```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[House]
[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.
  

                          ____________________
```