Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kentucky for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the earnings test limit is unfair and unjust. It is, effectively, a mandatory retirement mechanism for a country no longer in need of it. It precludes greater flexibility for the elderly worker, and also prevents America's full use of the eager, experienced, and educated elderly worker. Finally, it deprives the U.S. economy of the additional income which would be generated by the elderly worker. Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of this bill, and I certainly want to applaud my colleague from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning; and, of course, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Dennis Hastert, who has labored in the vineyards for many years. When I came here in 1989, we worked so hard to get this bill forward, and I think now we have an opportunity to pass a great bill, to gain economic equality for those elderly workers who either want to work or must work in order to maintain a decent lifestyle.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2519, legislation to modify our federal securities laws to preclude litigation that is threatening the future funding of our Nation's numerous philanthropic organizations. Philanthropic organizations are some of the most important organizations in the United States today. These charitable, religious and educational groups have the laudable goal of providing assistance, support and hope to those in society that may need a helping hand. When an individual makes the generous decision to contribute to a charitable donation fund, the charity should not be prevented from enjoying the benefits derived from that contribution because some disgruntled relative, feeling that the money should go in their pockets, makes a claim on the money. Such relatives should not be allowed to initiate lawsuits on these grounds especially when the donor made a valid gift with sufficient donative intent. Charitable donations funds fall outside the purview of our securities laws for the simple reason that donors do not intend to reap high returns on their investments. Instead they are seeking to make a gift to charity. I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 2519 to prevent contributions intended for charitable donation funds out of the pockets of selfish relatives.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad the President finally agreed to balance the budget in 7 years. It really should not have been quite as difficult as it turned out to be, because really when you go back and look at what the President said in his State of the Union Address in 1993, and what he said when he ran for the Presidency in 1992, and when you put them all all together, it would not have been possible for him to continue to say he was not for a balanced budget in 7 years. Let me quote what the President said in 1993 in the State of the Union Message. My budget plan will use independent Congressional Budget Office numbers. I did this so no one could say I was estimating my way out of this difficulty. I did this so that the American people will think we are shooting straight with them. [[Page H 13350]] That is our President, 1993, using CBO numbers. In 1992, the President, while on the ``Larry King Show,'' stated emphatically that his first piece of legislation would be a balanced budget in 5 years. Then again as recently as last week, the President was saying, ``CBO numbers are unacceptable to us because it commits us to accepting Republican cuts.'' Well, now I am glad the President finally agreed to a 7-year balanced budget using CBO numbers. My point again, Mr. Speaker, is that the debate we had on that issue is going to be the same debate we will have on Medicare. The American people should know that the President, while he accuses us of hurting Medicare recipients, is again not remembering what he proposed with his ill-fated Health Security Act of 1993. The numbers speak for themselves. Let's compare his plan of 1993 with our plan today. Now, under our plan, we would allow the Medicare Program to grow at the rate of about 6\1/2\ percent after 1999. President Clinton, who claims Medicare is one of his chief concerns and does not want to see it hurt the elderly unfairly, proposed in 1993 that his program would grow at less, less than 5 percent a year. There were 130 colleagues over there that sponsored his bill back then. Now that was reported today in the Investors Business Daily. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include this complete article as a part of this official Record. [From the Investor's Business Daily, Nov. 20, 1995] How Radical Is the GOP Budget? (By John Merline) If you listen to the rhetoric from both political parties, it appears the GOP wants a revolution. From the Clinton camp, words like ``radical,'' ``extremist,'' ``terrorist,'' and so on pepper comments about the Republican's seven-year balanced budget plan. ``America can balance the budget without extreme cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education or the environment--and that is what we must do,'' President Clinton said last week. The GOP itself likes to characterize its budget plan as revolutionary. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., has called the bill an ``heroic fiscal achievement.'' But how radical is it? Put in context, the seven-year plan is a relatively modest one. And, many of the specific reforms have been pitched by Clinton himself in the past. ``It is in both parties'' interest to exaggerate the changes proposed,'' said former Congressional Budget Office head Robert Reischauer. He did say, however, that the GOP is offering fundamental changes in federal entitlement programs. Here are the basics: In 2002--the year the budget is supposed to be balanced-- federal spending will be $267 billion higher than in 1996. Federal spending will consume 19% of the economy in 2002, down from 22% today. Revenues climb $449 billion between the first and last year of the seven-year plan. In 2002, taxes will eat up the same share of GDP--19%--as they do today. Over the course of seven years, the GOP wants to cut spending a total of $952 billion, according to an analysis of the plan by the Congressional Budget Office. That's ``cut'' in the Washington sense, meaning a reduction in the planned spending increase. Most of those cuts come in the last two years of the budget plan. For the first five years, the cuts add up to $432 billion. In the last two years they total $520 billion. That's raised eyebrows among some fiscal hawks. ``The Republican budget pushes off most of the pain of cutting spending into the next century,'' said Stephen Moore, director of fiscal policy studies at the Washington-based Cato Institute. Keep in mind that there will be two presidential elections before those final two years' worth of cuts kick in. Under the GOP plan, the federal government will spend a total $12 trillion dollars by 2002. That's a mere 8.6% less than what would have been spent without the Republican cuts. And, if you take out interest savings, program cuts trim only 7% off total spending. Fiscal conservatives complain that the GOP failed to eliminate enough programs. While many saw their funding levels clipped, too many objectionable programs remain on the books, they say. The Appalachian Regional Commission, the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, Legal Services Corp., and the Economic Development Administration have long been on conservative hit lists. All get funded in the GOP bill. Moore estimates that of the 300 programs slated to get the ax in the original House budget proposal, all but about 50 will live to see another day. The tax cuts total $245 billion over the next seven years. The total amount of gross domestic product expected over those seven years is more than $60 trillion. So the tax cuts are equal to 0.4% of the total economy. Those cuts do little to offset the two tax hikes imposed on the economy by Presidents Bush and Clinton. Clinton's $240 billion in hikes makes a misleading comparison--that figure counts only the five-year cost of the levy. That's because in previous years, budget plans were only made over five-year time horizons. But the GOP plan is for seven years. So all their numbers are larger. Clinton has offered a tax-cut plan in many ways similar to Republican proposals. For example, his own 1996 budget plan has a $500 credit for each child under age 13 for taxpayers with incomes up to $60,000. Clinton's credit is refundable, meaning that people with little or no income taxes would get a check from the government. The GOP's $500 per-child credit is not. And, Republicans propose to let families with higher incomes get the credit. He also wants to expand individual retirement accounts, also included in the GOP plan. less bold Clinton has suggested that he could support a cut in the capital gains tax. His 1993 budget included a cut in gains taxes for investments in small companies held at least five years. The GOP would cut the gains tax for all investment. The Republicans' seven-year deal is less bold than plans offered up by lawmakers and presidents in the past. Since 1969, presidents have introduced 13 budgets that, they said at the time, would produce a budget surplus within five years. The so-called Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, passed in 1985, was designed to balance the budget by 1991. The revised law moved the target back to 1993. President Bush's first budget would have turned a $161 billion deficit in 1989 to a $33 billion surplus by 1994. The GOP now wants to take seven years to move from a deficit of $178 billion in 1996 to a surplus of $4 billion in 2002. To be sure, the GOP plan is different than many of its predecessors for one simple reason: there are no tax hikes. ``It is a departure from virtually all previous deficit reduction efforts, which were divided in some form between spending cuts and tax increases,'' said Price Waterhouse budget expert Stanley Collender. Medicare and Medicaid cuts have proved to be a major sticking pointing point with Clinton, who says they will severely harm seniors and the poor. But the changes proposed by Republicans are nearly identical to those offered by Clinton two years ago as part of his ill-fated Health Security Act. Medicare: In the first five years of Clinton's Medicare plan, spending would get trimmed by $124 billion. The GOP proposes cuts of $135 billion in the first five years. The Medicare cuts were to get even harsher in the out years under Clinton's plan. He wanted Medicare to grow at less than 5% a year after 1999. The GOP wants to leave the growth rate at about 6.5%. Like the Republicans' plan, Clinton got most of his savings--70%--from cuts in payments to providers serving Medicare patients. Clinton also wanted to raise premiums for Medicare's Part B program to cover 25% of the costs of that insurance plan. The GOP sets it as 31.5% of costs. And, Clinton wanted to means-test the premiums, so high- income seniors would pick up a greater share of Part B costs. Republicans want rich seniors to pay even more. Clinton also proposed new private-sector options similar to Republicans' ``Medicare Plus'' reform. A summary of the Health Security Act released by the White House in September 1993 said its plan would offer ``beneficiaries greater choice of managed-care options.'' And, like the GOP bill, Clinton would let new retirees keep their old company-provided health plans. The only difference between Clinton's and the Republican's reforms on this score is that the GOP wants to offer seniors one extra choice: the option to select a medical savings account. A favorite among conservatives, MSAs let seniors opt for a high-deductible, catastrophic insurance policy. Premium savings are placed in a savings account, which seniors can draw on to pay up-front medical costs. Unspent funds in the account at the end of the year can be rolled over or withdrawn. Senate Democrats tried to strip the MSA option out of Medicare reform using a parliamentary procedure. But Democratic lawmakers have in the past supported similar ``choice'' reforms. In 1980, Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., co- authored a bill that gave seniors ``the option of remaining with the present Medicare system or of choosing to receive benefits of plans being offered by the competitive system.'' Both Gephardt and Clinton say that they object to the GOP's Medicare plan because it's not part of comprehensive health care reform. Medicaid: In his Health Security Act, Clinton wanted to strip $114 billion from Medicaid over five years. The GOP's five-year cuts total only $72 billion. Under Clinton's health plan, Medicaid would have effectively been abolished, replaced with fixed payments to private health [[Page H 13351]] plans. The poor would sign up with one of these plans to get health benefits. The GOP proposal would block grant Medicaid payments to state governments, which could then set up their own delivery systems. The Clinton administration has also made a fuss over changes to Medicaid's long-term care program. At one point, the GOP planned to overhaul federal nursing home standards, replacing detailed standards with broad goals to be enforced at the state level. But as governor of Arkansas, Clinton had proposed similar changes. In fact, in 1989, Clinton joined 47 other governors to urge an end to federal ``micromanagement'' of nursing homes. Clinton complained that restricting eligibility for long- term care would throw 300,000 old folks onto the street. Of course, he had already tightened eligibility as part of his 1993 budget. The goal then: ``Restrict further the diverting of property to qualify for Medicaid,'' according to the administration's 1993 budget blueprint.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, what we have today is the President agreeing with us on the 7-year balanced budget, using CBO number. I think eventually when the President looks at the difference between his Medicare Program and Medicare and Medicaid and all the other programs, he really should accept the balanced budget of 1995.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, to quote Alexander Hamilton: ``Here, sir, the people govern; here they act by their immediate Representatives.'' Mr. Speaker, 90 percent of the incoming calls to my office last week supported balancing the budget in 7 years. As one caller put it, ``President Clinton is not a monarch.'' We must abide by the will of Congress as Alexander Hamilton said. Let me share a couple of other calls with you. Gordon, who lives in Lady Lake stated: ``Don't cave in on this budget thing--Republicans must stand firm or there will never be a balanced budget.'' Doris and Robert of Ocala said: ``We both feel so strongly about achieving a balanced budget that we would both be willing to forego our Social Security checks for up to a year if it would guarantee a balanced budget. Stick to your guns!'' Craig of Jacksonville stated that: ``he is a furloughed Federal employee and he is willing to miss a pay check to support the Republican's plan.'' I believe we must act on the will of the people and balance the budget as we promised. And I am glad the President now agrees.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. And I say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], and I am going to say it very clearly, because I think this will be the final answer the gentleman has needed for all these months on this debate. There has been a concerted effort over the last few weeks to frighten our senior citizens by making them believe they would lose Medicare benefits. We all know this is absolutely false. The difference between the President's plan, if Members will look at this chart, and the Republicans' plan is $4 a month. That is right. Under our proposal the Medicare premium would rise to $87 a month by the year 2002; at the same time the President's proposal would have seniors paying $83. Four dollars difference. Where is the beef? There is no argument here. Four dollars difference between the President and our plan. Now, Mr. Speaker, if Members will look at the next chart, I call their attention to this chart because Medicare has risen from $15 in 1986, the premiums that is, to $46.10 in 1995. The whole idea that we are raising premiums is a red herring being used solely for the purpose of scaring seniors. Mr. Speaker, it is triple, though, under Democratic rule. So I rise in support. We have kept our promises for America's families and America's future and for senior citizens.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, if we had the Presidency, if the Republicans had the Presidency, we would pass all these, and we would not be talking about the continuing resolution or the debt ceiling.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and I talked yesterday afternoon about this business about it is ancient history what the Democrats have done for the last 40 years with their continuing resolutions. I went back and have done a little research. I am not going to take my full time to outline this ancient history. But because at this point, when we are talking about moving forward with a continuing resolution, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] would say ``Let's not talk about what the Democrats did over the last 55 years or last 40 years or last 10 years,'' I think it is important to note that in 1978-79 many appropriation bills were never passed. And, in fact, in 1987 and 1988, not one of the 13 appropriation bills were ever passed or ever sent to the Congress. So the Democrats will come on the House floor and give this hue and cry all about, well, we are talking about a new history with the Republican party. But we are well ahead of what you did in 1987 and 1988, where not one of the 13 appropriation bills was ever passed in Congress and sent to the President. I can just go from 1980, 1981, 1982. The minority party's record is clear that we are way ahead of where you were. So if we want to talk about our improving, we are already at an improvement point. I think the point my colleague should realize is that we are trying to balance the budget in 7 years. This is the whole issue. The whole defining issue is will we be able to balance the budget in 7 years, and continually the Democrats say we cut Medicare. Mr. Speaker, today, while explaining why he vetoed a bill that would have kept the Government from shutting down, the President expressed dismay that all 13 appropriations bills had not been passed by the Congress and signed into law. Yet since 1977 the Congress failed entirely to pass all 13 appropriations bills 11 times. That's right, at least 11 times the Congress failed to pass at least one of the appropriations bills, at all. Since 1990, the Democratic run Congress has shut down the Government nine times. The last time, in 1990, they forced President Bush to accept a compromise with them over the budget which resulted in Mr. Bush breaking his ``No New Taxes'' pledge. I didn't hear Mr. Panetta, then the Budget Committee chairman and now the President's Chief of Staff, claiming he was blackmailing the President. Since 1977 the Democratic run Congress has spent the entire year on a continuing resolution for at least 1 of the 13 appropriations bills 11 times. In fact, for both fiscal year 1987 and 1988 the Congress failed to send even 1 of the 13 appropriations bills to the President. They spent both those years with only continuing resolutions. Let me just list the specific instances. In fiscal year 1978, the Labor-HEW bill was never passed. In fiscal year 1979, the energy and water bill was never passed. In fiscal year 1980, the foreign operations, Labor-HHS, and legislative branch bills were never passed. In fiscal year 1981, the Labor-HHS, legislative branch, Commerce-Justice, and Treasury-Postal bills were never passed. In fiscal year 1982, the Commerce-Justice, Labor-HHS, legislative branch, and Treasury-Postal bills were never passed. In fiscal year 1983, the Commerce-Justice, energy and water, foreign operations, Labor-HHS, legislative branch, and Treasury-Postal bills were never passed. In fiscal year 1984, the agriculture, foreign operations, and Treasury-Postal bills were never passed. In fiscal year 1985, the Agriculture, Defense, District of Columbia, foreign operations, Interior, military construction, transportation, and Treasury-Postal bills never passed. In fiscal year 1986, the Agriculture, Defense, District of Columbia, foreign operations, Interior, Transportation, and Treasury-Postal bills were never passed. And in both fiscal years 1987 and 1988, not 1 of the 13 appropriations bills was ever passed and sent to the President. I have heard it said that they feared to send 13 separate bills to Presidents Reagan and Bush as then the President could have vetoed only part of their budget. I was not yet privileged to serve in Congress when these actions were taken, but I know that we have no such fears and will soon send all 13 bills to the President. Mr. Speaker, I know that there are fewer Democrats today then there were when they passed the 55 continuing resolutions, and when they acted only with continuing resolutions for an entire year 11 times, but I find it hard to believe that none of those remaining can remember the facts of what actually occurred in the past. I hope that the President will agree to negotiate with our leadership soon, and that we can reach an agreement on this important legislation. After all, it is the veterans, seniors and other people who rely on their Government who will suffer if we don't. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], but is it not true that the Republican plan slows the growth of Medicare and does not cut Medicare? Just yes or no.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for 10 seconds?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for what he did last year, but is it not true that under your party since 1979, we have had 55 continuing resolutions?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and others on this side of the aisle, since 1979 we have had 55 continuing resolutions, and in 1987 and 1988 we ran this whole place on continuing resolutions. So for the gentleman from Wisconsin to get up and hue and cry about how we are running this place on continuing resolutions when the Democratic Party ran this place for years and years on continuing resolutions is just not stating the facts correctly. So I want to clear the air and say, God bless his soul, I know what he is talking about, but the bottom line is, in 1987 and 1988 they ran this whole place, because they were so disorganized they could not even get one appropriations bill passed, and the bottom line is 55 continuing resolutions were pushed by that party. So what we are doing this year is we are trying to bring it all together much more quickly than the historical perspective we have seen from the Democrats. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to point out something else to my colleagues, and this is some form of the bill of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, which will ensure that the Clinton administration does not try to circumvent the Congress when the Government reaches the Federal debt limit, especially at a time when the Federal debt, as of noon today, was $4 trillion, 986 billion, and on and on and on cents. This turns out to be about $18,908.01 of each citizen's share of the debt. Mr. Speaker, without the provisions in this bill, the Clinton administration will dip into supposedly safe Federal trust funds such as the social security trust fund, the Medicare trust fund and the Federal retiree trust fund. Mr. Speaker, this is wrong and unacceptable. Yesterday the President vetoed this bill because we refused to let the administration raid the Social Security, Medicare, and Federal retiree trust funds, yet this President also claims that he is the one trying to protect the seniors. What he does not say is that he will spend their hard-earned dollars to prolong this budgetary crisis. These trust funds should not see their assets reduced, even temporarily, as it sets a bad precedent of encouraging the Treasury Department to raid these funds. Without this bill that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has provided, the money paid into these funds would be diverted to pay for other services. This is not why the American people paid into these trust funds. The American people have placed their trust in us to manage their Government and to protect their investments. Mr. Speaker, we cannot let them down. The Archer bill will protect these funds, enforce the limits that this Congress has already set. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and also to pass a balanced budget plan that will eliminate the need for such legislation in the future.

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STEARNS. It was a rhetorical question.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad commentary. Shame on you. I am going to read how many times we had continuing resolutions under the Democrat's control just since 1977. I am also going to read how many times [[Page H 12117]] they shut the Government down during Bush and Reagan Presidencies, because of their tactics. And here they come down on the House floor and shed these crocodile tears, how upset they are we are going to shut the Government down, and how we are forcing the Democrat Party to accept something against their will. Listen carefully, my colleagues. Since 1980 the Government has found itself with a funding gap nine different times. Nine different times the other side controlled Congress, so all of my colleagues coming down here with their crocodile tears does not hold water. Nine times the Democratic-run Congress shut down the Government. In 1990, and guess who was chief, guess who was head of the Committee on the Budget at that time? Mr. Leon Panetta.

Mr. STEARNS. I will not yield to the gentleman from Maryland, at this time, I regret. When President Clinton's own Chief of Staff, Mr. Panetta, was the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget we shut the Government down, the Congress did, and Mr. Panetta was leading the charge. This is the same Mr. Panetta who now calls shutting down the Government this way a blackmail. Crocodile tears. Come on. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, this must be the pot calling the kettle black because Mr. Panetta was involved intimately with this business until the wee hours. We all remember, that we were here, until Christmas. In 1987, the Democrats shut the Congress down. In 1986 and 1984, once for 2 days and again 1 more day. In 1983, shut it down again. In 1982, twice more. Both times for 4 days. And then in 1981 they shut it down. How can they come down to the House floor and shed all these tears and talk about how this is terrible when they shut it down themselves nine times? Since 1977 the Democratic-run Congress has passed 55 continuing resolutions instead of a complete budget. Now, I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], bless his soul, 55 times we have had continuing resolutions yet we have all these charts and all this rhetoric talking about, oh, gee, we cannot have these continuing resolutions. But we have had 55 of these since 1977. Now their leaders claim such a resolution is a major problem.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, where were they when they passed 55 of these continuing resolutions? Mr. Speaker, we have before us legislation that would end the history, the 40-year history, of Democratic continuing resolutions, debt ceiling increases and, for once, set us on the right course toward a balanced budget. When those in opposition to this bill call this a crisis that we have caused, when those over there that are starting to stand say there is a crisis here in the House that we, the Republicans, have caused, I urge them to look at the record, look at their own mistakes, and say to them that Republicans have learned to do better. Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to duplicate their failures. My colleagues on this side and that side of the aisle, let us start fresh and new and pass this bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me read a quotation from May 28, 1992, and ask you who said this: Democrats have warned that the day of reckoning was upon us. Now it is here. Our country cannot function with an annual $400 billion deficit, and in these extraordinary times, extraordinary measures are required. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], that is what the gentleman said on May 28, 1992. Now, these are tough measures, but as the minority leader said, in extraordinary times, extraordinary measures are required. Mr. Speaker, we are going to balance the budget, we are going to cut taxes, we are going to save Medicare, and we are going to reform welfare, too. The bills we have sent to the President on Monday are going down as a downpayment on these efforts. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the President offers no leadership, no plan, and no choice.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, my good colleague from West Springfield should realize under the Reagan-Bush years, his party shut the Government down nine times, and his party had 17 continuing resolutions. So for him to go on and on like this is something new, it is not true.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, but obviously, like many, I do so with some reluctance. While I have often opposed raising the debt ceiling, because of our efforts this bill includes a pledge to achieve a CBO-scored balanced budget in 7 years. I call attention to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this pledge is in the rule committing the President and Congress to enact in the year 1995, the calendar year, legislation for a balanced budget by the year 2002. It affirms the intent of Congress and the President to do so, and it is in black and white, and it is part of this package that we are voting on. This, my friends, is the crux of our Contract With America. This is why we have the responsibility today to be responsible. Do I like raising the debt? Obviously I do not. But, for this reason, and for this language, I intend to vote for this raising of the debt to ultimately balance the budget. However, Mr. Speaker, what is also a concern of mine is that without certain provisions in this bill, that Chairman Archer made sure were in this bill, the Clinton administration could dip into supposedly safe trust funds such as the Social Security trust fund, the Medicare trust fund, and the Federal retiree trust fund. I find this totally unacceptable and, frankly, so do the American taxpayers. Yet the President is threatening to veto this bill because we refuse to let the administration raid the Social Security, Medicare, and Federal retiree trust funds. That is what the people on the other side are saying. These trust funds should not see their assets reduced even temporarily. It sets a bad precedent of encouraging the Treasury Department to raid these funds. Without this amendment in the bill, the money paid into these funds would be diverted to pay for other services. Mr. Speaker, this is not the American way, and this should not be done. The American people have placed their trust in us to manage their funds, to protect their investments. We cannot let them down. I urge my colleagues, it is time to be responsible to pass this bill and to pass [[Page H 12011]] a balanced budget amendment that will eliminate the need after almost 40 years of Democrat control for such legislation in the future.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who always fought when necessary, but only so that peace could be attained. No one can claim that Yitzhak Rabin was not a warrior. Upon his graduation from high school he postponed his plans to study agriculture in the United States and instead joined the Jewish underground, which was then fighting for the very idea of independence and the existence of a Jewish homeland. Yitzhak Rabin spent the rest of his life as a soldier, leading the men and women of the resistance, and eventually the Israeli military. Through battle after battle with the Arab countries of the region and molding the Israeli Defense Forces into one of the best trained and most motivated forces in the world; first as Israel's Army Chief of Staff, later as the Minister of Defense, and finally as Prime Minister. Along the way he saw his friends and allies die. In one battle during the Arab-Israeli war of 1968, the Brigade he commanded lost close to 70 percent of its membership while fighting to relieve Jerusalem, the city of his birth, and to reopen supply lines with the Israeli forces in Tel Aviv. Today you can see the remains of this battalion as a memorial to the men who lost their lives in this struggle. But eventual victory was assured, as long as men like Yitzhak Rabin fought on. These were the actions of a man who knew the value of a free and secure Israel. To further this dream, he knew a lasting peace would eventually have to be reached with Israel's Arab community as well as with the surrounding Arab nations. In 1992, while serving his first term as Prime Minister, he began the steady progress toward peace that earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994. It was in a speech here in Washington, DC, in 1993 that Mr. Rabin said, ``We are destined to live together on the same soil in the same land. We, the soldiers who have returned from battles stained with blood; we who have seen our relatives and friends killed before our eyes; * * * We who have fought against you, the Palestinian's, we say to you in a loud and clear voice: Enough of blood and tears. Enough!'' Last weekend's tragedy, the first assassination of an Israeli Prime Minister, ended one life. But it cannot end the dream that Yitzhak Rabin's life stood for: a free and secure Israel, at peace with itself and the world. The Bible has an appropriate verse which describes our memory of Prime Minister Rabin and with which I would like to conclude, ``Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.'' We should all remember Mr. Rabin; a warrior when necessary and a peacemaker when possible for his people and for all of Israel.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the folks on this side of the aisle talk about $245 billion in tax cuts. Divide that by 7, that is $35 billion a year on a 1.5 trillion budget: These so called tax cuts represent less than 2 percent of the budget; maybe it is 1 percent over 7 years. It is a blip on the screen. To make that a main issue, it is like the Washington Post said, it is medigoguery. Remember these tax cuts are less then the Clinton tax hikes of 1993. Speaking of the Washington Post, look at this quote from their November 3, 1995, editorial. It said, Now President Clinton has walked away from the welfare bill he sent to Congress last year just, as the week before he renounced the tax increase he pushed to passage in 1993. What next? Perhaps he will say he did not mean to send up last year's health care reform proposals either. Mrs. Clinton made him do it. It becomes increasingly difficult for us to know what the President stands for or whether he stands for anything. Mr. Speaker, this is a stinging indictment, considering the source. I rarely ever agree with the Washington Post, but in this case, I really think they are onto something.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment to repeal the D.C. Domestic Partnership Act. We voted on this last year. We got 251 votes. Basically, what this did is shut down the funding; but we did not have an amendment like this which basically from now on will prevent this from happening. I ask my colleagues to listen carefully. The District of Columbia is a fiscal nightmare. There is too much spending and not enough savings, a classic example of big government, big spending that was wholeheartedly rejected by the voters in 1994. Priorities must be set. Repealing the Domestic Partnership Act is the perfect opportunity to set some priorities in this House and ensure that funding for nonessential programs will not be sanctioned by this Congress. Laws that, in essence, allow homosexual, heterosexual couples to cohabitate, register as domestic partners and receive health benefits in addition to other legal rights undermine the traditional moral values that are the bedrock of this Nation. Legitimizing these relationships will only serve to erode our Nation's values. The Domestic Partnership Act is nothing more than a revolving door for people who have no desire to enter into marriage but still wish to receive all the legal and social benefits of the sacred institution of marriage. We must make it clear that these relationships will not be endorsed by this Congress. Support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana to ensure that D.C. sets its budgetary priorities straight. Say ``no'' to irresponsible social experimenting, and let us not tonight redefine the definition of the family. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will, I believe, begin the process of examination of the electric industry. My bill would repeal prospectively section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. This legislation is only one of many important aspects of the electric industry that must be explored and opened up for discussion. I am hopeful that this legislation serves as an instigator of a much larger debate. I now have 15 cosponsors. It is a bipartisan bill. My only interest in introducing this bill lies in achieving the most efficient and most cost-effective means of electric generation for America's ratepayers. Prospective repeal of PURPA represents a positive step in that direction. It is important to note that PURPA is a mandate, regardless of its intent. It substitutes government intervention where the marketplace should dictate. Furthermore, PURPA has not jump-started the renewable energy generation industry as was the act's intent--only 6 percent of PURPA generated power comes from nonrenewables. Nonetheless, there are other important concerns surrounding the repeal of PURPA. It is important to note that, just as I support deregulation through the repeal of PURPA, I also support the notion of more comprehensive Federal deregulation legislation that would provide for greater and freer competition in power generation. I truly understand the concerns of those in opposition to my bill--I recognize that their industry has come about largely because of PURPA. I also recognize that not all PURPA generators abuse the system. In fact, a Georgia-Pacific plant located in my district generates its own power from the plant's waste, but sells none back into the system. In this instance, PURPA encouraged innovation and self-sufficiency, a notion that I strongly believe in: It is the American way. But the American way does not rely on a mandate; it dictates deregulation over regulation. House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Dan Schaefer has indicated that he intends to hold a series of hearings on the variety of issues involved in electricity deregulation and reform. I support his efforts and look forward to the opportunity to finally address these important issues. Indeed, by introducing this legislation today, I believe that I am helping to initiate debate, not only on this important issue, but on the whole gamut of issues surrounding the regulation of the electric generation industry. I am anxious to work with Chairman Schaefer, Chairman Bliley, the House Committee on Commerce, and all other interested parties as Congress moves forward with its comprehensive examination of this industry. Everyone will agree that we must begin to explore a move toward an electricity industry that is based on competition, market force, and lower prices for ratepayers. This is certainly my objective as I introduce this necessary first piece of electricity reform legislation.