Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply deletes an amount appropriated in the bill and is consistent with the rules of the House.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, this is the new start, taking out the $666 million for 1 year.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment be extended to 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, marked No. 12.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], cosponsor of this amendment. (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, in summary, we have got to start someplace. Three hundred million dollars is not going to cripple the system. The system is going to end up costing $700 million. The Federal Government is not going to pay for it. I would just ask everybody in mass transportation, with the recommendation of the Committee on the Budget, that we phase out subsidies for all mass transportation, that we eliminate funding for high-speed rail. Localities and States better think very carefully before they start digging themselves a hole to obligate their future and their taxpayers' future.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it was part of the budget resolution that this body passed just a few weeks ago. The Heritage Foundation made elimination of this project one of its priorities in its rolling back government analysis. Citizens for a Sound Economy support this amendment. The National Taxpayers Union is scoring this amendment. The problem is if we push through this body funding for high-speed rail and jeopardize the freight systems that are now operating in these areas, then I think we are giving a great disadvantage to our constituents in the long run. These projects will be exceedingly expensive. To upgrade the infrastructure along the Detroit-Chicago corridor, for example, is going to cost over $11 million per mile. That money is not going to come from the Federal Government according to the Department of Transportation. It is going to come from taxpayers, by the citizens, or it is going to come from funding out of their ISTEA money that they are allocated. Conrail, when I talked to them this afternoon, says that if high- speed rail goes in on the track they own, they want to sell that track and they will start transporting their freight from the Detroit area through Toledo to their main east-west corridor. Freight traffic in these corridors will be disrupted. To quote the GAO report mentioned earlier, ``Freight railroads believe that these improvements will generally provide few benefits for their freight operations, and freight companies do not want the liability for the collisions, even if it is only 120 or 125 miles an hour compared to their average 62 miles an hour.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this amendment implements the original recommendation of the Coast Guard, the President's budget, and was also incorporated in the House budget resolution to phase out employees working in the Coast Guard personnel offices. There apparently was a misunderstanding on whether or not these offices would be closed. According to the Coast Guard, whom I talked to this morning, possibly one might be closed, but the rest of the stations would be left open. This amendment strikes $393,000 out of the Coast Guard's operating and maintenance expenses used to fund unneeded employees in five civilian personnel offices. The proposal is consistent with the administration, with the Coast Guard, with the budget resolution. Again this, proposal strikes funding for five employees that the Coast Guard recommends be phased out and personnel matters. The amendment restores the Coast Guard's proposal. Mr. Chairman, as we rein in big government, it is very important to get the most for taxpayers' dollars. This amendment does cut Coast Guard overhead and allows the savings to be used for ships, equipment, and other more vital functions. The amendment, according to OMB, will save $1.244 million over the 2- year consolidation period. This amendment makes fiscal sense. It has bipartisan support. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will consider supporting it.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as I have a pecuniary interest in the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], I am abstaining from rollcall vote No. 545.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, as one of the few dairy farmers that still is milking cows on my farm, I would like to put out a statement in the Record in opposition to this amendment. The hormone bST occurs naturally in all milk. The FDA determined that bST will neither adversely affect the health of cows, nor the individuals who consume the milk produced from the these cows. This determination was based on over 2,000 studies. Extensive testing has been going on for the past 10 years. Supplemental hormones, for example, estrogens treating women during menopause, have been used in humans for the past 20 years. The issue now is whether the Government discourage biotechnologies which have been proven safe. I believe that producers, not Government bureaucracies, ought to make decisions involving the economics of their respective operations.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I was chairman of the working group in the Committee on the Budget dealing with HUD and with the old Farmer's Home Administration. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, and to this body, that it should not be the goal of the U.S. Government to be in the banking business. We should be moving to guaranteed loans, which is much more effective, much less costly for taxpayers. That is what this committee did. They moved and expanded the guaranteed loan program from $1 billion to $1.7 billion to serve many more clients than direct loan programs can. We should not be in the direct loan program.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that calls for a $12 million reduction out of the Washington bureaucracy but puts some of that money namely, $5.5 million, back to State and county offices. The substitute version that came out of the Committee on Rules cuts an additional $17.5 million out of State and county operations. I think that is more. If you want to talk about phone calls, where you get the phone calls is when they go into the county offices and they cannot get service. I worked in USDA in Washington for 4 years as deputy administrator of programs; a tremendous number of hardworking, good civil servants in that department. However, today we have 10,700 employees here in Washington, DC. They should be out in the country. I support the gentleman's amendment. I think it is reasonable. Out of that 10,000, out of every 100 employees we can reduce by 4 employees what is here in Washington, DC.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the issue of corporate welfare. As we eliminate the fat from the federal budget, we should recommit ourselves to making sure all projects and programs are closely examined--not just the politically easy ones. The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) subsidizes loans and loan guarantees to American exporters. These corporate welfare subsidies have been appropriated $787 million for 1996. The experts agree; Eximbank should be abolished. The Congressional Budget Office makes the following observation: Eximbank has lost $8 billion on its operations, practically all in the last 15 years; Little evidence exists that the bank's credit assistance creates jobs; Providing subsidies to promote exports is contrary to the free-market policies the United States advocates. The Congressional Research Service writes that: Most economists doubt that a nation can improve its welfare over the long run by subsidizing exports; At the national level, subsidized export financing merely shifts production among sectors within the economy, rather than adding to the overall level of economic activity; Export financing subsidizes foreign consumption at the expense of the domestic economy; Subsidizing financing will not raise permanently the level of employment in the economy. . . . The Heritage Foundation recommends Congress ``close down the Export- Import Bank.'' Heritage further states: Subsidized exports promote the business interests of certain American businesses at the expense of other Americans; Little evidence exists to demonstrate that subsidized export promotion creates jobs--at least net of the jobs lost due to taxpayer financing and the diversion of U.S. resources into government-favored export activities at the expense of non-subsidized businesses. According to Heritage, phasing out subsidies will save 2.3 billion over 5 years. The Director of Regulatory studies at the Cato Institute calls the subsidy activity of Eximbank ``corporate pork.'' He stated, ``Even in the face of unfair international competition, the U.S. government doesn't have a right to use tax dollars to match equally stupid subsidies.'' Eximbank's financial statements show that the bank has paid $3.8 billion in claims from 1980 to 1994. These dollars paid off commercial banks who couldn't collect from foreign borrowers. American taxpayers took the hit. Export financed by Eximbank actually hurt competitive U.S. exporters not selected for subsidies. The bank chooses winners and losers in the economy. The only winners are selected foreign consumers and selected U.S. corporations. The Eximbank is a prime example of corporate welfare. The majority of Eximbank subsidies go to Fortune 500 companies that could easily afford financing from commercial banks: Boeing--over $2 billion worth of loan guarantees McDonnell Douglas--$647 million Westinghouse Electric--$491 million General Electric--$381 million At&T--$371 million To raise funds for its lending and guarantee programs, Eximbank puts additional pressure on Treasury borrowing, driving up interest rates for private borrowers. That's all of us. From a corner barbershop wanting to expand to a young family trying to finance their first home. We all pay the price. Sadly, there's more. Eximbank appears to have wasted money on frivolous items as well. After 50 years with the same agency logo, Eximbank decided it needed a new one. Designing a new logo--including creation, copyright search, and the redesign of bank brochures and literature--cost nearly $100,000 last year. And in 1993, Eximbank spent $30,000 to train 20 employees how to speak in public--including chairman Kenneth Brody. An outside consultant was paid $3,000 a day for this task. Mr. Chairman, I believe government shouldn't choose winners in the economy. With Eximbank, the big winners are foreign consumers, large corporations and professional speech coaches. The losers are American taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, it's time to derail this gravy train.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is about time. This budget resolution reduces the annual deficit over 7 years and reaches a balanced budget in 2002, without attempting a tax increase. Indeed, it contemplates a cumulative tax reduction of approximately $245 billion over the 7 years of the budget as a partial offset to the huge tax increase of 2 years ago. This is a very positive step and signifies a turning of the ship of state from what Hayek called the Road to Serfdom in his classic 1945 work of government overspending. But, in another sense, it showcases the growth of our Federal Government over the last 25 years. This budget calls for total outlays of $1.587 trillion in 1996, and is seen as a bare bones budget. To put this in perspective, total Federal outlays did not reach $100 billion until 1962. It then only took a little more than a quarter of a century to reach $1 trillion. Seventeen years later, we have a situation where net interest on the national debt exceeds the entire Federal budget of 1974. The passage of this budget resolution is a signal that the new Congress has recognized the effects of our huge Federal debt, yet, by the time the debt stops growing in 2002, the debt will have grown to $6.7 trillion. While this budget accomplishes a great deal, there is a great deal more to be done. As we more forward we should keep in mind the words of Dr. Dick Armey, in his book he wrote in the 20th century ``The Freedom Revolution'': ``The people themselves, not their government, should be trusted with spending their own money and making their own decisions.''

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the National Hockey League playoffs concluded last Saturday with the victory of the New Jersey Devils. I am here today as a result of a friendly bet with my colleague from New Jersey, Bob Franks. Unfortunately, my favorite team, the Detroit Red Wings, lost to the Devils after a brilliant run in the playoffs, defeating Dallas and San Jose and Chicago. In the finals, New Jersey and Detroit battled through four grueling games, but the Devils prevailed. Due to the excellent play of Devils skaters such as Claude Lemieux, Scott Stevens, goalie Martin Brodeur, and the other excellent skaters, they secured Lord Stanley's Cup. I wish to commend both teams in advancing in the playoffs and further to the NHL finals. In closing, consistent with our bet, I show my tail, I show my horns, and I show my fork, and I would like to present this to Bob Franks, the Stanley Cup winners, the New Jersey Devils.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, we will soon consider a farm bill that warrants an examination of the history of agriculture and a study of the lessons learned. There is linkage [[Page H 6259]] between the modern American farmer and ancient Sumerian who worked the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates. Both were responsible, indeed farmers throughout history have been responsible, for their countries and the progress of civilization. It has been said that in the last reckoning, all things are purchased with food. This was true in the cradle of civilization, and it holds true now. Today American agriculture is this country's largest industry. Agriculture accounts for a full 16 percent of our current gross domestic product; 355 billion dollars' worth of food and fiber were produced this past year. That is more than any other industry. And so it is especially important that we learn the lessons taught by the successes and failures of the past. History is awash with the remains of societies that failed to maintain their soil, who let it succumb to erosion, who let the channels that fed it get chocked with silt. The ancient city of Babylon, 2,600 years ago developed a productive agriculture. It allowed their civilization to grow to 17 million people and a remarkably diversified society. King Nebuchadnezzar even boasted that because he developed a great productive agriculture the rest of his society excelled. But eventually agriculture and farmers became a lesser priority in that country, and it ultimately failed. Farmers abandoned the farms and eventually the city collapsed. Another example is the Promised Land of the Sinai Peninsula. Moses called it ``the land of milk and honey.'' Farm production and conservation were neglected and eventually only dregs of fertile soil remain at the bottom of narrow valleys. But there are also successes. Societies with plans promoting farmers and farming survived and flourished. For the last 1,000 years, farmers in the French Alps with an eye toward conservation have terraced hillsides in a dramatic effort to prevent soil loss, resulting in continuously fertile soil, fertile agriculture, and abundant production. In this country the Dust Bowl of the 1930's affected over 150,000 square miles of fields in areas of New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado. For 6 years, drought and blinding dust storms were constant. The fertile ground of much of the Great Plains was stripped and deposited in drifts over millions of acres. Farms were buried and families fled. The counties of the Dust Bowl lost nearly 60 percent of their population through migration. The cause of this ecological disaster was largely the result of an overuse of the land. Following World War I, high grain prices enticed farmers to head for the Plains. But those high prices didn't last. As the wheat prices fell, the farmers became financially stressed and looked for short-term gain by planting more wheat. The long-term advantages of strip cropping, summer fallow and other conservation measures were abandoned. In fact, by 1930 farmers had planted three times as much wheat as they had in 1920. To a large degree, the extra planting was an act of desperation to survive. Soil conservation suffered. The drought began in 1933; the overuse made the land vulnerable to the winds that followed in 1934. Farmers continued to harvest what little of their crops they could, often driving their tractors in conditions so blinding that they couldn't see their radiator caps, much less the fields they worked as the fertile topsoil blew away. When wheat prices hit bottom during the Great Depression, more and more farmers abandoned their farms. In 1933 President Roosevelt started a Federal program to limit production in order to help keep farm prices stable and encourage special farming techniques like contour plowing, crop rotation, and terracing that kept soil on the farm and kept it fertile. However, prices stayed low and poor farmers continued to leave the land. In 1936 the Agriculture Adjustment Administration was created to promote soil conservation by issuing checks to farmers who adopted acreage reductions and wind controls on their farms. In the United States Congress we're now engaged in a great agricultural debate. We're deciding what proper Federal agricultural policy should be. It is important that the American people understand that agricultural programs had been designed to encourage a continuous but slight over-production. A hidden goal has been to keep enough farmers and ranchers producing so that an abundant supply would result in not only lower food and fiber prices in this country, but exports of low-priced commodities to assist in our balance of trade. Huge stores of grain were held by Government to be sold when farm prices went ``too high.'' Since the time of the first Dust Bowl we have enticed farmers to become more and more dependent on Government subsidy programs. As we move to a more market-oriented farm policy, it is important that we phase out subsidies smartly. Research and technology is needed to conserve water and topsoil, increase the efficiency of pesticides and fertilizers, and maximize yields. Farmers must ultimately make a profit if they are to continue to produce for today's needs and preserve productive land for tomorrow. American consumers now spend 9.5 percent of their take-home dollars for food. With that 9.5 percent, they are able to buy the best quality, lowest-priced food in the world. In our haste, we cannot undermine the agricultural base that made our country strong. We must not forget our own history. New Federal farm policy needs to help assure a strong agricultural industry.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, you know, we are a young Nation, and our focus is forward with only an occasional glance back at the lessons of Athens or Rome or even the lessons of the dust bowl in this country. But this House is soon going to consider an important issue that requires a deeper look back so we can better plan ahead. We will soon consider a farm bill that warrants an examination of the history of agriculture and a study of the lessons learned. There is a lineage between the modern American farmer and the ancient Sumerian who worked the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates. It is an equality of importance. Both were responsible, indeed farmers throughout history have been responsible for their countries' civilizations. It has been said that in the last reckoning, all things are purchased with food. This was true with the cradle of civilization, and it holds true now. Today, American agriculture is this country's largest industry. Agriculture accounts for a full 16 percent of our current gross domestic product, $355 billion worth of food and fiber were produced this past year. That is more than any other industry. And so it is especially critical that we learn the lessons taught by the successes and failures of the past. History is awash with the remains of societies that failed their farmers and ultimately failed to maintain their soil and who let it succumb to erosion and certainly that resulted in a fall of their civilization. Cities like ancient Babylon, 2,600 years ago, developed a productive agriculture. It allowed their civilization to grow to 17 million people and a remarkably diversified society. King Nebuchadnezzar boasted, ``That which no king has done before, I did. Great canals I dug and brought abundant waters to all the people.'' But agriculture and farmers became a lesser priority in that country, and ultimately failed. Today, the site of Babylon is desolation, a dry land, and the promised land 3,000 years after Moses, he called it the land of milk and honey, now barren and rugged, the victim of soil erosion. Only dregs of fertile soil remain at the bottoms of narrow valleys. But there are also successes. Societies with plans maintaining farmers and maintaining agriculture survived and flourished. For the last 1,000 years, farmers in the French Alps have terraced hillsides dramatically in an effort to prevent soil loss, resulting in continuously fertile soil, fertile agriculture and abundant production. Essentially, countries that practice a careful stewardship of the Earth's resources through terracing, crop rotation and other sound conservation measures have flourished for centuries, Dr. W.C. Lowdermilk, of the Soil Conservation Service, reported in 1953. Forty- two years have not changed that. In the U.S. Congress we are now engaged in a great agricultural debate. We are deciding what proper role the Federal Government has in Federal agricultural policy. It is important that the American people understand that agricultural programs have been designed to encourage a continuous, but slight, overproduction. Farm prices have been kept low. Most farmers over the past 50 years have experienced subsistence standards of living, mostly because of the agricultural farm programs. A goal of those programs has been to keep enough farmers and ranchers producing so that an abundant supply would result in not only lower food and fiber prices in this country, but huge exports of commodities that has eventually assisted in our balance of trade. For 60 years, we have enticed farmers to become more and more dependent on Government subsidy programs. As we move to a more market- oriented farm policy, it is important that we do it gradually and we do it smartly to make sure we do not endanger this productive and efficient industry of American agriculture. American consumers now spend 9.5 percent of their take-home dollars for food. With that 9.5 percent they are able to buy the best-quality, lowest-priced food anywhere in the world. In our haste, we cannot jeopardize the survival of American agriculture or the economic strength of our country.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the exemplary efforts of the employees of the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service [DRMS] based at the Federal Center in Battle Creek, MI. In the last several years DRMS has vastly improved the efficiency of its operations, which involve the reuse and sale of military surplus goods. In the 1994 fiscal year, DRMS increased its revenues by 85 percent and its profits by 116 percent while cutting its costs by 4 percent. These improvements have continued into the 1995 fiscal year. In fact, the Michigan legislature recognized and commended the achievements of DRMS in a resolution passed on May 31, 1995. This week, a provision of H.R. 1530 proposed the total privatization of DRMS, ignoring the progress it has made. This provision also ignored the ongoing selective privatization program at DRMS and the opinion of DRMS and the Defense Logistics Agency [DLA] that total privatization is not feasible. Fortunately, with the help of many fine people connected with DRMS, we were able to remove this provision. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and thank some of those who took leading roles in the effort to amend H.R. 1530. I like to thank the leaders of DRMS and DLA, navy Captain Hempson [DRMS] and Admiral Straw [DLA]. I also want to express my appreciation for the support of Dan McGinty, DLA's Congressional Liaison. I want to thank the employees of DRMS both for the excellent work they have done and their efforts to change H.R. 1530. In particular, I would like to recognize the efforts of Gary Redditt and Angie Disher, the union representatives at DRMS. Once more, let me say once more to DRMS and its employees, job well done.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank National Security Chairman Spence and Subcommittee Chairman Bateman for their support of my amendment regarding the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service [DRMS] based at the Federal Center in Battle Creek, MI. In the last several years, DRMS has vastly improved the efficiency of its operations, which involve the reuse and sale of military surplus goods. In the 1994 fiscal year, DRMS increased its revenues by 85 percent and its profits by 11 percent, while cutting its costs by 4 percent. These improvements have continued into the 1995 fiscal year. In fact, the Michigan Legislature recognized and commended the achievements of DRMS in a resolution passed on May 31, 1995. This week, a provision of H.R. 1530 proposed the total privatization of DRMS, ignoring the fact that some areas of privatization would actually cost taxpayers money. My amendment proceeds with privatization in those areas where savings are likely in DRMS. Fortunately, with the help of many fine people connected with DRMS at Battle Creek, MI, we were able to document the selective privatization program and those areas run by DRMS employees that have, for the first time, started making money. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and thank some of those who took leading roles in the effort to amend H.R. 1530. I would like to thank the leaders of DRMS and DLA, Navy Captain Hempson [DRMS] and Admiral Straw [DLA]. I also want to express my appreciation for the support of Dan McGinty, DLA's congressional liaison. I want to thank the employees of DRMS both for the excellent work they have done and their efforts working with me on this amendment. In particular, I would like to recognize the efforts of Gary Redditt and Angie Disher, the union representatives at DRMS. Mr. Chairman, our goal is to increase the efficiency of all Department of Defense operations and privatize in those areas where taxpayer dollars can be saved. DRMS is meeting this goal. Similar efforts must be made across the whole Government. Once more, let me say once more to DRMS and its employees, job well done.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this month, WLEN Radio in Adrian, MI celebrated their 30th anniversary. I would like to pay tribute to the people of WLEN and their fine service to Lenawee County. Lead by President Julie Koehn, WLEN, called the voice of Lenawee County, boasts the talents of Bob Butler who, with 32 continuous years on the air, is the county's veteran broadcaster. Additionally, WLEN's stable of stars includes: Angel Millet and Doug Spade. WLEN's award-winning news department is headed by Mike Clement. Mr. Speaker, for the past 30 years, the people of Lenawee County have been well served by the able people and programming at WLEN. As a Lenawee County farmer, I look forward to another 30 years of excellent community service by WLEN. Good communications are critical to maintain a vibrant democratic society. Congratulations, WLEN, on your 30th anniversary.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. Last night President Clinton unveiled his second budget of this year. This budget aims to balance the Federal budget 10 years from now. This means that if you know any third graders, that third grader will be graduated from high school and the budget still will not be balanced. It also means that we hope that a decade from now we are going to really balance the budget. I mean, if a politician told you today that we are not going to balance the budget now but we are going to balance it in 10 years, I wonder how many of the American people would believe that promise. Remember, the President did not say the debt would be paid off. He said if all goes well, we will stop adding to the debt rate. Put it this way: Does it not all sound a little ludicrous? Do we really think that Congress will balance the budget 10 years from now? We just cannot do it today, and therefore we have to put it off for 10 years? President Clinton is saying we will not pay you back 10 years from now, but we are going to stop and make the promise today that we will not be borrowing money 10 years from now. The President has said that it would be too painful to bring the budget into balance in less than 10 years. Now, remember that Thomas Jefferson, while President, introduced a plan to pay off the Federal debt at that time in 16 years. That meant that he thought it prudent not just to balance the budget, but run enough of a surplus to pay off the debt. If you consider the real problem, the serious problem, that we not only have to balance the budget, but the fact is we have an actuarial debt in Medicare of an estimated $8 trillion, we have an actuarial debt in Social Security of an additional $5 trillion, we have an actuarial debt of what we owe Federal retirees, the pension plans for Federal workers and military workers, of an estimated $1.5 trillion additional. It is serious. I am delighted the President has come to the forum. But now we need to decide if he is going to actually give us the details of those budget reductions and cuts so that we can incorporate those ideas into our thinking as we proceed with this budget resolution. You know, the pain we are hearing about when the President says it is too painful to balance the budget in 7 years is political pain, involved in admitting to reality. As the great 19th century French political philosopher, Frederic Bastiat told us, government cannot provide what it does not contain. The only way government can give you $1 of health care services is to take that $1 from your neighbor in taxes. There is no such thing as Federal money that can be handed out by 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators. If the Federal Government does not tax your neighbor to get that dollar, then it has the option to borrow it from that neighbor or print the dollar. If the Government borrows the dollar, then your neighbor cannot use it to buy a machine or go to school or to buy a car or to buy a home and to make more productive workers and an expanded economy in the United States. If the Government prints the dollar, then the savings of your elderly neighbor has gone down in value, which is taxing by inflation. We must admit that Medicare is going bankrupt, as well as Social Security, and that Medicaid is bankrupting States as well as the Federal Government. To say that it is too painful to balance the budget only makes sense if you think that government has the right to your earnings and will just leave you with whatever is left over after the politicians divide it up among the people who have political access or political pull. Let us follow in the footsteps of Thomas Jefferson and force the politicians to admit that the emperor, in this case the Federal Government, has no clothes, has no dollars. We cannot exist by using Government as a mechanism to engage in stealing from each other. We must as individuals recognize our responsibility towards the less fortunate, the sick and the elderly. Governments cannot be charitable. They can only redistribute under force. I have faith in the American people and [[Page H6027]] their willingness to provide true altruism.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, some of us in the freshman and sophomore classes this morning met with Ross Perot, really, I think, an inspiration for saying that we have got to move ahead and do the kind of things that we know are right. Mr. Speaker, he mentioned that, if we took all of the Fortune 500 companies, and we took all of their assets, all of their money, and sold all of their investments, it would pay off a deficit spending for 1 year. I mean we have got a serious problem ahead of us. Mr. Speaker, I think it is great that the President is now saying we should have a balanced budget. I am waiting for the details. I think it is important that he gets the details up here so our conferees on the budget can look at some of his suggestions, some of this administration's suggestions, on where he cuts. He is saying that it is going to take reductions in Medicare and in Medicaid. I say to my colleagues, Let's work together to make sure we preserve those programs, that we save them not only for this generation, but for future generations.