraid of a Government that takes a large portion of their income in taxes, a Government that spends money imprudently, a Government that regulates in capricious and cavalier manner, and they rejected it categorically. The Clinton administration, in its economic report of the President, states that the economy cannot grow faster than 2.5 percent. Imagine, our administration, the current administration, stating to us that the economy cannot grow faster than 2.5 percent. They look at the experience of the 1970's and the early 1990's to buttress their claims that a faster growing economy will generate inflation. Real economic growth has stagnated in recent years. However, the postwar annual average of growth was 3.9 percent, almost 4 percent. The difference between the postwar real GDP rate of growth and the current real GDP rate of growth has been labeled by economists as the growth deficit. I might point to this chart at this point and say that had growth continued as it should have, if taxes had been kept low and if regulations had been kept at a reasonable level, the red line indicates what GDP growth would be today, and, of course, the blue line represents what it actually is. Real economic growth has stagnated, and as we go through the postwar times and the 3.9 percent increase, if the economy had grown at the present postwar growth rate, the real GDP would be, and the difference here, of course, the deficit is $1.6 trillion. Per capita GDP would be approximately $6,600 larger. A family of four, therefore, would have an annual income of and an additional $26,000. Pretty neat, it would have been. Why can we not achieve the level of growth of the postwar years? Because the Government is taking too many resources away from the private sector to satisfy its ever-expanding appetite for more Government and the need for more tax dollars to support it. This is why balancing the budget is so important. It provides for the kind of economic growth that we need, and we must contain Government spending to get it. Government spending is clearly a negative for economic growth. Economists now understand that, as the Government grows too large, it destroys the necessary incentives for a healthy economy. From Moscow, Russia, to Moscow, ID, and from Paris, France, to Paris, TX, people understand that the size of Government today is the Government which is the biggest impediment to economic prosperity. The party of the status quo on the other side of the aisle who are content to take shots at our budget without producing a real one of their own are resisting the people's desire for smaller Government and a stronger economy. They are even resorting to the highly unusual arguments like that of Laura Tyson, President Clinton's head economic adviser, who has said any effort to reduce Government spending means a dollar in reduction in demand in the economy, so it increases the contractionary risk on the economy. That statement is incredible, and it is so incredible that she must have meant, I think, something else. Clearly, all economists understand that the Government does not create wealth out of thin air. Rather they tax citizens for the resources using Government programs. If the Government does not more productive purposes. If the Government, on the other hand, takes our dollars, it will take them away from citizens and their desire to do more productive things with them. Rest assured that citizens will use their dollars much more prudently than Government bureaucrats will use their tax dollars for them. Controlling Government spending, then, will be an ambitious gain for the economy. Private entrepreneurs will have more incentives to take risks, to create jobs and prosperity, but not the Government, and we will all benefit from the fruits of the labor of the private sector. Historically, we can see the effects on lower Government spending. As the Government got larger, the economy's real rate of growth slowed. The process we are initiating today is a historic process to restore America to a high-wage, high-growth economy. We are truly at a crossroads. What about those who say the Government has certain functions that private markets cannot undertake? Well, first, we have been deluded too often to accept the arguments that the Government must do this or that task. Private markets are much more efficient than Government processes. And, second, these people are thinking only in the short run. If we take the long-run perspective, we can see that by maximizing economic growth, we will maximize Government revenues, and actually we have a chart here that shows what happens when taxes are kept down. We actually get more revenue and more Government revenue from growth than under the current flawed system. What about those who say that Government has functions to undertake? Well, we agree that it does. But to balance the budget, we will have other benefits as the economy responds to our efforts. Increased economic growth will make it easier for us to reform the tax system, and we are hearing more and more from citizens who are angry with the current tax system. They find it capricious and difficult to understand. Economic growth will allow a more reasoned approach to taxation. The economy loses many of its best and brightest careers that simply interpret the Tax Code. All the efforts of accountants and lawyers to understand the tax system are lost to the economy. They do not bring more revenue to the Treasury. They do not generate goods and services to make Americans wealthier or richer or better off. Rather, correctly understood, the time and expense to prepare tax forms is another form of taxation that reduces economic wealth. Reducing the burdens of the tax system will make Americans wealthier because it will free up these revenues as well. The new ethic must take hold with regard to taxation. A long time, too long, we have focused on the debate, with the debate, on the impact of taxation on the distribution at static losses, a term we hear inside the beltway a great deal. We have ignored the dynamic harm done to every American worker by excessively taxing capital. Taxation reform must recognize that the prime determinant of wage growth is capital investment. We cannot help Americans to economic prosperity without reforming the tax system. Also, we cannot allow this opportunity to pass, and the key to future tax reform is reducing the size of Government today. That is what our budget does. The American voter wants a healthy economy. The American voter wants lower taxes. The American voter wants a smaller Government. We must restrain spending to reduce the deficit. We are not reducing spending because we are masochists. Rather, we are reducing spending to enlarge opportunities for all Americans to produce economic growth. Reducing Government, reducing Government spending is the most positive thing we can do for the American people, for older Americans, for future generations, and for today's children. It is a win-win strategy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. We really do not propose to do the things that the gentleman has suggested.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pontiac, IL [Mr. Ewing], a member of the Committee on the Budget. (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Klobe], a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the final 2 minutes of our time to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], the doctor, who would like to discuss the subject that the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] brought up, Medicare and the Republican proposal to make it grow. (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. First of all, Mr. Chairman, it was the gentleman's assumption, or maybe he heard me say we would privatize everything. I do not recall saying that. I do not think I did. Obviously, I would not privatize national defense, nor does our budget pretend to do so. We do not privatize Medicare or Medicaid. As a matter of fact, it continues to grow under our program, as a very important part of our budget and our program. In fact, it grows from an average benefit of $4,600 per recipient to $6,300 per recipient.

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Egan, IL, population 42 [Mr. Manzullo].

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.