E 1188 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks June 8, 1995

established in 1950, Al leaves behind a lifetime legacy that will never be forgotten.

THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

fHON. LEE H. HAMILTON OF INDIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, June 7, 1995

Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to

insert my Washington Report for Wednesday,

May 31, 1995 into the CONGRESSIONAL

RECORD.

BALANCED BUDGET PLANS

The House of Representatives recently

completed action on the budget resolution,

which sets broad dollar targets for federal

spending and revenues for the next seven

years. Each of the four versions considered

by the House would, in theory, balance the

federal budget by the year 2002. Some would

even produce a surplus and begin reducing

the national debt.

The House leadership deserves credit for

bringing balanced budget resolutions to the

floor. The deficit this year is projected to be

just under $200 billion. The deficit has been

significantly reduced—from 4.9% of the total

economy three years ago to 2.5% today—but

much more needs to be done. The cuts necessary to erase the deficit will be felt by all

Americans. Congress’ challenge is to make

sure that the burden of cuts is distributed

fairly.

A Moderate Plan: I support a balanced

budget. The budget resolution I voted for

would balance the budget by 2002, begin to

reduce the national debt, stabilize the Medicare trust fund, and invest in our children

through student loans, Head Start, and

childhood immunization. It would make

tough but fair cutbacks in almost every part

of the budget: foreign aid, welfare, agriculture, transportation, housing, and many

others. It did not raise tax rates. The gradual

reductions would cut the deficit in half by

1999, provide a surplus in 2002, and reduce the

national debt (the sum of yearly deficits) by

$160 billion more than the majority’s budget.

This budget received the most bipartisan

support. Unfortunately, it was defeated.

The Majority Plan: The majority leadership’s resolution passed the House. While I

disagreed with several of its priorities, the

majority’s budget has some positive features. It is a serious attempt to break the

pattern of government overspending with

hard targets and a final date to balance the

budget. It forces the nation to confront fiscal

decisions avoided for too long.

The majority’s budget would cut spending

for virtually all federal programs except defense, which would increase sighificanlty. It

also assumes cuts in tax revenue by $280 billion reduction over seven years and an additional $350 billion in the following three

years.

The largest savings in the majority budget

come from a $288 billion in Medicare services, compared to spending levels required

under current law. The plan would eliminate

284 programs, reduce student loans, cut

major agricultural programs, and make significant cuts in child nutrition services.

Heating assistance to low-income families

would be abolished, and only 50 percent of

housing assistance vouchers for older persons would be renewed. The majority’s budget would also eliminate small business assistance, community development funds, and

assistance to rural communities for

wastewater treatment.

Reservations: I did not support the majority budget resolution for several reasons:

First, the majority delayed most of the

tough spending cuts until 2001. Until then,

we will have deficits in excess of $100 billion

per year. My preference is to reduce spending

gradually each year, rather than postponing

action.

Scond, the job of balancing the budget is

made much more difficult by huge tax cuts.

I do not think we can justify large tax

breaks until the budget is balanced—especially when the tax cuts start early and the

bulk of the spending cuts are delayed for six

years. If and when a surplus occurs, then

Congress should pass tax cuts. It does not

make sense to borrow more money to give

ourselves a tax cut.

Third, my spending priorities are different.

Half of the total savings come from health

care and assistance to the poor. We should

not ask the poor to bear more than their

share of the burden. The curbs on Medicare

and Medicaid are too steep. I prefer fair,

across-the-board cuts in most programs, and

deep cuts in ‘‘corporate welfare’’—wasteful

subsidies to business. We should also preserve funding for long-term investments

such as health and science research, infrastructure, and education. These are necessary to continue economic growth, increase revenues, and reduce the deficit.

Fourth, the majority budget devolves a

great deal of responsibility to state and local

governments in a short period of time. This

may be a good idea in many cases, but we

need more information on the ability of

these governments to handle new duties.

Balancing the federal budget will be a hollow

victory if state and local governments fail to

run programs well or raise taxes to meet exploding costs.

Fifth, I am not convinced the majority

plan would achieve a balanced budget. The

plan makes optimistic economic assumptions that it could lower interest rates almost two percentage points and boost economic growth. That might occur, but the

hope of $170 billion in savings from this

should not be assumed in advance.

Conclusion: The House action on the budget was a significant step toward restoring

fiscal responsibility to the federal government. The Senate has also passed a budget

resolution, with no immediate tax cut. The

House and Senate resolutions must be reconciled in what will be a contentious conference committee, with tax cuts at the center of debate. The budget resolution itself is

not subject to a Presidential veto, but the

measures to implement it must be approved

by the President.

The toughest choices lie ahead, when Congress debates these specific spending cuts. It

is one thing to say that Medicare services

must be reduced by $288 billion over seven

years, but quite another to decide exactly

how these savings will be accomplished. The

real budget decisions are just beginning.

The popular promise of 1994, that the budget could be balanced painlessly, will not be

kept. The strongest evidence of that is the

deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid services.

The right way to reduce the deficit is to distribute the burden of spending cuts fairly.

The challenge is to balance the need for austerity with critical investments in long-term

growth. We should reduce unnecessary and

marginal programs, but also invest in programs that will help working families build

a more prosperous future.

TRIBUTE TO LORNA M. HART

HON. JULIAN C. DIXON OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, June 7, 1995

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay

special tribute to Mrs. Lorna M. Hart for her 30

years of outstanding service as a teacher in

the Los Angeles Unified School District. In recognition of her dedication to the children of

Los Angeles, Mrs. Hart will be honored by her

friends and family at an appreciation dinner on

June 10, 1995. It is a pleasure to share with

my colleagues just a few of her many accomplishments.

A dedicated student, Mrs. Hart received her

bachelor of arts degree from the University of

California at Los Angeles [UCLA] in 1960. By

1965, Mrs. Hart received her general elementary teaching credentials and began her 30

year career with the Los Angeles Unified

School District. Later, she returned to school,

and in 1975 she earned her masters of arts in

education from California State University, Los

Angeles, as well as a media education credential.

From 1964 until her retirement in September

of last year, Mrs. Hart taught elementary and

special education, touching the lives of many

young students. As a special education teacher to students with physical disabilities, Mrs.

Hart worked closely with administrators,

school support staff, teachers, and parents to

enrich the educational experience of disabled

youth. Mrs. Hart was also responsible for implementing ‘‘Career Week’’ for young children

and served on the Ethnic Heritage Committee

for the Los Angeles Unified School District.

In addition to her teaching, Mrs. Hart has

contributed greatly to the Los Angeles Christian community. Mrs. Hart was ordained to

preach the gospel and is the former assistant

pastor of the People’s United Community

Church of Christ, Inc. Mrs. Hart is currently affiliated with the Emmanuel Independent Community Church where she is an associate pastor and minister of christian education. She

serves on the board of directors for Christian

Women in Action, is president of the Community Alliance of Pastors and Ministers, and

treasurer of the West Adams Christian Athletics.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the

House of Representatives to join me in saluting Mrs. Lorna M. Hart on her many years of

dedicated service to her students and the Los

Angeles Unified School District. It is a pleasure to join her family, friends, and colleagues

in recognizing her distinguished teaching career and wishing Mrs. Hart well on the occasion of her retirement.

FIFTIETH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY

OF EDWIN AND CHARLOTTE

fWENTA

HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, June 7, 1995

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, it gives me

great pleasure to bring to the attention of my

colleagues an exemplary couple from the

Third Congressional District of Illinois, Mr. and