[Pages H5290-H5309]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

The CHAIRMAN. Let me remind our guests in the gallery that they are
there as guests of the House. The rules of the House specifically
prohibit any expressions of support or opposition to any of the
speakers on the floor. The compliance of our guests in the gallery
would be appreciated.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I want to join here today in
congratulating the Black Caucus for their exercise. They bring not
pretty photographs but ideas, ideas that challenge the majority of
Members on the Democratic side and, in fact, ideas that challenge the
status quo.
We on the Republican side stand here today to challenge the status
quo also because the status quo is a killer. It murders any chance that
our young people have of grabbing that brass ring, of dreaming of hope
and opportunity, and it cheats everyone of their potentials right in
the heart.
Take a look at this chart. This is the chart that we have been
talking about,
[[Page H5291]] and look at this bottom line. A child born today will
pay in taxes on the interest rate close to $200,000 over the course of
their lifetime.
The Republicans believe in Robert and Mary and Sally. We believe
that, given a fair chance, they can realize their American dream.
Congress stands ready to challenge the status quo. Today the Republican
Party will do what is right because this chart, this reality is not
good enough for any one of your children.
Shame on anyone who fails today to seize this historic moment.
Challenge the status quo and balance our budget for all of our
children's future.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Filner].
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me. I thank my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus for
producing this budget. It is a budget for all Americans and we all
thank you for it.
This budget puts people first. It has been said that the moral test
of a government is what it does for those who are in the dawn of life,
that is its children, those in the sunset of life, its elderly, and
those who are in the shadows of life, its sick and its disabled. The
Republican budget fails this moral test. The Payne-Owens budget passes
this test with flying colors.
My colleagues, let us support a budget that does, in fact, put people
first. Let us support a budget for the caring majority. Let us vote yes
on the Payne-Owens substitute.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz].
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Chairman, for reasons that are becoming ever more
apparent for the last several months, I find even more than usual about
family and about what kind of legacy this Congress is creating for
families.
I thought about my parents, about their 75 years of sacrifice for
their family, their children and their country. They have worked hard
and saved and they have paid their taxes. They have paid their Social
Security. They have paid their Medicare. And I wonder what kind of
retirement this Congress envisions for our parents and grandparents
with a mountain of debt that threatens Social Security and a Medicare
system that if we stand back and do nothing goes bankrupt in 7 years.
I have thought about my child and all of our children, and I wonder
what kind of future this Congress wants to leave these children. How
will they educate their children and pave their roads and feed their
needy and clean their water when they have to pay off the debt we ran
up for programs and services we use now but we do not pay for?
Today we have the chance to protect families, to do what we have to
do to protect Social Security, to improve and preserve Medicare so our
parents and grandparents are secure and safe. We have the chance to
ensure our children's future, to end decades of piling debt on our
children's head.
My baby and every baby born this year will pay $187,000 in their
lifetime for interest on the debt alone. Is that not enough?
It is time to balance this budget for our parents. It is time to
balance this budget for our children.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the Members of this House join me in voting for
the Kasich budget for our families.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Meek], a member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus
adds some truth in packaging for each of you. Each of you has been here
all week talking about balancing the budget, but you have not thought
about balancing the budget with compassion and with truth to the people
of this country. You have not told, as the Congressional Black Caucus
has done in their budget, to the senior citizens of this country that
they are going to have to pay more than you are telling them.
You have not told them the truth. You have not shown them truth in
packaging. The Black Caucus has. It did not cut the Medicaid and the
Medicare funds. It did not cut the student loan funds. It did not cut
all of these things you cut that you did not have to cut to give tax
cuts to the rich.
What they did, they faced reality and showed that this budget could
be balanced with compassion, and many of you have said forget about
compassion. The CBC did what it should have done. It is highlighting
education as its top priority, when we have people in this country who
cannot read and write and who are poor because we have kept them there.
Face your conscience. The Black Caucus, I congratulate you.

{time} 1430

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this substitute, and urge every
Member of this House to vote for this historic opportunity to vote for
a real balanced budget, and that is the Kasich balanced budget
amendment. That is what is going to solve the problems of this country.
It is going to return more money to the hard-working taxpayers of this
country. That is what is going to be fair to all people all across this
country. It does so in such a way that it does not create the kind of
division that the Democrats on the other side would like to create in
this debate.
Mr. Chairman, this is not about class warfare, this is about
protecting the future of our children, our grandchildren, and about
what is happening right now in this Congress, and what is happening
right now in this country.
The fact of the matter is that with interest rates rising, the fact
that the Federal Government borrows $200 million a year means that
interest rates continue to rise, and we can save a substantial amount
of money if we can balance the budget and go about the business of this
country.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hastert], the distinguished deputy whip.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the pending
substitute and in strong support of the Kasich budget.
I have the greatest respect for the Members who bring this
alternative to the House, and I appreciate the work they have done to
make this substitute in order under the rule.
It is not easy to balance the budget.
If it were, the Congress would have done it years ago.
This budget alternative underscores the differences between
Republicans and the more liberal members of the Democrat caucus.
The Payne substitute raises taxes by $700 billion, while cutting
defense by $108 billion.
Clearly, this is not the path Republicans or most Americans are
willing to take to a balanced budget.
My constituents believe they are taxed too much, and they also
understand the necessary role the Government plays in promoting
national security.
The Kasich budget provides tax relief, not tax increases.
I am especially pleased about its tax relief to senior citizens, who
are now taxed at rates that discourage their active participation in
job markets.
The Kasich budget also guards our national defense by keeping our
defense spending at levels necessary to keep our people safe.
Mr. Chairman, cutting defense and raising taxes is not the best way
to a balanced budget.
The Kasich budget is not painless. It is not perfect. But it is the
best way to reach a balanced budget while maintaining a strong defense
and providing tax relief to middle-class families.
I urge all Members to vote for the Kasich budget and vote against the
Payne substitute.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2-\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], a member of the Committee on
the Budget.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kasich
budget.
Mr. Chairman, we hear over and over again that the Republican Kasich
budget cuts spending to pay for tax cuts for the rich and the
privileged, even though the other side of the aisle knows that we are
increasing spending by $1.2 trillion under our budget, and
[[Page H5292]] even though they know that we are increasing spending on
both Medicare and education.
Mr. Chairman, this class warfare argument pits Americans against
Americans. In 1993, even though the President campaigned on a middle-
class tax cut, he gave us the largest tax increase in history, $240
billion. All we are trying to do in our Kasich budget is give Americans
back some of the hard-earned dollars that the Clinton tax increase took
away 2 years ago.
Let us look at the facts. In our Contract With America, we provide
much needed tax relief to 42 million middle class Americans. Mr.
Chairman, 75 percent of tax cuts go to families. Seventy-four percent
of these families eligible for the $500 per child tax credit earn less
than $75,000 a year.
Mr. Chairman, the second biggest falsehood levied by the other side
is that the wealthy do not pay enough in taxes. Make no mistake, the
better off in this country do carry a heavy share of the tax burden. I
ask Members to judge for themselves.
According to the latest data available, the top 1 percent of income
earners paid 27.4 percent of all Federal individual income taxes. The
top 10 percent of wage earners paid 57.5 percent of total taxes, and
the top 50 percent paid almost 95 percent, the top 50 percent paid
almost 95 percent of total income tax.
Mr. Chairman, the question can be asked ``Whose money is this? Are
these Washington dollars?'' No, this money belongs to the American
families, the small business owners, and the family farmers that make
up this great Nation of ours.
All we are trying to do in the Republican Kasich budget is give back
to the American people a portion of what the Clinton tax increase took
away 2 years ago. Vote ``yes'' on the Kasich budget.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, do I understand correctly that this side has
the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. No. The Committee has the right to close.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in strong support of a
truly alternative budget. This proposal offered by the CBC balances the
budget by making those responsible for the deficit pay for a change.
Working families have been paying more than their fair share of taxes
all along. While the Republicans scapegoat Medicare and student loans
as the culprit, the fact of the matter is that corporate welfare stars
have been sponging off the American taxpayer family for decades.
The CBC budget closes the tax loopholes and giveaways, from which the
Rupert Murdoch's of this country have benefited since the trickle-down
years of the 1980's. Moreover, the CBC budget strengthens the programs
which educate our children and heal our elderly.
Mr. Chairman, the CBC alternative budget does not cut Medicare to
give the biggest tax grab in history to the privileged few. It is time
to go after corporate welfare, not Medicare. Vote for the CBC budget
alternative.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], chairman of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
(Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me, and I rise in opposition to the substitute.
Mr. Chairman, on what I consider to be the most important vote of my
entire political career, I rise in the strongest possible support of
this budget resolution. I have waited for the day when Congress would
pass a truly balanced Federal budget through 40 years of public service
at the State and Federal level, including leadership roles in both the
Democratic and now Republican parties. The rising national debt and
interest on that debt have created a crisis which Congress must face
now. It is truly a matter of saving our country from financial ruin.
Our children and grandchildren will either inherit a declining standard
of living or gain freedom from the financial excesses of our
generation.
Everyone in America will benefit from the long-term effects of
balancing the Federal budget. Many Members have already highlighted
much of the rationale for supporting this resolution so I will not
repeat those arguments. As chairman of the House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, however, I do want to address the concerns of Members worried
about potential impacts on veterans and the VA. Dire predictions of
numerous hospital closings and other consequences have been circulated
in an effort to generate opposition to this resolution. Let there be no
doubt, balancing the budget will be extremely difficult and the VA will
share in those difficulties. But this is the beginning of the budget
and spending process, not the end. I can assure all Members that the
Veterans' Affairs Committee will remain committed to achieving adequate
funding for the VA health care system. I am proud of my record of
support for veterans during the time I have been privileged to serve in
the House of Representatives. I thoroughly intend to continue that
record of support for those who have worn our Nations uniform. When I
leave political life and retire from public service, I believe I will
be able to look veterans straight in the eye and honestly say I
fulfilled my responsibilities to them. Every election campaign, I have
promised veterans in my district that I was on their side, and in my
heart I know I have been true to that promise. Voting for this
resolution will not break that promise.
But, every election campaign I also promise that I am absolutely
committed to balancing the federal budget and reducing the national
debt. Yes, veterans are important to me. But in the context of this
balanced budget debate, I must honestly say there are people more
important to me than veterans. When I consider all the ramifications of
whether we balance the budget by the year 2002, the most important
people that come to mind are my own grandchildren and all the children
of America.
For years, I have been very apprehensive about the legacy my tenure
in Congress would leave to the children growing up in America today.
The runaway national debt and the mounting interest payments needed to
service that debt are stealing their future economic opportunity and
prospects for a better standard of living than we are enjoying.
If I vote against this resolution, for any one parochial or political
reason, how can I ever look my own grandchildren in the eye and
honestly say I fulfilled my responsibilities to them?
The votes we cast today begin the budget process not end it. The
House will work all summer on authorizations, appropriations, and
reconciliation. I would say to all Members that I will work with them
to identify the best possible way to help the VA health care system
continue providing access to quality health care for eligible veterans
over the next 7 years and beyond. I believe the dire predictions we are
hearing about VA health care are premature. Administration officials
know this is only the beginning of the budget process. As a matter of
fact the Presidents' budget proposal projected about the same spending
level for VA health care over the next 5 years as is proposed in the
House budget recommendations. It is totally inconsistent for the
administration to argue that the House budget forces hospital closures
and theirs does not.
Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by saying to my colleagues, we can
either pass a balanced budget and work to protect high priority
veterans' programs. Or we can continue business as usual, ignore our
national financial crisis, and add to the debt our children will have
to repay. Vote for a balanced budget and leave a legacy to America's
children that we can all be proud of.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the chairman of the Republican
Conference.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, today is the proudest day of my career
here in Congress. When I came here 4\1/2\ years ago, I came here to try
to change the direction of this Government to ensure that my children
and the Members' children have a better opportunity in the future than
what we have today. Fourteen years ago when I first got myself involved
in Government service, it was not for me that I got involved. It was
because a Government that was out of control and out of touch with the
American people needed to be reined in.
Today truly is a historic day in not only my career, but the career
of every Member that is here, and a historic day for the American
people, because today we are taking the first step in our effort to
balance the budget and to restore the American dream for my children
and every child in America.
I am also very proud of my colleagues, who today will cast their vote
in favor of going down this path to not just balance the budget, but to
renew the American dream; that the actions that we take today will
decide the future for our children and theirs.
[[Page H5293]] The question today that we have to ask ourselves is do
we have the courage to change; do we have the courage to do the right
thing for our children and yours; or are we going to shrink from the
battle, shrink from the pressures of today, and sell our children and
yours down the road as we have done for the last 25 years?
Mr. Chairman, I know that I am proud of my colleagues who today will
cast their vote to do the right thing for their children, the right
thing for their grandchildren, the right thing for senior citizens in
this country who are threatened from a Government that is near fiscal
bankruptcy and a country that is near moral bankruptcy. Therefore, the
votes we cast today are important. Again, they are not about us, they
are about our children and yours.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Owens-Payne
substitute.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the Black Caucus budget has been an
indispensable part of this process, because it demonstrates that we can
balance the budget without robbing grandmothers and parents and kids
and the pensions of Federal employees.
However, I want to challenge the assumption of this entire 2-day
debate. Mr. Chairman, I balance my budget, but that is because I did
not pay cash up front for my house. I balance, as businesses do their
budgets, because they do not pay up front for equipment the way we pay
up front for bombers and submarines.
We have been on an insane path to balance the budget with cash money,
in a way that must make States and localities and businesses laugh at
the top of their voices, because they do not have a unified budget the
way we do; they have a capital budget, and an operating budget. We can
never balance the budget fairly this way.
We are trying to balance the budget in a radically destructive,
uniquely damaging way. The people who sent us here did not expect us to
go stupid on them.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham].
(Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Owens budget,
and in support of the Budget Committee's budget.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the budget alternative
offered by Mr. Owens and in support of the Budget Committee's balanced
budget resolution.
While I disagree with almost all of the specifics of this budget, I
commend the author for having the courage to put on paper what the
President and leadership on the other side of the aisle only dream
about.
Massive tax increases, massive spending increases on virtually every
part of the Federal budget, dismantling cuts in national security.
However, at least you have had the courage to participate in the
debate. It is a sad commentary that the leadership of your party has
chosen to stand on the sidelines.
I would like to say a few words to my colleagues who have produced
this budget and the earlier coalition budget as you consider whether to
support final passage of a balanced budget.
After 25 years the time has come to stop pouring ever-increasing debt
obligations on our children and grandchildren.
During the recent district work period, at every one of my 16 town
meetings, the voice of the people of Iowa's fifth district was clear--
the time has come for us all to stop worrying about our parochial
interests and put this country's future first.
Why should we work to balance the budget?
A recent article in Time Magazine noted these likely benefits from
balancing the budget.
Through lower interest rates, more than $28,000 saved on the purchase
of the average home.
Boosts the average family's take-home income by $1,000 per year.
Creates 2.4 million additional jobs by 2005.
Reduces our projected national debt by more than half a trillion
dollars.
Brings our national savings rate in line with economic competitors,
and
Provides a $500 per child tax credit for virtually every American
family and tax relief for older Americans.
What do the opponents of the balanced budget offer?
We have yet to see a balanced budget proposed by the White House or
the leadership other party.
Some are even now saying we should never balance the budget--that our
children's future is less important than preserving the status quo.
They have offered only fear, class warfare, empty slogans, and
criticisms that ring hollow in view of their failure to offer an
alternative.
There is no easy way to balance the budget, and not one Member of
this House supports every single item in this bill.
But, for 25 years, Congress has failed to own up to its obligation to
be fiscally responsible. Today, we can make history and restore to this
institution.
Vote ``yes'' on final passage of the Republican balanced budget. Vote
``yes'' to control spending, cut taxes and, once and for all, end
deficit spending.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
(Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Payne-Owens
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 67
and in support of the Payne-Owens substitute, offered on behalf of the
Congressional Black Caucus. The CBC alternative stands in stark
contrast to the proposal presented by the Republican majority.
The Republicans offer tax breaks to higher income Americans in
exchange for reductions in medical care to older Americans;
dramatically cut Federal spending under the guise of saving the next
generation, while reducing education programs critical for the success
of millions of that generation; and assume block granting and funding
reductions in safety net programs, while reducing opportunities for
training and self-sufficiency. In contrast, the Payne-Owens substitute
recognizes the need to protect America's most vulnerable and invest in
its people.
While I have reservations about aspects of the Payne-Owens
substitute, the CBC has been forced to draft its budget under the
Republican-imposed constraint of balancing the budget by the year 2002.
I understand the virtue of a specific timetable to accomplish a goal.
However, when faced with the magnitude of cuts necessary to achieve
that goal, it is unconscionable that the majority will neither consider
compromising on that time table nor scaling back on their fiscally
irresponsible and unfair tax cut proposal.
The crisis facing this Nation is not the one envisioned by the
Republicans if we fail to agree to the arbitrary goal of balancing the
budget by 2002. The true crisis resides in our educational system; in
our inability to train Americans and move them off welfare; in our
decaying urban centers; and in our inability to ensure affordable
health care to all Americans. The Republican budget exacerbates these
crises by assuming drastic reductions in programs which seek to address
them.
Republicans insist they are not cutting Medicare to finance their tax
cut proposal. Yet the Congressional Budget Office projects that the
level of Medicare spending allowable under the GOP budget is
significantly less than the amount necessary to maintain benefits under
current law.
Rather than address Medicare and Medicaid in the context of
comprehensive health care reform, the GOP budget reduces Medicare
spending by $288 billion over the 7 years between 1996 and 2002. It is
estimated that this cut will produce an increase in out-of-pocket
expenses for recipients of $3,500 over the next 7 years.
Funding for Medicaid is reduced by $187 billion over 7
years--a cut of about one-third. Medicaid serves a diverse
population of about 33 million people--60 percent are children, four
million are elderly. Nearly 60 percent of health costs for the 2.9
million long-term care patients in America are paid for by Medicaid.
Under Republican budget plans, nearly seven million children and one
million elderly and disabled persons could lose coverage.

The Republican budget assumes reductions in welfare spending, while
cutting job training funds by $1.4 billion between 1996 and 2002--
undermining their rhetoric about the need to transform welfare
recipients into productive citizens.
Reductions in Federal education programs include some of the most
short-sighted provisions in the Republican budget resolution. The cycle
of dependence decried by the majority must first be addressed in our
schools. Yet the Republican proposal reduces Head Start by $209
million. The budget assumes elimination
[[Page H5294]] of title 1 concentration grants--providing supplemental
funding to assist low-achieving students, drug abuse and violence
prevention programs, and the five TRIO programs. The latter programs
have successfully encouraged young people from disadvantaged
backgrounds to enter and complete college.
For the average college student receiving loans, the elimination of
the in-school interest exemption will add over $3,000 to the cost of a
college education. These middle- and lower-income students and their
families already face a rising financial burden in the quest for higher
education. The budget cuts funding for libraries and numerous higher
education grants, fellowships, and scholarships.
While the Republican budget reduces funding for education and
training programs, the Congressional Black Caucus substitute calls for
a 25-percent increase in education and training over the current
funding level. This is an investment of $154 billion more than the GOP
budget over 7 years. The substitute provides full funding for the Head
Start program by fiscal year 2002, increased funding for the Summer
Youth Employment program, and more funds for Job Training Partnership
Act programs.
If these programs need reform, then let's reform them. Elimination of
these investments is a poor and cynical alternative to reform.
I have strong reservations about specific proposals included in the
CBC alternative. While defense spending must continue to be scrutinized
in the post-cold-war era, we must also take care to ensure our military
readiness in the face of continued uncertainty around the world. I am
also concerned that revenue proposals included in the alternative may
be too harsh in their treatment of the business sector. Notwithstanding
these reservations, I support the CBC budget as a symbol of the Caucus'
continued commitment to inject into budget debates the importance
of investing in the human capital of this Nation.

Republicans contend that unless we balance the Federal budget by
2002, we risk the well-being of the next generation of Americans. I do
not dispute the need for fiscal responsibility. But I do strongly
dispute the notion that an expanding American economy will benefit
millions in that next generation if they are denied the tools to share
in prosperity. It has not happened in the past, and it will not happen
in the future. Overcoming poverty, dependency, and illiteracy requires
compassion, investment, and creativity. The majority's budget is absent
these ingredients.
I urge my colleagues to support the Payne-Owens substitute, and
oppose House Congressional Resolution 67.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Congressional
Black Caucus and the Owens and Payne amendment budget resolution.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to once again support the
Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget, along with the
Progressive Caucus.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Congressional Black Caucus
and Progressive Caucus budget and to urge my colleagues to vote in
support of this balanced, caring approach to Federal spending.
Unlike the Republican budget, which fufills their ``Contract with
Corporate America'', this budget fufills our contract with the American
people. This budget is a caring budget that does not unfairly balance
the budget on the backs of our Nation's children, elderly, poor, or
working class. Our budget is evenhanded, it meets the economic and
social needs of everyday Americans, and it promotes fiscal
responsibility by balancing the budget by 2002.
The most important distinction between our budget and the majority's
budget is our investment in our future. The majority wishes to balance
the budget by 2002 so that our children will not have to pay for our
excesses--but then the GOP goes on to deny children the very thing that
will allow them to be competitive in the global market: A complete
education.
We completely reject the notion that eliminating the Department of
Education and reducing funds for libraries, Head Start, and the TRIO
Program for first-generation college students will improve America--and
the American public is on our side.
In addition, unlike the GOP budget, our budget does not give tax
breaks to the wealthiest Americans. In fact, our budget cuts taxes for
working people and closes corporate tax loopholes. Now is the time to
end corporate welfare, and our budget does this.
We have also protected important job training and job creation
programs, and have proposed targeted increases. It is foolhardy to
believe that eliminating job training and creation programs will make
our economy stronger. We must continue to dedicate resources toward
expanding our economic foundation.
Finally, the CBC budget continues the tradition of advocating a saner
defense budget. It is immoral to propose cutting education, workers'
assistance, and other social programs without making substantive cuts
in military spending.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
(Mr. FORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Payne-Owens
Congressional Black Caucus substitute, for their leadership and courage
to say that the Members of this House ought to look at corporate
welfare and how we ought to balance this budget, and not on the backs
of everyday people in America, and let us get on about the business.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson].
(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support
of the Congressional Black Caucus budget
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Ms. Brown].
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Connecticut
[Mr. Shays], if he would have any time he could yield to this side of
the aisle.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, we are not
quite sure. If the gentleman wants to come over here, I am happy to
talk to him.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I hope Members can see this
picture. This is a picture of Claude Pepper from Florida, a true
champion of the elderly. He would be outraged over the attempt to
reduce Medicare and Medicaid to a second-rate health care system so
Republicans can pay for a $355 billion tax cut for the wealthy.
Veterans fare no better in this cruel Republican budget, which destroys
the heart of the VA program, especially in Florida, where almost 100
new veterans arrive daily.

{time} 1445

The Congressional Black Caucus budget is good for America's majority,
for the elderly and veterans. It includes increases for Medicare and
homeless programs. This caring majority budget remembers veterans and
not just on Memorial Day. It also remembers the elderly and would be a
tribute to Claude Pepper.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], a member of the Committee on the
Budget.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate Members
on the other side for taking the time and being dedicated enough in our
single objective of moving to a new America, and drawing up this budget
and offering it on the floor.
But, Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of budget we are trying to move
away from. We are moving away from the concept of increased taxes, of
job-destroying taxes. We are moving toward a world in which there is
job growth and opportunity.
Our budget, the Republican budget, seeks to cut spending. It seeks to
do that by restraining the growth of spending. In doing that, we are
trying to provide opportunity for the next generation.
The answer to this is not to defend the status quo. The people of
American are ready for the tough choices. The Republican budget in fact
does not punt when it is asked to deal with the tough choices. It takes
them head-on.
The Congressional Black Caucus budget is projected to cost about
$12.75 trillion over 7 years. That is almost $850 billion above the
House Budget
[[Page H5295]] Committee proposed level. It is spending that will be a
sure recipe for disaster.
I congratulate my friends on the other side of the aisle, but I tell
you that our children cannot afford this budget. It is a recipe to
diminish hope and opportunity. It is not a budget that will restore
growth. It will not put us on a path toward growth.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Waters].
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this CBC budget
alternatives. This budget is about jobs. It is about job training, job
security, and job creation.
There is a lot of discussion about homelessness. If you want to get
the homeless off the street and the dole, we need to provide them with
jobs and job training. This budget funds job training for the homeless.
We can get rid of crime and youth violence with jobs and job
training. This budget funds a variety of programs to train young
people. The young people of this Nation truly need these jobs this
summer. We fund the Youth Fair Chance Program, a program that will get
troubled young people back into the mainstream with education and jobs.
We have the best welfare reform in this budget for welfare
recipients. Welfare recipients need jobs and job training. This budget
does that. It also funds rent reform so that public housing recipients
can go to work and get off welfare.
Many formerly middle-class workers now work in entry-level jobs
because they have not learned new skills. This budget would invest in
retraining and economic conversion so laid-off workers can learn a
skill and return to jobs which provide a decent standard of living.
If you believe the private sector must lead the way in economic
development, this budget would restore and expand funds for community
development banks. Community development banks create small businesses.
Small businesses create jobs. The best social program in the world is a
job.
Finally, the Republican budget is the budget that protects the big
corporate welfare interests, the Wall Street robber barons and the big
corporate tax manipulators. The CBC budget is a budget of working
people, the middle class, of children and the poor. Let's bring hope,
not despair, to America. Support the CBC budget.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York [Ms. Velazquez].
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, we are down to two plans for balancing
the budget, and one fundamental choice--Medicare, or CorporateCare. Do
we fund tax breaks for the corporate America and the wealthy, or
preserve health benefits for the elderly? The Kasich budget chooses the
wealthy; the caring majority budget chooses the seniors and working
families.
The Republican budget rolls back Medicare benefits, ends college aid
programs, and slashes spending for child nutrition.
Who gains--the rich. They get almost $300 billion in tax breaks.
The caring majority budget stands on the side of the American people.
It fully funds Medicare and Medicaid, stops backdoor attempts to cut
Social Security, and invests billions more in education, job training,
and job creation.
How do we do this--by closing tax loopholes for the rich, ending
corporate welfare programs, and drafting the first sane, post-cold-war
defense budget.
Republicans and Democrats both have plans for balancing the budget.
The only difference is who benefits--the wealthy, or the working people
of this country.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
(Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the budget proposal of
the Congressional Black Caucus.
I am voting for this budget, not because I favor every detail, in
fact there are choices that the authors of this budget have made to
which I strongly object. However, the general trust of this budget is
on target.
This is a balanced budget. It gets to balance through reasonable cuts
in corporate welfare and reductions in waste at the Pentagon.
This budget protects Social Security and Medicare. And it provides
for an increase in the most important investment we as a nation can
make--education.
The Republican budget, on the other hand, gives a huge tax cut for
profitable corporations an the wealthy. It actually increases military
spending, while making deep cuts in Medicare. What's worse, it cuts
Social Security cost of living adjustments, violating the promise made
by Republican leaders.
The Republican budget is a prescription for the continued decline in
living standards for working American families.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
(Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the CBC alternative
budget.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, to close debate, I yield the balance of the
time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is yielded 4 minutes by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for their generosity
on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, we come to the closing moments of this debate. Let me
say, as I have said on more than one occasion, that today we engage in
perhaps the most important function that a public servant can engage
in, and, that is, the adoption of our national budget. Because I
believe that our national budget is the best reflection of our national
values. For one can determine the nature of our commitment to our
future, to our populace, to our children, to our unfortunate, to our
disadvantaged, to the less fortunate people in our society by a simple
examination of our budgetary priorities.
The second point I would make, Mr. Chairman, is this: Every single
budget that has come to the floor today, including the one before us
now, balances the budget by the year 2002 that was the prerequisite
that allowed any budget alternative to come to the floor.
Thus the debate, Mr. Chairman, is not whether one budget or the other
balances but what road, what route, which direction, what values, what
priorities are embraced by that national budget.
I am pleased to rise in support of the Congressional Black Caucus/
Progressive Caucus budget because it is the only budget before this
body that simultaneously does three things:
First, it provides for a comprehensive approach for the effective
maintenance of our national security. Second, it provides for a civil
investment program that allows all of us here to carry out our
significant and important constitutional responsibilities to provide
for the common good and to promote domestic tranquility. Third, it
places us on the path of tax equity and tax fairness for all of our
people.
In the moments I have remaining, let me focus on the issue of an
effective national security strategy.
Mr. Chairman, it goes beyond simply placing billions of dollars in a
huge military budget. I would submit that there are three elements of
an effective national security strategy:
First, a healthy vibrant and vital economy and an able citizenry that
is well-educated, well-trained and highly motivated to participate in
the political process, allowing us to continue to struggle over the
health of our economy, the quality of our lives and the vibrance of our
institutions.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to how we address that, we must then fund,
more than adequately, education, health, and job training. There must
be a commitment to technological and infrastructure development. We
must continue to remind ourselves of the significant contribution that
comes to us by virtue of our investment in physical and social
research, just to name a few.
[[Page H5296]] The second element of an important national security
strategy is a comprehensive, thoughtful, well-thought-out, well-funded
foreign policy that does several things: promotes regional and
international stability by working with our allies and other nations in
the world. Second, to promote democracy and human rights, precluding
internal conflicts that danger and threaten the security; and, third,
to deter war, not by violence and militarism but by the use of
diplomacy and other significant nonviolent tools that are at our
disposal in the international arena as we carry out our international
discourse.
Mr. Chairman, the third element is a sufficient military force to
carry out our responsibilities in a rapidly changing world, to address
the threats and the challenges that are out there.
I believe that the Congressional Black Caucus budget has done all of
that.
Let me place this latter point in proper perspective: We are now, Mr.
Chairman, in this country spending as much on our military budget,
almost as much as every other Nation in the world combined spends on
its national military budgets.
If you add our European allies and our Asian allies into that
equation, our friends and the United States spend in excess of 80
percent of the world's military budget. Thus less than 20 percent can
be designed to finance any of our potential adversaries.
Question: Why do we need so much money when the cold war is over?
To conclude quickly, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support
the Congressional Black Caucus effort. It is magnificent as we move to
enhance the quality of life for our children and our children's
children.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, it is my distinct honor to yield the balance
of our time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], our majority
leader.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] is recognized for
6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by paying my respects to my friends in the
Congressional Black Caucus. Once again as they do every year, they have
brought together a budget; they have risen to the occasion and they
have put good work into their effort.
Let me assure my friends, it is with a certain amount of regret that
I must encourage Members not to vote for your budget, but my statements
are made nevertheless in total respect for your good effort.
Mr. Chairman, this debate, this great debate over how and whether we
balance the budget, should conclusively prove to America that real and
fundamental change has come to the people's House.
For the first time in more than a quarter century, we are actually
going to balance the budget of the United States.
Some here today have suggested that we should not; others have argued
that we cannot, that the task is too difficult, the choices too tough.
I say to my colleagues, now is the time to stop robbing our children
and grandchildren; now is the time, at last, for us to give up the
false promise of big Government and deficit spending.
Now is the time to do what is right, to restore the American Dream.
This Republican Congress will neither gamble with the future of our
children, nor break our bond with our seniors.
Today is an historic day, but we must keep it in historical
perspective.
We just finished celebrating the 50th Anniversary of V-E Day. We
honored the courage, the heroism, and the sacrifice of a generation
that guaranteed our freedom, and restored liberty to Europe.
They faced far, far tougher foes than simple red ink.
Compared to their sacrifices on the beaches of Sicily, the cliffs of
Normandy, and in the forests of the Bulge, our task pales by
comparison.
Those brave Americans risked life and limb so that their children
would live free. Today, that freedom is at risk again--not because of
the military muscle of a foreign power, but because politicians didn't
have the courage to do what we will do today.
This debate is about much more than dollars and cents or dueling
charts and graphs.
It is about morality; about whether or not one generation will
continue cheating the next.
If our children are to live as freely, as proudly, and as happily as
we live, then it is time to quit the political posturing and balance
the budget.
Will our task be difficult? Things worth doing usually are.
Will it cause discomfort? Freedom sometimes does.
Will it require courage? That is what being American is all about.
Let us suffer no illusions. Those who fear change, those who profit
from the status quo, those who have ruled Washington for decades, will
fight us at every turn.
Today, the party that once rallied the Nation with ``we have nothing
to fear but fear itself,'' has nothing to offer but fear itself.
But the politics of fear never works in America, because America is a
Nation of optimists.
Americans want a smaller Government. They demand tax relief. And they
reject business as usual.
Now it is up to us. For, today we must decide what kind of a Nation
we will be.
We can, as some in this body and in the White House have suggested,
do nothing. We can keep on spending, and spending, and spending, giving
no thought to what it will do to our future, our families, and our
Nation.
Or we can pass the Kasich budget, restore the American Dream, and
head into the 21st century with our heads high, our fiscal house in
order optimistic, and full of hope.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote for freedom, hope, and vote
for responsibility. Vote for the Kasich budget.
Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
the Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget. This budget
demonstrates a commitment to the American people. We will not sit idly
by and merely cringe at the possibility that money will be taken out of
the homes, and food off the tables, of millions of Americans.
The CBC budget calls for spending much less on defense than the
Republican proposal. The disproportionate ratio of defense spending to
domestic investment is outdated. Believe it or not, we are at peace. We
must have the courage to go further in investing in our human capital.
Those who can least afford cuts--the poor, American children, and the
elderly--should not be required to bear the brunt of the Republican
agenda. I ask Mr. Chairman, is human life not more important than big
business? The CBC alternative budget calls on corporations to bear
their fair share of the burden.
The CBC alternative budget will invest in the programs people really
need. Funding for Medicare and Medicaid will be maintained. In
addition, education and job training will take high priority.
We must again invest in our people and their institutions. This
investment will stimulate economic growth and promote the democratic
ideal of human dignity. Our conscience mandates that we do no less.
I stand before you today on behalf of the tens of millions of
Americans who cannot stand for themselves. For them, I ask my
colleagues to balance this country's need for fiscal responsibility
with compassion for those Americans who work hard every day but who are
still unable to provide for their families; elderly Americans who have
worked hard their entire lives only to be told by members of the
majority party that Medicare is being abolished to provide tax breaks
for the wealthy; and the millions of American youth who rely on summer
jobs to help care for their families and keep them off the streets.
I stand today to plead with my colleagues to consider the severe
consequences of failing to provide for important programs like
Headstart and Summer Youth Employment. Headstart helps ensure that
million of poor children in this country will receive the opportunity
for a basic education. And Mr. Chairman, I don't have to remind this
body of the critical state of education in America. Headstart is the
best start we can give to our youth, who alone will determine the
future course of this great Nation. By providing our youth with summer
jobs, we provide them with an alternative to the tragic influences of
crime that so terribly plagues our Nation's cities. I would remind my
colleagues that it costs million less to offer summer jobs than to
build and maintain prisons. This is a program that just plain makes
sense.
I further plead with my colleagues to remember that this Nation's
greatest asset is compassion. As we vote on the most important piece of
legislation in this Congress, I ask my colleagues to not only show
compassion but vision, for without this vision, Mr. Chairman, our
Nation shall surely perish.
[[Page H5297]] I urge my colleagues to support the Payne-Owens/Black
Caucus substitute.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the budget for the
caring majority offered by Mr. Payne and Mr. Owens.
As I mentioned yesterday, this entire process is flawed because every
alternative presented to the House must balance the budget by fiscal
year 2002, which some economists fear would pull resources out of the
economy too abruptly. The Payne-Owens substitute was developed within
this artificial restraint.
But the Payne-Owens substitute is by far the best of the proposals
before us today. Its assumptions are far fairer than those behind the
other proposals, increasing revenues as well as cutting spending and
putting defense on the table along with domestic programs. It protects
essential Federal functions from the budget axe and makes needed
investments in our Nation's future.
On the revenue side, the substitute would give individuals an income
tax credit to offset 20 percent of Social Security payroll taxes--a
major, if necessary, burden on working families.
Revenues would come from increasing certain corporate and business
taxes, eliminating certain tax subsidies for businesses, and raising
the tax rate on capital gains.
On the spending side, the Payne-Owens substitute would cut defense
spending to a level more in line with the world we're living in today,
while providing the resources to continue our role in international
affairs.
It would protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and increase
our investments in education and training programs.
It would continue the crucial Federal role in public health and
biomedical research and further our commitment to a cleaner environment
and to biological diversity.
It would address the failings of our welfare system by maintaining
Medicaid, AFDC, and school lunch as entitlements, creating jobs, and
increasing support for child care.
It would balance violent crime enforcement programs by strengthening
prevention and increase funding for juvenile justice, weed and seed,
drug courts, and ounce of prevention.
Mr. Chairman, this is the best alternative before the House today. It
would bring our Federal budget into balance in fiscal year 2002 without
making the Federal Government unable to protect the Nation's health,
safety, and environment, or provide a safety net for the most
vulnerable of our people.
I urge my colleagues to support the Payne-Owens substitute and, if it
does not pass, to oppose the Republican budget.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of veterans and
the elderly and in support of the Congressional Black Caucus budget.
Our seniors who rely so heavily on Medicare and Medicaid will be
especially hard hit by Republican budgets. Hurting seniors and
destroying veterans health care is the Republican plan for America.
Claude Pepper, a true champion of the elderly, would be outraged with
the attempt to reduce Medicare and Medicaid to second-rate health care
systems so Republicans can pay for a $355 billion tax cut for the
wealthy.
Veterans fair no better than seniors in the cruel Republican budget.
Republican budget cuts destroy the heart of VA programs. VA's health
care system suffers from years of underfunding; many of its facilities
are old and in need of repair. Gutting construction funds to update
VA's infrastructure will destroy veterans's health care--especially in
Florida where almost 100 new veterans arrive daily.
The Congressional Black Caucus budget is good for America's majority,
for the elderly, and veterans. It increases the President's fiscal year
1996 budget for veterans by $175.3 million. It includes increases for
medical care and homeless programs, and recommends new construction
funding for VA medical centers to meet increasing needs. This caring
majority budget remembers veterans--and not just on Memorial Day. It
also remembers the elderly.
{time} 1500

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 56,
noes 367, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 344]

AYES--56

Becerra
Bonior
Brown (FL)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
Dellums
Dixon
Engel
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jackson-Lee
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (GA)
Martinez
McDermott
McKinney
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mink
Nadler
Oberstar
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Rangel
Reynolds
Sabo
Sanders
Scott
Serrano
Stark
Stokes
Thompson
Torres
Tucker
Velazquez
Waters
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--367

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Bishop

[[Page H5298]] NOT VOTING--10

Archer
Berman
Flake
Kleczka
Livingston
McNulty
Mollohan
Rush
Towns
Waxman

{time} 1522

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Rush for, with Mr. McNulty against.

Ms. PELOSI changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. BONO. Mr. Chairman, on today I missed the following votes: On
rollcall No. 342, Gephardt, substitute, I would have voted ``no,'' on
rollcall No. 343, Neumann substitute, I would have voted ``no,'' and on
rollcall No. 344, Payne substitute, I would have voted ``no.''
The CHAIRMAN. The only further amendment in order under House
Resolution 149 is an amendment in the nature of a substitute by the
minority leader or his designee, based upon a revised budget submission
by the President, if printed in the Record by the minority leader not
later than May 17, 1995. Such an amendment was not so printed.
Consequently, no further amendment is in order.
Pursuant to the rule, a final period of general debate is now in
order.
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] will be recognized for 5
minutes, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will be recognized
for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the
measure.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the budget resolution
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and in opposition to
the alternative budget resolutions to be offered on the floor today.
I congratulate the chairman of the Budget Committee for his
outstanding, groundbreaking leadership in putting together this budget
resolution, helping all of us carry out our promises to bring our
budget into balance. None of us want to leave our children and
grandchildren an inheritance of debt; we want to leave them a better
way of life and we will.
As Chairman Kasich knows better than any of us, this is not easy work
and in many ways it is painful. Despite my support for the
international affairs function programs, I also support this
resolution, even though international affairs spending will go down,
sharply, over the next few years.
The leadership has come together in this agreement resolution to
support the same funding levels for international affairs.
Those levels are realistic: we are supporting programs that are
necessary to the national security and the overall national interest of
the United States. We will all stand together against further cuts in
spending on those programs in the course of voting on this resolution.
We've been facing these same issues in our Committee on International
Relations, where appropriations for most of these programs are
authorized.
Last Monday night, our committee ordered reported legislation that
reduces--I repeat reduces--fiscal year 1996 spending on programs within
our jurisdiction by $1 billion compared to fiscal year 1995
appropriations, that is, from $18.4 billion to $17.4 billion.
In 1997, it authorizes spending of $15.2 billion, for a cut of $1.6
billion compared to 1995. And it does even more--it steps off the
process of cutting back on Government agencies by ending the
independent existence of the Agency for International Development, the
U.S. Information Agency, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
When this resolution is adopted, and our American Overseas Interests
Act comes to the floor next week, it will be brought into full
conformity with the discretionary budget authority targets applicable
to our committee.
At that time, we will again stand together with our leadership in
support of sharply reduced, prudent, but necessary funding that
supports our national interests.
To elaborate further with regard to my reasons for supporting this
resolution, it should be underscored that it will provide for a
balanced Federal budget within 7 years--by fiscal year 2002--by cutting
the deficit by a total of $1.1 trillion. This will be achieved through
cuts in both discretionary and mandatory spending programs.
Additionally, H. Con. Res. 67 would allow for an increase in funding
to strengthen important defense programs. The cold war may be over, but
the world is still a dangerous place.
Although I am voting in favor of the budget resolution, I am
concerned about its impact on our Nation's seniors. Though it is
important that the Medicare system be reformed due to its impending
bankruptcy in the year 2002, the Budget Committee's proposal will cut
an estimated $22.5 billion from Medicare in New York State.
Accordingly, we must make certain that those reforms do not place undue
hardships on our Nation's senior citizens. Therefore, I believe that
cuts in the program should not affect current recipients of Medicare.
Instead, the changes should be in place for future recipients.
Additionally, I recommend means testing the Medicare Program. Those
seniors who can afford to pay more for their health care should do so.
I am hopeful that we can work out a Medicare reform proposal
throughout this budget process which can accomplish both saving
Medicare from bankruptcy while at the same time protecting our Nation's
seniors. I look forward to working with my colleagues in that regard.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of a budget
resolution which will provide for a balanced budget for the first time
since 1969.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of the Kasich
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, on the issue of Medicare and Medicaid, which my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim we are going to cut, I
want to read a quote:

Today, Medicaid and Medicare are going up at three times
the rate of inflation. We propose to let it go up at two
times the rate of inflation. That is not a Medicare or
Medicaid cut. We are going to have increases in Medicare and
Medicaid, but a reduction in the rate of growth.

I venture to say you might be surprised to learn that these words
were spoken not by Republicans, but by the President last year when he
was trying to sell his health care package to the American people.
Thus far the debate on making changes to insure the solvency of
Medicare has been less than statesmanlike. In fact, at times it has
been just plain nasty and mean-spirited. We live in a high-technology
country where words spoken by a major political figure can reach a wide
audience. I think we should all pause and think before we make
statements that are simply untrue and at times even outrageous.
Those who are quick to criticize and condemn what we are trying to do
to save Medicare and Medicaid should exercise a little caution. These
is no need to let loose with inflammatory statements that could alarm
the most vulnerable segments of the
population in our country, namely the elderly, the infirmed, and women
and children. It is wrong and think frankly ignoble to do so.

I think it is a disgrace that some of my colleagues have likened what
we are attempting to do to the actions of Hitler during the Holocaust.
I find it repugnant that they would point an accusatory finger and
insinuate that through the Contract With America we are waging a war on
our children. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I don't remember hearing this type of rhetoric last year when the
First Lady said ``We feel confident--that we can reduce the rate of
increase in Medicare without undermining quality for Medicare
recipients.'' What a difference a year makes. Now, administration
officials are singing a different tune. Recently, Secretary Shalala
said: ``Our argument is that if you're slowing down growth here, and
that's below what's happening in terms of costs out there, it's a real
cut.'' So, when the president proposed slowing down the rate of growth
in Medicare and Medicaid it wasn't a cut, but now that our budget
contains a similar proposal, it is a cut.
It is ironic that the administration is now saying that Republicans
don't care about the poor and needy because we want to reform Medicare
and Medicaid. When the administration was proposing similar changes
would they have accepted the label mean-spirited?
Regardless of whether there is a balanced budget, there is an
undeniable, urgent need to make certain reforms to avert the Medicare
trust fund's looming bankruptcy. Let's put our differences aside and
work in a bipartisan manner to solve the problems of how to save the
Medicare Program and how to reform Medicaid so that it delivers the
necessary care in a more cost-effective manner. I believe we
[[Page H5299]] are up to the task and I plan to work with my colleagues
in Committee and here in Congress to achieve this goal.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
(Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kasich budget
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, today the Republican Party is following through on its
promise to propose a budget that complies with the balanced budget
amendment sponsored by my good friend Charlie Stenholm and I, this
House passed at the beginning of the year.
This is a serious budget resolution with no gimmicks that calls the
bluff of those who said we could not or would not propose a balanced
budget.
Now, I doubt there is a single Member of Congress that supports
absolutely every provision of this resolution. Personally, I am
concerned by the proposal to eliminate the Department of Energy.
The notion that eliminating this Department will result in huge
savings is simply not correct. Most of the functions of the Department
will have to continue--the nuclear weapons complex, for example, will
still have to operate. The Environmental Management Program will still
exist. Congress cannot eliminate these functions.
The Reagan administration ran into these same difficulties in the
early 1980's. The final analysis of dismantling DOE indicated that
there would be little, if any, cost savings in the long run, and that
in the short run, it would actually cost more money to shut down the
Department than leaving it alone.
Significant savings do exist in the Department's programs. There is
no doubt of that. The DOE, by its own estimation, will be able to save
over $14 billion over the next 5 years--a significant reduction. It
also will have eliminated 27 percent of its work force. These are real
cuts, and real savings for American taxpayers. The overall savings, in
my opinion, will be greater by keeping DOE whole and accountable than
by parceling out its responsibilities to a range of other Government
agencies.
Of course, every issue addressed in the budget resolution will
ultimately be decided by the appropriate authorizing committees. I look
forward to the debate over this matter.
I urge my colleagues to support the Kasich budget resolution.
personal explanation

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, on this last vote, I was in the Chamber. I
had my card in the machine. I pushed the button twice, but it did not
do anything. I ran down here in order to vote, and you closed the vote
off. Before I got in, the clerks on the outside yelled, ``One more, one
more.'' I came in and yelled again, ``One more, one more,'' and I was
not allowed to vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's statement will appear in the Record.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would be in order for the
gentleman to be given an opportunity to vote ``yes'' on the next vote
in order to make up for the ``yes'' he did not get to cast on the last
vote?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair declines to rule on that.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, on this last vote, I would have voted ``yes''
resoundingly.

personal explanation

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a statement for the
record. On the last recorded vote on the amendment, rollcall 344, I
believe it is, I inadvertently voted ``no''; my intention was to vote
``yes'' on that amendment.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished minority leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, this vote that
we are about to take is perhaps the most important vote of the 2-year
period that we will serve in the House of Representatives, and for a
moment I would like you to take out of your mind all of the charts and
all of the graphs and all of the numbers and all of the statistics that
we have flooded the floor with and the airwaves with over the last 2
days and to remember that when we pass a budget, unlike anything else
we do here, we affect the lives of millions of our people, all of our
people.
I would like you to focus on a picture, 70-year-old Cecil Whitner and
his wife Ethel, from Affton, MO. All of his life, Cecil has served his
country and his community. He fought five major battles in World War
II, and he was rewarded with the Bronze Star for his bravery in action.
For more than three decades, he worked as a meatcutter in a grocery
store in St. Louis. He always paid his taxes, he paid his Medicare
taxes, he paid his Social Security taxes, he did what this society
asked him to do, as did his wife.
{time} 1530

Now that he is retired on disability and over 70, he depends every
month on Social Security and Medicare, on the money that he paid into
these programs for more than 35 years.
I say to my colleagues, this budget that you are about to vote on
would take approximately $1,300 by the year 2002 between Medicare costs
and this pension from Social Security from their annual income, $1,300.
It would be one thing if what we are asking them to do was to simply
balance the budget, but it is not. In addition to allegedly balancing
the budget, we are taking in $1,300 from these folks so that we can
give a $20,000 a year tax break to families earning $350,000 a year or
more.
I would like to show my colleagues another picture, a younger family.
In this picture we see Gina Stacer, whose husband, Roy, works as a car
salesman in St. Louis. They are trying to save desperately for their
twins' education as well as for their own retirement, but I say to my
colleagues, when you live paycheck to paycheck, as most of our people
do, that's pretty hard to do. Gina's parents are both retired, and they
pay astronomical medical bills with Medicare and Social Security. But
this budget would cut those benefits, and Gina and Roy would have to
use their savings, not to build their children's future--they would
like to go to college--but to have to protect their parents' lives.
I say to my colleagues, these issues that you vote on today are not
just the issues of the elderly. They are issues that affect every
American and every American family. Young people who are working have a
responsibility to take care of their parents, and they take that
responsibility very seriously, and, if their parents are in trouble
with medical bills, or they cannot support themselves on Social
Security, and if they are living on Social Security, then they have got
to step into the breach, and, as all of you know, these middle-income
families and families trying to get in the middle income are already
pressed without having to do what this budget would ask them to do.
Now in the final analysis this budget is about our values. It is
about what we believe is right and wrong, just and decent, and I urge
my colleagues to understand that as they vote that they are not voting
for just charts, and graphs, and numbers. They are voting for flesh-
and-blood people who depend on us to represent them in this most
important of all transactions that we do as a people. The value of my
party, and I hope of a lot in the other party, is that we must invest
in people for the things that they cannot do for themselves.
All of us believe our budget must be brought into balance. All of us
believe we have go to get our fiscal accounts in order. It is the
question of how to do it, and what I argue to my colleagues is, if
we're going to balance the budget, let's figure out how to balance the
budget, but in that toughest of all transactions let us not represent a
value that says we're going to take money from middle-income people who
are already struggling, $1,300 a year, to give a $20,000 a year tax cut
to families who are earning $350,000 a year.
I realize the value that says we must invest in people who already
have it made, and that investment will make its way down to the middle
class eventually, but I believe as public servants we have a duty, a
responsibility, in justice and decency and for what is right, to
continue to make the needed investment in the people of this country,
which is the greatest resource of this country, and let the people who
have it made continue to make their contributions to this great society
as well.
Defeat this resolution. We can do better.
The CHAIRMAN. All time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has
expired.
[[Page H5300]] Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, to close this historic debate
I consider it my great privilege and honor to yield my time to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget, a person who has done yeoman work on this.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Kasich] for 5 minutes.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, we have seen a lot of pictures. I say, ``I
want to show you, America--I want to show you the future. I want to
show you who we're doing this for.''
We have seen a lot of pictures. Katie Nunn--a little baby--and her
mother who is here says she wants her baby to be able to fly someday
like all of us can, spread our wings, and dream and become what we want
to become. That is what this is all about today.
The first thing I want to do is I want to talk about the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]. Martin Sabo is as class an act as we can
find in public life. He is a wonderful human being.
I love Martin because he has fought the good fight, and he is a man
of conviction, and a man of courage, and a man of principle. He will be
a friend of mine forever.
I also want to take a minute to salute the pioneers. Remember when
they went over the mountains, and they broke the wheel, and they
struggled to make it work in the rain, and against attacks and disease?
That pioneer is Pete Domenici. He is a Senator from New Mexico.
I want to thank somebody who is not here today. I am sure he is
probably watching, and he does not agree with all the details, but he
is a guy that proved that two sides can come together, they can reach
agreement. It is my dream someday we will all be able to have a
bipartisan effort. His name is Tim Penny. Tim Penny is a man of
conscience.
I want to thank the Budget staff who worked day and night, 28 of
them. I mean 28 of them going through $12 trillion worth of spending.
They are phenomenal, and they dream, and they are being rewarded today.
And I want to thank, most importantly, my colleagues on the Committee
on the Budget, the tip of the spear for the revolution, and I want to
talk a little bit about the revolution, and this is what I said to
Martin the other night:
``My dad was a Roosevelt Democrat. No matter how long his son was in
politics, no matter how long I talked to him, my dad remained a
Roosevelt Democrat because he believed that the Democrat Party stood up
for folks, and I want to tell you that over the last 40 years, whether
it was civil rights and the need for this country to begin to heal
itself, and it is still not healed, or whether it was education or
Medicare for our senior citizens, frankly the Federal Government giving
opportunity for people to fly, the Democrat Party did it.''
I say to my colleagues that life is about balance. Talk about Neil
Armstrong going to the Moon; it was about balance. The pendulum has
swung so far to Washington solving problems that people in America have
been saying, ``I've given too much money, I've given too much control,
I've given too much influence to Washington, and frankly I can do it
better in my neighborhood. I want to do it better in my neighborhood. I
want to educate my children the way I want to educate them. I want to
feed them. I want to show compassion to people who are in need.''
Mr. Chairman, where I came from, in McKees Rocks, it was a simple
little thing. It was a sin not to help somebody in need. It was equally
a sin to help people who should help themselves.
And what our vision is for the 21st century is a vision of taking
power, and money, and control and influence from this city and giving
it back to the men and women all across this country in every city, in
every town, in every village in this country, and
saying, ``We believe in you, and we trust you.''

Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, ``As we go into the 21st
century, and you think that an individual can sit in their home with a
magical instrument, a magical invention called a computer, and move the
financial markets of the world, doesn't it make sense, as we go into
the 21st century, that the 21st century is about the power of the
individual, not the power of bureaucracy, not the power of redtape,
because frankly the power of bureaucracy, and redtape, and misplaced
compassion does not reward individual achievement and, in some
respects, takes away the incentives for the individual to fly.''
Look at the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume]. The man came from
very tough surroundings, was the chairman of the Congressional Black
Caucus. Do my colleagues know why? Because America is a place of
opportunity, and that is what this is all about. It is about balancing
a budget and stopping the flow of red ink because, just like a family,
if Government will spend day in and day out more than what it takes in,
it will bankrupt itself, it will create no growth, and do my colleagues
know what the worst thing about no growth is? The rich get richer and
the poor get poorer, and it is my dream for everybody to be able to fly
in America.
Alan Greenspan said to us, and I have listened to many hours of
testimony, but when Alan Greenspan came before the Committee on the
Budget and said, ``If we can balance the budget, we will unleash a
prosperity that we cannot even chart with this precious American
system, and that gnawing fear in the guts of mothers and fathers and
that their children will not be better off than them can finally be
destroyed.'' That is what this is about today.
I say to my colleagues, ``It's about facing hard issues, it's about
having to stare somebody square in the eye and say, `I'd love to help
you, but I got to put the kids first, and if there is a political risk,
I'm prepared to absorb it,' because in the long run we're going to lift
this country.''
I mean what is a better quote than John Kennedy saying, ``A rising
tide lifts all boats?'' That is what this is.
And about tax cuts let me just say, ``If there is any institution
that ought to be reinforced into the 21st century, it's the American
family.'' We all know that.
{time} 1545

What we are doing is we are saying that as we cut Government, as we
end duplication, we are going to reward the family into the 21st
century, and all the things that the family represents, value,
stability, hope, capital gains, we did not hate rich people where I
came from. I have said it before. Only guilty rich people do not like
the rich. What capital gains is about is a funnel. Prosperity. You have
got a jug of prosperity in one hand and a funnel in another. And when
the stem is too narrow, you try to pour prosperity in, and it
overflows, and the Fed says raise interest rates and slow everything
down.
Capital gains is about widening the stem. It is about taking that jug
of prosperity that is jobs and progress and it is pouring it through
that funnel as fast as we possibly can, so everyone can share in the
bounty of this country. That is what it is about.
I want to say to my friends who may vote against this, we are going
to do this now. We are going to bring the pendulum back, and we have
our vision for emphasizing the individual. That does not mean the
Government does not have a role. It does. And I know how many of you
have worked and bled and fought for the things that you believe in. And
as we as Republicans begin to put this plan together, as we march down
this road to saving America, I am going to urge everybody to keep their
minds and their ears and their eyes open about how we can do it right.
But, ladies and gentlemen, it has to be done. We have to preserve
this great country of ours. And it is a historic moment, when all of us
can stand up for the future, we can all stand up for America.
Pass the resolution.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would request the gentleman to remove
references to persons in the gallery and on the floor.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, in the early 1950's, Adlai Stevenson
quipped that Republicans, in general, had to be dragged screaming into
the 20th century. It appears to me, that the President and the Democrat
leadership in the House, will have to be dragged screaming into the
21st century if ever a balanced Federal Budget is to be achieved.
It is amazing how the President--in the face of almost $5 trillion of
debt and over $300 billion of annual interest accruing on that debt--
[[Page H5301]] can still refuse to even offer a balanced budget for
either this century or the next.
And the minority leadership in the House also resists endorsing any
such balanced budget plan. For each of the last 25 years, that
leadership--representing the majority control of this body, steadfastly
piled up nothing but unbalanced budgets. And now--when the only issue
being debated is not whether there should be a balanced budget over the
next 5 or 7 years--still the President and his party's leadership in
the House--fiddle while others present balanced budgets--including a
coalition of Democrat House Members who recognize that--like it or
not--the hard choices have to be made and a balanced budget must be
achieved.
It is ironic that if the Democrat leadership in the 104th Congress
had given recognition to Members like Tim Penney and others within
their ranks--who tried to change the calamitous fiscal policies of the
big spenders of his party, probably the Democrats would still control
this Chamber. It is utterly mystifying however that the Democrat
leadership can still resist constructing a balanced budget as we
prepare to enter the 21st century. Alas, all they can do is to
criticize those who are responsibly creating balanced budget plans.
If they will not lead, they must follow; or, more accurately, in the
words of Adlai Stevenson, they must be dragged screaming into the 21st
Century.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote against this
bill.
I have important objections to a bill that ties disaster relief--
which I support--to slash-and-burn spending cuts.
The Republican strategy is transparent. It's political gamesmanship.
Saving money, cutting the deficit: these are principles I can
support.
But we shouldn't tie the wholesale destruction of programs that help
students and working Americans to disaster relief for quake-ravaged Los
Angeles, bomb-damaged Oklahoma City, and the flood impacted people of
my district.
Let's address these issues separately. Let's reject this callous
Republican strategy.
Let's vote on disaster aid, then let's get down to business, and see
where we can cut spending.
I hope the American people pay close attention to this debate, and
this process. The Republicans have developed a bad habit. They say one
thing, but they do another.
They promised to address the budget deficit. In fact, the Republican
conferees who crafted this bill dropped a Democratic amendment that
would have required that the net savings from this bill--$9 billion--be
used to pay down the deficit.
Instead, the Republicans intend to use these savings as their private
slush fund to finance a tax break for the privileged few.
Instead of cracking down on corporate tax giveaways, and special
interest loopholes, the Republicans cracked down on seniors, students,
and everybody who didn't have access to high-priced lobbyists.
Let me highlight just one glaring example. The Senate version of this
bill included a provision to eliminate a tax loophole that allowed
billionaire expatriates to avoid paying taxes. But the Republican
leadership rejected this provision and stripped this language from the
conference report.
In fact, this bill typifies the callousness with which the
Republicans have addressed our Nation's fundamental problems.
The Republican rescissions bill would devastate--if not eliminate--
programs that help at-risk, disadvantaged kids.
Republican targets include:
The Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. Because of Republican cuts,
our schools and communities will have $200 million less to combat drugs
and violence on campus and in the classroom.
The Goals 2000 Program. Higher academic standards help everyone:
students, parents, and employers. But this national program takes a $90
million hit in the Republican bill. This was worked out with our
Nation's Governors.
The School-to-Work Program. By matching classroom learning to on-the-
job training, we can make sure that students get the help they need to
enter today's workforce. But wait. The Republicans cut funding from
this program--crippling a program that has drawn positive reviews from
corporate participants and school-kids alike.
America can be a strong, productive Nation if we have the courage and
commitment to educate our citizens. Without access to education and
training, our workforce cannot compete in an economy that demands new
skills and sets new rules.
The evidence is compelling. We can't afford to give up this fight.
Since 1979, most working Americans have lost ground. For everybody
but the very wealthy, incomes have barely kept up with inflation.
Overall household income increased by nearly $800 billion between 1979
and 1993, yet, almost 97 percent of this increase went to the top 20
percent of American households.
We can't raise wages if we don't give students and working Americans
the tools they need to succeed.
A recent study prepared by the Census Bureau documents the direct and
positive link between education and productivity. The report found that
a better educated work-force can significantly increase productivity.
Let's attack the education deficit with the same intensity we attack
the budget deficit. Providing educational opportunity and maintaining
fiscal responsibility--these aren't mutually exclusive goals.
I urge my Republican colleagues to open a dialogue with the
administration. Let's work out a compromise that we can be proud of and
the American people can be proud of.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strongest opposition
to this budget resolution. This budget proposes to eliminate the
Federal deficit by 2002, yet gives a tax cut to the wealthiest
Americans. While we must work toward a balanced budget, we must do so
responsibly. We must not force those most in need to bear the burden of
balancing the budget alone.
In this budget, the House Republicans have chosen to take away health
and financial security to seniors in order to achieve tremendous tax
breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. While the Republican
budget proposes to make millions of seniors pay an additional $1,060 in
out-of-pocket Medicare expenses each year, it provides a tax windfall
of $20,000 per year for Americans with incomes over $350,000.
This bill is a direct assault on our Nation's seniors. In addition to
the Medicare cuts, the Republicans are also planning to cut Social
Security benefits to seniors, which would result in an average
reduction of $240 in benefits for individual seniors in 2002.
The Republicans said their budget would make tough choices and they
were right--their choices will be tough on millions of seniors who rely
on Medicare and Social Security.
But seniors are not the only victims of this misguided budget scheme.
The Republican budget would make educational opportunity a thing of the
past for many middle class students and their families.
It is appalling that the Republican budget cuts student loans by
$18.7 billion by charging students interest on their loans while they
are still in school. This will increase the cost of a higher education
by approximately $5,000 for every student receiving a loan to fiance a
college education. Is this the Republican opportunity society?
The Republican plan to terminate many very crucial programs that
provide the most basic assistance to those most in need is similarly
appalling. Some of the many programs devastated by this budget include:
Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS; the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program [LIHEAP], which ensures low-income Americans,
including seniors, access to heat during the cold winter months;
unemployment insurance extension benefits; and job training and
education programs. The list goes on an on. This resolution also
dramatically undermines Americas' access to the arts and humanities by
cutting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the National
Endowment for the Arts, and the Endowment for the Humanities.
The inequities in this Republican budget are blatant and outrageous.
This budget requires those most in need to shoulder the burden of
balancing the budget, while granting the wealthiest of Americans a
windfall.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is unfair, it is unjust, and must be voted
down. I ask my colleagues to reject the budget resolution.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the budget
resolution we are voting on today.
I am particularly appalled that this measure would rob our senior
citizens of their Medicare coverage and Social Security benefits in
order to pay for tax breaks . . . something we cannot afford.
Mr. Chairman, I supported a balanced budget amendment and I am
prepared to make the tough choices necessary to stop the flow of red
ink. Indeed I'm voting for the Stenholm alternative budget which would
actually cut more than the Republican proposal and direct these cuts to
deficit reduction.
We all have to make sacrifices to achieve a balanced budget, but the
Republican plan is clearly out of balance when it comes to fairness and
protecting the most vulnerable members of our society.
What does this Republican proposal really mean? It means that out-of-
pocket Medicare costs for seniors will increase by $1,060 in 2002 and
$3,500 over the next 7 years while Social Security payments will be up
to $240 less. It means that students will have to pay on average $5,000
more for their college loans. It means less money for our veterans,
public hospitals, public broadcasting, and NIH Research.
And guess what it also means? It means that the very richest will
have $20,000 more to
[[Page H5302]] spend each year thanks to the Republicans' tax breaks.
Like the Republican budget, the Stenholm budget resolution I support
achieves a balanced budget in 2002. The difference is that the Stenholm
resolution takes the $281 billion in tax breaks and puts them back into
Medicare, student loans, veterans hospitals, and other worthy
expenditures which benefit the middle class and needy Americans.
I can't say that the cuts in the Stenholm budget are painless--they
aren't. That's why I urge my colleagues to make responsible choices
during the reconciliation process because that's where the rubber
really meets the road.
In particular, I strongly believe that deep cuts in Medicare and
Medicaid should not take place outside the context of systemic health
care reform.
The Medicare program will not become insolvent because of
mismanagement--in fact, administrative costs in Medicare represent
about 3 percent of the overall program, lower than any private payor.
Rather, Medicare costs have increased because the overall costs of
health care have skyrocketed and more people are enrolling in the
system.
My constituents are concerned about health care costs and the deficit
because they know that these issues will only continue to place larger
burdens on their children. They support student loans because they know
that these are investments in our future. They support nutrition
programs, and public television because they provide nourishment for
the body and the mind. And they support NIH Research because they see
the connection between basic science and cures and treatments for the
diseases which plague our society.
We can not blindly slash these programs without giving thought to
what these programs really mean for the people we represent.
So in closing, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to think
beyond balancing numbers when they vote this afternoon: They should
think about balancing austerity and fairness. By this measure, the
Stenholm budget proposal is balanced while the Republican plan is not.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, today we are being presented with four
alternative budget resolutions--two offered by the Majority and two by
the Minority. For the first time in a quarter century, each of the
resolutions before us would result in a balanced Federal budget. Each
resolution recognizes that our current pattern of runaway spending is
both economically unsustainable and morally indefensible. Each
resolution presents us with very difficult, even painful choices; they
are not ones that we relish making today or that we will relish making
in the future. But the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that we will have
to make them--and postponing them won't make them any easier.
Let us consider a few facts. Our national debt stands at $4.8
trillion--that is $18,460 owed by every man, woman, and child in our
Nation. Interest on our debt is the fastest-growing part of the Federal
budget; in fact, each year, the Federal Government spends 15 cents of
every dollar--or more than $200 billion--just on interest on the debt.
That is almost as much as we spend on all non-defense discretionary
programs combined--on education, job training, medical research, and
much more. If current trends are not abated, interest and entitlement
obligations will continue to grow exponentially until there is little
left for anything else. Our choice today, then, is not about whether to
balance the budget; it is about how we balance it.
This morning, I voted on the budget resolution offered by Democratic
Representatives Charles Stenholm and Bill Orton. The Stenholm-Orton
budget would have cut defense expenditures by $60 billion more than the
committee resolution, and it would have cut domestic expenditures by
$60 billion less. In addition, the Stenholm-Orton budget would not have
funded a tax cut, would not have increased contributions to civil
service retirement, would not have cut the student loan program, and it
would have curbed the growth in Medicare more modestly than the
committee resolution. Unfortunately the Stenholm-Orton resolution was
defeated by a wide margin.
Given the defeat of this resolution, and due to the paramount
importance of putting our Nation on a glidepath to a balanced budget, I
will support the Budget Committee's resolution. While I have concerns
about some aspects of the Committee budget, I believe that these
concerns can be addressed in a House-Senate conference, and that the
budget process must move forward. In fact, given the prevailing
sentiment in the Senate, it is my expectation that the final document
produced by House and Senate conferees will be very similar to the
Stenholm-Orton budget for which I voted today: It will contain deeper
defense cuts, more domestic cuts, and few, if any, tax cuts.
Mr. Chairman, a budget on a path to balance--however imperfect that
path may be--is preferable to one that saddles future generations with
hundreds of billions of dollars of debt each year. In addition, we must
remember that a budget resolution is a blueprint, not a fully binding
document, and that the authorizing and appropriating committees will
have final discretion in determining how funds are spent in each budget
category. That is why I will continue to work with these committees to
protect our national priorities--education, health care, equity for our
civil service, and much more, as I have done throughout my service in
Congress.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on this historic occasion to
express my strong support for the Republican Budget. This budget
represents a contract with our children. For too long Congress has
thoughtlessly spent away the prosperity of our children to satisfy its
appetite to spend.
I see Members get up who are opposed to this balanced budget plan
claiming that passage of this plan will result in the end of
civilization as we know it. They say that the elimination of this
program and that program will cause undue harm to this Nation. Well I
stand here today and say that if we do nothing then we will be
responsible for undue harm to our children and our grandchildren. How
compassionate will we have been to our children when in 30 years there
is no money left for student loans, no money left for Head Start, and
no money left for anything else. Why? Because every dollar that the
Federal Government brings in will be eaten up by interest on the debt.
It pains me to see the Federal Government spend over $250 billion per
year in interest payments on the Federal debt. That money funds
nothing--no education, no military, no Medicare, and no Social
Security. Enough is enough.
We are balancing the budget to ensure that we build a future for our
children that is free of debt and full of opportunity. My son and
daughter deserve nothing less. I can think of no greater responsibility
as a father than to do this for my children. I ask that everyone look
inside themselves, think of America's children, and support the
Republican budget.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, today is a day that I almost thought would
never come in my time here in Congress. Today I will be voting for a
budget resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 67, which will put this
Congress on a path toward balancing the federal budget. I have voted
for such resolutions in the past only to see them trounced on the floor
of the House. What makes today so special for me is that a majority of
my colleagues in the House of Representatives will be joining me in
voting for this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time since I came to this House in 1969, a
majority of Members of this House agree that we must substantially
shrink the size of government in the effort to balance the budget. We
are not going to raise taxes, we are not going to use budget gimmicks,
we are actually going to cut spending in an effort to slow the rate of
growth of the Federal Government. Congress is finally acting in a
fiscally responsible manner. The manner in which Congress has acted in
the past can be described as selfish at best and criminal at worst. In
my view, the debt that past Congresses have heaped upon future
generations has been a criminal act. It can be characterized as
criminal because that approach was mortgaging the future of our
children and grandchildren. In short, Congress has spent money we did
not have and sent the bill to our kids. This new Congress is saying
enough is enough, and I could not be prouder than I am to be a part of
this historic day in the House of Representatives.
Finally, I would like to commend my friend, the chairman of the
Budget Committee, John Kasich, for all his hard work and dedication in
making this day possible. I remember campaigning for John when he first
ran for office and it was clear to me then that he was committed to
principle and committed to the concept of fiscal responsibility. The
House of Representatives and the people of this country are very
fortunate to have John Kasich as chairman of the Budget Committee, and
we all owe him a debt of gratitude for his efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support House Concurrent Resolution 67 and
look forward to the day when the end purpose of this resolution--
achieving a balanced budget by restraining spending--becomes a reality.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, the balanced budget resolution before us
today is the single most important vote we will cast since I entered
Congress.
The American people have waited a generation for a balanced Federal
budget. We House Republicans have delivered.
Passage of this historic balanced budget will show the American
people and the world markets that we will balance the Federal budget as
promised.
Eliminating the deficit will mean more jobs, lower interest rates,
and higher real incomes.
It's high time the Federal Government quits mortgaging our children's
and grandchildren's
[[Page H5303]] futures. Every child born this year will face a lifetime
bill of $187,000 for their share of interest on the national debt.
Our budget redesigns the Federal Government to make it smaller, more
cost-effective, and less bureaucratic. We cut Government red tape and
return power from Washington to State and local governments and the
private sector.
Although I might not agree with each and every spending priority in
the budget, we will now have the appropriations and reconciliation
processes to modify certain specifics.
The bottom line is that we zero out the deficit by the year 2002
without touching Social Security or raising taxes.
I urge a ``Yes'' vote on the Republican budget resolution.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Republican plan to balance the Federal budget. This is the first time
in over 25 years that the Congress has committed to balancing the
budget. And, quite frankly, it's long overdue.
Americans across this great country need to know why it is so
important to get our federal spending under control and balance the
federal budget.
Here are just the numbers. The Federal Government has amassed a debt
of over $4.9 trillion. Even though the Federal Government collected
over $1.3 trillion from taxpayers last year, Congress spent in excess
of $1.5 trillion every year.
So, today, we offer this broad plan for balancing the Federal budget
over the next 7 years. Simply put, it ends business as usual and this
spend-more-than-you-can-afford attitude that has existed for far too
long in Washington.
What does this debt mean to each and every taxpayer? It means that
the share of that debt for every American is $17,000. If we do nothing,
our children will have to pay $200,000 in taxes over their lifetime to
cover this debt.
And, because of this debt, we are wasting over $260 billion a year--a
full 16 percent of the total Federal budget--just paying interest.
That's money we could be using for more health care, more education,
and many other worthy purposes if only we had balanced the budget.
Most important, this debt means that we are playing a high-risk game
with our children's future. Saddled with this debt, we threaten their
future opportunities.
So today, we lay out a broad plan to balance the budget--while
protecting Social Security, as we promised, and while preserving,
protecting, and improving Medicare.
As expected, there are those who claim the sky will fall and that we
cannot survive without each and every Federal program, without each and
every dollar that is spent here in Washington.
Even under this plan to balance the budget, the Federal budget will
still increase every year. Let me repeat that. The budget increases
every year. In fact Federal spending will increase $1.2 trillion over
the next 7 years. Only in Washington can reasonable increases be called
cuts.
What is the alternative? The President has failed to provide a plan
to balance the budget. While we are taking the lead and making the
tough choices, the President has remained on the sidelines during this
critical national debate. It is quite clear that the President does not
want to balance the budget.
Despite this, we move forward. To honor our commitment to America,
the Congress and the President need to work together. We also must work
as a nation to discuss openly the choices we face.
Over the past 4 months, I have heard from thousands of constituents
with their ideas, suggestions, and concerns. New Jerseyans know how to
make the tough choices for their families and their businesses. In New
Jersey, our State balances its budget. In New Jersey, we have made
government smaller and more efficient. In New Jersey, we have made sure
that taxpayers come first, not last.
Over the next few months, the House will debate and make final
decisions on each item proposed in the budget. As we debate our
spending priorities, everyone needs to participate. There must be
national dialog on where we are today and what we must do for our
future.
Today's vote marks a historic beginning. We have set our Nation on
the path toward fiscal sanity and a solid future for all Americans.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
budget resolution. Now, I want to be clear in that I do not support
every single cut that is presented in the resolution. But that is not
the issue before us today.
The issue before us is to outline a blueprint from which each
authorizing and appropriations committee will be able to work from. It
sets guidelines in which we will be able to work from in our own
committees where programs can be thoughtfully analyzed and deliberated.
I supported a balanced budget amendment and, therefore, support this
proposal which would balance the budget by the year 2002. I find it
hypocritical that some of those that say they support the balanced
budget amendment now oppose any specific plan to do so.
The naysayers complain that the time is not now to save America. But
if not now, when? When our debt reaches $5 trillion or $6 trillion? The
point is that it is never an easy task to make tough choices. We have
well past the time to bite the bullet and pass this blueprint that will
put us back onto the road of fiscal accountability.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I oppose House concurrent
resolution 67, the Republican budget resolution for fiscal year 1996,
and am in strong support of the Congressional Black Caucus alternative
proposal. Unfortunately, the second 100-day rush to judgment is well
underway with the GOP plan before us, best described as the ``balance
the budget on the backs of senior citizens, poor children, and working
families act.'' This is an absolutely wrongheaded and unconscionable
approach and one that the overwhelming majority of American people,
including my constituents, find fault with.
Let's not mince words here Mr. Chairman. The Republican budget
resolution steals $288 billion from the pockets of elderly Medicare
patients, rips $24 billion out of the hands of Social Security
recipients, and grabs $18.7 billion in financial aid to college
students for the sole purpose of providing $355 billion in tax breaks
for the wealthiest in this country. In my State of Illinois, this
translates to a loss of over $2,700 in Medicare services per enrollee
by the year 2002 and about a $5,000 increase in college costs per child
for the average family.
But wait that's not all! The American people also receive as a bonus
gift the complete elimination of the Department of Education, which
will result in a $141 million reduction in major education State grant
programs for my constituents that go to support safe and drug-free
schools, vocational and adult training, and our public libraries. Tack
on to that drastic reductions of $187 billion in Medicaid funds for the
poor and disabled--expected to strip three million citizens of their
long-term health care coverage--as well as a whopping 35 percent in
overall nondefense discretionary spending by 2002, and we've got a true
case of Robin Hood in reverse! Where is the Sheriff of Nottingham when
you really need him, Mr. Chairman?
At a time when the threat of a major world conflict is at its lowest
point in the last few decades, where is the sense in increasing the
defense budget by $122 billion while gouging school lunches, child
nutrition programs, Head Start, and job training? Does the leadership
of this body mean to say that they value B-2 bombers more than they
value A-plus grades? Are shiny new planes of more importance than our
children's futures?
How can the majority party expect that the variety of problems such
as drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, crime, racism, lack of jobs, and poor
health care services which face too many residents of our major urban
centers, as in my home city of Chicago, are going to be solved if we
simply cut, slash, and burn and absolve ourselves of the responsibility
to lead? We always hear complaints about how much it will cost to try
and attack all of these matters through government action. Well, my
friends, ask yourselves what it will cost if we don't? If we adopt the
GOP budget, we will be well on our way to finding out.
On the other hand, the CBC budget alternative will achieve the same
goal of a balanced budget by 2002 without unfairly singling out middle-
and lower-income individuals, families, and seniors to pick up the tab.
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, through which we do have a
contract with America's seniors, are protected from any cuts or
alterations.
Additionally, the CBC's reasoned approach recognizes that education
and job creation are the keys to increased American competitiveness and
a better quality of life across the Nation. In so doing, $27 billion,
or a 25-percent increase over the current budget figures, is invested
in vital initiatives such as title I and TRIO programs for underserved
pupils as well as summer youth employment and mentoring partnerships
which have proved of such great benefit to or communities.
To help offset these investment priorities the CBC budget closes
several corporate tax loopholes, effectively ending ``corporate welfare
as we now know it,'' and raises the corporate share of the tax burden
from 11 to 15 percent in order to correct a long-standing Tax Code
imbalance which makes working families shoulder the burden of taxes in
this country.
Mr. Chairman I urge my colleagues who, as the CBC alternative budget
title states, are in the ``caring majority'' to reject the Republican
leadership's backwards fiscal priorities and support the CBC
alternative that truly accounts for the needs of all the American
people and
[[Page H5304]] thoughtfully attempts to strengthen opportunities for
average families and their children.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the House
Republican budget plan.
This proposal, put forth by House Speaker Gingrich and Budget
Committee Chairman Kasich, would give the very wealthy an enormous tax
break while at the same time devastating Medicare and other vital
programs.
The goal of this budget proposal is one I share: balancing the
Federal budget by the year 2002. In January, I voted for a
constitutional amendment to balance our Federal budget. I believe we
must end the continued policy of running billion-dollar deficits every
year which add to the national debt that must be paid by our children
and grandchildren.
But we should not balance the budget by cutting student loans,
Medicare, Social Security, funding for veterans and infrastructure
while offering a $353 billion tax cut. This outrageous cut will give
the wealthiest families a cut of $20,000 while giving middle-income
families only $555 in tax relief.
We must also balance our budget in a way which does not put such a
tremendous burden on our Nation's elderly. Last fall, during town
meetings with my constituents, I talked about the ``Contract With
America,'' and its potential impact on Social Security and Medicare. I
suggested that if the Republican plan were enacted, our seniors would
see huge Medicare cuts, higher Medicare premiums and out-of-pocket
costs, and an effort to cut Social Security. If you examine the
Republican budget closely, it does all three.
It cuts $283 billion from Medicare over 7 years, meaning that the
service currently provided by Medicare will be significantly less in
2002. By cutting the Medicare program by 25 percent in 2002, out-of-
pocket costs for seniors will increase by $1060 in 2002. And, this
budget begins the dangerous concept of reducing Social Security cost-
of-living-adjustments, beginning in 1999, by altering the Consumer
Price Index. This will reduce the average benefit by $240 per person.
The Republicans have also suggested this plan will actually balance
the budget in 2002. Unfortunately, their proposal relies on unsound
economics and budget gimmicks to reach a balanced budget. This budget
assumes a $170 billion ``economic bonus'' between 1996 and 2002 for
attempting to balance the budget. This is based on a rosy scenario that
our financial markets would react to lower interest rates by an
optimistic 2 percent in 2002. Without this bonus, the budget is not
balanced, and the promises behind this budget remain unfulfilled.
Mr. Chairman, I support a balanced budget. I believe if we got rid of
the $340 billion tax cut for the wealthy and used those funds to help
keep Medicare solvent; if we asked the very wealthy instead to pay
their fair share; restored some funding for some of our most needed
initiatives, such as student loans; and did not tamper with Social
Security, we would reach this goal. Unfortunately, a majority of my
colleagues did not agree with our efforts to make these changes in the
Budget Committee.
Therefore, I intend to vote against the Kasich budget plan on the
floor of the House.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, support this historic
budget resolution which puts us on the path to a balanced budget for
the first time in a generation. It is vitally important for the sake of
our future economic health that we keep our commitment to a balanced
budget by 2002.
I must object, however, to including repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act in
our budget assumptions. As a number of my colleagues and I stated in
our recent letter to Speaker Gingrich, Davis-Bacon is an important and
historic worker protection deserving thorough consideration in the
legislative process before any attempt at repeal is made.
The Budget Committee projects $2.7 billion in savings over 5 years
from repeal. I don't think all of those savings would materialize
because those figures do not take into account the reduced quality of
workmanship on Federal projects that could result if the prevailing
wage is not paid.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we can produce the needed savings without
repeal of Davis-Bacon and I look forward to working with my colleagues
who signed the letter and with the leadership to devise a reasonable
alternative to repealing the Davis-Bacon Act.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the House
Republican fiscal year 1996 budget resolution. Our budget, as promised,
outlines a clear path to the elimination of our national deficit by the
year 2002. For too many years the Democrat leadership in the House has
irresponsibly increased spending while putting the fiscal future of our
children in jeopardy. This budget will ensure that the legacy we leave
our children in debt free and full of opportunity, rather an ever
increasing Federal deficit and a bloated, more intrusive Federal
Government. On another level, our plan marks a shift in power away from
Federal bureaucrats to families, States, and communities, who know what
works best for them.
Over the coming weeks we will hear many say that our budget calls for
dramatic cuts in Medicare. This could not be further from the truth.
Under our proposal Medicare spending will increase from an average of
$4,700 per recipient to $6,300 per recipient by the year 2002. As a
matter of fact, overall Federal spending grows by about 3 percent
annually under the GOP budget plan. The simple truth is that the
Medicare trust fund will go bankrupt in just 6 years. The Medicare
board of trustees has verified this conclusion. In response to this
announcement Republicans have designed a plan to save Medicare. By
controlling the amount of growth of all Federal spending, including
Medicare, we will put ourselves on track to a balanced budget, and at
the same time save Medicare from certain insolvency. Let us pass this
budget and bring fiscal sanity to this House for the first time in a
generation.
On another matter, note that this budget calls for the elimination of
the Department of Commerce. While I recognize the significant savings
that would result from this and other efforts to streamline and reduce
Government bureaucracy, I would just like to state that the elimination
of this Department will not be as easy as simply eliminating funding.
The elimination of this agency will require the repealing of a number
of underlying statutes and the spinning off of several vital
responsibilities. As chairman of the Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
Materials Subcommittee, I will work closely with my Republican
colleagues to address these concerns and put ourselves on track for a
balanced budget in 2002.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget declares war on
biomedical research. The Budget Committee recommends that NIH be cut by
$566 million and frozen there for the next 5 years to produce a savings
of $2.5 billion. Because biomedical research inflation rate is 4.2
percent, the freeze would require drastic reductions of 30 percent in
medical research over 7 years.
NIH Director Harold Varmus has testified that this proposal would be
a devastating blow to biomedical research. The success rate of research
grants would plummet from 24 percent this year to 15 percent or lower
in future years. These ill-advised cuts would have a ripple effect on
the Nation's science infrastructure. We will lose laboratories, and
long-term investments in biomedical research. We stand the risk of
losing a generation of new biomedical researchers. What young person
would go into a field with such a low probability of success?
America's health and economic competitiveness depend on an adequate
level of funding for biomedical research at the NIH. The Republican
devastation of NIH will cost us money in the long run. NIH has played a
critical role in innovations that have saved 2-3 dollars for each
dollar invested in research. Why would we want to reduce our investment
by 30 percent?
Mr. Chairman, it is not only the future of NIH that is a stake in
this budget, it is the future of most American families. What family in
this country has not been touched by heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's
disease, diabetes, mental illness, or substance abuse? What family
feels totally safe from AIDS, breast cancer, or genetic diseases?
Why would the Republicans propose to take away hope from so many
American families? Apparently to fund huge tax breaks for large
corporations and the wealthiest of Americans. This is a bad budget. I
urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Kasich and
the House Budget Committee for recognizing that we should not balance
the budget at the expense of economic opportunity. In fact, the whole
point of even having a balanced budget is to promote opportunities for
the good and the future of the Nation. I am proud to be a Member of the
104th Congress which recognizes this factor. I appreciate having had
the chance to testify before the House Budget Committee on this
critical issue and for their action.
I strongly oppose the Clinton's administration's Immigration and
Naturalization Service [INS] budget for including a border crossing
fee. The INS fee is an excessive burden to American businesses along
the United States border with Canada and Mexico.
Illegal immigration is a national problem and measures to enforce our
laws should be financed by all Americans, not only those living on the
border, who face the burden of illegal immigration. The American border
communities already have the undue hardship of illegal aliens depleting
valuable medical and social services.
The Clinton border crossing fee is yet another blow to the economic
viability of American border communities already devastated by the
devaluations of the Mexican peso and the Canadian dollar. The
hardworking, taxpaying Americans in the border towns of Presidio, Del
Rio, Eagle Pass, and Laredo are facing ruin.
[[Page H5305]] Already scores of American businesses have closed and
thousands of hardworking Americans have joined the rolls of the
unemployed because of current economic situations.
To impose an additional levy would reduce commerce and violate the
spirit of free trade and economic opportunities and hundreds of
thousands of American working men and women.
Taxes assessed by the INS on Canadian and Mexican shoppers will
reduce purchases of American goods and services. It is imperative that
the administration abandon this proposal and that the House Budget
Committee work toward this goal.
The impact of a crossing fee on the average foreign-based shopper is
considerable. We must think and take into consideration how this
affects the Americans who live and work in our border communities and
stop treating them like second-class citizens. It is important that
these Americans are not singled out by the administration.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support
for House Concurrent Resolution 67, the Republican budget plan that
moves us to a balanced budget for the first time since 1969. This
budget is about America's future--it is a plan that will allow us to
enter the next century with America's fiscal house in order. Our
country has continued to sink deeper and deeper into debt, and the time
has come to restore our Government's economic strength and integrity.
The current budget crisis is taking its toll. Today's $4.8 trillion
debt requires annual interest payments of $235 billion. If Government
spending is not curtailed, the debt will reach $7.5 trillion by 2005,
requiring interest payments of $412 billion. As early as 1997,
Americans could pay as much interest on the debt--$270 billion--as we
pay for national defense. These wasteful debt payments occupy
increasingly large portions of our Federal budget, crowding out money
that could remain with the taxpayer or be reinvested in America's
neighborhoods, infrastructure, schools, and farms.
In addition to decreasing the amount of money that the Government has
to pay for its programs, Americans are adversely affected by the debt
each time they borrow money to pay for a home, car, or an education. It
is estimated that interest rates
are about two points higher than they should be under a balanced
budget. The Budget Committee tells me that this adds as much as $37,000
over 30 years to a mortgage on a $75,000 home.

We must meet our budget crisis head-on for our Nation to be strong
and prosperous. We cannot continue to mortgage the future of our
children and grandchildren. House Concurrent Resolution 67 moves us
toward a balanced budget by the year 2002 by eliminating wasteful
spending and reducing the growth rate of many programs. In all, this
budget reduces the deficit by about $1.1 trillion over the next 7
years.
This budget plan not only balances the budget--it also takes action
to protect and preserve Medicare. To save it from bankruptcy, House
Concurrent Resolution 67 would reduce the unacceptably high rate of
growth of Medicare. I have a special interest in this issue given my
position on the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over
Medicare. As you may know, the Social Security and Medicare trustees
have predicted that the Medicare Part A--hospital Insurance--trust fund
will be bankrupt in 7 years. That means that by 2002, the funds simply
won't be there unless Congress takes some corrective action. In order
for Congress to keep its commitment to provide health insurance for the
elderly, we must act now to safeguard the system.
The budget resolution recommends three approaches to reforming
Medicare, all of which deserve further investigation by the Ways and
Means Committee. None of these options would reduce Medicare spending
below current levels. In fact, the program would be allowed to continue
to grow at a healthy rate, one which is closer to the rate of increase
for health care expenditures generally. Under the budget proposal,
average spending on a Medicare beneficiary would increase from about
$4,800 today to about $6,400 in 2002.
I do not agree with every detail of the budget plan's suggested
reforms. But when taken as a whole, it is a well-crafted, responsible
and balanced measure. It restores fiscal responsibility to our
Government for the first time in more than a generation. It's way
overdue. Let's act now to safeguard the future of our children and
grandchildren.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support for the Budget
Committee's budget resolution. This resolution halts the slide in
defense spending for the first time in more than a decade. And it
represents the first time the Congress has added money for defense to a
President's budget since 1981. On average, this proposal will provide
the same amount of defense spending as this year--$270 billion. These
additional resources, coupled with a significant reduction in non-
defense spending, and an aggressive series of reforms within the
Department, are the key components in our Republican plan to begin
revitalizing our national security.
After adjusting for inflation, this plan does not increase the
defense budget. It does, however, provide $50 billion more than the
Clinton administration had planned to spend. And, perhaps most
importantly, it is a plan that keeps the promise we made to the
American people: we can both reinvigorate our national security posture
and work toward balancing the Federal budget.
Mr. Chairman, some of our colleagues may be asking: Why, as we
struggle to balance the budget, should defense appear to be exempt from
the pain of cuts? I do not minimize the importance of deficit reduction
and the goal of a balanced budget. Indeed, putting the Government's
financial house in order is an important element of our Nation's
overall security. I believe that strong measures are appropriate and
necessary if we are to finally force the Government to balance its
books. However, the armed forces have already paid their fair share.
But before I describe to you how steep the defense cuts of the past
decade have been, let me remind you of one simple fact.
Defense is different.
As my colleague, Representative Sam Brownback of Kansas, explained in
presenting our budget plan, ``We've got a whole new mentality: what's
the proper role of the Federal Government?'' Perhaps the Congress' most
solemn charge under the Constitution is to ``provide for the common
defense.'' If a Government cannot protect its citizens and interests
abroad as well as at home, all its other good works are futile.
And, in my view, we need to restore a more appropriate balance to our
priorities. Even as the Federal Government has expanded into areas of
our lives never dreamt of by the Founding Fathers, it has come to
shortchange those jobs which they considered it alone could do. When
national security counts for just one-sixth of the total Federal
budget, that's a sign to me that things are out of whack.
The fact is, while other parts of the Federal budget have grown
dramatically, the Defense Department has been paying a peace dividend
for more than a decade: defense budgets have declined in real terms in
each of the last 10 years. Almost alone among Federal departments and
agencies, the Pentagon has paid the price of deficit reduction. This
year alone, the Defense Department will spend nearly 35 percent less--
$140 billion less--than in 1985. Certainly no other department can come
close to those figures. Defense spending now accounts for less than 4
percent of GDP, the lowest percentage in over 45 years.
We are the world's only superpower. And the utility of the Defense
Department to the Nation has, if anything, increased. All one has to do
is look at the extraordinary deployment rates we demand from our
soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines: they're simply going more places
and doing more things than at any time in recent history, even during
the height of the cold war.
In an uncertain and chaotic world--perhaps especially in such a
world--we find that military forces retain their currency. The Soviet
Union may no longer exist, but there are plenty of people in this world
who wish Americans ill. And who will resort to violence to express that
ill-will. And, lest we forget the tragedy in Oklahoma City so soon, who
have unprecedented access to powerful technology.
So far, I've talked about numbers: budget cuts, budget shares, budget
priorities. Let me tell you what these numbers mean in the real world,
where the men and women who wear the uniform live.
First of all, it means fewer troops. Today's military is the smallest
force since the end of the Korean War. By the end of fiscal year 1995,
the military will be down to about 1.5 million active-duty members,
from about 2.2 million in the late 1980's. Since 1990, active Army
divisions have been reduced by one third. The active-duty Air Force has
cut its inventory of tactical aircraft almost in half. The number of
Navy aircraft carriers has been cut by 25 percent, but the total number
of combatant ships is down by 32 percent. And make no mistake about it,
numbers of troops still matter: in fact, our ability to carry out our
national military strategy is in jeopardy, simply for lack of certain
highly specialized troops.
Second, it means that these fewer troops are having a tough time
keeping ready for all the missions they're being given. Every day new
signs of diminished readiness are cropping up. In 1993, the Pentagon's
own readiness task force discovered pockets of unreadiness in all the
services. Most recently--and shortly after the administration assured
the Congress and the Nation that readiness was as high as it had ever
been--three of the
[[Page H5306]] Army's divisions were reported as C-3, meaning that they
had suffered, in the Army's official definition, a ``significant
decrease in flexibility and [an] increase in vulnerability''--should
they be sent to war? These divisions ``would require significant
compensation for deficiencies'' to be made ready for combat. Air Force
air crews in Europe are increasingly requiring waivers for missed
training. Navy and Marine Corps aviation squadrons have been grounded
due to a lack of maintenance funds.
Third, these troops are being asked to accept a lower standard of
living. We should not forget that this administration's initial defense
budget proposed freezing servicemembers' pay and benefits--at the same
time that they proposed dramatic increases in domestic spending. Last
year, the Congress began to correct that wrong, but the quality of
service life continues to erode. As deployments--and family
separations--lengthen, family housing, troop barracks and mess halls
are not getting routine maintenance. There are too many substandard
living quarters, too many leaky roofs, too much lead paint.
Fourth, these troops are working with tools that soon will show
significant signs of old age. Designing and building weapons is a long-
term process; the procurement holiday declared after the victories in
the Cold War and the Gulf War is turning into an extended leave of
absence. As one retired officer told our committee in hearings this
spring: ``Our legacy to the next generation is likely to be 45-year-old
training aircraft, 35-year-old bombers and airlifters, 25-year-old
fighters, 35-year-old trucks and 40-year-old medium-lift helicopters.''
By this year, the overall Pentagon procurement account has fallen from
the 1985 high of $132 to $43 billion, a reduction of more than 70
percent.
Finally, the administration's desire to overextend and over-use our
shrinking military forces on an unending stream of peace operations--
has dangerously diffused the Defense Department's focus. The Pentagon
simply is not keeping its eye on the ball. The administration persists
in stretching the reduced force and its reduced budget by sending it on
a succession of missions of ambiguous focus, and it compounds the
problem by refusing to budget properly for these so-called
contingencies. Why long-running operations like the no-fly zones over
Iraq and Bosnia should be unforeseen and not budgeted is more than a
puzzle; it is a scandal. At this point, the administration's reluctance
to budget for its own peacekeeping proclivities must be seen as a sin
of commission, not one of omission.
But these missions cause more than budgetary mischief; they have
strategic consequences. Sustaining large-scale peace operations for an
extended period of time places a heavy burden on certain key military
capabilities. The responsibility for these operations has fallen
disproportionately on a small number of units: Army military police,
port handlers, water purifiers, and quartermasters; and Air Force air
cargo carriers--the kind of people who provide food, water, sanitation
and showers in inhospitable places, not only to our own troops but to
coalition allies, humanitarian relief organizations, even the local
populations.
As essential as these units are for peacekeeping operations, they are
equally vital in wartime. And the more they participate in peace
operations, the less prepared they are to meet the major regional
contingencies that are the backbone of our national security strategy.
Should Iraq threaten Kuwait and Saudi Arabia again, our response time
would be lengthened while we withdrew essential units and equipment
from the many peacekeeping activities they're now engaged in.
These, and other problems can only addressed within the context of
stable defense budgets: there must be renewed investment, reordered
investment priorities, and reformed defense processes. This budget
resolution not only allows us to halt the decline in spending, it
allows us to spend on the right things, and to spend smarter.
Our first priority is to restore the quality of service life. The
service chiefs who helped to craft the early phases of the post-cold-
war drawdown worried first and foremost about not breaking the force;
in other words, not breaking the basic contract between the Nation and
the men and women who wear its uniforms.
We also must take a comprehensive approach to the complex issue of
force readiness: not only do we wish to ensure that current problems be
solved, but that tomorrow's readiness is not compromised to meet
today's shortfalls.
And we must end the procurement holiday. The President's budget
request included no new bombers, no scout or attack helicopters, no
tanks or fighting vehicles, just a handful of fighter aircraft and
insufficient ammunition to replenish stocks. Relatively small
investments will provide the necessary link between the force of today
and the force of tomorrow.
Some part of this investment must go to revitalize the
administration's anemic ballistic missile defense efforts. As rogue
states like Iran dedicate themselves to acquiring weapons of mass
destruction and the missiles to deliver them, the United States has a
moral obligation to pursue a robust effort to defend against these
weapons of terror. We must not forget how a crude, conventionally armed
Scud missile accounted for the greatest single loss of American lives
during the gulf war. A massive SDI program to develop and deploy exotic
technologies is no longer envisioned, but we have an absolute
obligation to develop and deploy theater and national missile defenses.
It would be unconscionable to protect our troops and friends abroad
while insisting that Americans here at home remain vulnerable to
ballistic missile attack. Theater and national missile defense must
once again become a primary goal, and we must work prudently to make
that goal a reality.
We must allow small force structure increases to alleviate the
burdens of constant deployments and high operating tempos. We simply
cannot ask a small portion of our force to bear a disproportionate
burden for non-combat operations.
Finally, we must reform the defense bureaucracy. It must be made to
do its proper job, and to do a better job. For example, each year the
Government spends about $200 billion on a wide range of goods and
services, from sophisticated Stealth bombers to pencils. Regulations
and redtape account for almost one-fifth of that amount. Some are
necessary--we should not take risks with the American people's money.
But too many mandates leave little room for sound business judgment,
initiative and creatively.
The Pentagon, particularly, must learn to do its business more
effectively. This is not merely a matter of efficiency, it is part and
parcel of national security in a rapidly changing strategic and
technological world. Unless the Pentagon can be as agile as America's
adversaries, we will be at risk; our bureaucrats must be as nimble as
our fighter aircraft. This year's National Defense Authorization Act
will tackle this problem head-on, recommending a host of good-
Government and streamlining initiatives that will make sure the
Pentagon becomes a better steward of the taxpayers' dollars. Similarly,
Representative Bill Clinger, chairman of the Government Reform and
Oversight Committee, and I are today introducing a comprehensive
Federal Acquisition Reform Act that will lighten the bureaucrats'
burden and let managers manage; they'll be given power and
responsibility.
A second goal of our reform effort must be to ensure that the Defense
Department sticks to defense. For too long, the defense budget has been
the largest cash cow in Washington. Sadly, items in the defense budget
are questionable projects that have little to do with national
security. Others may be worthwhile, but are not the Defense
Department's job.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I strongly urge my colleagues to support
the Budget Committee's budget resolution. Just as we set the rest of
the Government on the proper path forward, so it must be with the
Pentagon. The decisions we reach about defense spending today will
create effects felt not only next year but many years from now.
Lieutenants and privates recruited today will become tomorrow's
generals and sergeants major. They will not fly the aircraft we order
today for a decade. The research we undertake now will produce the new
weapons that they will rely on in 20 years. In sum, we must ensure that
our future military forces will be assured of being the smartest, best-
trained, and best-equipped, and that there will be no doubt in America
or around the world that, in Colin Powell's words, a ``superpower lives
here.''
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, ``What a difference a year makes.'' Who could
predict a year ago that we would be standing here today debating not
one, but four separate, specific proposals to bring our budget into
balance. While I do not support each different vision, it is truly
gratifying to see the debate shift toward fiscal responsibility and
real accountability to the American taxpayer.
I would first like to congratulate Chairman Kasich and his colleagues
on the Budget Committee for their tremendous work in crafting the
committee's first balanced budget resolution in nearly three decades.
We can measure their success by the type of demagogic opposition from
those on the other side of the aisle and down the street. Remember,
they have no serious proposal. It seems opponents of fiscal
responsibility have been reduced to inflammatory rhetoric and
misleading assertions of draconian budget cuts. ``The sky is falling,''
they shriek. Nonsense. As you can see from this chart, total outlays
under the committee budget will in fact continue to grow at a healthy
but responsible rate.
And in fact, we show in the Solomon-Neumann proposal that it's
possible to go further and balance the budget in an even more
expeditious manner--5 years, rather than 7. This proposal underscores
what I have claimed for several years, that there are literally
hundreds of billions of dollars of low priority, excessive and wasteful
discretionary spending programs
[[Page H5307]] in our current budget. We can cut those programs without
touching Social Security and while preserving Medicare benefits. In
addition, by balancing the budget in 5 years rather than 7 the national
debt will be $600 billion less, and so we could save an extra $42
billion in interest payments. The result: interest rates could drop an
additional 1 percent. That's good news for families. The Solomon-
Neumann budget is, as advertised, truly a contract with our children.
Mr. Chairman, this is an historic occasion for this body. This
Congress is on the verge of reasserting our fundamental duty to live
within our means. This Congress will rein in runaway spending and bring
our budget into balance. But most importantly, Mr. Chairman, as we
enter the 21st century, it is this Congress that will preserve a bright
future for our children and grandchildren.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman: I rise in support of the
Republican budget not because I agree with every detail, but because
this nation must balance it's budget. If we don't we may go the way of
Mexico, and if we go bankrupt, there won't be anyone to bail us out.
The American people should know that the Appropriations Committee
will make the final decisions on what programs will be eliminated, what
programs will be cut and what programs may be increased. Today, we
spend about $1.12 for every dollar we take in--it's a 12 percent
problem and we can fix it.
This budget begins the process of making priorities, we've simply got
to determine how much money we have, prioritize our needs and when the
money runs out, so do the programs. Every spending program has a
rationale, a constituency and a lobby.
There's been a lot of loose talk in this Chamber about so-called cuts
in some programs like Medicare. Only in Washington is an increase in
spending a cut. The fact is that Medicare will be broke in 7 years.
That means in 2002 there will be no money for Medicare. Those who
oppose this budget are willing to scare our seniors and are willing to
lie to them, in the pursuit of politics. To vote against this budget is
to tell our seniors that we don't care about their healthcare--that we
are willing to cast them out--just for politics.
The fact is, under this budget, Medicare spending will increase from
$4,700 to $6,300 in the next 7 years--that's a 40 percent increase per
recipient. That's hardly a cut anywhere in America, except on the other
side of the aisle.
This budget lays out a road map to follow to a balanced budget and a
healthy Medicare System in 7 years. We may not agree with every dot and
tittle in this budget--they'll be worked out in the Appropriations
Committee--but we must agree with a balanced budget, with a healthy
Medicare System, and Social Security off the table.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, America in ruins. That's right. Even if you
put aside for a moment the harm that the Kasich budget does to
Medicare, student loans, and everyday Americans, you are left, in terms
of our Nation's infrastructure, with a blueprint for disaster.
Forget what we have learned over the past 20 years: That our
infrastructure investment has a direct bearing on our ability to
compete in the global economy; that an enhanced infrastructure can
greatly further productivity, lower the cost of production and increase
employment; and that our infrastructure is critical to upgrading the
standard of living and quality of life for all Americans.
Forget what we know about the current needs of our transportation
systems, wastewater treatment, and water supply facilities: That more
than one-half--56 percent--of the Nation's major roadways are in poor
to fair condition and are in need of immediate repair, with the cost to
eliminate backlogged highway deficiencies estimated at $212 billion;
that more than 70 percent of peak-hour travel on urban interstates
occurs under congested or severely congested conditions, generating
costs from wasted fuel and lost productivity to the economy of $39
billion per year; that one out of three bridges in America is rated
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete; that almost one-fourth
of the Nation's rail transit facilities are in poor condition, and one-
fifth of our transit buses must be replaced as soon as possible; that
we now have 23 airports experiencing more than 20,000 hours of aircraft
delay annually, costing our economy as much as $6 billion every year;
and that more than 10,000 of our 75,000 dams are classified as high
hazard, meaning they would cause loss of life and extreme property
damage should they fail; 13,549 are classified as being of significant
hazard, meaning significant property damage would be sustained if they
fail; and about 2,000 are considered unsafe or in need of repair.
Forget--we should not--but that is what the Kasich budget plan does.
As a result, spending for infrastructure would decline dramatically.
For transportation, in 1996, the Kasich budget calls for a 1.3-
percent cut below 1995 spending. By the year 2002 this would increase
to a 14.6-percent cut below last year's spending, representing, because
the Kasich budget fails to take account of inflation, a 30.3-percent
decline in real transportation purchasing power.
Specific transportation cuts would include the following:
Freeze user-fee supported highway program. The Republican budget
freezes the highway program at last year's level notwithstanding the
fact that it is supported exclusively by user fees and does not
contribute one penny toward the deficit.
Phase out Mass Transit Operating Assistance. The budget phases out
operating assistance for local transit agencies between 1996 and 1999,
cutting an additional 25 percent each year. This proposal cuts $193
million in 1996, $385 million in 1997, $578 million in 1998, and $770
million in 1999 through 2002.
No new starts for fixed guideway capital grants. The budget
terminates funding for new section 3 mass transit systems, cutting $12
million in outlays in 1996, increasing to $645 million in 2002.
Terminate rail programs. The budget eliminates high-speed rail
development and the local rail freight assistance program, terminates
the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project, and ends funding for
the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program in 1999.
Eliminate air transportation programs. The budget eliminates the
essential air services program, grants to reliever airports, the Civil
Aeromedical Institute, the FAA Management Training Institute, and Air
Traffic Control Revitalization Act premium pay.
Cut Coast Guard operating expenses. The Republican budget cuts
funding for Coast Guard operations by $65 million, or 3 percent, in
1996 and freezes funding at this reduced level for the following 6
years. By 2002, this would mean a 24-percent loss in real purchasing
power.
For environmental programs, in 1996, the Republican plan calls for a
14.2-percent cut below 1995. In 2002, the plan proposes a 15.2-percent
cut below 1995, representing a 32.8-percent decline in real purchasing
power.
Major changes proposed by the Republicans would include the
following:
Cut funds for sewage treatment and safe drinking water facilities.
The Republican budget proposes to cut funding for construction and
upgrading of sewage treatment and drinking water facilities by $650
million, or 22 percent, in 1996 and then to freeze funding at this
reduced level for the following 6 years. By 2002, this would mean a 38
percent loss in real purchasing power.
Cut Corps of Engineers construction. The Republican budget calls for
cutting funds for Corps of Engineers water resources construction
projects by $172 million, or 19 percent, in 1996. Although the cut is
reduced beginning in 1998, in 2002 funding would still be 7 percent
below 1995--representing a 26 percent real cut in purchasing power.
Reduce Superfund spending. The budget calls for reducing
appropriations from the Superfund for hazardous waste cleanup by 10
percent in 1996 and then freezing appropriations at that reduced level
for the following 6 years. By 2002, purchasing power would be down 30
percent.
For regional development programs, in 1996, the Republican plan calls
for a 25.3 percent cut below 1995. In 2002, the plan proposes a 25.5
percent cut below 1995, representing a 40.6 percent decline in real
purchasing power.
Major changes proposed by the Republicans would include the
following--
Eliminate the Economic Development Administration.
Eliminate the Appalachian Regional Commission.
Eliminate the nonpower programs of the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Mr. Chairman, these are but a few examples of the many real
infrastructure hardships this budget advocates.
American in ruins. Sound familiar? That is the title of a 1983 best-
seller which, for the first time, brought to the forefront of American
politics the important role that infrastructure plays in the world
economy.
Let me read from the conclusion of that work:

Economic renewal must be the premier focus of domestic
policy in this decade. Our public infrastructure is
strategically bound-up in that renewal. Without attention to
deterioration of that infrastructure, economic renewal will
be thwarted if not impossible.
We have no recourse but to face the complex task at hand of
rebuilding our public facilities as an essential prerequisite
to economic renewal and maintenance of our quality-of-life.

How quickly we forget--how much the Kasich Republican plan forgets.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to note that a number of our
colleagues on the
[[Page H5308]] other side of the aisle have shown pictures of their
children during the course of the debate on budget priorities. These
children are beautiful; they have bright futures; and, I am sure they
are the pride and joy of their lucky parents. I know; I am the lucky
mother of five wonderful children.
With all due respect to my colleagues however, I would note that we
are here in Congress to represent all of the children of our districts
and, in fact, our Nation, not just our own children. Our children are
the lucky ones--they are covered by their parents' congressional health
benefits; and, with the benefit of their parents' congressional
salaries, they have decent housing and will be able to afford higher
education.
It is not enough to gauge the brilliance of the future of this great
Nation by its impact on our own children. We, as Federal legislators,
have an obligation to all of this Nation's children. Our children are
not only the ones in our families. They are also the children down the
street, in low income housing, and tragically, sometimes not in housing
at all but out on the street. Unless we meet their needs too, the
future of our children is not as bright.
The Republican budget before us today is not for America's children,
it is only for the children of the privileged few.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of House Concurrent
Resolution 67 which sets out the annual budget limits that will enable
our Federal Government to achieve a balanced budget over the next 7
years. Our country faces a deficit crisis that can only be resolved
through an honest commitment to the basic idea that our Federal
Government can no longer afford to live beyond its means. With this
resolution, Congress has an historic opportunity to put an end to the
business-as-usual partisan bickering that has resulted in a $4.8
trillion debt that threatens to overwhelm our Nation's economy. It is
time to stand together and do the heavy lifting that is needed to put
our country's balance sheet in order.
This year's interest obligation on the debt is $235 billion, and over
the next 15 years--if current patterns are allowed to continue--
accumulated interest payments will total several trillion dollars. You
don't need to be a finance expert to understand that this year's $235
billion interest payment on the Government's debt means that we have
that much less money to fund critical government functions like crime
control, education, and transportation initiatives. On a personal
level, these growing interest payments will mean that my 13-year-old
son Carlton will be saddled with approximately $125,000 in additional
taxes during his expected lifetime to pay for his share of the interest
obligation.
Even now, Americans are paying for this debt in the form of interest
rates that are about 2 percentage points higher than they would be if
the budget were balanced. This adds as much as
$37,000 over 30 years to the mortgage on a $75,000 home. A 2-percent
reduction in interest rates will result in the following economic
benefits:

It will lead to the creation of 4.25 million more jobs over the next
10 years.
It will increase per capita incomes 16.1 percent.
It will generate $235 billion more revenue for the Federal Government
without a tax increase.
It will generate $232 billion more revenue for State and local
governments without a tax increase.
As the former chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, I
can report from firsthand experience that a spendthrift Federal
Government with unrestrained deficits will inevitably attempt to pass
the buck on to State and local governments in the form of unfunded
mandates. While we addressed part of this problem with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, we will never fully cure the Federal Government's
habit of passing the buck until we adopt a firm balanced budget policy
that forces the Government to live within its means. When I was elected
county board chairman in Fairfax County, VA--a county of 900,000
residents with the second largest county budget in the Nation--we were
faced with more than a $200 million deficit that threatened the
financial security and well-being of the county. Well, we rolled up our
sleeves and went to work. We made the county government leaner and more
efficient. We set priorities and stayed on focus to achieve a balanced
budget, without tax hikes, that featured added funding for education.
Two years later, Fairfax County was voted best financially managed
county in the country by City and State magazine and I learned that
fiscal responsibility creates economic opportunity and has the power to
restore the average taxpayer's faith in government.
It is now time to restore faith in the Federal Government. This
resolution sets tough budget limits that will require difficult choices
and painful spending cuts. I oppose several of the individual, non-
binding proposals that are contained in the committee report that
accompanies this resolution. I will continue to fight to see that the
more than two million hard working Federal employees are not unfairly
targeted for pay and benefit cuts. While we all must share in the
sacrifices that are necessary to achieve a balanced budget, I believe
that Federal workers were unfairly singled out for a 2.5 percent pay
cut and a sizeable reduction in promised retirement pay contained in
H.R. 1215--the tax bill.
I voted against the rule that limited amendments and against final
passage of H.R. 1215. The other body has not embraced these pay cuts,
and I am confident that the end result of this budget process will be
much more acceptable to the Federal worker than the provisions
contained in the misguided tax bill. I am pleased that this resolution
recommends the formation of a high-level commission to study the
security of our military and civil service retirement funds. The
Congressional Research Service and General Accounting Office are on
record as certifying that these retirement systems have no unfunded
liability problem and face no threat of insolvency. I applaud this
resolution for embracing a long-range, analytical approach to the
questions raised during the tax bill debate about the solvency of these
retirement funds. This resolution appears to recognize that any
increase in employee contribution rates based on the argument that
these funds are unstable should be postponed until the commission makes
findings and recommendations.
There is some good news for northern Virginians in this balanced
budget plan: our METRO system is fully funded until its planned
completion; retired civil servants and military
personnel do not face reduced or delayed cost-of-living allowances;
and, the U.S. Geological Survey remains intact and viable in its Reston
headquarters.

Let's put partisanship aside for the sake of our children's economic
security. To those critics who focus solely on the sacrifices required
to balance our budget, I say: Where is your plan? This resolution
represents a solid plan to balance the budget over 7 years. A balanced
budget will directly result in lower interest rates, a stable dollar in
the international market, and long-term economic security. I urge my
colleagues to join me in support of House Concurrent Resolution 67.
The CHAIRMAN. No further debate is in order. Accordingly, pursuant to
House Resolution 149, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having assumed the
chair, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union, reported that the Committee, having had
under consideration the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 67) setting
forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal
years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, as amended, he
reported the concurrent resolution, as amended, back to the House.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the amendment printed in H. Rept. 104-
125 is adopted.
Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.

parliamentary inquiries

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, does House rule XXI(c) requiring a three-
fifths vote to increase Federal taxes apply to the $17.4 billion tax
increase contained in the Republican budget resolution due to the
consumer price index cut?
The SPEAKER. The Chair appreciates the gentleman's parliamentary
inquiry, and the Chair interprets clause 5(c) of rule XXI to apply only
to the passage or adoption of a bill, a joint resolution, an amendment
thereto, or a conference report thereon. The rule does not apply to the
adoption of a concurrent resolution.
Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I am a freshman. On my first day here I voted
that a three-fifth vote of this body be required to pass a tax
increase.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is not in order.
Mr. WARD. Is this not a bill, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER. This is not a bill. The gentleman is a freshman. He
should study this. It is not a bill.
Mr. WARD. It is not a question of studying, Mr. Speaker. What is the
voter to think if we do not call a bill a bill?
The SPEAKER. The question is on the concurrent resolution, as
amended.
[[Page H5309]] Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238,
nays 193, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No 345]

YEAS--238

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NAYS--193

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--4

Berman
Collins (IL)
Kleczka
McNulty

{time} 1609

So the concurrent resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

____________________