H 5290 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

especially the senior citizens and the

middle class of our country.

b 1415

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Ohio

[Mr. STOKES].

(Mr. STOKES asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise

today in strong support of the Congressional Black Caucus substitute budget

for fiscal year 1996. The CBC substitute

is a caring budget, it shows compassion

for the American people, and is one

that the American people can be proud

of. It not only balances the budget, the

measure is responsive to the housing,

health, education, and employment

training needs of the American people.

Unlike the Republicans’ budget proposal, House Concurrent Resolution 67,

which holds our elderly hostage to

their compromised health care condition and economic status, the Congressional Black Caucus substitute treats

our elderly with the dignity and respect that they not only deserve—but

have earned. Adequate funding is provided for the older Americans’ programs including essential nutrition

programs, low-income home-energy assistance, and assisted housing. Medicare is preserved.

Unlike the Republicans’ budget proposal which forces our elderly to

choose between food and heat, under

the CBC alternative their quality of

life is enhanced.

The CBC substitute is also kind to

our Nation’s children including those

yet to be born. It provides adequate

funding for Healthy Start, Child Care,

and Head Start. Mr. Chairman, our

children are our future. They have

placed their future in our hands, we

cannot sacrifice that trust.

In addition, the CBC substitute budget strengthens support for higher education, student aid, trio, education for

the disadvantaged, school reform, biomedical research, and community infrastructure. The CBC has heard the

voice of the American people, and responded with a sound budget that is

fair, responsible, and overturns the Republicans’ assault on our Nation’s most

vulnerable citizens—the children, the

elderly, the veterans, and hard-working

families.

Mr. Chairman, the Congressional

Black Caucus substitute budget stands

on its own merits. I strongly urge my

colleagues to join me in supporting

this budget which establishes our fiscal

policy and priorities in a responsible

and compassionate manner.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. BAKER].

Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, this is the first time in 26 years

that we are actually taking the first

step toward balancing the budget. That

means your grandchildren will not be

paying $187,000 in interest payments to

the national debt during her lifetime,

if she is born today, if we start today.

This budget is more of the same. More

spending, more taxes, more power in

Washington.

We need a capital gains tax, not as a

tax for the rich but for those who will

create jobs and bring revenue to Washington.

We need the tax relief for the young

families, both parents working, so that

they can spend not someone else’s

money but their own. That is what a

$500 tax credit does for families with

children. We have got to stop the

growth of power in Washington. We

have got to stop the centralization of

regulation in Washington. That is what

returning power to local governments

is all about. That is what the unfunded

mandates bill was all about. We have

to stop the overtaxation.

In 1960, we only paid about 10 percent

of our income to the government. We

are now paying 30 percent. Vote no on

this relief. Vote ‘‘yes’’ on the Republican budget.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding time

to me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to announce

that I oppose the substitute we have

before us now and that I will vote in

favor of the Kasich budget, even

though I have great concern about the

transportation parts of that budget.

Most importantly, to announce that

the Speaker today has authorized me

to announce that he is forming a task

force to address the issue of taking the

transportation trust funds out of the

general fund budget, that the Speaker

himself will chair that task force. And

as the Speaker says in the letter making this announcement, ‘‘As you know,

I have consistently stood with you in

support of moving the transportation

trust funds off budget.’’

So this is not the end but, rather, the

beginning. I salute the Speaker for his

dedication to our finding a way to remove these transportation trust funds

from the general fund budget. It is

really an issue of honesty in budgeting.

We have 206 cosponsors now, I might

say a majority of Republicans in the

House cosponsoring the legislation. It

is time we get on with doing it. I certainly want to compliment the Speaker

for deciding that he will chair the task

force to find a way to make this happen.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. MFUME].

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, Mr. and

Mrs. Taxpayer, get ready, because after

4 months of blue smoke and mirrors,

the Republican budget proposal is getting ready to pick your pockets. It

gives a new meaning to the term ‘‘out

of luck.’’

If your are on Medicaid or Medicare,

you are now out of luck. If you receive

unemployment benefits, you are out of

luck. If you happen to be a college student or the parent of a college student,

you, too, are out of luck. If you believe

in the importance of the National Endowment for the Humanities or the National Endowment for the Arts or the

Corporation for Public Broadcasting,

under the Republican budget proposal,

you are out of luck. It gives tax breaks

to the wealthy and gets away from the

whole notion of trying to do anything

about corporate welfare. Spends more

money on weapons during a time of

peace and plays games under the guise

of balancing the budget.

We were given the task to balance

the budget also and we have one we believe that is more humane, more dedicated to principle, more honest, more

equitably distributed and more, quite

frankly, American in many respects because it does not do unto people things

that we would not have done to us.

And so I would ask Members of this

body, as you watch this debate and as

you come to the floor to cast this vote,

recognize that we are talking about

years of fiscal policy and ask yourself,

when you juxtapose these two balanced

budget amendments, which one comes

the closest to where the American people do?

We believe that the proposal offered

by the gentleman from New Jersey and

the gentleman from New York that has

the support of the Congressional Black

Caucus and the Progressive Caucus,

meets that challenge. And we are prepared to debate that issue with anybody from the other side on any day

and in this debate at any time.

I urge support of this and rejection of

the so-called balanced budget amendment by the Republicans.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield

11⁄2 minutes to the gentlewoman from

New York [Ms. M

fOLINARI].

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,
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5291

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

11⁄2 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.

b 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

11⁄2 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
H 5292 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

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 hardearned 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 41⁄2

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.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5293

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
H 5294 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

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 lowerincome 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 PayneOwens 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.

b 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

11⁄2 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
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5295

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. VELA ́ ZQUEZ].

(Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

her remarks.)

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. 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.
H 5296 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

The second element of an important

national security strategy is a comprehensive, thoughtful, well-thoughtout, 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 61⁄2 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.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5297

I urge my colleagues to support the PayneOwens/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 PayneOwens 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.

b 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
H 5298 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

NOT VOTING—10

Archer

Berman

Flake

Kleczka

Livingston

McNulty

Mollohan

Rush

Towns

Waxman

b 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
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5299

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.

b 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.
H 5300 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

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.

b 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—
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5301

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-andburn 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 schoolkids 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
H 5302 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

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 fastestgrowing 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 HouseSenate 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
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5303

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 drugfree 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
H 5304 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

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-ofpocket 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.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5305

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
H 5306 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

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-yearold 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 noncombat 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
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5307

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 SolomonNeumann 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 boundup 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
H 5308 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

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-asusual 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 wellbeing 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 threefifths 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.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5309

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

b 1609

So the concurrent resolution, as

amended, was agreed to.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. SpeakPERSONAL EXPLANATION

fer, during rollcall vote No. 345 on

House Concurrent Resolution 67 I was

unavoidably detained. Had I been

present I would have voted ‘‘no.’’

PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS TO

fHAVE UNTIL MIDNIGHT FRIDAY,

MAY 19, 1995, TO FILE REPORT

ON H.R. 1561, AMERICAN OVERSEAS INTERESTS ACT OF 1995

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the Committee on International Relations have

until midnight, Friday, May 19, 1995, to

file a report on the bill (H.R. 1561) to

consolidate the foreign affairs agencies

of the United States; to authorize appropriations for the Department of

State and related agencies for fiscal

years 1996 and 1997; to responsibly reduce the authorizations of appropriations for United States foreign assistance programs for fiscal years 1996 and

1997, and for other purposes.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from New

York?

There was no objection.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I was

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

fpresent and voted no on rollcall vote

No. 337, final passage of H.R. 961, the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act

amendments. Unfortunately, due to a

technical difficulty, my vote was not

recorded.

I ask that the RECORD be clear that I

voted on opposition to final passage of

H.R. 961.

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1158,

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL

fAPPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER

ASSISTANCE AND RESCISSIONS,

FISCAL YEAR 1995

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call

up House Resolution 151 and ask for its

immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. RES. 151

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider 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. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration

are waived. The conference report shall be

considered as read.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

WALKER). The gentleman from California [Mr. DREIER] is recognized for 1

hour.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman

from Boston, MA [Mr. MOAKLEY], the

former chairman of the Committee on

Rules.

Pending that, Mr. Speaker, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.

All time yielded is for debate purposes

only.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks, and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule

provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill,

H.R. 1158, a measure providing emergency supplemental appropriations for

disaster assistance and rescissions for

fiscal year 1995. The rule waives all

points of order against the conference

report and against its consideration.

In particular, I would note that the

conference report violates clause 3,

rule XXVIII, relating to scope, because

appropriations related to the terrorist