H 5260 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. CASTLE] assumed the chair.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

Chair will receive a message.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

A message in writing from the Presifdent of the United States was communicated to the House by Mr. Edwin

Thomas, one of his secretaries.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

committee will resume its sitting.

THE BUDGET—FISCAL YEAR 1996

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON

fThe Committee resumed its sitting.

b 1130

The CHAIRMAN. When the committee rose, the gentleman from Utah [Mr.

ORTON] had 8 minutes and 50 seconds

remaining, and the gentleman from

Ohio [Mr. KASICH] had 71⁄2 minutes remaining.

Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I include

for the RECORD two letters of support

for the amendment, one from the

American Council on Education, the

other from the National Association of

Student Financial Aid Administrators.

The letters referred to are as follows:

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION,

Washington, DC, May 16, 1995.

Hon. BILL ORTON,

U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE ORTON: The American Council on Education, on behalf of our

1700 college and university members, urges

all members to support the Stenholm-Orton

substitute to H. Con. Res. 67—the FY 1996

Concurrent Budget Resolution. The Stenholm-Orton substitute achieves the goal of

deficit elimination, while maintaining the

critical federal student loan, grant and work

programs that ensure access to college for

students from middle- and lower-income

families.

In stark contrast, H. Con. Res. 67 would increase the cost of college by more than $24

billion over seven years, subjecting middleclass families to the largest tuition hike in

the nation’s history. This burden will be

borne by students currently in college, as

well as by children as young as thirteen

years of age who will reach college age during the period of time governed by this resolution.

Earlier this month, the Census Bureau released the results of a detailed survey of

American business commissioned by President Bush, documenting that increases in

workers’ education levels produce twice the

gain in workplace efficiency as comparable

increases in the value of tools and machinery. According to this study, for each additional year of schooling in their workforce,

employers gain an 8 percent increase in productivity, rising to 11 percent in the

nonmanufacturing sector.

The Stenholm-Orton substitute recognizes

the strong linkage between higher education

and future national productivity and economic growth. We urge you to vote to defeat

the seriously flawed H. Con. Res. 67, and to

adopt the Stenholm-Orton substitute.

Sincerely,

TERRY W. HARTLE,

Vice President.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STUDENT

FINANCIAL AID ADMINISTRATORS,

Washington, DC, May 17, 1995.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: On behalf of the

National Association of Student Financial

Aid Administrators (NASFAA) representing

over 3,200 postsecondary institutions across

the country, we urge passage of the Stenholm/Orton substitute amendment to the

House Budget Resolution. We are supporting

the Stenholm/Orton substitute because it restores $35 billion in Function 500 for education programs from levels contained in the

committee-reported resolution. It also retains the in-school interest subsidy for student loan borrowers.

Our members are well aware of the need to

constrain federal spending and are fully supportive of responsible efforts to reduce the

deficit. However, we respectfully urge you to

consider that the federal student aid programs have been essentially frozen since FY–

93 and are not contributing to the deficit. To

the contrary, research shows increased educational attainment, made possible for millions because of these programs, has accounted for 27 percent of the growth in the

national economy during this century. Some

will argue that eliminating the interest exemption on student loans will not prevent

students from obtaining the loans and will

be an additional expense which borrowers

can easily repay because they will have higher future earnings. But the fact remains that

such a policy will result in significantly

higher yearly payments for these individuals

and will reduce their ability to purchase

other goods and services and save for their

children’s education. Federal student aid expenditures are an investment in the nation’s

future, and the monies spent on these programs today are returned by the program recipients many times over in the future.

Public opinion polls show that there is

overwhelming support by Americans from all

income categories and of all political persuasions for federal spending on programs to

help students go to college. These polls

clearly show that 75% of Americans do not

want to see federal student aid programs and

benefits sacrificed in the name of deficit reduction or tax cuts. We therefore strongly

urge you and your fellow House members to

consider all of the consequences before voting to reduce federal student aid programs

below existing levels, or imposing mandatory reductions in spending which would result in a loss of benefits to current and future recipients.

It is for these reasons that we urge you to

vote for the Stenholm/Orton substitute.

Sincerely,

DALLAS MARTIN,

President.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to

the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.

TANNER], a member of the coalition.

(Mr. TANNER asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I want

to thank Chairman KASICH for bringing

a bill to the floor that we think we

have an opportunity to make better. I

would like to thank our minority leader, Mr. GEPHARDT, for giving the coalition this opportunity to be on the

floor.

All of us here in this House in the coalition that many of us belong to here

came to Washington to try to get

something done. People are tired of

partisan political bickering. They are

tired of the gamesmanship that is

being played in this town while the

country does not do very well.

Our group, the coalition, has tried to

make a difference, a commonsense difference, and I would suggest that this

is a defining moment for us in this

budget document.

Let me say why I think that. Any

business person in this country, man or

woman, faced with a $41⁄2 trillion debt

and wondering how to right the wrongs

that have been done in the past would

say if only this would say this. It

makes no sense to add another $160 billion on the debt as we go to ground

zero. At 6 percent that is almost $10

billion more in interest payments

alone that will have to be made if we

adopt the Kasich approach.

I can go home to Tennessee through

West Virginia or Kentucky or I go

home to Tennessee through Virginia

and Tennessee. We both get to ground

zero. There is a businesslike, commonsense way to take our deficit down in a

way that makes sense, that spends less

money, that ties revenues to expenditures, as any business person would do,

and that is exactly what this commonsense, businesslike proposal does. I

would recommend it to my colleagues.

I hope they will consider it and I hope

they will give it their independent

thought and judgment. It deserves

that.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, how

much time remains on both sides?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from Ohio [Mr. KASICH] has 71⁄2 minutes

remaining, and the gentleman from

Utah [Mr. ORTON] has 6 minutes and 50

seconds remaining.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from Ohio [Mr. KASICH] has the right to

close.

Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I am

happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. SABO], the

ranking member of the Committee on

the Budget.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding me this

time.

Let me congratulate Messrs. ORTON,

STENHOLM, BROWDER, and other Members who have presented this budget. I

intend to vote for it. It represents a

vary substantial improvement over the

Republican base bill, both as it relates

to basic fiscal policy and as it relates

to dealing with fundamental problems

of the American people. I congratulate

the gentleman on this amendment and

wish him well. I hope his amendment

prevails.

Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from South

Carolina [Mr. SPRATT].

(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding me this

time.

Mr. Chairman, we have a tall order

before us, $1.2 trillion in spending reductions to get to 2002 in a balanced

budget.