May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5173

re-elections. It’s a remarkable departure

from common wisdom, which until recently

maintained that the extreme fiscal severity

of anti-inflation ‘‘shock therapy’’ would induce a backlash of desperate social protest.

That assumption was wrong. Once severe

fiscal measure are implemented, Latin

Americans have endured their high, recessionary price-tag with remarkable fortitude.

Nowhere was this clearer than in Brazil’s

presidential election last year, where former

finance minister Fernando Henrique Cardoso

saw his poll ratings soar in proportion to the

success of his anti-inflation Plan Real. His

charismatic leftist rival could only watch in

impotence as a once-handsome lead slipped

away.

Inflation-taming has been so strongly endorsed by Latin American voters that it has

even conferred a thick Teflon coating on the

neo-liberals of the hard-money school. Both

Peru’s Alberto Fujimori and Mr. Menem

have emerged relatively unscathed from embarrassing political accusations, largely because of their economic successes.

But post-inflation presidents are sure to

face tougher terms. Having rewarded stability and fiscal discipline for a long, difficult

spell, Latin American voters will soon take

up once again their long-deferred hopes of

growth, better income distribution, and honest government. The inflation-fighters’ success thus far makes those hopes seem more

realistic than before. Before long, though, it

will become clear that politicians can keep

voters hearts only by thickening their wallets.

The CHAIRMAN. All time for general

debate has expired.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move

that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and

the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. FOX of

Pennsylvania), having assumed the

chair, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Chairman

of the Committee of the Whole House

on the State of the Union, reported

that that 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, had come

to no resolution thereon.

(Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to proceed out of order for 1

minute.)

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I have asked

unanimous consent to proceed out of

order for a minute so I might inquire

about plans for tomorrow.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio

[Mr. KASICH].

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I would

say to the gentleman from Minnesota,

I have been here for 13 years. I have always wanted to stand here and explain

what the next day’s schedule is, but I

do not quite know what it is. We come

in at 9 a.m.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to

the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.

KOLBE].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, it is the

first time that the chairman of the

Committee on the Budget has not had

an answer.

I believe we come in at 9 a.m. We do

recess immediately after morning business there for the former Members.

And then we will resume, I presume,

around 10 a.m. And we will go immediately to the three amendments, the

Gephardt amendment is first, followed

by the Neumann-Solomon amendment,

the Black Caucus amendment. And if,

of course, the president’s budget with a

zero deficit is printed in the Congressional Record, it would be made in

order as a fourth amendment.

Mr. SABO. So the Black Caucus is

the last amendment; Solomon is second?

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is

correct. And we do expect a journal

vote tomorrow.

Mr. SABO. At 9 a.m.

Mr. KOLBE. At 9 a.m., 10 a.m. The

journal vote at around 10 a.m.

Mr. SABO. As it relates to the Solomon amendment, do I get the half hour

in opposition to the Solomon amendment?

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman

from New York.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, someone does.

Mr. SABO. Someone does.

Mr. SOLOMON. It probably will be

the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanGENERAL LEAVE

fimous consent that all Members may

have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the concurrent

budget resolution for fiscal year 1996,

and to insert extraneous material

thereon.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Arizona?

REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVING

There was no objection.

POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONfFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1158,

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL

APPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER

ASSISTANCE AND RESCISSIONS,

FISCAL YEAR 1995

Mr. SOLOMON, from the Committee

on Rules, submitted a privileged report

(Rept. No. 104–126) on the resolution (H.

Res. 151) waiving points of order

against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1158) making

emergency supplemental appropriations for additional disaster assistance

and making rescissions for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 1995, and for

other purposes, which was referred to

the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. F

SPECIAL ORDERS

f OX

of Pennsylvania). Under the Speaker’s

announced policy of May 12, 1995, and

under a previous order of the House,

the following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. ROSLEHTINEN] is recognized for 5 minutes.

[Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN addressed the

House. Her remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]

CRIME AND PROPOSED BUDGET

fCUTS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. STUPAK] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, when

U.S. Marshal Robert Forsyth of Augusta, GA was shot and killed in January 1794 while trying to serve court papers, he became the first peace officer

in the United States to die in the line

of duty. Since then about 13,500 police

officers from all types of law enforcement fields have fallen in the line of

duty.

My district in northern Michigan has

been hard hit by the all-too-common

tragedy of police officer slaying. In the

Upper Peninsula, which has about 3

percent of Michigan’s population, 18

police officers have died since the

1920’s. In 1962, President Kennedy proclaimed that for 1 week in the month

of May Americans would commemorate

National Police Week. National Police

Week honors the service related deaths

of law enforcement officers.

As a former state trooper, as an Escanaba City police officer, this week

has special meaning for me. And as a

former police officer and now as a legislator, I am particularly concerned

about recent Republican efforts to

weaken legislation designed to reduce

crime in America.

In 1994, Congress passed the toughest

crime bill in this Nation’s history. The

President’s crime bill has several very

important elements designed to fight

crime on our streets. Most importantly, the crime bill directs that additional police officers be put on the

streets to fight crime, because there is

no better crime fighting tool than police officers proactively patrolling our

neighborhoods.

The President’s plan to put 100,000

more police on America’s streets represents the Federal Government’s largest commitment ever to local law enforcement.

The President’s COPS program is already working. Half of the Nation’s law

enforcement agencies from jurisdictions of all sizes throughout this country have already received grants to add

17,000 additional police officers. Unfortunately, the new Republican majority

wants to turn back the clock by gutting the most effective element of last

year’s crime bill, the COPS program.

Not only do they want to scrap the

President’s plan to put 100,000 more police officers on the street, but they also

intend to delete every single prevention program.

Additionally, the Republican budget

measure that we debated here today