[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 26 (Thursday, March 10, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 384 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for consideration of the concurrent 
resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 218.

                              {time}  1154


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 218) setting forth the 
congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal years 1995, 
1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, with Mr. Serrano in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Debate shall be confined to the congressional budget and shall not 
exceed 2 hours, including 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and 
policies, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  After initial general debate, there will be an additional period of 
general debate which shall be confined to the subject of amendment No. 
4 printed in House Report 103-429 and which shall not exceed 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
and an opponent.
  Following that debate, there will be an additional period of general 
debate which shall be confined to the subject of amendment No. 3 
printed in the report and which shall not exceed 1 hour, equally 
divided and controlled by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] and 
an opponent.
  At the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
amendment, there will be a final period of general debate which shall 
not exceed 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  At this time the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Sabo] for 1 hour and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] for 1 
hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure to be back before you 
with the Budget Committee's recommendation for the 1995 budget 
resolution.
  Last year at this time, we faced high deficits, and a host of other 
problems. By August we had passed the President's comprehensive 
economic plan and we had improved on his proposals throughout the 
legislative process.
  In that process we reduced the Federal budget deficit by $500 billion 
over the 5 year period from 1994 to 1998.
  And, we redirected scarce Federal dollars to programs that reward 
work like the earned income tax credit [EITC]; to education and job 
training so people can find work and continue to remain productive in a 
changing economy; to research and development so our Nation can remain 
a world economic power; and to health, nutrition, and human resource 
programs so that all Americans can enjoy healthy and fruitful lives.
  This year, we are seeing the rewards for those efforts.
  The deficit is down significantly and projected to continue to 
decline. In fact from 1992 to 1996 we are seeing deficits decline 4 
years in a row. The last time this occurred was 1944-48.
  Under this budget, in 1995 discretionary spending as a percent of the 
gross domestic product will be at its lowest level since 1948. And, it 
will shrink still further in the next 5 years.
  News on the economic front is overwhelmingly positive. Evidence of 
improved economic performance is everywhere. According to recent 
testimony by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, ``The outlook * * * is the 
best we have seen in decades. Further, according to David Schulman, the 
chief economist at Salomon Brothers, ``The economic recovery is now 
moving from Wall Street to Main Street.''
  All the major economic indicators show improvements. Over the last 
year we have seen the creation of 1.9 million new private sector jobs; 
an increase in industrial production of 4.7 percent; an 11 percent 
increase in business investment; a decrease in the unemployment rate 
from roughly 7.7 percent in January 1993 to 6.5 percent in February 
1994; and improvements in the leading economic indicators for 6 months 
in a row.
  Everywhere we turn things are looking up. I think it is safe to say 
that all these good things would not be happening if we hadn't enacted 
the President's economic program. And this good news is particularly 
helpful in dealing with our budget problems.
  This year's budget builds on last year's program. It continues the 
fiscal restraint we began last year and continues to direct scarce 
Federal resources toward the needs of the nineties.
  The resolution we have presented to you follows the President's 
program with a few exceptions. As you have probably heard, CBO 
reestimated the President's budget at $3.1 billion over the outlay caps 
for 1995 so we had to make some adjustments to fit within those caps. 
We also disagreed with the President on his proposals to cut the low-
income home heating program [LIHEAP], mass transit operating subsidies, 
the REA loan guaranty program, and one or two other programs. In order 
to reject these cuts we had to find the funds elsewhere. Consequently, 
the budget before you is slightly different from the President's while 
at the same time reflecting his major policy choices.
  A general outline of the plan and the major modifications we made to 
the President's plan are as follows.


                     basic elements of the package

  This budget continues the fiscal restraint that was begun with last 
year's budget and reorders spending in line with the President's 
program. It terminates 100 Federal program and reduces more than 200 
others.
  This budget brings the 1995 deficit down to $175.3 billion, the 
lowest level in 5 years, and more than $100 billion below the 
projections made by CBO in January 1993.
  Measured relative to the size of the economy, the 1995 deficit will 
be lower than any year since 1979.
  Discretionary spending in 1995 is below last year's dollar level, and 
total Federal spending is at its lowest level in 15 years when measured 
as a percent of gross domestic product [GDP].
  At the same time, this budget includes $13.6 billion of the 
President's $14.8 billion request for new initiatives in education and 
training, research and development, infrastructure, community 
development, health and human services, and crime control.
  It assumes full funding for the President's crime control initiative 
at $2.4 billion in 1995.
  The proposal does not prejudge the nature of health care reform so it 
does not specifically include any figures for health care reform. 
Rather, it assumes that the final health care reform package will be 
deficit-neutral over the 5-year budget period.
  It contains no new taxes and does not require reconciliation.


   MODIFICATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL CONTAINED IN THE PACKAGE

  This budget rejects the President's proposal to reduce the important 
LIHEAP--low-income home energy assistance--program by $745 million. 
Rather, it assumes restoration of $520 million of that proposed cut and 
it expresses support for the President's efforts to target the program 
better to those most in need.
  This budget rejects the President's proposal to cut mass transit 
operating funds by $200 million and assumes restoration of these funds 
to the 1994 level.
  It rejects the President's proposed $80 million cut in TEFAP, the 
Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program within the Department of 
Agriculture, and assumes restoration to the 1994 level.
  It rejects the President's proposal to cut the Rural Electrification 
Administration [REA] loan program by $63 million and assumes a 
restoration of funding to 1994 levels.
  This budget rejects proposed cuts in veteran's medical research and 
assumes full funding at the 1994 level.
  It assumes a restoration of $40 million of the President's proposed 
reduction in Indian health facility construction, primarily for 
sanitation and other essential public safety requirements.
  This proposal cuts the President's budget by $3.1 billion through a 
variety of changes including the assumption of the full savings from 
personnel cuts as set by the buy-out bill (H.R. 3345) that recently 
passed the House and Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we enter into another chapter of the ongoing struggle 
in Washington to define our view of how the Federal Government ought to 
operate.
  I want to kind of go back to the beginning of the book and start at 
the beginning and move up to where we are today. You might recall that 
last February, the President came to Capitol Hill and stood in the well 
and he said, ``I did promise you a tax cut, but now we are going to 
have tax increases, and I would like you to be patriotic.'' He turned 
to the Republicans and said, ``If you do not like my tax increases, 
give me your specifics.''
  So the Republicans did give the President their specifics in terms of 
reducing the deficit by even more than what the President reduced the 
deficit by, without one dime of tax increase. That document was praised 
by a number of publications across this country, from liberal to 
conservative, for its intellectual honesty and its effort to reduce 
government.
  We were rejected in that effort to show the American people how we 
would eliminate the tax increases and substitute instead the changes in 
the operation of the Federal Government to achieve significant deficit 
reduction, more than what the President achieved, but without taxes.
  Then the reconciliation bill, the flat tax bill, that came to this 
House floor. And the President had his taxes and he said, ``If you do 
not like our taxes, give us your specifics.'' So one more time the 
Republicans trotted out their list, and we said we have specific 
recommendations to downsize the operation of the Federal Government, 
and we do not believe we need these taxes in order to reduce the 
deficit. And one more time the decision was made, more for Washington, 
and less for us back home.
  So after that ended, we got to the Penny-Kasich bill. Now, the Penny-
Kasich bill was the specific recommendations to reduce the operation of 
the Federal Government. Of course, the President was aware of our 
specifics because he worked hard to defeat our specifics. This was a 
President who had pledged that he would welcome additional spending 
reductions. So Mr. Penny and I came to the floor with our specific 
spending reductions. We offered them. The President opposed us with a 
majority of the majority party, and we were one more time defeated. And 
they said no, we wanted more for Washington, and we do not really hear 
the cries of the people around this country back home. We want to keep 
the Washington establishment happy. Penny-Kasich was defeated.
  Now, ladies and gentlemen, this year the President came into this 
well again with his budget proposal that he said was flat as a table, 
the top of a table. And what is interesting to note is if the President 
had not sent his budget to Capitol Hill, if the President had permitted 
the budget to increase on automatic pilot, if the President had said 
that the government of the United States could go on automatic pilot, 
and I will not send the budget to Capitol Hill, then the deficit and 
the levels of government spending would be less--would be less--than 
what we have under the President's budget.
  So when the President talks about how we have all these major cuts in 
programs and savings and a tight deficit, the bottom line is if that 
budget document had not made its way from the White House to Capitol 
Hill, we would have lower deficits and lower spending.
  And the President challenged us. And the President said, ``If you 
don't like my budget, show us what you would do.'' And Republicans 
have.
  What we have done is we have laid things out on the table that 
represent a follow through of some promises and some rhetoric that have 
been articulated by this current administration. The President said he 
wanted welfare reform. It is not in his budget. The President said we 
would have health care reform to reduce deficits. It has been withdrawn 
from his budget. The President said he wanted a comprehensive crime 
bill. We only find pieces of it in his budget. And we are still waiting 
for the President to hold good to his promise that we will have middle 
income tax relief.
  What the Republicans did is we went through virtually every nook and 
cranny of the Federal Government, with a philosophy of downsizing the 
Federal Government. We have privatized some programs, for example the 
Federal Aviation Administration, following a number of the practices 
that are being done by other countries around the world. We think that 
privatization of that program, privatization of a part of our prison 
system, makes very good sense.
  We have also eliminated some programs, part of our philosophy. 
Programs like the helium reserve, a whole variety of programs that we 
think just similarly do not make sense and are outdated, like the 
Interstate Commerce Commission, originally created to regulate the 
pulling of ice wagons throughout this country. We have decided we do 
not need to have those operations of the Federal Government around any 
more.
  We have also decided to do some shifting of block grants to the 
States without regulation. The reason why we have done that is that we 
do not think that people back home cannot figure out how to solve 
problems, if we would just let them have their own money to fix 
problems the way they feel are the best ways to fix them.
  I want to talk about one program that the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Kolbe] developed, called WIC-plus. We have been able to take all the 
nutrition programs of the Federal Government, put them in one block 
grant, send them to the States, double the amount of money that goes to 
women, infants and children, and save $8 billion for the Federal 
Government by not letting every bureaucrat in Washington touch this 
money. Whenever bureaucracy touches money, they burn it up.
  So we have used this idea of block granting programs back to states 
and trusting in people where we live, to be able to solve problems. And 
I am constantly amazed when I meet with people in the bureaucracy here 
who do not even no what the time zone is in Columbus, OH. If they do 
not know what the time zone is right there, I am not quite sure they 
are going to know how to fix our particular problems.
  So we block grant more programs, including mass transport and low 
priority transportation projects. We also use more consolidating and 
block granting in the area of job retraining, something the GAO says we 
are not even sure the job training programs of the Federal Government 
are working to help people get jobs. That is all of our goals. We think 
we have a more effective way to do it.
  We have gone through every nook and cranny of the Federal Government, 
down sizing, privatizing, eliminating some, and just reducing the 
increase in others. And doing that, we have been able to achieve a very 
comprehensive package that in fact does deliver us comprehensive 
welfare reform.
  In our budget, we not only talked about doing welfare reform, we have 
in fact delivered a comprehensive welfare reform package. We also have 
in there what we view as a very strong down payment on both health care 
and crime legislation, allowing people at home to have more money to 
build prisons, more money for police on the streets. And in health 
care, a down payment on fixing the health care system with a minimum of 
Federal involvement and a maximum of the private sector being involved.
  Then we have also decided that we think it makes sense to provide 
greater efficiencies to our industries. And what we have done is 
allowed industries to be able to write off plant and equipment faster 
so that more Americans will get jobs, so that we will be more 
competitive in the international atmosphere today.

                              {time}  1210

  We will be able to put more people to work. We index capital gains 
that will not only help industry but will also protect people's 
investments against inflation. People should not have to pay taxes on 
inflation. And we have also had in here the kind of crowning jewel of 
the package. That is the $500 tax credit per child per family under 
$200,000.
  When I presented this budget, the press said, ``How can you do this 
and how can you pay for it?'' The amazing thing about this proposal is 
that we not only have deficits that are lower than the President's in 
every single year of the 5 years that this budget is made up, but it is 
cumulatively $150 billion less in deficits than the President's budget. 
Why?
  Because we decided to go eyeball to eyeball with change and eyeball 
to eyeball with the Washington establishment and dig in and give the 
American people what they want, a downsizing of the Federal Government 
and real change. And in the course of doing it, in the course of 
scouring every nook and cranny of the Federal Government, we have been 
able to achieve lower deficits every single year than the President, 
$150 billion less over 5 years, and we have been able to give middle-
income families tax relief, to the tune of $500 per child per family 
under $200,000.
  It is not smoke and mirrors. It is not some kind of voodoo economics. 
It is a proposal that makes hard choices about reducing the influence 
of Washington, reducing the influence of big government, making a down 
payment on reducing the deficit and, at the same time, allowing the 
American family to share in some of the savings.
  And do my colleagues know what, we do not give anybody anything. it 
is the American people, the American taxpayer that sends their money to 
this town. All we are saying is that in the course of downsizing the 
Federal Government, we believe that the American family, which has been 
besieged in this country, should reap a benefit. it is not a giant 
benefit, but it is a benefit. But we do not do it at the expense of 
future generations, because we have been able to reduce the deficit by 
more than what the President has done.
  So not only downsizing of the Government, not only greater deficit 
reduction, but some tax relief for the besieged American family. If 
Members are really for change on either side of the aisle, if they 
really want to see Washington have less influence, there is proper 
functions of the Federal Government, obviously. But if Members really 
want to see some privatization, some downsizing, some elimination of 
wasteful programs, slowing the increase in some other Federal programs, 
and they want to give relief and a bigger down payment on the deficit, 
then Members will support the Republican alternative.
  I would ask my colleagues, we will probably have a vote on this 
tomorrow, on the Republican family budget. I would ask my colleagues to 
take time in their offices, clearly taking a look at the road map that 
we have laid out. I think that when they look at it, Members will be 
surprised at how much can be achieved by just trying to be creative and 
innovative and imaginative with the programs of the Federal Government. 
I would ask for Members' support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], a hard-working member of the 
Committee on the Budget, a member who has been working immensely hard 
to reorganize and streamline Government with the emphasis on the 
Department of Agriculture.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of House 
Concurrent Resolution 218, the budget resolution for fiscal year 1995. 
I do so with praise for my chairman, Mr. Sabo, for the manner in which 
he always conducts business within our committee. I also do so, 
however, with mixed feelings about the missed opportunities of this 
budget.
  Last year, in writing about the fiscal year 1994 budget resolution, 
five Democratic Members stated,
       We are disappointed that we did not address the issue of 
     entitlement spending more than we did in this resolution. 
     Even a cursory examination of our national spending points 
     out the inevitability of dealing with entitlement spending if 
     we are to have money to spend on any other programs while 
     bringing our budget into balance. We must develop meaningful 
     budget enforcement legislation which must include some 
     mechanism to force us to deal with entitlements in future 
     years.

  Unfortunately, those views are just as relevant today as they were a 
year ago. We find ourselves in a position again this year of noting 
that the budget resolution accomplishes a minimal amount of what should 
be done on the resolution, but that a far greater portion was left 
unaddressed.
  In particular, we are disappointed with the decision that further 
deficit reduction, carried out through a reconciliation bill later this 
year, was unnecessary. While it is true that the deficit is projected 
to take a slight downturn over the next few years, we remain convinced 
that sustained deficits of $200 billion a year present a greater 
economic hazard to our Nation's future.
  We are pleased that we were able, at least, to attach report language 
to the resolution which calls for the provision of enforceable 
entitlement spending limits, establishing a regular procedure to 
provide assistance for disasters and other emergencies without adding 
to the deficit, and granting the President expedited rescission 
authority over appropriations measures. Obviously, reconciliation 
instructions along the same vein would have been far preferable.
  We also are pleased that there was an agreement with our party's 
leadership for the consideration of further budget process votes within 
the House of Representatives. Past experience with the outcome of such 
promised fair votes does not lead to extreme optimism but we 
nonetheless look forward to the opportunity to offer amendments not 
only on the budget process items just mentioned, but also on a 
reexamination of the Consumer Price Index formula and a measure which 
would guarantee that all appropriation cuts are dedicated to reducing 
the deficit.
  The omissions in this budget resolution further convince me that only 
with the constitutional imperative of a balanced budget amendment will 
the Congress and President finally face head-on the demands of deficit 
reduction. My hope is that 290 of my colleagues will come to the same 
conclusion when we take up that issue here in the House of 
Representatives next week.
  The shortcomings notwithstanding, I supported the budget resolution 
passed out of the House Budget Committee because we were able to add 
the aforementioned report language and negotiate the agreement for 
later budget process votes. I commend Chairman Sabo for his assistance 
in this regard, I look forward to continuing to work with him, and I 
look forward to the budget process votes which will be coming later 
this year.
  I do not want to spend my time talking about what we should have 
done. I want to talk about what we are doing.
  Mr. Chairman, the administration, with the full cooperation of the 
House and Senate Agriculture Committees, has made, rightly or not USDA 
the first great experiment in reinventing government, even though all 
USDA outlays represent only 4 percent of the entire Federal budget and 
agriculture programs in USDA are only 1 percent of the budget. Yet 
USDA, since 1981 has made $60 billion in legislative budget savings. 
The 1990 budget agreement alone cut farm price supports by 20 percent
  Nevertheless, our committee agrees that USDA must become more 
efficient and streamlined, not only to better the Department's modern 
day clients but also because we are budgeting for additional, 
significant cuts in spending.
  Secretary Mike Espy made restructuring a top priority; 1,200 of our 
3,700 USDA field offices will be closed. But Mr. Espy wanted to 
reorganize starting at the top, a very appropriate decision. His 
proposal, H.R. 3171, introduced last September will grant the Secretary 
the most sweeping authority to reorganize the Department since the 
Great Depression.
  The full House Committee on Agriculture has already reported 
legislation and the full House passed it in H.R. 3400 last November. It 
requires USDA to use existing authority to cut staffing by 7,500 
positions and spending by $1.6 billion by fiscal year 1999.
  Now we are going even further to refine H.R. 3400. My subcommittee 
has held more than a dozen hearings here and in nine States nationwide 
on USDA reorganization. On February 8, we approved and sent to the full 
committee a bill that grants the Secretary virtually all the authority 
he needs to streamline the Department, combine agencies and offices and 
more efficiently serve our clients, farmers, and consumers. Staff would 
be cut with the deepest cut starting in the Washington bureaucracy.
  USDA itself expects total savings from reorganization to reach 2.3 
billion over the next 5 years. We are now pressing the Secretary to 
keep his promise and begin implementing field office closings. The 
Secretary does not need final congressional action in order to close or 
consolidate offices.
  The bottom line for today for the budget hearings is there will be 
reorganization in the coming year, already budgeted for it. It is 
within the budget resolution. The savings will be real. And the service 
to our farmers and consumers will not be deteriorated. The consumer 
services will be improved. The point here is, we can spend our time 
criticizing this budget, but there are things in it that show that we 
are, in fact, taking some very tough positions that have to be done in 
order to meet our fiscal needs. Not as far as some would like, but much 
further than our critics say that we are doing.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] for the purpose of debate on economic goals and 
policies, and I ask unanimous consent that he be entitled to yield 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, a week or so ago, I was in my office with a group of 
very hard-working Americans, employees of the postal system. And they 
came to explain to me that there were certain things in my voting 
record that they liked and certain things in my voting record with 
which they took issue.
  They said, for example, that they opposed a balanced budget amendment 
and asked me to explain why I favor it, which I did. And they informed 
me that there were ways to get the budget balanced without amending the 
Constitution.
  Then they said they took issue with the vote that I had on a bill 
that became known as the Penny-Kasich amendment. The Penny-Kasich 
amendment would have cut the deficit by more than $100 billion without 
raising taxes. And I said, ``Well, that was an effort to balance the 
budget without amending the Constitution.''

                              {time}  1220

  So here we are again today. Once again, we have a bill sponsored by 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. Frankly, I told my postal workers 
I thought he was a hero, because he is the one guy in the House of 
Representatives who has put together a program demonstrating that there 
is more than one way to do business here.
  I am very delighted to be able to be here today to support his 
effort, Mr. Chairman. This year, perhaps more than ever, I am amazed at 
the difference between the two budget proposals. There are two basic 
proposals that we are going to vote on, one by the folks from the other 
side of the aisle, which is the basic budget bill this year, and the 
one that I just mentioned which will be proposed a little bit later by 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  There is a very basic difference. I heard today in speeches, 1 minute 
speeches on the floor and other speeches more recently here on the 
floor, that somehow the two biggest tax increases in this country's 
history, one in 1990 and the next one in 1993, have somehow 
miraculously helped our economy to grow. I don't know a lot of 
economists who would buy into that theory. In 1990 we had a tremendous 
tax increase, and then in 1993, under a different President, we had 
another big tax increase. There is a lot of talk going on around here 
this year that says that because of that tax increase, the economy is 
once again growing.
  I brought some charts with me today to illustrate what is really 
happening with the economy today. After recessions, certain things 
happen with the economy. If we have good tax policy to support 
recoveries, good things will happen in terms of growth in GDP.
  This chart, for example, illustrates what happened after the 
recession which took place in the early 1950's. During the 2\1/2\-year 
period immediately after that recession, the economy grew by something 
in excess of 10 percent.
  In the early 1960's, we had another recovery following a recession. 
During that recovery, the economy grew in a 2\1/2\-year period by 
almost 12 percent.
  In 1970 we had another recovery following a recession, and the 
economy grew again by 10.2 percent. In 1974 we had another recovery 
after a recession, and the economy grew in a 2\1/2\-year period by over 
12 percent.
  That brings us to the latest recovery which we hear so much about 
from the other side of the aisle. It is called a miraculous recovery, 
in fact. Yet in the 2\1/2\-year period after the 1990 recession, we 
have seen a recovery of a scant 6 percent.
  Something is different about this recovery. It has been called a 
number of things, including a jobless recession. That is for good 
reason.
  If we can look at the next chart, which explains in some greater 
detail what actually happens in growth after recessions, we have taken 
the average growth after recessions, and we have looked to see how that 
compares with this recovery.
  Throughout the recoveries that I just described, the average growth 1 
year out is demonstrated here by this line chart, and at 2 years out 
and at 3 years out. We can see represented by the blue part of the 
chart that average growth after recessions has been quite substantial, 
as compared to the growth that has occurred in the first 2\1/2\ years 
after this latest recession.
  If we can go to the next chart, the same can be illustrated in terms 
of our industrial production. Through the recoveries which I described 
a few moments ago, we can see, as demonstrated by the blue lines on 
this chart, what the average growth was during recovery periods, and 
the red lines, of course, illustrate what growth has been in terms of 
industrial production, during this recovery period.
  Finally, we have one additional chart here, which is very interesting 
and somewhat scary, because it affects the lives of families all across 
the country who are still unemployed today. This shows that beginning 
in March 1991, when we actually came out of the recession, job growth 
was not only flat after the 1990 tax increase, but that we were 
actually still losing jobs.
  In most recoveries, as demonstrated here by these red bars on the 
graph, we begin to see some growth in jobs immediately following a 
recovery.
  When the recession ended in March 1991, it was more than a year and a 
half before we saw any growth in jobs at all. The reason for this is 
simple: we raised taxes on the American people. More than 4 years ago, 
I and others stood at this podium and said, ``If we increase taxes, we 
will hurt the economy and hinder any recovery.''

  We said again in 1993, ``You are going to throw a wet blanket on this 
recovery if you increase taxes again.'' That is exactly, in my opinion, 
why this economy is not expanding at the rate of other economic 
recoveries following a recession.
  Mr. Chairman, we also said during those debates that there are some 
things that changed people's behavior. For example, we changed tax 
policy to support budgets like the one that is supported by the 
Democrats' side of the aisle. In fact, the 1993 tax increase changed 
people's behavior, particularly in terms of hiring and rehiring 
workers. As the chart beside me shows, these new taxes affected job 
growth.
  For example, in 1984 we had people who worked about 3.4 hours of 
overtime, on average, for each worker.
  Today in 1994, however, almost 10 years later, we see that that 
average has gone up from 3.4 hours per week to 4.5 average hours per 
week. Why? Are employers willing to pay overtime but not hire more 
workers. Because employers do not want to pay higher payroll costs.
  They do not want to hire because Social Security taxes went up, 
because payroll taxes went up, and they do not want to hire because 
they do not know if new taxes will be forced on them to support some 
new health care plan. Therefore, tax policy has had a tremendous effect 
on our economy.
  While I am glad that we are finally beginning to see some growth in 
jobs and some improvement in the economy, it is certainly not the kind 
of economic recovery that we would hope to have seen by now. All of 
this, in my opinion, is a result of bad tax policy in 1990 and again in 
1993. I am also fearful of what we are going to see when last year's 
round of tax increases comes into full effect later this year.
  For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, the Kasich proposal makes more cuts, 
reduces more of the deficit, cuts taxes on families, and puts in place 
a new budgetary program that I hope will pass. I do not have great 
hope, however, because I can count likely votes. But I hope it will 
pass, because we need to set this country on the correct course. Our 
future, our children's future and our grandchildren's future depend on 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], chairman of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
  (Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget 
resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Minnesota, the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, and all the members of the Budget 
Committee, for bringing this resolution to the floor. As my colleagues 
know, CBO estimated that the President's budget was $3.1 billion over 
the discretionary caps we established last year. As a result, almost 
all of the President's proposals to increase spending above the 1994 
level had to be pared back by the Budget Committee. Proposed increases 
for the National Service Program, mass transit grants, and energy 
conservation programs had to be scaled back because of this problem.

  But the President's proposed increase of $500 million above the 1994 
level for VA medical care was left intact. In addition, the Budget 
Committee has recommended that the VA's award-winning medical research 
program be increased by $41 million above the President's request.
  I want veterans to know that Chairman Sabo and members of his 
committee had to make some very tough decisions. Not only did they 
avoid taking any money out of the veterans budget to make up this $3.1 
billion difference, they added $41 million for VA medical research.
  Although I believe the Budget Committee did what it had to do, I want 
Members to know that service to veterans is not going to get any better 
under this budget, and will probably get a little worse. Our committee 
was frankly troubled by the VA budget picture and felt there was a lot 
of justification to recommend an additional $779 million for veterans 
programs above the level recommended by the administration.
  The number of veterans who will be able to obtain outpatient care, 
nursing home care, and hospital care will decline when compared with 
this year's level. The number of pending claims for compensation, 
pension, and education benefits is projected to grow to 1 million by 
the end of next year. It will take almost 2 years to get a decision 
from the Board of Veterans Appeals.
  In summary, even though this budget includes almost none of the 
recommendations made by our committee for veterans programs, it is a 
responsible one given the budget caps on discretionary programs. But my 
colleagues must understand tight budgets certainly will have an effect 
on our veterans health care.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], a member of our committee.
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
Budget Committee for yielding me time.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the budget resolution. I think 
it is often confusing to the general public when we debate the budget 
resolution about exactly what is the budget. As I see the budget, it is 
probably the most important document that comes from the 
administration. What it expresses is its policy, its priorities, the 
things that it wants to see changed, the direction of the Government, 
and expression of confidence in the future, the things that ought to be 
done by the various Cabinet offices.
  I serve on the Committee on Education and Labor and I am very pleased 
to see a budget come forth from the White House that articulates the 
hopes and aspirations of the American people with emphasis on 
education. The budget resolution underscores its support of this 
direction, and of all of the functions that we have in this budget 
resolution, the one that has the highest percentage of increase is in 
the education and training areas, and I am very, very pleased with 
that.
  The President has staked his future on the programs that he has 
articulated in the education area. He is for school reform, and we have 
the Goals 2000 bill currently in conference where the two committees 
are trying to iron out the differences. We have already started work on 
the School to Work Program because we know that 75 percent of the 
students that finish high school do not go on to higher education, do 
not go on to college, and they are out there looking for jobs, looking 
for opportunities. And what we need to do is to find a way to meld the 
12 years that they are in regular school into something that can 
provide them the channels for advancement in a job or a career. And so 
the School to Jobs Programs is critically important.
  In this budget resolution we not only see increases in funding 
generally for education, but we see an increase of $595 million for 
Goals 2000, which articulate the future of this country and the 
direction we are urging local school districts and the States to take. 
And in the School to Work Program we have $100 million for the 
Department of Education to be matched by the Department of Labor. For 
the first time in my memory, and I have been in the Federal Government 
for a long time, we see a Department of Education working together with 
a Department of Labor to put together a meaningful program wherein the 
young people can have direction, counseling, and at the end of their 
high school have a job that leads somewhere and is not a dead end job 
situation.
  There are other points that are important in the bill. We have 
emphasis in Pell grants to emphasize the importance of students going 
on. We know that the Pell grants were cut last year. We have now put in 
an additional $100 for Pell grants so that the support can be $2,400.
  We have an additional $560 million for the drugs and safe schools. We 
debated this yesterday in the authorization, and everyone is in support 
of further efforts in schools to do something about drugs and violence.
  So at the end, Madam Chairman, I think it is critically important for 
us to recognize that embedded in this budget resolution is the hope for 
the future of this Nation as expressed by the President's budget, and I 
urge adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
  (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Madam Chairman, today's debate on the Humphrey-Hawkins 
employment review provides an appropriate opportunity to discuss one of 
the most insidious threats to economic growth and job creation in our 
economy--burdensome Federal regulations.
  In a 1993 study, William Laffer of Heritage noted that Federal 
regulations cost each American household at least $8,000 a year and may 
reduce national output by as much as $1.1 trillion a year.
  And as you can see by this chart, regulatory costs continue to rise 
dramatically. If current trends continue, the direct cost of 
regulations will exceed $650 billion a year by 2000.
  Equally alarming, the study showed that Federal regulations reduce 
employment by at least 3 million jobs.
  As the next chart points out, the number of pages in the Federal 
Register, a publication of new Federal regulations, dropped in the 
1980's but is on the rise again. In President Clinton's first year in 
office, the Federal Register had more pages than any year since the 
Carter administration--60,950 pages.
  And as of January 31, 1994, only 1 month into the new year, the 
Federal Register had already printed over 4,500 pages of new 
regulations.
  A small but critical industry--medical technology--provides a stark 
illustration of regulatory overkill.
  As the health care debate rages, medical technology, despite facing a 
bruising regulatory regime, effectively controls health care costs by 
bringing life-saving technologies to market.
  In addition, exporting medical products has generated a trade surplus 
that has risen from $1.1 billion in 1987 to $4 billion in 1992.
  Unfortunately, the small companies which comprise the bulk of the 
industry are highly vulnerable.
  The FDA, which regulates the industry, has nearly destroyed the 
sector with an approval process that takes so long that businesses are 
forced to move production offshore.
  This chart depicts the length of time for device approval. In fiscal 
year 1991, the average clearance time was 102 days. By fiscal year 
1993, it had risen to 195 days.
  Equally disturbing, there is a current backlog of over 5,100 device 
applications at the FDA--a 50-percent jump in outstanding applications 
since 1991.
  That is why even the smallest companies are establishing research and 
production facilities in Europe first to begin clinical trials in time 
to keep up with their competition.
  A constituent company of mine, InStent, is still awaiting action on a 
device approval application it submitted in August 1992.
  The device it makes for treatment of pancreatic cancer has been 
approved for sale in every major developed country except the United 
States.
  Even Canada, which has perhaps the most bureaucratic health care 
system in the world, has approved InStent's device.
  The company--which has 18 employees in my district--was forced to 
open 2 overseas offices, 1 in Israel with 17 employees and 1 in Holland 
with 6.
  Madam Chairman, in 1993 alone, more than $500 million in stock 
offerings for medical device and drug firms were canceled because of 
overregulation and the threat of health care price controls.
  Madam Chairman, we cannot afford to lose our medical technology jobs. 
We can't afford to lose more jobs in any sector because of excessive 
regulations.
  While the massive budget deficit is alarming, to promote long-term 
economic growth we must address the cancer of regulatory overreach that 
is killing our key industries.

                              {time}  1240

  It is costing thousands and thousands of lost jobs.
  Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of House 
Concurrent Resolution 218 on the budget for fiscal year 1995.
  At the outset, I want to commend the distinguished Chairman of the 
Budget Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], for his 
outstanding leadership and hard work in crafting this important 
resolution and for bringing it to the floor in such an expeditious 
timeframe.
  Mr. Chairman, House Concurrent Resolution 218 is a good budget 
resolution--good in the sense that it assumes the proper priorities, is 
fiscally responsible, and continues the trend toward deficit reduction 
begun last year.
  Generally, the fiscal year 1995 budget resolution incorporates the 
heart of the President's fiscal year 1995 budget request, thereby 
implementing the savings mandated by the 5-year deficit reduction 
package enacted by Congress last year.
  In doing so, the resolution conforms to the spending caps for 
discretionary spending established by the deficit reduction package, 
setting discretionary spending in fiscal year 1995 at $541.1 billion--
the first time since 1969 that discretionary spending will actually 
fall. The resolution also cuts outlays in fiscal year 1995 by $3.1 
billion more than the President's proposals in order they meet the cap 
on outlays set last year.
  Under the resolution, the deficit for the coming year would total 
$175.3 billion, $115.1 billion less than 3 years ago and the lowest 
level in 5 years. In fact, the deficit under this resolution represents 
the smallest share of the U.S. economy since 1979.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the budget resolution assumes no new tax 
legislation and no changes in entitlements, and does not contain any 
reconciliation instructions to committees.
  While the resolution embodies the President's budget, it does 
subtract from and add to about 40 areas of the President's budget in 
reshaping and improving the plan, and in achieving the overall spending 
reductions.
  Some substantial changes included a $225 million reduction in defense 
spending, a $115 million cut in foreign aid, and $796 billion in 
savings from a proposed Federal employee buyout plan.
  At the same time, the resolution restores $520 billion in spending 
for low-income home energy assistance, $200 million for mass transit 
operating assistance, $80 million for emergency food assistance, and 
$63 million of spending authority for Rural Electrification 
Administration loan guarantees.
  For most major public works and transportation programs, the 
resolution assumes the President's budget request except in four 
important instances which I would like to address.
  First and foremost, I am pleased to report that House Concurrent 
Resolution 218 assumes full funding for highways at the levels 
authorized in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1991.
  There certainly can be no question of the need for full funding of 
ISTEA highways. There are some 235,000 miles of Federal highways that 
are in poor or mediocre condition and need repair.
  The cost to eliminate backlog highway deficiencies is about $212 
billion, and the annual cost to maintain Federal-aid highways in their 
1991 condition is $48.4 billion--in 1991 dollars.
  In addition, there are approximately 118,000 structurally deficient 
bridges whose conditions would cost $78 billion to correct. The annual 
cost to maintain bridges in their 1991 conditions is $5.2 billion--in 
1991 dollars.
  The President's budget assumed an overall obligation ceiling of 
$19.969 billion for highways. This included $18.32 billion for the so-
called highway core programs and $1.6 billion for both minimum 
allocation--MA--and way demonstration projects program. An additional 
$100 million, outside the $19.969 billion ceiling, was assumed for the 
emergency relief--ER--program. The President's budget assumed recission 
of highway projects, first effective for fiscal year 1994.
  The budget resolution, in assuming full-funding of ISTEA highways, 
also assumes a core obligational ceiling of $18.332 billion. In 
addition, per ISTEA, it assumes approximately $1.2 billion each for MA 
and demos. Thus, the resolution totals about $20.7 billion for 
highways--plus the $100 million for ER--or $800 million above the 
President's request. In making these assumptions, the resolution does 
not assume the rescission of any highway demonstration projects.
  A second and equally important area of difference with the President 
is transit operating assistance where the resolution restores $200 
million to the President's request, thus equaling the fiscal year 1994 
appropriations for operating assistance. While this still falls far 
short of full funding of ISTEA transit, it does represent continued 
commitment on the part of the Congress in addressing a key funding 
component of our Nation's transit system. Even though the $200 million 
restoration comes as a result of reducing section 9 capital grants by 
$400 million, the resolution still includes an overall section 9 
assumption of about $223 million more than the fiscal year 1994 
appropriation.
  Mr. Chairman, a recent survey conducted by the American Public 
Transit Association estimates that more than $7 billion in Federal 
funds could be quickly obligated over and above existing transit 
program funding levels. This number only represents the immediate 
backlog of unmet transit needs--to restore transit to its pre-1980's 
level would require an investment of $11 billion per year. In addition, 
the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act placed new financial 
demands on transit operators across the country.
  A third difference between the budget resolution and the President's 
budget is funding for the airport improvement program. The President's 
budget assumes $1.690 billion for this program; that is a freeze at the 
fiscal year 1994 appropriated level. The budget resolution assumes 
$2.165 billion or nearly one-half billion dollars more than the 
President to reflect the authorized level of House-passed H.R. 2739, 
the Aviation Infrastructure Investment Act of 1993. This critical piece 
of legislation has been awaiting Senate action since October 13, 1993.
  Mr. Chairman, the infrastructure needs of the Nation's airports 
continue to grow. We now have 23 so-called problem airports. These 
airports are each experiencing more than 20,000 hours of aircraft delay 
annually. Without remedial action, that number is expected to rise to 
36 by 2001. The capital needed to alleviate airport congestion and 
flight delays averages $10 billion a year for the next five years.
  Such projects, if funded, would increase airport capacity and reduce 
system delays. This is important in that the Nation's economy would 
become more productive and competitive if the air transportation 
becomes more efficient. We need at a bare minimum for fiscal year 1995 
the authorized level passed by the House and assumed in House 
Concurrent Resolution 218.
  The budget resolution also assumes a $221 million reduction from the 
President's budget or new construction and acquisition activities of 
the General Services Administration. Notwithstanding this reduction in 
budget authority, outlays are assumed in the resolution to be $125 
million more than in the President's budget. While we support increased 
funding for GSA in this critical area, we are concerned about the 
possible source of those funds.
  In prior years, new construction funds came from the Federal 
Buildings Fund [FBF], with a modest direct appropriation to cover 
projected shortfalls. GSA customarily did not request this shortfall, 
and relied on the appropriation process to add the necessary funds. 
However, in the fiscal year 1995 request, the administration has chosen 
to request $1.479 billion in general fund appropriations to fund 
capital investment activities. The FBF is financed by rental payments 
by Federal agencies and it has been these payments which have, in the 
past, supported GSA construction and acquisition activities.
  Funding these via general fund appropriations is contrary to law, 
specifically the Public Buildings Act of 1972, which established the 
FBF, and the committee has concerns regarding any changes to the FBF.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said at the outset, House Concurrent Resolution 
218 is a good resolution. It is realistic and responsive. It deserves 
our support and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. KOLBE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I will be brief, because I do want to reserve some 
time for the rest of our debate and also we have a number of Members 
who want to talk about our budget.
  But I would like to begin by talking about the Republican budget 
alternative that will be proposed, and we will have another hour of 
debate very specifically on the Kasich alternative.
  I would start by first of all commending the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget and his staff for the work that they have done 
and also tell them how much I appreciate the courtesy that he has 
extended to the minority members of the Committee on the Budget.
  I think the discussion that we had, the debate we had, and our 
opportunity to present our points of view and our ideas on the budget 
were fairly heard. It is not a surprise, I am sure, to any Member of 
this body to hear that, however, we have serious disagreements with the 
kind of budget that we are looking at here.
  I think that we have a fundamental philosophical difference between 
the two budget alternatives before us. I say the two; I recognize the 
others, and I think they are important to have them debated. But I 
think in the end we are going to come down to a Republican budget 
alternative and the budget alternative of the budget that is proposed 
by the chairman of the committee on behalf of the administration and 
the Democrats in this body.
  There is a fundamental difference, and I think there are three things 
that the Republican budget alternative does that, I think, are very 
important, that are not largely done in the Democratic alternative.
  The first and the most important is that we give significant tax 
relief to Middle America. We give it through the $500-per-child tax 
credit. Madam Chairman, that is one of the things that President 
Clinton, then candidate Clinton, campaigned on was giving tax relief to 
Middle America, and today we find the American family increasingly 
under assault. They are under assault in a very physical way. They are 
under assault as they find that their families are threatened, the 
security of their families is threatened, but they are also under 
assault economically. It is harder and harder for the American family 
to make ends meet.
  All of us as Members of this body have heard that from our 
constituents about how difficult it is to make ends meet, given the 
taxes they face today at the Federal level, the State level, and also 
at the local level, the high costs of owning a home, the high costs of 
health care, the high costs of educating their children.
  We believe the American family needs tax relief. If we had just given 
an inflation adjustment over the years to the exemption, the deduction 
that we have for each child, today under the income taxes, it would be 
much higher, several times what it is today.
  We believe this tax deduction, this tax credit, that is in the 
Republican alternative is a way to give relief to the American family, 
and we do it now, and we can do it quickly. But we can do it without 
increasing the deficit or making it worse.
  Madam Chairman, in fact, we can do it and still make a more 
significant reduction in the Federal deficit than is made under the 
Sabo budget initiative that we are going to be considering later. We do 
that. We make almost $150 billion more in cuts in spending, and that is 
the second point I would make about our budget alternative.
  There is less spending in it. We do it by hard cuts, by making 
significant reductions in the actual spending that we do. We do it by 
making some hard decisions about programs for the future, and that is 
the third point that I would make.
  When we talk about reinventing government, as we have heard this 
administration talk a great deal about, we are actually doing something 
in that area. We are actual changing program. We are saying we are not 
going to have the programs, the new programs, at a time when our first 
priority has to be deficit reduction and getting this deficit under 
control.
  So in those three areas, I think we have made some fundamental 
changes.
  There is a fourth area that I think, and you might call it honesty in 
government; the Republican budget alternative actually accounts for the 
cost of the programs that we have been talking about around here, the 
health care reform, the welfare reform, and the crime initiative. All 
of those, or at least our alternatives on those reforms, are included 
in our budget alternative.
  The Democratic budget is silent on those. There is nothing in here 
for health care reform.
  I know, I know, we have heard it said, it is a pay-go, it will have 
to pay for itself. But you are talking about the most massive change in 
the legislation. The law of this land of a fundamental program that we 
have ever talked about in this body in modern history.

                              {time}  1250

  And none of that is included in the budget as to how that would be 
accommodated and how that would be accomplished. Ours does do that. 
Similarly, with welfare reform, we include the cost of that. Similarly, 
with crime, we have the money in there for those initiatives.
  So our initiatives are included in here. We think this is an honest 
budget. We think it is one which bears looking at. We believe it is one 
which bears careful consideration.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Blackwell], a distinguished member of our committee.
  (Mr. BLACKWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BLACKWELL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
this time to me.
  Madam Chairman, the choice in today's discussion, debate, and vote is 
very clear.
  It is a choice between the future and the past. It is a choice 
between failed policies that took this Nation to the brink of financial 
ruin and forward-looking policies that can restore America to its 
rightful position.
  It is a choice between what is good for a few in America or what is 
best for all of America. It is a choice which we must prudently and 
carefully make. At issue is the destiny of this country and its people.
  For 12 years, we increased military spending, gave tax cuts to the 
wealthy, and caused a dramatic shift in resources from the hands of 
many to the hands of a few.
  During that 12-year period, the deficit grew, while investment in 
human needs fell sharply. We are now in a period when it is time for 
investment to go up and for the deficit to go down. The President is 
committed to that goal.
  We have a choice today between a budget that proposes a $6.4 billion 
increase in defense spending, while cutting spending in most domestic 
programs, and a budget that meets the spending caps in a less painful 
way.
  One budget would fund summer jobs. The other budget would eliminate 
the Summer Jobs Program entirely. One budget would fund Job Corps. The 
other budget would eliminate it.
  One budget would support the School-to-Work Program, one-stop career 
centers, Head Start, AIDS programs, immunizations for our children, and 
legal services for the poor. The other budget would get rid of them.
  The budget of the past would repeal Davis-Bacon, raise the retirement 
age to 65, and eliminate AFDC support for legal aliens. The budget of 
the future forces no such changes.
  The budget of the future restores LIHEAP, preserves rapid transit 
operating subsidies, and fully funds the Emergency Food Assistance 
Program.
  And, Madam Chairman, if I may be allowed to be practical and 
parochial, the budget of the past touches my city very directly, by 
eliminating operating funds for Amtrak and cutting the Northeast 
Corridor project.
  The budget of the future also touches my city very directly by 
increasing funding for homelessness, funding empowerment zones, 
maintaining the HOPE Program, and increasing funds for AIDS programs.
  The choices are clear. We can fall back into a floundering economy 
from the past, or we can continue to experience gradual growth through 
an economy of the future. I intend to vote for the future.
  Mr. KOLBE. Madam Chairman, I would just say in response to the last 
speaker, before I yield, that I find it is a curious place here in 
Washington where we talk about slowing down spending increases as 
spending cuts.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Inhofe].
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Chairman, I appreciate the condescending confession of the 
previous speaker that our President is not perfect.
  Madam Chairman, when I came into the Chamber, I was not planning to 
say anything, but one of the gentlemen, I believe, the gentleman from 
New Jersey, was talking about a balanced budget amendment. Let me make 
a few comments and say how that relates to our decision today.
  Madam Chairman, in my part of the country, we have a Member of 
Congress who quite often argues against the budget-balancing amendment, 
using the argument that those individuals who have been in charge of 
things know how to play the game and how to make things happen. That is 
just probably the most compelling argument against or for the budget-
balancing amendment.
  I believe, as the gentleman, Senator Simon, made the comment the 
other day that the reason there were so many heroes at the Alamo is 
because there was no back door. That is exactly what a budget-balancing 
amendment would do, would be to close the back door and force us to do 
those things which we should do and are incapable of doing in Congress 
without a budget-balancing amendment.
  I served in the State senate on the appropriations committee for many 
years in the State of Oklahoma. We went through a lot of times when we 
would like to have spent more money, but we did not because we had a 
budget-balancing amendment.
  I was mayor of the city of Tulsa, and we had the same thing there. We 
lived within those confines of the revenues we had coming in.
  So I would like to at least remind us, as we are considering the 
Kasich bill, the Republican alternative, that I do not think it is 
going to pass, but let us look at the alternative. We hear a lot of 
comment on this side of the aisle as to what is going to happen if we 
pass the Kasich bill. Sure there are some things there I do not like.
  Let us stop and think about what would really happen: If we continue 
to do what we are doing today, to be totally fiscally irresponsible, as 
we have been for the last 40 years, my two grandchildren, who were born 
a year ago this month, during their lifetime 75 percent of their 
incomes will be paid to service the debt that we are handing them.
  Today we have an opportunity to set a new course for this country, 
and I would like to challenge us, if we do not pass this today, then we 
are going to be coming back with a balanced budget amendment to force 
us to consider some of these difficult decisions, such as the decisions 
we should be making today.
  Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member 
of our committee, a very thoughtful Member of the House and of the 
Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Price].
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, last year we passed an 
historic budget resolution-reconciliation bill which started putting 
our fiscal house in order.
  Now, there were some naysayers, people who stood in the well of this 
House and gave dire predictions about the ruinous effects of this 
budget plan. They talked with doom and gloom about how the economy was 
going to fail because of what we were doing. And they did this despite 
the fact that our budget offered $70 billion more in deficit reduction 
than its Republican competitor.
  Not surprisingly, we have not been hearing a lot of that talk lately, 
as business investment has gone up, housing starts have gone up, 
unemployment has gone down.
  Representative Kasich last year even said that if this thing worked, 
maybe he would have to join the Democratic Party. So, I would like for 
him to know that the seat is warm over here. We have had some good 
economic news. We have gotten this deficit down, and if we can pass the 
budget resolution for 1995 reported by the Budget Committee, we can 
keep the deficit on a downward path for the third year in a row.
  This budget resolution aims to reduce the 1995 deficit to $175 
billion. We need to remind ourselves that a year ago the estimate for 
the 1995 budget deficit was over $300 billion. So, we have reduced the 
projected deficit by 40 percent in 1 year, partly because of the 5-year 
budget plan and partly because of the economic recovery it has 
supported.
  I am not implying that the work is done, but I am saying that we have 
made significant headway and we have got to continue. It is a welcome 
change for this Nation. We are going to continue on this course despite 
the attempts by our opponents to muddy the waters.
  Last year I grew tired of hearing the charge that our budget provided 
no spending cuts. I stood in the well of this House and read a long 
list of the cuts that it called for.
  Well, this year President Clinton proposed terminating 115 Federal 
programs and cutting 300 others below last year's dollar level.
  The Budget Committee has included most of these cuts in the budget 
resolution, and if the Appropriations Committees have different 
priorities, then they are going to have to find equivalent cuts or 
terminations to replace any that they do not agree with.
  Here are some of the terminations. Let me just read the list as far 
as time permits:
  Oilseed export subsidies, $50 million, terminated.
  Cooperative State Research Service earmarked buildings and 
facilities, $23 million, terminated.
  Farmers Home Administration State Mediation grants, $3 million, 
terminated.
  Over 30 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration programs, 
totaling over $50 million, terminated.
  NOAA aircraft procurement and modernization, $43 million, terminated.
  The Navy CH-53 heavy cargo helicopter procurement, $250 million, 
terminated.
  The Spacelifter launch system development, $53.9 million, terminated.
  A long list of education programs, terminated.
  Atomic vapor laser isotope separation programs, uranium supply and 
enrichment program, $177 million, terminated.
  U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Research Institutes, $6 
million, terminated.
  BOM Minerals Institutes, $1.6 million, terminated.
  BIA community development business enterprise development. Program 
Grants, $4 million, terminated.
  NASA's long duration orbiter, $43 million, terminated
  NASA's commercial experiment transporter, $15 million, terminated.
  NASA's advanced solid rocket motor, $178 million, terminated.
  State Department's bilateral science and technology program, $4.3 
million, terminated.

                              {time}  1300

  There are many more programs totally eliminated, but let me turn to 
the program reductions:
  The Soil Conservation Service's Resource Conservation and Development 
program, reduced by $7 million.
  The Watershed and flood prevention operations, reduced by $242 
million.
  The Agricultural conservation program, reduced by $95 million.
  The Market promotion program, reduced by $25 million.
  FHA's multifamily housing loans, reduced by $182 million.
  The Army Corps of Engineers general construction, reduced by $345 
million.
  NOAA fleet modernization, reduced by $54 million.
  The Army's Kiowa Warrior Reconnaissance Helicopter, reduced by $114 
million.
  The Army Javelin Anti-Armor Missile System, reduced by $76 million.
  The Army Multiple-Launch Rocket System, reduced by $193 million.
  Oceanographic ships, reduced by $109 million.
  Air Force space boosters, reduced by $81 million.
  Army Apache Longbow anti-armor missile, reduced by $86 million.
  Department of Energy Nuclear reactor programs, reduced by $16 
million.
  DOE nuclear weapons stockpile support, reduced by $505 million.
  DOE nuclear weapons material support, reduced by $146 million.
  The Health Care Financing Agency Research and Demonstrations, reduced 
by $17.4 million.
  HCFA Medicare contractors expenditures, reduced by $5 million.
  HCFA's health professions curriculum assistance program, reduced by 
$15 million.
  Bureau of Reclamation construction, reduced by $67 million.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service construction, reduced by $39 million.
  National Park Service construction, reduced by $53 million.
  Mr. Chairman, we are reducing, we are terminating, not just the 
things that are easy to take cheap political shots at, but some things 
that require painful choices of this Nation's priorities. Nonetheless, 
Mr. Chairman, we are economizing, we are cutting back and we are 
targeting. We are reducing spending in this budget resolution and also 
redirecting spending to areas of greater national priority and greater 
economic payoff.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good solid budget resolution. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Smith], a distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, once again we have come to a point 
where Congress is faced with the decision of how we will manage the 
Nation's pocketbook.
  It is important to remember that this is not our pocketbook, it is 
the people's and we are responsible to them.
  We are faced with two choices.
  We can sign on again to the status quo, to last year's bad deal that 
increased taxes and still has the deficit going up in the very near 
future.
  That is the Clinton budget. Last year it amounted to a step 
backwards, this year it amounts to standing still.
  The Clinton budget is as notable for what it does not contain as for 
the increased spending and taxes that it does.
  Look as hard as you want and you won't find the administration's 
number one priority--health care reform--anywhere in here.
  According to the White House, it is supposed to save money; according 
to the Congressional Budget Office it will increase spending, but 
according to the President's budget it will do nothing at all--because 
it's not in here at all.
  Some have said health care is MIA in the President's budget. In fact 
it is AWOL--absent without leave--because a budget is the place for 
things that affect Federal spending.
  It is a place for priorities. Health care is merely the most 
expensive item the President talks about that is not in his budget, but 
it's not alone.
  The President's budget literally does not do what he says. The 
President has not put his money where his mouth is or his priorities 
where his promises are.
  The right choice is a budget that does exactly what the Republican 
party is talking about.
  We do more than just talk about reinventing government, crime 
control, health care reform, welfare reform, and deficit reduction. We 
budget for them.
  The Republican budget, for example, ups the Clinton ante on Federal 
employee reductions by cutting 285,000 positions over 5 years and does 
it without decimating the Nation's defense--where the bulk of President 
Clinton's personnel cuts are hidden.
  In comparison to the Clinton budget, which cuts all Federal employee 
pay, we eliminate unnecessary workers rather than penalizing all of 
them.
  Yes, we are faced with two choices.
  If this were the American people deciding, I feel confident about 
what they would decide.
  Free from the blinders of partisan politics they would choose the 
plan that matches priorities to promises.
  Today it's a choice between the President's plan which backs up when 
it comes to his promises or the Republican alternative that backs up 
our promises.
  I am voting for the Republican plan and against the President's and 
if the American people had a vote here they would too.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  (Mr. KYL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out in response to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Price], and I am sorry that he has 
left the floor here, but he was giving all the programs that were 
terminated, and yet in the last couple of days on H.R. 6 we had votes 
about terminating some of those programs that were requested for 
termination by the President. But, as reported out by the authorizing 
committee, they are not terminated. We had specific amendments to 
terminate them, and by a very substantial margin we did not terminate 
any of those programs. So, Mr. Chairman, the will of this body to even 
terminate the programs that the President is talking about is not 
there.
  They talk about it. They list all the things that are being 
terminated. But when it comes to voting, Mr. Chairman, they do not 
terminate any of them, so let us not kid ourselves that they are.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KYL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to comment on the statement of 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Price] who ran through a list of 
all the program terminations. I say to my colleagues, ``You know it is 
incredible, but, when you add up the 110 programs, and the gentleman 
from Arizona has Just pointed out that this House has even rejected 
some of the 110 programs, but when you add up the 110 program 
terminations in the President's budget, and I have said from the 
beginning it is the only part of the budget that represents some real 
change, those 110 programs save $670 million.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is millions. I did not say $670 billion. I said 
$670 million.
  If the President had not sent his budget to Capitol Hill and had put 
the Government on automatic pilot, we would have lower deficits and 
lower spending than under this proposal. I say to my colleagues, ``You 
can't change the facts, and the facts are that bragging about saving 
less than $1 billion as representing some kind of a breakthrough in 
this town, and then realizing the House is systematically rejecting 
even those minuscule savings, really shows us the kind of trouble we're 
in in this country.''
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Orton], a distinguished member of our committee, a very thoughtful 
member.
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, in considering this year's budget 
resolution, it is important to note what is and is not possible to 
include in a budget resolution which will not be followed by subsequent 
reconciliation legislation. While the Budget Committee may increase, 
decrease, or maintain current levels of spending on discretionary 
spending programs through the budget resolution, any comprehensive 
change in mandatory spending programs or budget process reform would 
require separate legislation to accomplish. In order to ensure that 
such legislation would be acted upon, the budget resolution could call 
for specific committees to report language back to the Budget Committee 
in what is called budget reconciliation. I am disappointed with the 
decision not to enact a reconciliation bill which could further reduce 
the deficit through reductions in mandatory spending programs and 
further reforms of the budget process.
  Since there will be no reconciliation, however, I believe that this 
committee was successful in accomplishing as much as it could within 
the budget resolution alone. The major issue facing the committee this 
year was whether to stay within the discretionary spending caps, or 
raise the caps and increase discretionary spending and therefore the 
deficit, or lower the caps and decrease spending and therefore further 
reduce the deficit. While I oppose raising the caps, and favor lowering 
them, I am pleased that the committee stayed within the 5-year hard 
freeze on discretionary spending and the pay-as-you-go framework. We 
have kept faith with the commitment set forth in the 1994 budget 
resolution and reconciliation for real deficit reduction.
  Once the committee agreed upon overall spending within the 
discretionary caps, the second issue we faced was reallocation of 
scarce discretionary funds toward new national priorities. The 
committee appropriately followed the President's lead by shifting 
priorities to reinvestment in infrastructure and people, including an 
increase in education spending, while protecting other priorities such 
as national defense. In addition to readjusting spending priorities, we 
have cut several wasteful programs that do not work and shifted funding 
to programs that do work.
  While I may not agree with every specific line item of this budget 
resolution, I do believe that it is on the right track. I am proud of 
the progress toward deficit reduction we have made in the last two 
budget resolutions. When I was first elected to Congress 3 years ago, 
the Federal deficit was $290 billion. This year the deficit will be 
$175 billion. that is a 40-percent reduction, the first time the 
deficit has fallen four consecutive years since President Truman's term 
in the 1940's. However, the bulk of deficit reduction has evolved from 
cuts in discretionary spending, primarily defense, increased taxes on 
the wealthy, and lower interest rates.
  It is clear that we cannot balance the budget through cuts in 
discretionary spending alone. All discretionary spending, including 
defense, accounts for only 35 percent of Federal outlays, and interest 
on the national debt consumes another 14 percent. Without substantial 
new tax increases, which I oppose, it will be impossible to achieve 
long-term deficit reduction unless we reduce mandatory spending on 
social programs which comprises the remaining 51 percent of Federal 
outlays.
  In an effort to begin progress on reducing mandatory spending, our 
committee included in the resolution a sense of the Congress provision 
which calls upon the House to consider subsequent legislation to: 
First, provide enforceable limits to control the growth of entitlement 
or mandatory spending; second, amend the Budget Enforcement Act to 
require emergency and disaster assistance to be paid for without 
increasing the deficit; and, third, grant the President expedited 
rescission or line-item veto authority. Last year, the full House 
adopted an expedited rescission bill and a bill to place limits on the 
growth of entitlement spending. However, the legislation has not yet 
been considered by the Senate. The President adopted the limits on 
entitlement growth in Executive order in 1993.
  While this represents substantial progress, it is not yet enough. I 
believe the time has come for means testing of all Federal entitlement 
programs. We should not continue to distribute entitlement benefits to 
wealthy individuals in the highest income brackets. In addition, it is 
time to reevaluate the formula used to calculate the consumer price 
index [CPI] to determine whether it overstates inflation. Many portions 
of the budget, both outlays and revenues, are indexed to inflation as 
determined by the CPI. A very small error in the CPI may translate into 
billions of dollars of Federal deficits in future years. The committee 
report, therefore, includes a recommendation to complete an evaluation 
of the CPI within 1 year. We also included a provision to eliminate 
baseline budgeting which has been used to portray policies that would 
simply slow down the increase in spending as actual spending 
reductions. In the future, the starting point for deliberations on a 
budget resolution should be the actual spending levels for the current 
year, not what would be spent in the future if policies remain 
unchanged and inflation increased.
  Health care services represent the most rapidly growing segment of 
the Federal budget and must be contained if there is to be any hope of 
long-term deficit reduction. While the Congress debates the course of 
health care reform, it is impossible to determine or even estimate the 
ultimate costs or savings to be achieved. Therefore, the committee 
included language to require that whatever legislation is ultimately 
adopted must be treated as part of the Federal budget and must meet the 
pay-as-you-go requirements, which means it must be paid for and cannot 
result in increased deficit spending.
  It is clear that Congress has heard the message from the people to 
reduce Federal deficit spending. However, rather than eliminating 
programs which can no longer be funded, Congress has used mandates to 
merely shift the burden of paying for those programs onto State and 
local governments. I am delighted that the committee included a sense 
of the Congress provision to prevent unfunded Federal mandates and to 
require the costs of mandates to be considered when deliberating 
authorizing legislation.
  Finally, I believe that it is imperative to amend the Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1990 to reform the budget process to include 
biennial budgeting, a unified operating and capital budget, sunset 
authority, expedited rescission authority, performance-based budgeting, 
and incremental-based budgeting. These provisions are outlined in H.R. 
1138, the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act of 1993, which I 
filed in both the 102d and 103d Congresses. When combined with a 
balanced budget constitutional amendment, these process reforms will 
provide Congress with the tools to evaluate priorities and make the 
difficult decisions necessary to reduce deficit spending and balance 
the Federal budget.
  The course has been charted, we have taken bold steps and 
accomplished much. But we are not yet finished. As the poet, Robert 
Frost wrote, we have promises to keep and miles to go before we sleep. 
I urge my colleagues to support the budget resolution and continue to 
follow the course.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller], a member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  (Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, last year the President and 
Democrats in Congress proposed and enacted the largest tax increase in 
history. Republicans offered an alternative budget that cut spending 
first without raising taxes.
  Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of American citizens 
continue to prefer less spending and lower taxes to more of the same. 
The Democrats' budget last year did exactly the opposite: it 
dramatically increased taxes and spending. The new Democrat, it turns 
out, is the same as the old tax-and-spend Democrats.
  The President's budget this year maintains the status quo. It is not 
remarkable for what it includes, but for what it lacks.
  Most remarkable of all, the President's own budget does not contain 
the President's own health care plan. The largest Government-run social 
program in history, commandeering one-seventh of the American economy, 
adding an estimated $1.2 trillion and hundreds of billions in new taxes 
to the Federal budget--it is not in there. Neither is welfare reform. 
Or tough crime reform. Candidate Clinton promised all of these things. 
President Clinton's budget contains none of them.
  Just as we did last year, the Republicans on the Budget Committee 
have come up with a better alternative to the status quo. Instead of 
increasing the size of government, we downsize government. Instead of 
raising taxes, we cut the tax bill for families and businesses. Instead 
of empty promises of change, we do it.
  Honest health care reform does not have to create a massive Federal 
bureaucracy. We can control costs and improve coverage without 
undermining the quality of the best system in the world. Our budget 
proposal gives Americans what they want from reform: elimination of 
preexisting condition restrictions, portability, comprehensive 
malpractice reform, and medical savings accounts.
  Our budget also funds comprehensive welfare and crime reforms. All 
paid for by cuts in the size of government. We pay for reform, and we 
reduce the deficit by $153 billion more than the Democrat budget 
offers. That is real change.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey], a freshman Member and a 
member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Kasich and Solomon 
substitutes for a number of reasons, including the fact that they 
contain the Republican welfare reform proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I differ from every other Member of this House because 
I am the only Member of Congress to have been a welfare mother. So my 
opinions are not based on theory. They are based on real-life 
experience.
  The Republican budget, which includes welfare reform, takes a 
complicated, emotionally charged social problem and puts forward a 
simplistic and punitive answer.
  And they do this without the benefit of any debate here in the House 
of Representatives.
  Their bills says that the two causes of welfare are illegitimacy and 
nonwork.
  Mr. Chairman, this concept is illegitimate and it will not work.
  The real issue is how to make it possible for poor single parents, 
like I was, to support their families and get off welfare permanently.
  This bill does nothing to address that. It doesn't give families the 
tools to make themselves self-sufficient--no guaranteed health care, 
child support, no job creation. It simply punishes people for being 
poor.
  In a recently released bipartisan survey, just 7 percent of Americans 
choose saving taxpayers money as a top goal for welfare reform, way 
behind every other option.
  By more than 5 to 1, Americans favor reforms that help people leave 
welfare once and for all. But, the Kasich and Solomon proposals do not 
do that. They penalize children in order to cut the budget. So, Mr. 
Chairman, the ill-conceived Kasich and Solomon substitutes are way out 
of touch with the beliefs of the American public.
  To do welfare reform right, it will require an up-front investment to 
achieve long-term gains.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to come up to 
speed with the rest of the country, and I urge everyone to vote against 
the Kasich and/or Solomon substitute.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, before I yield time to the next speaker, I 
yield myself such time as I may consume just to point out to the 
Members that we should be aware that for the previous speaker's 
district, the Sixth District of California, our budget alternative 
would provide $56.8 million in family tax relief.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. 
Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the Kasich amendment.
  The time is long overdue for this body to face up to our Nation's 
real needs and act responsibly to address them.
  The Kasich amendment does just that. It reduces the Federal deficit 
by a further $152 billion below the Clinton budget, yet still provides 
real tax relief for American families with a $500-per-child tax credit.
  It emphasizes the issues that Americans care about most: Crime 
control, health care reform, and welfare reform.
  And, as opposed to the Clinton plan, it restores sense to our 
national security budget by providing an additional $60 billion over 5 
years for defense. These funds will give us the force structure we 
really need to successfully address and win two major regional 
contingencies.
  Mr. Chairman, the Kasich budget will require some sacrifice. Frankly, 
it contains items that I would prefer were not there. But we can no 
longer run from this country's deficit monster. We must vote for 
responsible government. We must vote for the Kasich plan.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time on this 
segment to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], chairman of the 
Joint Economic Committee, for the purpose of debate on economic goals 
and policy, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control 
that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman begins, may I inquire 
as to how much time remains on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 28 minutes 
remaining, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] has 3 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] has 15 
minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 15 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I heard one of our friends on the minority side of the 
aisle say a bit ago that he had not heard of any economists who 
suggested that the budget that we passed last year had made a 
contribution to economic growth in the previous year. I would simply 
suggest that he and I were both at a hearing when we heard Alan 
Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, say just that.
  In fact, quoting Mr. Greenspan, he said this:

       The underlying long-term economic outlook in this country 
     is improving quite measurably, and indeed I don't recall as 
     good an underlying base for the long-term outlook that we had 
     today in the last 2 or 3 decades.

  Then he went on to describe the role of last year's budget package in 
promoting lower long-term interest rates to facilitate growth.
  Chairman Greenspan is far from alone in that assessment. I would like 
to review that point as to why he and so many other economists are so 
positive about the long-term outlook facing this country today.
  Despite all the good news we have on the economy, I recognize that 
there are some of our friends on the Republican side of the aisle whose 
tendency seems to be to say, ``Well, with so many silver linings, there 
must be a cloud around here somewhere.'' But the fact is that I think 
the sky looks pretty bright.
  One of the major reasons for the improving economy is that we did 
have a tough deficit reduction package enacted by the Congress last 
year. This chart demonstrates, for instance, that in January 1993, 
President Bush estimated that the deficit for California 1993 would be 
$327 billion. That dropped to $255 billion in actuality by October 1 of 
last year. The deficit for 1994 is expected to be $223 billion, and it 
is projected by CBO to be $171 billion for fiscal year 1995. That is a 
40-percent reduction below just 3 years ago. It represents the first 
time since the end of World War II under Harry Truman when we will have 
had 3 successive years of deficit reduction.
  Now, that is not perfect, but it is a whole lot better than we saw 
all through the eighties under the policies that this Congress ill-
advisedly supported at that time, policies promoted by the two prior 
administrations.
  Mr. Chairman, if you take a look at the deficit as a percentage of 
the economy, you see that in 1979, before Ronald Reagan walked into the 
White House, the deficit was 1.7 percent of GDP. It went up to a high 
of 6.3 percent in 1983, and bounced around since then. In 1992 it was 
4.8 of GDP. It is projected to be 2.4 percent of GDP by 1995. Again, 
that is a very large reduction, a drop of 62 percent from the 1983 
peak.
  One reason for that decline is that we had a budget passed by this 
House which cut 500 programs below the previous year's spending level. 
I just heard a speaker on this side of the aisle say only in Washington 
would you talk about a cut in growth of a program as being a spending 
cut. Well, that is not what I am talking about.
  The budget that was adopted last year cut 500 programs below the 
previous year's spending level, for a total savings of $34 billion.
  The President is suggesting that we terminate an additional 100 
programs this year, and suggesting that we cut spending below existing 
spending levels for 200 others.
  Now, Congress will not accept every one of those as the President has 
suggested, but they will accept an awful lot of them, and we will hit 
those spending reduction targets.
  I would also point out that as part of that deficit reduction package 
passed by the Congress last year, we also did raise revenues by 
imposing income tax increases on 1.4 million taxpayers earning more 
than $140 thousand in adjusted gross income, or the 1.2 percent to the 
wealthiest Americans in this society.
  At the same time, we cut taxes for over 15 million people because of 
our action to expand the earned income tax credit. CBO estimates when 
that tax credit is phased in fully, that 21 million families in this 
country will be eligible for a tax reduction, a 42 percent increase in 
eligibility.
  In assessing the net impact of those tax policies, Kiplinger's 
Personal Finance Magazine last fall said:

       About 110 million Americans will file individual tax 
     returns next spring. On 108 million of them, taxes will take 
     a smaller bite than they did last year. That is right, 
     smaller.

  In fact, the only tax that fell on working age Americans last year 
who earned less than $140 thousand was the 4.3-cent gas tax increase. 
But as this chart demonstrates, the drop in oil prices since that time 
has more than fully wiped out the effect on the consumer of that tax 
increase.
  Before the gas tax went into effect, the price of a gallon of gas was 
averaging $1.08. After it was averaging $1.13. Today it is averaging 
not quite $1.07. What that demonstrates is with price reductions wiping 
out the impact of even that tax, that the tax burden of last year's 
action is falling where it was intended to fall, on the top 1.2 percent 
of Americans who belong to families who make more than $140 thousand a 
year. And I make absolutely no apology for that whatsoever. That is 
elemental justice and it helped reduce the deficit and was well worth 
it.

  As a result of what we did in the budget, and a lot of other actions, 
economic growth is accelerating. As this chart demonstrates, economic 
growth expanded at a much greater rate in each of the last four 
quarters, and the blue chip forecast for the next year is that the 
economy will grow at about a 3.6 percent rate. That again is not bad. 
And that growth is based on solid investment trends. If you take a look 
at what is happening to industrial growth in this country, industrial 
production, 1993 was the best year we had in the last five, with 4.2 
percent increase in industrial production. Again, not perfect, but a 
whole lot better than we saw in the last 4 years.
  If you want to turn to the unemployment figures, we have had a steady 
decline in the unemployment rate, dropping from 7.7 percent in January 
1993 to 6.5 percent today. From January to January, that is the fastest 
1-year drop in unemployment in 6 years. And the improvement can be seen 
also in the total number of jobs in the private sector. Not the public 
sector, private sector jobs. Good old capitalist jobs. If you take a 
look at the numbers, you see from January of 1989 to January of 1993, 
which happens to be the 4 years of the previous President's term, there 
was a total increase in jobs of one million. From January 1993 to 
February 1994, there has been a 1.9 million increase in the number of 
jobs in this country. Again, not perfect, but it is a far cry from the 
crunch that people were experiencing on the job front before the 
Congress took the action that it took last year.
  I would point out this economic growth is not being bought with 
inflation. We have had 3 years of declining inflation. This chart 
demonstrates that we had 3.1 percent inflation in 1991, 2.9 percent in 
1992, 2.7 percent last year. That is the lowest 3-year average in 30 
years. The lowest 3-year average in 30 years.
  In January 1994, the Consumer Price Index increase was zero. And I 
would suggest that the performance of the American economy is even more 
impressive and striking when you consider how slow the economic rate of 
growth has been in the rest of the world. In fact, when you consider 
that a good portion of the world last year was in a significant 
recession.
  So we are experiencing, in my judgment, some good short-term success 
with the economy. The deficit is headed in the right direction, along 
with virtually all other economic trends. But we still need to do more.
  The economy is still plagued by the burdens of the eighties, and we 
still face a major challenge in restoring income growth and jobs for 
many Americans, especially those without a college education.
  The following chart shows that we have had an increase in real 
average weekly earnings for the average American family for the first 
time in more than 5 years. That is the primary problem that we have had 
in this economy. If you take a look at what real family income is 
today, you will see in fact that in 1979, real earnings were $302 a 
week. Sixteen percent above last year's level. And if you take a look 
at the long-term history of the economy, you will see that in fact real 
earnings peaked 20 years ago, in 1973, at $315 a week, 19 percent above 
1993 levels. So that is the subject we need to be talking about on a 
bipartisan basis. We need to recognize the fact that this economy has 
been in trouble in terms of our ability to produce a growing wage 
environment for families for a good 20 years under administrations of 
both parties. And what we ought to be doing, instead of shooting at 
each other in a partisan way, is figuring out ways to really attack 
that problem. We have had a good turnaround this year. Thank God, the 
first time in 6 years we have had an increase in real average wages. 
But that is not good enough for us. We have got to do more.

                              {time}  1330

  We should remember that the squeeze on workers' wages in this country 
has been focused primarily on noncollege educated workers, and that is 
why we agree with the President that we have to have the right balance 
in our economic policy between deficit reduction and continued long-
term investments over the next 10 years in education and training to 
improve the chances of people who do not have a college education to 
participate in the economic prosperity of this country.
  Yet we have a threat to that investment facing us today in the form 
of the Kasich amendment. When we debated NAFTA, I stood on this floor 
and I asked the following question. I said, I recognize that the 
President has the support of many of our friends on the Republican side 
of the aisle for the NAFTA proposal. But we all recognized there would 
be some job dislocation from that package.
  I asked the question, would they be there supporting us when we were 
trying to make the needed investments in education and training to 
counteract the job loss that we were going to be facing under NAFTA for 
certain workers in this society? Today we have their answer. The answer 
is apparently no. Because if Members take a look at the Kasich 
amendment, they will see that it virtually eliminates all possibility 
for increased investment in the very job training that we need, not 
only to deal with the effect of NAFTA but to deal with the effect in 
general of America's economy moving into an international economy which 
is very, very competitive and which is very, very tough on workers with 
the least education and least training.
  So I think, in short, that we can be proud of the short-term economic 
progress we have made. But we still have a significant long-term 
challenge ahead. The budget before us tries to meet that challenge.
  It tries to do as much as possible, while still struggling with the 
debt overhang left from the 1980's and the continuing problems of 
converting from a cold war defense posture.
  The best thing we can do is to continue our determination to produce 
orderly, consistent reductions in the deficit, mixed with the right 
investments to produce long-term economic growth. We want to bring down 
that deficit. But deficit reduction alone, as Jack Kemp used to remind 
us, is not an economic policy.
  We must produce the kind of economic growth and equity and sharing so 
that that growth produces a more secure society for all.
  I believe we ought to heed the words of Herb Stein, the chairman of 
President Nixon's Council of Economic Advisers, who said this recently:

       The Federal debt is a small part of what we pass on to the 
     future. We decide, mainly by our private savings, investment 
     and research, what conditions for productivity and income we 
     bequeath to our children and our grandchildren. Also by 
     public policy, we are determining many of the conditions in 
     which our descendants will live. If we can leave our children 
     a country free of the dangers of war, with safe streets, 
     reduced racial hostility, fewer miserable urban ghettos and 
     elevated culture, we will not have to apologize.

  That is the purpose of the budget here today, to both reduce the debt 
overhang that this country built up under the misguided policies of the 
1980's and to return to a policy of long-term prudent investment, both 
private and public, in the things that will make this economy strong 
and will prepare us, God help us if we ever have to, will prepare us to 
economically support a military effort of large dimensions, if we are 
ever called upon again in our history to launch one.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I would just like to say to the gentleman from Wisconsin that I share 
his desire to see real economic growth in our country. And whether we 
have a Republican President or a Democratic President makes little 
difference to me, as it does the American people.
  We are interested in getting people back to work, but that does not 
mean that I agree with the thrust of the gentleman's remarks. In fact, 
I quite strongly disagree. I am sure the gentleman is not too surprised 
at that.
  Obviously, the gentleman pointed out that some of us see some clouds 
on the horizon and that is true. We see some clouds on the horizon, 
because we know that there is something different about this recovery. 
We know that the one thing that we can point to that is quite different 
about this recovery is that during it, we increased taxes twice. And 
because of that, during my opening statements, I pointed out, because 
of that the recovery has been slow and sluggish and about half as 
strong as recoveries that took place after every other recession since 
1950.
  So we are interested in getting people back to work, and that is a 
goal that we share. We differ on how to do that.
  The gentleman also spoke at some length and eloquently about the 
progress that has been made with regard to deficit reduction. I would 
like to just point out to the gentleman that I recall very vividly 
being here on the floor of this House in July 1990, and having the 
leadership of the House and the Senate and the President's budget 
people return from Andrews Air Force Base.
  And they said, ``We have made a deal. We have got to increase taxes 
because our CBO forecasters in CBO say that by 1995, we are going to 
have $142 billion of deficit, if we don't increase taxes.'' This year 
CBO projections for fiscal year 1995 are $171 billion in deficit.
  What happened in the meantime? We have raised taxes twice. In 1990, 
we raised taxes by $130 billion, and in 1993, we raised taxes by $16 
billion. And the projected deficit for 1995, instead of being $142 
billion, which was what was projected in 1990 for 1995, is going to be 
$171 billion. I do not call that progress, Mr. Chairman. I call that 
more deficit than we had projected prior to these two humongous tax 
increases, which have slowed the economy in the meantime.
  Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's desire, and I share the 
gentleman's optimism, perhaps, about the future, but we have got to put 
in place some additional economic incentives, if we are really going to 
get the kind of growth that we need subsequent to a recession.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  There are a number of items we are going back and trying to check, 
whether 500 programs were cut last year.
  We are going to check that. I can tell my colleagues that the 110 
programs that the administration has proposed cutting this year totals 
again $670 million. It is the only real change in the Clinton budget. 
And one more time, if Clinton had not sent his budget, we would have 
lower deficits than if we put the Government on automatic pilot.
  What I would say is, the President deserves credit for coming into 
office and trying to aggressively seize an agenda. But what we would 
find, if we looked deeper into the economic evidence, is that we have 
seen interest rates significantly decline since about 1990.
  What I would say is, like the 1990 tax and spend bill, which 
Republicans in the bulk opposed, I do not want to say the bulk, which a 
number of us opposed, including me, for the simple reason that the tax 
and spend does not work. Investing in Government does not work. It did 
not work then. And the difficulty that we have right now is that long-
term interest rates are at their highest level in a year. Short-term 
interest rates are at the highest level they have been in 2 years.
  What we are fearful of is that raising taxes, raising spending, and 
this really curious idea that if we invest in the Government that 
somehow that is going to solve our unemployment problems. We have been 
investing in these Government programs for about 40 years. What we 
suggest, under our plan, is that the people in Ohio and Arizona and New 
Jersey, who run these programs, are not stupid, that they do not think 
that Federal bureaucrats ought to be the ones that tell them how to job 
train people in their areas.
  If we want to invest in Washington, more for Washington, less for the 
States, fine. We give Members a clear choice. What our concern is is 
that, and it is a clear philosophical difference, if Members think that 
we are going to be guaranteed economic security in this country with 
higher taxes and higher spending and more regulation, then we have to 
pick that choice.

                              {time}  1340

  What we will find is that program will in fact not work and guarantee 
the most prosperity for our Nation.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment on some things the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] said. He said the Republicans find 
a dark cloud behind a silver lining.
  We are glad that a recovery is underway. That recovery started in 
March 1991, 21 months before the previous administration left off, but 
in fact it has been a subpar recovery. Look at it.
  If you look at four quarters, the last four quarters of the previous 
recoveries in 1954, 1958, 1961, 1970, 1975, and 1982, there was an 
average of 5.8 percent economic growth. This one, it has been 1.7 
percent.
  For eight quarters it is 4.6 percent for those previous recoveries. 
This one was 2.5 percent. If we look at the whole time of 11 quarters, 
on average it was 4.4 percent. This time it has been 2.7 percent. That 
is because of the tax increases in 1990, which some of us on this side 
of the aisle opposed. That is going to be exacerbated by the tax 
increases we just enacted last year.
  If we look at it in terms of jobs, in 1991 we created 2.3 million new 
jobs, whereas the 1982 recovery was 7.9 million new jobs, and in 1975, 
7.2 million new jobs. This is a subpar recovery.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes and 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I am really not especially interested in reviewing old 
history. I am more than willing, if people want to do that. I am more 
than fully prepared. It seems to me there is not much benefit that 
accrues to the country when that happens.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply observe that we can debate whether this 
is a slower recovery than past recoveries or whether it is not. Of 
course, it is, because the country was so crippled by the huge debt 
overhang left to us by the policies of previous Congresses and previous 
administrations that we have not had the ability available to the 
Government to stimulate the economy the way the administrations were 
able to stimulate the economy in past recessions.
  We also were not in a world economy which was collapsing around us in 
past recessions, because America did not trade very much 10 and 20 
years ago. We do today, so we are very much affected by what happens 
around us. Our economy will not really begin to grow as fast as it 
ought to grow until the economies of Japan and Germany recovery, so we 
can begin again selling to them many more American goods that we would 
like to send.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply make the point that if we want to debate 
Bush versus Clinton, I think the record is pretty clear. Most of the 
job growth by far that has occurred since the end of the recession 
occurred under President Clinton's watch.
  I would also point out, despite the references that I hear 
continuously to higher taxes, there are no taxes in this budget 
resolution. This budget resolution is not raising taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we can compare the kind of tax code that our 
party prefers with the kind of tax code our friends on the other side 
of the aisle seem to prefer, because the lion's share of our tax 
increases last year were focused on those who made more than $140,000 a 
year, and the tax cuts were focused on those who made less than $26,000 
a year.
  If we take a look at what I understand to be the Republican proposal 
today, it says if a person makes $200,000, they can continue to get the 
tax break which they are talking about, but if a person makes $15,000, 
they cannot. I do not find that a very persuasive distribution of 
burden out in the public marketplace. I would be happy to allow the 
public to decide what they think about that.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to respond to the suggestion that we 
are investing in the Government. Nobody is investing in the Government. 
We are trying to invest in people.
  What we are trying to do is invest in kids by way of education. What 
we are trying to do is invest in science by way of health research and 
other scientific research, so we can stay on the cutting edge of 
technology; so that new jobs because of new manufacturing processes and 
new jobs because of new scientific breakthroughs go to Americans rather 
than to somebody else.
  What we are trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is invest in the physical 
infrastructure which must be modernized if any community is to provide 
a decent condition under which our economy is to grow.
  Our communities need decent sewer and water. Our communities and our 
States need decent highways and transit systems. That is what we have 
in the President's budget, a careful balance between deficit reduction 
and those kinds of investments.
  Mr. Chairman, we have two bridges a day that fall down in this 
country. Would it not be nice if we started fixing them at the rate 
that we are capable of doing?

  We are in the midst of defense conversion, where areas who employ 
people in defense plants are being squeezed to the marrow because of 
cutbacks in the military budget. Would it not be nice if we were giving 
people additional things to do in this economy, as we did at the end of 
World War II?
  We are not doing nearly enough of that. We do not, frankly, do enough 
of that in this budget, but we are doing the best we can under budget 
constraints. I think there needs to be no apology made for that.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out very briefly that 
the tax credit that the gentleman mentioned that is in the so-called 
Kasich budget does not provide a $500 per child tax credit to Americans 
who qualify, and is meaningful or is meaningless, as one wants to put 
it. In the gentleman's own district, it would mean $62 million tax 
credits to families that live in the gentleman's district. Mr. 
Chairman, I think that is quite meaningful.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask of the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Saxton], is it not true that the gentleman's credit is not 
refundable, so therefore does not go to low-income people in this 
country?
  Mr. SAXTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman it is not 
refundable; that is correct.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. That proves my point.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I find it curious that the gentleman would 
argue that a family in his district with an income of $25,000, a family 
of four, should not get a $2,000 tax credit. I would find it curious 
that the gentleman does not support that, but I would say to the 
gentleman that I agree with him, that the real key is how do we keep 
the recovery going.
  Is it not amazing that the Republican proposal that the gentleman 
does not like reduces the deficit by $150 billion more in deficit 
reduction by streamlining Government, and at the same time gives that 
long-promised tax credit? That longtime middle-income tax promise that 
the President has made and retreated from, we deliver it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the gentleman that we are not only 
reducing deficits by more than he is, but at the same time we give a 
piece of that to middle-income families. Of course, the bottom line is 
how do we keep the recovery going? Do we keep it going by investing in 
Washington bureaucracy, or do we do it by reducing deficits, providing 
incentives for business, and tax relief for families?
  That is really the question. That is what it is going to come down to 
tomorrow, and that is what the American people are going to have to 
judge. Do they want to invest more in the Washington bureaucracy, or do 
they want to give more to States and give more to individuals, provide 
incentives for business, and cut the deficit more?
  I think the choice is clear. I think the American people, if they 
could vote a national referendum, would elect this thing 
overwhelmingly.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revised and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, the budget proposed by President Clinton is 
merely a continuation of the deafness to the demands of the American 
people to cut spending first. The President has promised lower Federal 
spending and greater deficit reduction but instead has given us a 
framework for increasing the Federal debt by over $1.5 trillion during 
the next 5 years. I am disappointed that President Clinton has given us 
more of the same--big government and more Federal spending that takes 
money out of the pockets of hard-working families.
  The President's budget should be measured both for what it says and 
for what it does not say. It says that it ``holds the line on 
deficits.'' It says that it reduces Federal spending by meeting the 
discretionary spending caps and lower entitlement spending. It also 
claims to have the much-vaunted health care guarantees and crime 
reform. However, the plan is far from the requests from Hoosier 
families to cut spending first.
  President Clinton's budget increases spending by $370 billion over 5 
years and increases the long-term deficit by $365 billion by 2004--all 
while gouging Defense by $136 billion, which still leaves a $20 billion 
shortfall from the DOD's bottom-up review. The President's budget also 
only marginally identifies the fiscal effects of health care reform, 
which is questionably paid for by the levying of increased taxes on top 
of last year's tax increases. Next, the President's budget completely 
ignores welfare reform. To add even more insult, the President's budget 
pays lip-service to anti-crime efforts by funding only a fraction of 
the promised increased police efforts.
  What has been happening to all the increased tax revenues and 
spending cut savings the President is claiming? We have larger long-
term deficits because the President takes the savings and creates more 
government spending and calls the marginally efficient programs 
investment. In fact, the deficits would even be smaller if the 
President has not even submitted a budget at all.
  The American people deserve to be able to pursue the American dream 
in an environment conducive to business development. They deserve a 
budget that reflects political morality. Responsible fiscal planning 
with the payment of benefits and debts in the same generation in which 
they are incurred. That is exactly what the Kasich plan delivers.
  Mr. Kasich's House Republican budget initiative, unlike the 
President's budget, is a bold and dynamic proposal that takes command 
of America's fiscal woes and delivers solutions to the American people. 
The keystone of the initiative is a much needed family tax credit that 
provides a $500 per child credit per year for middle-class tax relief. 
But the initiative also provides lower Federal spending, higher deficit 
reduction, and keeps more money in the hands of the people who earned 
it.

  The lower spending is a result of logical Government streamlining 
coupled with reasoned spending cuts. Among other efforts, the 
initiative provides for the reduction of fertilizer and environmental 
funds from the Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA]. I am an advocate of 
reducing these activities because they are well beyond the scope of the 
TVA. Also, the initiative provides for the USDA reorganization and 
preferences for ethanol use. These are typical of the efforts to 
improve Government efficiency and eliminate bureaucracy.
  The initiative is also proactive. It promotes economic growth, job 
creation, and provides welfare, health care, and crime reforms that all 
surpass the promises of the President. Economic growth would be 
encouraged with extending expiring tax credits and neutral cost 
recovery to accelerate the rate of depreciation for small business so 
they can stay competitive and efficient in the expanding global 
marketplace. Additionally, capital gains would be indexed and capital 
losses on the sale of a principle place of residence could be deducted. 
All this is provided without jeopardizing of our national security--and 
it's all paid for up front and not on the backs of our children and 
grandchildren.
  I urge my fellow members to seize the moment and act with fiscal 
responsibility by adopting the house Republican budget initiative. 
Liberty and economic opportunity are inextricable. When Government 
restricts liberty with overburdens of regulations, it directly effects 
the opportunity for entrepreneurs and small businesses to grow and 
prosper. It's time to lift the oppressive yoke of big government, reign 
in the excesses of big government, and enact true deficit reduction so 
that the American people can realize the pursuit of happiness.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the gentleman from 
Indiana has 129,730 children in his district who qualify for over $64 
million in tax relief paid for under our proposal.
  Mr. BUYER. I compliment the gentleman from Ohio on the budget and for 
addressing health care, crime, and welfare reform that the President in 
his budget does not address. I am tired of all of these problems that 
everybody is making investments in people that coddle the criminals 
with all of these hug-a-thug type programs.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am trying to find the Member of the House on this 
side of the aisle to whom these gentlemen are responding. I do not see 
him. I do not see anybody who has uttered most of the words with which 
they are trying to disagree. The previous gentleman indicated that he 
is tired of having Members blame previous administrations without 
recognizing that the Congress had coequal responsibility. I said twice 
in my last two statements on the floor that Congress had to bear their 
share of responsibility because they ill advisedly supported the 
policies that were promoted by the previous administrations on 
budgeting. I know because I was here and I offered the alternatives to 
them, and I got the blazes beat out of me in the process. So I know how 
it feels to have tractor tracks over my back.
  Simply I would suggest again, and I would repeat for the benefit of 
those who need to hear it, that nobody is talking about investing in 
Washington bureaucracy. When we have education and training programs, I 
do not know what happens in other people's districts, but that means 
that kids in my district and communities like Wausau, and Stevens 
Point, Chippewa, Superior, Ashland, you name it, they wind up getting 
services which were not otherwise available to them. When we expand 
Head Start, that does not mean that the Washington bureaucracy is 
expanded. It means that the waiting list of kids in my district for 
Head Start becomes a little bit shorter. When we pass funds for 
childhood immunization, it means that kids in my district as well as 
every other district in the country get the needed health services they 
need.
  It is true that the budget before us does not make some of the cuts 
that would be made in the Kasich amendment. We do not cut the $45 
billion which the Kasich amendment cuts in Medicare. I make no apology 
for that, no apology whatsoever. We believe that those cuts ought to be 
considered in the context of health care.
  I also would point out that since the gentleman referred to my 
district, I think it also is good to point out that in the budget we 
passed last year there were some 1,200 wealthy individuals in my 
district who wound up paying more taxes because of that budget, but 
there were some 20,000 people who became eligible for tax reductions 
because of that action, and they were people on the modest end of the 
income scale, and in my view that is the right balance, and I again 
make absolutely no apology for it.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maine [Ms. Snowe].
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, over the past 2 years, voters have sent Congress 
several clear messages: Cut spending, reduce the deficit, create jobs, 
and stimulate the economy. As a member of the House Budget Committee, I 
have worked hard with Representative Kasich to do just that. The 
Republican budget plan cuts spending and reduces the deficit by $150 
billion more than the administration's budget proposal over 5 years. It 
proposes a tax credit for middle-class Americans, and provides measures 
that promote job growth, private sector investment, and tax relief for 
hard-working Americans.
  I rise in opposition today to the administration's budget proposal 
for fiscal year 1995 for some very simple reasons--this budget does 
nothing to change the status quo on spending. It does nothing to change 
the status quo on deficit reduction. It does nothing to change the 
status quo of an economic climate which burdens workers and the middle-
class. When the administration presented this budget to Congress and 
the American people, there is only one signal they sent--the status 
quo, for them, is good enough.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe the status quo isn't good enough for 
Mainers or the American people.
  On the other hand, the Republican alternative plan is a blueprint for 
long-term economic stability and growth that takes full measure of the 
impact of the deficit and national debt on our economy and confronts 
these issues squarely. It acknowledges that as long as these problems 
remain, job growth and long-term economic vitality will be difficult to 
achieve.
  Unfortunately, judging by the administration's budget proposal, they 
are undertaking an effort to try and convince the American people that 
enough has already been done to reduce the deficit and spur economic 
growth, and that no further action on the deficit is necessary because 
they believe an economic recovery is underway.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration's 
unwillingness to take further action on deficit reduction represents a 
short-term view of our economy which allows it to underperform. There 
is no doubt that--if anything--we have learned that it is higher taxes 
and higher deficits which have had a direct, adverse impact on job 
creation, employment, and economic stability.

  And if there is one thing that differentiates the Republican outlook 
on the budget with the administration's outlook, it is this: 
Republicans understand that we cannot continue to go deeper into debt 
and expect to see sustained job growth and economic vitality.
  Yet the administration's plan calls for a 2.3-percent increase in 
spending next year for total fiscal year 1995 spending of $1.5 
trillion. This, by the way, does not include whatever the costs for 
health care reform will be. While the administration proposes to 
eliminate 115 programs and reduce many others, none of the savings are 
devoted to deficit reduction. The administration also claims that the 
deficit will decrease to around $176 billion in 1995--but on that point 
we should ask ourselves this one question: Should we allow this 
administration to convince Congress and the American people that yearly 
deficits of $175 billion of deficits of any size are acceptable or an 
adequate enough standard of economic strength or stability?
  Clearly, more can be done as evidenced by the Republican proposal 
which achieves a deficit level in fiscal year 1995 of $163 billion--$15 
billion below what the President has proposed. The total spending 
amount in our budget proposal for 1995 is $1.49 trillion--or $55 
billion lower than the President's proposal, while total 5-year 
spending is about $359 billion less than the administration's 5-year 
projections. Our proposal reduces the deficit further to $140 billion 
in fiscal year 1996, with a total 5-year deficit reduction total of 
$310 billion. Over that 5-year period, our approach translates to $147 
billion more in deficit reduction than the administration's plan. Worse 
yet, the administration's plan allows the national debt to increase 
from $4.3 trillion to about $6 billion over 5 years, meaning over $1.7 
trillion in new debt.
  What is particularly troublesome, is that--for all practical 
purposes--the administration suspends deficit reduction for 5 years as 
if the problem will go away by itself. But it won't.
  For my constituents in Maine, jobs and a strong economy are the 
paramount issues. Many in my district have felt the impact of last 
year's regressive and retroactive income tax increases. To those who 
say that the tax hikes have had no impact, I say there are many in 
Maine who simply ask ``Where's the recovery?'' Well, 42 percent of 
Mainers are worried about job creation and the economy, according to a 
recent poll. Maine has only regained 3,000 of the 30,000 jobs that we 
lost during the recession; 60 percent of the American people say that 
we are not out of a recession. Less than 30 percent of the American 
people say that we are in an economic recovery.

  What is more troubling according to Department of Labor statistics, 
after the previous four recessions, 44 percent of workers laid off 
expected to be recalled once the economy improved. After this last 
recession, however, only 14 percent of job losers expected to be 
recalled to work. This is one indication that employment and the 
economy are not expanding as they could, or even as they have in the 
past. And let me give the administration a quick message about how 
their recovery is shaping up down East: a Maine State planning office 
report anticipates that we will add fewer than 10,000 jobs each year, 
which is one-third of the growth of the past two decades. They also 
state that it's likely to be 1997 before Maine regains all the jobs it 
lost during this recession. The bottom line is--hard times continue in 
much of Maine, and I'm sure in other areas of the country as well.
  But with the economic illusions this administration is trying to 
create, we are in danger of allowing the majority party to convince 
consumers, taxpayers, and workers that an anemic recovery, subpar 
growth, higher taxes, and continued deficits are acceptable commodities 
for an American economy facing stiffer competition and stronger trade 
from all corners of the global marketplace. And we are in danger of 
allowing our country to settle for second best--to slip to a second 
rung on the ladder of economic opportunity--and to accept budgets which 
compromise the economic opportunities which have worked to expand the 
American middle-class and allow small businesses to hire more workers, 
market more American products, and build on the American dream.
  What we need now is a budget that does what is necessary to create 
jobs, reduce the deficit, spur economic growth, eliminate wasteful 
government spending, and bring relief to middle-class Americans.
  We can do better than the administration's plan. We should do better 
than the administration's plan. Have we crafted a better plan for the 
American people before? The answer is yes. That is why the Kasich 
alternative merits serious, bipartisan support.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on 
both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 5 minutes 
remaining, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is useful again to emphasize some of the 
differences between the Kasich amendment and the budget before us.
  I have a Republican Governor in my State, for instance, and he is 
interested in seeing to it that we fully fund the ISTEA Highway Act. 
The Kasich amendment does not do that. The budget resolution before us 
from the Democratic side does.
  In my view, that investment is crucial to the ability of the economy 
of my State and others to grow. I think it is worth the investment.
  The Kasich amendment makes a $28 billion reduction in overhead 
savings. A significant portion of that falls on the Veterans' 
Administration, which means that they will be able to buy less in 
medical supplies.

                              {time}  1400

  They also, as I understand it, have a $200 million reduction in 
veterans' medical care. I do not especially want to go home to campaign 
for that or to brag about that. I do not think that makes a whole lot 
of sense.
  So I would simply say that I am very happy to take home to my 
constituents the comparisons, and I think our package will not be found 
wanting.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, you know, I just find that argument 
fascinating about the gentleman criticizing our cuts in overhead.
  You know, this again is more investment in Washington, DC, and the 
bureaucrats as opposed to sending tax relief to families back to his 
district.
  Now, let me tell you what we are cutting in overhead. We are telling 
the bureaucrats they are not going to travel as much; they are not 
going to ship as much; they are not going to have as many rental 
payments to the General Services Administration; they are not going to 
have as much communication; they are not going to have as much printing 
and reproduction or consultants, as many supplies and materials. You 
see, this is the mindset. The mindset is you invest in Washington, DC, 
bureaucracy and let the bureaucrats travel more and let them print more 
and let them have more consultants, but do not downsize that.
  What we do in our budget is we reduce this overhead spending by 7\1/
2\ percent, and we say that the bureaucrats here in this town ought to 
do with less; in the process of doing it, we can have greater deficit 
reduction, and we can give the American family some tax relief.
  Do you want to know something? That is where the American people are. 
They want the bureaucrats and the bureaucracies in this town 
downscaled.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Despite the rhetoric we have just heard, I will ask the gentleman 
this question: Does not your amendment cut veterans' programs by $200 
million?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. The answer is no. What I would say to the gentleman if he 
is yielding to me is I did not know the gentleman was so committed to 
consultants.
  Mr. OBEY. No. I want an answer to that question.
  Mr. KASICH. So committed to consultants and bureaucratic travel. The 
answer is no.
  Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, that is certainly not the reading by 
the Committee on the Budget on this side. Our estimate is you cut 
veterans' programs $200 million below the committee resolution.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. I am delighted to engage in this debate, because I want 
to say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the gentleman criticized our 
overhead spending, and the gentleman said that our overhead spending 
was a cut in these various administrations, and I will tell the 
gentleman that that is correct. We do not think we ought to have as 
many supplies and materials in the bureaucracy. We do not think that 
the bureaucrats who travel most in the final quarter of the fiscal 
year, we think that they ought to be trimmed back.
  Now, my constituents at home think that there is plenty of waste in 
the bureaucracy of this Government, and they want it to be eliminated, 
and that, of course, is precisely what we have done.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would simply say this gentleman is very happy to see cuts in 
overhead. I am not happy to see cuts in the medical supplies available 
to the Veterans' Administration. That is the point I am trying to make. 
I think it is a valid one.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the last 30 seconds that I 
have to state once again to the gentleman from Wisconsin that is not 
true. That is not what we are cutting. We are not cutting medical 
supplies in the Veterans' Administration. That is not what is being 
cut. These numbers we are cutting in overhead are numbers that are 
given to us that were scored by the Congressional Budget Office.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate has been very enlightening, I believe, in 
terms of demonstrating the very significant difference in the 
approaches as proposed by the gentleman to my right, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and the Democrat budget proposal.
  The Democrat budget proposal proposes to go forward with business as 
usual, a budgetary process that was laid out in 1993, and continued 
through 1994, and now proposed for 1995. It has resulted in very 
sluggish growth in our economy. It has resulted in higher taxes, and it 
has resulted in estimated growth in the future by both the President 
and by CBO of 2\1/2\ percent, and by historic standards our goal has 
been growth of at least 3 percent to consider ourselves on the right 
path.
  So the Kasich budget, in proposing to reduce the deficit by an 
additional $153 billion over what the Democrat plan does, recognizes in 
that respect that our spending pattern has gone up very rapidly, yes, 
through the 1980's and continues to increase rapidly now into the 
1990's.
  It also recognizes, as the Governor of New Jersey recently has, as a 
matter of fact, that the Tax Code is a very, very important tool which 
we use correctly sometimes and misuse at other times to help promote or 
hold back economic growth.
  The Governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman, just last week 
signed into law a 5-percent tax reduction.
  The Kasich budget moves in the same direction with a $500-per-child 
tax credit which would apply to districts all across the country, not 
only to make it a little easier for families to come to grips with 
daily and weekly and monthly expenses, but also to recognize what it is 
about our Tax Code that helps the economy to grow, and that has been 
demonstrated time and time again as well.
  So there is a difference here. On the one hand we continue the tax-
and-spend policies that have put us where we are today; on the other 
hand, with a vote for Kasich which will come up in just a few minutes, 
we have an opportunity to turn the corner on additional spending which 
requires, as happened in 1990, additional taxes, and in 1993 additional 
taxes, as well.
  So I thank the chairman, and we look forward to further debate as the 
Kasich amendment comes up.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Coyne].
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, the House has an opportunity to pass a 
budget resolution for fiscal year 1995 which will help to ensure the 
continued growth of the U.S. economy and a steady reduction in the 
Federal deficit.
  President Clinton announced a Federal budget on February 7 that 
provides good news for the economy and job creation. President 
Clinton's budget recommendations revealed that continued progress on 
reducing the deficit is being made, with the 1995 budget deficit at 
$176 billion compared to the 1994 deficit of $235 billion. Skeptics of 
the hard freeze on spending enacted in last year's budget act must now 
admit that Congress and President Clinton did produce a real deficit 
cutting agreement in 1993.
  As a member of the House Budget Committee, I strongly support the 
budget resolution approved by the committee. This budget builds on the 
recommendations of the Clinton administration and will promote economic 
policies that create jobs and help local families buy a home or start a 
business. The House Budget Committee has also reported a budget 
resolution that complies with the discretionary spending caps set for 
fiscal year 1995.
  Lower deficits should help to keep long-term interest rates low and 
that helps to create jobs in construction, auto sales and businesses 
that rely on consumer spending. This reduction in the Federal deficit 
should also help to maintain home mortgage interest rates at record low 
levels.
  While the administration's budget calls for the elimination of 115 
specific programs and tight controls on discretionary spending, some of 
the money saved by making these cuts will be targeted for priority 
programs serving the American people. For example, the House Budget 
Committee reported a budget that provides a significant increase of 
$2.3 billion in outlays for education and training that will help 
workers and young Americans obtain the skills needed in today's 
economy. This budget also provides for a major boost in funding for 
child nutrition and Head Start to provide children a better chance of 
doing well in school.
  I am especially pleased that this budget provides for an increase of 
7.6 percent in outlays for law enforcement efforts. This increased 
funding will help hire more police officers in communities across the 
country. Community policing has been used successfully in many areas to 
prevent crime as well as provide more resources to catch individuals 
who commit a violent crime.
  This House budget resolution also provides for a 5.6 percent increase 
in funding for the National Institutes of Health. NIH funding is a 
vital part of our Nation's effort to prevent illness and find cures for 
diseases like breast cancer, AIDS, and heart disease. As the 
Congressman representing the city of Pittsburgh, which proudly hosts 
major research centers like the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center 
and Magee-Womens Hospital, I strongly support the recommended increase 
in funding for the NIH.
  While there is much to recommend in the administration's proposed 
budget, I have worked with other House Budget Committee Members to 
restore most of the funding cuts proposed for LIHEAP [the Low Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program]. The House Budget Committee approved 
budget resolution restores $520 million of the proposed reduction in 
LIHEAP funding.
  This action will help the millions of moderate income Americans in 
cities like Pittsburgh who face the difficult challenge of paying high 
winter heating bills. I have listened to many local residents in 
Pittsburgh report how difficult the recent winter weather has been for 
their household budgets and I am convinced that the House Budget 
Committee has set the right priority in restoring LIHEAP funding.
  The House Budget Committee has also restored funding for transit 
operating assistance to $802 million, the fiscal year 1994 level. This 
action should help communities maintain vital mass transit services 
without raising fares, cutting service routes or taking other steps 
that would decrease the quality of local transportation services.
  The House Budget Committee has also adopted language which calls for 
full funding of the Healthy Start Program. This program seeks to ensure 
that low- and moderate-income Americans have access to vital health 
services that give a child the best chance of growing up healthy. I 
have been a strong supporter of the Healthy Start Program in the city 
of Pittsburgh and I can assure the Members of the House that this is a 
program that works.
  Mr. Speaker, the House Budget Committee has reported a budget that 
meets the challenge of continued deficit reduction and discipline on 
spending. At the same time, this budget addresses national priorities 
such as crime, education and training and investment in the future. I 
urge my colleagues to support this budget.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say, in light of the response of the 
gentleman from Ohio on veterans, I want to say that on page 24 of the 
Republican budget initiative, March 3, 1994, there is a line which 
says, ``Limiting increases in the President's investment spending in 
function 700;'' function 700 is veterans. They cut that by $585 
million; $579 million of that is medical care.
  So, in fact, the situation is far worse than I described.
  I would simply say that I think people ought to vote for the 
committee resolution. It provides for deficit reduction which will take 
the deficit down to more than 40 percent below where it was just 3 
years ago. It means that it will be the first time since the end of 
World War II that we have had three successive years of deficit 
reduction.

                              {time}  1410

  It is also in support of the economic policy which has seen a 
reversal of more than a 5-years-in-a-row decline in family income. This 
year for the first time we have seen a modest increase in real family 
income.
  The policy has also produced the lowest inflation rate in 30 years. 
It has also produced job growth which has produced twice as many new 
jobs in 1 year as we had in the previous administration. I think those 
numbers stand on their own.
  It seems to me that we ought to stick to this budget. It is the 
budget which has helped improve the economy. The American people 
understand that. Eventually, I think everyone in this House will 
understand that.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, today we will consider the resolution for 
the 1995 budget. All advanced briefings indicate that the House Budget 
Committee has engaged in a rubber-stamping exercise that adds very 
little insight and vision to the administration's monstrous 
presentation. When we vote on this flawed resolution there will be none 
of the drama of last year's session. This year the Democrats have 
surrendered in advance. A golden opportunity to begin redirecting the 
Nation's resources has been tossed away. Is the Republican Party still 
in control of the Office of Management and Budget? The worms at OMB 
devoured more than 100 small programs and drastically cut 300 more. The 
total abandonment of jobless inner-city youth was begun with the 
transfer out of $60 million into programs to retain adults who have had 
the good fortune to have jobs for the last 12 years, but are losing 
their Defense-related employment now.
  But the most scandalous act of all in this budget-making process has 
been the House Committee's acquiescence to the administration's 
position that there will be ``no further cuts in Defense''. The 
military industrial complex reigns supreme ``uber alles.'' The no-cuts-
in-Defense doctrine represents a monumental blunder, a gigantic waste 
of resources that should be utilized to redirect our economy. Building 
schools, bridges, highways, mass transit, educational technology 
equipment, health centers, and other civilian infrastructure 
components, would produce many more jobs for the dollars being spent to 
maintain obsolete overseas bases and weapons systems. The folly of 
continuing our multibillion dollar Defense waste is so apparent that 
our grandchildren will condemn us as being stupid or cowardly or 
corrupt. Of course, posterity will quickly understand that the Members 
of the 103d Congress were not stupid. Some of the best minds in America 
are in the Congress. But posterity will condemn us for allowing the 
military industrial complex to either bully us or buy us. We must 
confront the intimidation and let our intelligence take over. Adherence 
to the ``no further cuts in Defense'' doctrine is a super blunder.

                           The Super Blunder

     Decisiveness Firmness Resolve
     Let logic dissolve
     No cuts for Defense
     A blunder immense
     Insight shows no sense
     Overseas bases
     Won't get the ax
     Luxury weapons makers
     All can relax
     No Bosnia or Haiti
     No worthy attacks
     Just fund everybody
     Gentlemen Generals
     No need to fear
     Sit tight on your rear
     NATO leases
     Surrender no pieces
     Fat foreign neighborhoods
     Keep selling our soldiers
     Erotic adventures
     And glitzy dry goods
     Japanese markets are closed
     But none of our bases disposed
     3.5 billion could build
     A thousand schools
     But only one nuclear carrier
     Is written into the rules
     Decisiveness Firmness Resolve
     Let logic dissolve
     No cuts for Defense
     A blunder immense

  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Concurrent 
Resolution 218, the budget resolution for fiscal year 1995.
  Last year, the Democrats in Congress took a bold step and approved 
the principles of President Clinton's economic growth and deficit 
reduction package outlined in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. 
Not one Republican joined us in supporting this plan. Instead, they 
stood up here spreading misinformation and giving dire predictions 
about its impact on the economy. They said the plan would destroy our 
economy, increase the deficit and kill jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, the economic reality is that last year's budget package 
has strengthened this economy. In fact, in recent testimony to the 
Joint Economic Committee, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said 
``* * * the underlying, long-term economic outlook in this country is 
improving quite measurably and, indeed, I don't recall as good an 
underlying base for the long-term outlook that we have today in the 
last two or three decades.''
  Under President Bush, the economy grew at the slow rate of merely 1.5 
percent, the weakest growth of the post-war period. The President's 
plan has turned this around. In 1993, the economy grew at a rate of 3.2 
percent and topped off with a rate of 7.5 percent in the last quarter. 
Leading indicators show that the economy will continue its strong 
performance.
  In addition, under the President's plan, the deficit has shown 
dramatic improvement. Deficits are at their lowest levels as a percent 
of GDP since 1979. In 1993, the deficit was $73 billion less than 
projected under President Bush. The deficit forecast for 1994 has 
dropped by $70 billion and by over $100 billion for 1995. This will be 
the first time in 50 years that the deficit will drop for 3 consecutive 
years.
  Finally, during President Clinton's first 13 months, over two million 
jobs were created--twice the number of jobs created during President 
Bush's entire 4 years. The unemployment rate has declined by a full 
percentage point, the largest annual drop in unemployment in 6 years.
  This year's budget resolution continues the process of reducing the 
deficit and rebuilding our economy outlined in last year's budget 
package. It implements the spending cuts mandated by the 5-year deficit 
reduction package. Under the resolution, the deficit will drop to $175 
billion in fiscal year 1995, $115 billion less than 3 years ago. In 
addition, the resolution conforms to the spending caps for 
discretionary spending established by the deficit reduction package. 
Under these caps, discretionary spending will actually fall for the 
first time since 1969.
  The budget resolution also contains the President's proposals for 
investment in areas key to our sustained economic growth, including 
education, training, community development and crime control. The 
resolution increases funding for Head Start, job training programs for 
dislocated workers, one-stop career centers and a number of crime 
initiatives, including community policing, border security and illegal 
immigration control.
  Mr. Chairman, last year, President Clinton introduced his economic 
and deficit reduction package and gave this country new direction and 
new hope for the future. Today, we have the opportunity to further the 
success of this program by pursuing the deficit reduction and economic 
revitalization outlined in the budget resolution. I urge all my 
colleagues to support the President and vote for House Concurrent 
Resolution 218.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the budget proposed 
by the gentlewoman from Maryland and I am appalled that we will not 
even be allowed to consider it during these discussions over the budget 
resolution. By increasing each line item of Federal spending by 2 
percent, the Bentley proposal does not pick winners or losers. At the 
same time, it would save close to $800 billion over the next 5 years. 
This could be the perfect, nonpolitical, nonpartisan, easy vote on the 
budget. No taxes, increase every item of Federal spending by the same 
percentage, and have a budget surplus by 1999.
  I said there would be no winners or losers if we could debate and 
vote for the Bentley proposal. That's not quite right. I should have 
said there would only be winners. The American public would win, 
because we would put our economic house in order. The economy would 
win, and the Federal Government would win, because we would not be 
forced to devote so many resources to interest payments on a mounting 
Federal debt.
  I commend the gentlewoman from Maryland for her foresight and 
commiserate with her on the unfortunate decision by this body which 
will not allow us to give serious attention to her proposal.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House 
Concurrent Resolution 218, the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 1995, as reported by the Budget Committee. At a time when 
budget rules and fiscal constraints limit our options, this budget 
resolution offers the foresight of renewed investment in this Nation's 
most precious resource--our people.
  Over the past three decades, I have fought to sustain a commitment of 
resources to the education of our children and the training of our 
workers. Just 3 years ago, I proudly championed a successful homefront 
budget initiative which set education and training as a priority in 
allocating the Federal budget. The House adopted my amendment on this 
floor as part of the budget process in recognition of the great future 
return on the near-term investment in these programs.
  Today, I rise in support of what I view as an extension of my earlier 
effort. While I would gladly support a more generous commitment to 
education and training, this budget is a good step in the right 
direction. I offer to work with my colleagues to see the fulfillment of 
the pledge we make here today--promoting better educated younger people 
and better trained workers.
  I strongly support the budget resolution because it implements the 
President's decision to invest scarce resources in the Nation's working 
people. Such investments in the work force will increase the value of 
our Nation's most distinctive asset--its workers. This focus upon 
America's ``human capital'' will help our workers increase their wages 
in our increasingly competitive global economy. The resolution ensures 
that more than a billion new dollars will go to initiatives to train 
high school graduates and unemployed workers for better jobs. This 
funding will make legislation to establish skill standards, to promote 
school-to-work transition programs, and to make reemployment a reality.
  I also strongly support the budget resolution because it ensures 
funding of the administration's proposals to strengthen the enforcement 
of labor standards laws in the Nation's workplaces. The resolution 
gives the Department of Labor the additional resources necessary for 
enforcing the wage and hour, occupational health and safety, and 
pension laws of the Nation. These additional resources are a good start 
toward reversing the neglect of workers' rights of the last two 
administrations.
  At this point in the Record, I offer a letter from the Committee for 
Education Funding [CEF] in support of the Budget Committee-reported 
budget resolution. The CEF has always been there to plead the case of 
our young people. Its members have been and continue to be valued 
partners in the fight to sustain adequate resources for education--and 
the Nation's future.

                              Committee for Education Funding,

                                                    March 9, 1994.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the member organizations 
     of the Committee for Education Funding, we urge you to vote 
     for the FY 1995 House Budget Resolution as reported by the 
     House Budget Committee on March 3rd. The Committee resolution 
     makes the education, training, employment and social service 
     needs of our nation's citizens a priority. The budget plan 
     includes a $3.6 billion increase for Function 500 (education 
     and training), affirming the President's recommendation for a 
     substantial investment in the programs of the Labor, HHS, 
     Education Appropriations Subcommittee. We also urge you to 
     vote against any alternative budget plan that cuts funding 
     for education programs below the Committee-reported 
     resolution.
       The overall numbers in the Budget Resolution reflect the 
     President's investment in the education and training of our 
     nation's most precious resource--our people. As stated in the 
     report, a renewed investment in education is ``one of the 
     most prudent policy decisions our government can make to 
     improve our nation's ability to fulfill our hopes and 
     expectations for the future.'' The report notes that 
     ``schools are facing greater challenges in educating 
     children. Violence on our streets has invaded the classrooms 
     of our schools. School facilities are deteriorating, and 
     funds are lacking to provide new equipment and keep up with 
     advances in technology.''
       In a photographic essay in the February 20th New York Times 
     Magazine, the stark contrast between our deteriorating 
     schools and the costly renovation of prison facilities are 
     clearly portrayed. ``Seventy percent of all prison space in 
     use today has been built since 1985, at a cost of $32.9 
     billion. But only 11 percent of the nation's classrooms were 
     constructed during the 1980's * * * The courts, citing the 
     constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment, require 
     states to maintain decent prisons. But the Constitution 
     doesn't address school class size or library resources.'' The 
     budget resolution as reported by the Committee is an 
     important step in addressing dire needs in education.
       In the weeks ahead, the House will be setting spending 
     priorities by allocating funds to each of the 13 
     appropriations subcommittees. We urge members to insist that 
     the President's recommended increase to the Labor, HHS, 
     Education Appropriations Subcommittee that is reaffirmed in 
     the Budget Resolution, is actually translated into the 602(b) 
     appropriations allocations. The President made education a 
     priority, despite tight fiscal constraints set by the budget 
     caps. We urge you to do the same.
           Sincerely,


      the 1994 committee for education funding executive committee

         Beth B. Buehlmann, CEF President, California State 
           University; John B. Forkenbrock, CEF Vice-President, 
           National Association of Federally Impacted Schools; 
           Violet A. Boyer, CEF Treasurer, National Association of 
           Independent Colleges and Universities; Richard A. 
           Kruse, CEF Past President, National Association of 
           Secondary School Principals; David Baime, American 
           Association of Community Colleges; William Bruno, 
           National School Boards Association; Edward M. 
           Elmendorf, American Association of State Colleges and 
           Universities; Carnie C. Hayes, Council of Chief State 
           School Officers; Maureen Hoyler, National Council of 
           Educational Opportunity Associations; Gerald Morris, 
           American Federation of Teachers; Thomas C. Polgar, 
           Paramount Communications Inc.; Michael Pons, National 
           Education Association; Adele Robinson, National 
           Association of State Boards of Education; Chuck 
           Russell, Texas Education Agency; Dena G. Stoner, 
           Council of Educational Development and Research; Tom E. 
           Netting, ex officio, Career College Association; 
           Richard Yep, ex officio, American Counseling 
           Association.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my 
opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 218 (H. Con. Res. 218) and 
strong support for two amendments--the Kasich/Republican budget 
initiative amendment and the Solomon-Fawell-Upton amendment.
  The Republican budget provides lower spending, lower taxes, and lower 
deficits than proposed in the Democrat budget. The Republican budget 
also tackles major initiatives in its 5 year spending outline.
  I would like to take a few moments to outline several of these 
initiatives. First, the Republican budget includes a family tax credit. 
This tax credit provides a $500 per-child tax credit to families 
earning less than $200,000 a year. Residents in my district will be the 
beneficiaries of nearly $60 million in tax relief through this tax 
credit. Second, the Republican plan creates jobs and provides economic 
growth by changes in the tax code. These changes include--indexation of 
capital gains, fully deductible IRA accounts, deduction for capital 
losses on the sale of a primary residence, immediate expensing of 
business equipment, and an extension of the research and development 
tax credit. Third, this budget reduces the deficit by almost $152 
billion more than the Democrat budget proposal. Fourth, the Republican 
budget also incorporates a bold welfare reform proposal which stresses 
work instead of welfare. Fifth, the Republican budget contains a plan 
to regain control of our streets and neighborhoods through a tough 
anticrime measure, the Crime Control Act of 1993. Finally, the 
Republican budget fully funds the Affordable Health Care Now Act while 
the Democrat budget makes no provision whatsoever for health care 
reform.
  The Republican budget plan also provides a cost of living allowance 
[COLA] to Federal employees and military personnel. Further, the 
Republican budget plan provides a more reasonable blueprint for our 
national security needs. Relative to the President's budget, the 
Republican initiative restores $67 billion in the Defense budget.
  The proposals contained in the Republican budget initiative are paid 
for through real spending cuts and real reforms in how the Federal 
Government operates.
  I also strongly support the budget amendment proposed by colleagues 
Jerry Solomon, Harris Fawell, and Fred Upton. Their amendment to House 
Concurrent Resolution 218 balances the budget in 5 years. It calls for 
over 500 specific cuts. The Solomon-Fawell-Upton amendment cuts over 
$600 billion in Federal spending. This plan does not raise taxes or 
touch the Social Security trust fund. Many of the cuts contained in the 
Solomon-Fawell-Upton plan stem from recommendations from the Concord 
coalition, the Grace Commission, the Congressional Budget Office 
Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayer's Union, the 
Heritage Foundation, the Porkbusters coalition, and the 
administration's reinventing Government proposal.
  As a strong supporter of a balanced budget amendment, I am also 
highly supportive of the Solomon-Fawell-Upton budget which balances the 
budget within 5 years without raising taxes, affecting the Social 
Security retirement trust fund, or cutting the benefits of veterans.
  I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to resist the 
status quo budget presented by the majority and to support the bold, 
progressive, and innovative budget blueprints presented by the 
Republican members of the Budget Committee and the Solomon-Fawell-Upton 
budget.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the budget resolution 
as reported by the Budget Committee and commend Chairman Sabo and the 
committee for their thoughtful work.
  The Clinton budget builds on the strong foundation of deficit 
reduction, economic growth, and job creation that was established last 
year in the Clinton economic plan. This budget resolution reverses the 
policies of the past. The resolution keeps budget deficits on a 
downward path--this will be the first time in 26 years that the total 
discretionary spending will actually decline from one year to the next 
without even an adjustment for inflation. The President and Congress 
have cut spending first.
  Despite these unprecedented reductions in total spending, the Clinton 
budget reflects investments in economic growth, in fighting crime, and 
in developing the skills of American workers and our children. This 
budget builds on the significant steps in the right direction that have 
made our Nation so much more hopeful over the last year.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a tough but a good budget. The President and 
the Budget Committee are to be commended for their discipline and their 
vision in shaping this budget.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, in designing his budget, the President 
has failed to address our Nation's priorities: deficit reduction, 
controlling the debt, shrinking Government, maintaining national 
security, and highlighting key initiatives such as health care reform, 
welfare reform, and efforts to combat crime.
  This administration continues to confuse reductions in the percentage 
of increased spending with actual spending cuts. Moreover, the 
administration does not explain that while the annual deficit may be 
reduced in the short term, each fiscal deficit continues to add to the 
burgeoning national debt. In fact, under the Clinton budget, the 
Federal debt will grow from $4.6 trillion in fiscal year 1994 to nearly 
$6.3 trillion in fiscal year 1999, an increase of $1.7 trillion over 5 
years. Additionally, the deficit will increase from $176 billion in 
fiscal year 1995 to $201 billion in fiscal year 1999. The $176.1 
billion deficit, which is the lowest the deficit has been since the 
mid-1980's, reflects three factors which had nothing to do with 
President Clinton's policies. The country does not have to spend $27 
billion for the savings and loan cleanup process, $25 billion for 
reduced Medicare costs, or $20 billion due to economic growth. 
Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] now estimates the 
deficit will exceed $365 billion by the year 2004. It is painfully 
obvious that Federal spending is not being controlled.
  The one area of Federal spending which is being cut significantly is 
the defense budget. Defense spending will fall from $292.4 billion in 
fiscal year 1993 to $258.1 billion in fiscal year 1999, representing a 
decline of 11 percent in real terms over 5 years. Moreover, the budget 
does not contain the $20 billion in additional funding requested by the 
Department of Defense to implement former Secretary Aspin's ``bottom-up 
review.'' Quite simply, the President's defense budget does not meet 
national security requirements.
  Probably the most puzzling aspect of the administration's budget is 
what is missing. The three most important legislative initiatives this 
year will likely be health care reform, welfare reform, and efforts to 
combat crime. Inexplicably, these three issues were primarily omitted 
from the budget. While the President pledged support for 100,000 new 
police officers, his budget only funds 50,000. President Clinton's 
alleged support for the $22 billion Senate crime bill rings hollow when 
his budget approves only $2.3 billion, notably proposing no funding to 
assist States to build new prisons. While welfare reform was 
highlighted in the State of the Union Address, the President's budget 
offered no ideas on how to pay for expanded job training and placement, 
medical care, day care, and other family support benefits. Finally, the 
budget offers an incomplete picture of the actual cost of the 
administration's health care plan. The budget omits over $100 billion 
in mandatory premiums as well as the spending resulting from those 
receipts. Moreover, according to CBO, the White House underestimated 
the plan's cost by $132 billion.


                     Education and Labor Priorities

  Mr. Chairman, as the ranking Republican of the Education and Labor 
Committee, I would like to state for the record what my priorities 
would be had I prepared an ``Education and Labor Budget Alternative.''
  I have always said that Members who wish to cut the deficit must 
begin by examining the programs under their own jurisdiction. During 
the last couple of months, I have been working with the Republican 
members of the Budget Committee to share ideas for budget savings in 
Education and Labor Committee programs. During that process I 
recommended numerous cuts, which would save billions of dollars.
  In this section of my statement I will also point out issues 
contained in the various Republican budget alternatives, on which I do 
not necessarily agree. I want to stress, however, that just because I 
may disagree with some of the recommendations of my Republican 
colleagues it does not mean that I do not support the general thrust of 
their budget alternatives. After all, that is all a budget resolution 
really is meant to provide--the general budgetary blueprint for the 
coming fiscal year. All the programmatic assumptions made in a budget 
resolution are only advisory, and are not binding.


                   elementary and secondary education

  As the reauthorization for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
(H.R. 6) further progresses through Congress, I want to reiterate my 
support for continued funding for the chapter 2 and Even Start 
programs. I would increase funds for chapter 2 by consolidating into it 
several other smaller education programs, instead of eliminating it as 
the administration has requested. I do, however, support the 
administration's fiscal year 1995 request of $118 million for Even 
Start.
  The administration has requested a substantial increase in funds for 
chapter 1, but I would defer any increase until we are assured that 
true quality reform for this program will be passed by Congress and 
implemented by the administration.
  The Republican/Kasich alternative proposes to eliminate both ``a'' 
and ``b'' impact aid payments. While I support the elimination of ``b'' 
payments, I differ with my colleagues with regard to eliminating ``a'' 
payments.
  In addition to ESEA, I again recommend continuing the effort to close 
the funding gap in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
[IDEA] mandate. As of fiscal year 1983, the Federal Government was 
mandated to contribute 40 percent of the excess cost of educating 
children with disabilities. The Federal Government currently only 
provides, and the administration only requests funding for, 7 percent 
of the cost necessary to educate disabled children.
  Also regarding disabled children, I do not support the specific 
recommendations of the Republican/Kasich alternative that would 
eliminate SSI payments for children under 16 with disabilities. While 
SSI payments are not within the jurisdiction of the Education and Labor 
Committee, most issues regarding disabled children are, and so I want 
to state for the record that this is one area where I differ.


                      food and nutrition programs

  My priorities for food and nutrition programs are: streamlined 
procedures to reduce costs to State and local governments; elimination 
of the fraud and abuse that threaten the system; and guaranteeing 
nutritional quality for those served. At a time of limited Government 
resources it is imperative that we stretch those resources to serve the 
greatest number of people.
  It is also a priority for me to assure continued section 4 grant-in-
aid payments to provide support for the basic infrastructure of the 
National School Lunch Program. It is essential that these payments 
continue tin order for the School Lunch Program to continue. Evidence 
shows that if funding were reduced to target only low-income children, 
then some schools would not be able to afford providing lunch services 
at all. This is one area where I am not in agreement with the different 
Republican alternatives.
  I would also continue funding for the Cash/CLOS Demonstration 
Program, which allows schools to purchase commodities through Commodity 
Letters of Credit [CLOC].


                        postsecondary education

  Regarding postsecondary education programs, I continue to support the 
elimination of the Pell grant shortfall and increased funding for the 
Pell Grant Program as I have done under prior administrations. 
Increases to Pell grant funds serve those students most in need and 
ensure access to postsecondary education for all students.

  Another program which I have strongly favored over the years is the 
college Work-Study Program and I support increased funding for this 
program.
  The various Republican alternatives uniformly support the elimination 
of several higher education programs, which I think are vital to our 
Nation's students. I am particularly concerned about eliminating the 
State Student Incentive Grant Program [SSIG] and the Supplemental 
Educational Opportunity Grant Program [SEOG], both of which require 
matching funds from States and both of which serve the neediest 
students. I am also troubled by the proposed elimination of all campus-
based aid, including SEOG, Perkins loans which are low interest loans 
made to needy undergraduates and graduates, and Work Study which 
requires matching funds and provides students both financial aid and 
valuable work experience. Redirecting one-half of the savings to the 
Pell Grant Program if the campus-based programs are eliminated will 
assist needy students, but this redirection of funds will not come 
close to helping the numbers of students who currently benefit from the 
campus-based programs.


                            human resources

  In the human resources area, I would like to make three 
recommendations. First, I recommend that the funding for the Low-Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP], that has already been 
appropriated for fiscal year 1995, be maintained. I oppose the 
administration's request to cut that funding by $707 million. Even the 
Democrat Budget Resolution, which departs from the administration's 
request, would cut LIHEAP by $187 million.
  Second, I recommend that funding for Head Start be maintained at 
current levels plus inflation, until we are able to determine whether 
some real quality reforms emerge from the reauthorization process, and 
until any such reforms have been implemented.
  Third, the administration's budget calls for a 48 percent--$275 
million--increase in budget authority for fiscal year 1995 for the 
recently enacted national service initiative. This program is not even 
fully implemented yet, and so I strongly oppose the idea of increasing 
funding for it. Even the Democrat Budget Resolution, which departs from 
the administration's request, would increase National Service funding 
by $175 million.
  Further regarding national service, I recommend applying a needs 
analysis to the educational awards. In this way limited Federal dollars 
for this program would go to the students most in need of assistance to 
attend college. This would not result in a budget savings, but it would 
result in more money being available for more needy participants in the 
program, once it is up and running.


                              job training

  Mr. Chairman, last year the General Accounting Office [GAO] issued a 
report that listed 154 separate Federal job training programs. While I 
do not agree with the GAO that all of the programs listed are truly job 
training programs, I nonetheless recognize that far too much 
duplication and fragmentation exists within Federal education and 
training programs designed to serve adults and out-of-school youth. 
Therefore, I recommend funding for most of the major education and 
training programs which serve this population--including vocational and 
adult education programs, and programs serving disadvantaged youth and 
adults under JTPA--at approximately the fiscal year 1994 levels.
  Yet I also recommend consolidating 84 individual training programs--
as listed by the GAO--into 7 broad block grants, consisting of 12 major 
programs. This consolidation is expected to result in administrative 
savings over time, and would immediately result in much cleaner and 
more flexible funding streams going down to the States and local areas 
for these programs. I also recommend the elimination altogether of 
several other unnecessary programs listed in the GAO report as job 
training programs--most of which fall outside the jurisdiction of the 
Education and Labor Committee--for a total savings of approximately $1 
billion over fiscal year 1994. These eliminations could be accomplished 
without adversely affecting our true Federal employment and training 
programs.
  I appreciated the opportunity to work with Republican members of the 
Budget Committee to share with them this recommended consolidation 
idea. While I strongly support this consolidation effort, which should 
improve program efficiency and result in administrative savings, I am 
concerned over the level by which these programs--beyond our 
recommendations--were reduced in the Republican budget resolution 
alternative. I do want to note, however, that this proposal does 
provide moderate increases in funding for training programs for 
disadvantaged youth and for dislocated workers.
  In the work force preparation area, I recommend modest increases for 
a consolidated dislocated worker program; for the development of 
occupational skill standards; for the establishment of a school-to-work 
transition system; and for incentives to States and localities to 
implement reforms leading to a coordinated system of one-stop-shopping 
delivery of training services. All of these recommendations fall within 
our recommendations for a much more efficient and flexible system of 
workforce development in this Country, and represent significantly 
smaller increases than proposed by the administration's budget in this 
area.


                                 labor

  Mr. Chairman, with regard to labor issues I have several priorities.
  The Department of Labor proposes $36 million to be allocated for 
increased enforcement. I submit that the Department has adequate 
enforcement and that the administration should apply any surplus here 
to the deficit or to programs to help small employers learn how to 
comply with these complex laws. For example, OSHA has a consultation 
program which could be more adequately funded under this approach.
  I recommended that the costs of any new Federal mandates on State or 
local governments must be determined in advance and/or will be 
applicable only to the extent that the Federal Government provides 
offsetting moneys. This recommendation is consistent with legislation 
that I have sponsored--see H.R. 1295. This is a recommendation that 
applies to all areas within the jurisdiction of the Education and Labor 
Committee, and to all issues before Congress for that matter.
  I recommend amending the Federal Employees' Compensation Act [FECA] 
to prohibit individuals from receiving FECA benefits if they have been 
convicted of FECA fraud. This would result in a savings of $22.6 
million over 5 years. (See H.R. 3491).
  I, along with all of the Republican Budget alternatives, recommend 
repealing the Davis-Bacon Act and exempting Federal construction 
projects from the reporting requirements of the Copeland Act. This 
would result in a savings of approximately $3.3 billion over 5 years. 
At a minimum, the threshold for coverage under the Davis-Bacon Act 
should be raised and the reporting requirements under the Copeland Act 
should be reduced.
  Again, I and all the Republican Budget alternatives recommend 
amending the Service Contract Act to eliminate the successorship 
provision, thereby permitting successor contractors to pay lower wage 
rates or to provide less costly fringe benefits than those provided by 
their predecessors. This would result in a savings of $900 million over 
5 years. Furthermore, repealing the Service Contract Act would result 
in more significant savings.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health [NIOSH] was established in order to be the research arm for 
occupational health and safety issues. While some of its activities are 
focused on research, much of its work in recent years has been focused 
on making recommendations for regulatory action by MSHA, OSHA, and 
other agencies. This leads to a confusing situation--one Government 
agency, which does not have responsibility for action, telling another 
agency, which does have that responsibility, what to do. I recommend 
eliminating NIOSH, saving $133 million from the administration's 
budget.

  The National Performance Review [NPR] recommended that OSHA establish 
a program using what it termed ``market mechanisms'' to improve safety 
and health, and specifically recommended the use of incentives to 
encourage employers to utilize third party auditors to review the 
workplace. This proposal is similar to proposals for changing the OSHA 
program contained in legislation proposed by Education and Labor 
Republicans--see H.R. 2937. It is not a budget savings, but it would 
allow for better utilization of Government resources, and thus 
alleviate the need for any ``army of OSHA inspectors to descend on 
American employers.''
  I recommend allowing voluntary electronic filing of ERISA Annual 
Financial Reports--Forms 5500--and further consideration of how to 
increase the percentage of reports filed electronically. This is a 
desirable method of significantly reducing the cost of processing--cost 
shared by DOL and the IRS--and reducing the 3-year delay it takes to 
obtain information from an annual filing.
  I recommend amending the ERISA requirement for the filing of summary 
plan descriptions by employee benefit plan administrators with the DOL. 
Since the summary plan descriptions are actually filed for only a small 
percentage of plans, the cost to maintain the system and the 
administrative burden on employers far outweigh its public benefit. The 
NPR suggest that this program change would save approximately $600,000 
in fiscal years over a 5-year period.
  I recommend amending and enhancing the Department of Labor's Return-
to-Work Program which assists occupationally disabled Federal workers 
return to work. By overhauling the program substantial savings could be 
gained by reducing long-term benefit costs to the Government. The NPR 
estimates that the change would result in approximately $125.7 million 
in savings over a 5-year period.
  Finally, I recommend that Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation [PBGC] 
reform legislation be enacted this Congress in order to prevent the 
occurrence of substantial long-term costs and the insolvency of the 
pension plan termination insurance programs administered by the PBGC.


                               Conclusion

  In conclusion Mr. Chairman, I believe, in general, we need to pass 
economic policies which cut domestic spending; provide for a 
responsible defense budget which meets national security requirements 
in a volatile and unpredictable world; reduce the burden of taxes and 
mandates on private enterprise--the job creators; and eliminate the 
deficit so that we can begin the long and difficult task of reducing 
the national debt. I hope Congress will pass, and the President will 
support, a fiscally responsible budget that addresses these fundamental 
criteria.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, today this House debates the budget of the 
U.S. Government for the years 1995 through 1999.
  As we begin this debate it is clear that the Congress has arrived at 
a fork in the road. We have a choice.
  We can go down one fork in the road recommended by President Clinton, 
or we can go down the other fork recommended by those of us who serve 
as Republican members of the House Budget Committee.
  The road that President Clinton wants us to take promises the 
American people business as usual as far as the eye can see. Down this 
road we get bigger Government, higher taxes, and nearly $1 trillion 
more added to the national debt by 1999.
  Down the other road, mapped out by John Kasich, and unanimously 
supported by all his Republican colleagues on the Budget Committee, the 
American people get change.
  The Republican budget alternative reduces the deficit by $150 billion 
more than the Clinton plan.
  The Republican alternative provides tax relief for working families 
in the form of a $500 tax credit for children. It also provides capital 
gains indexing, Individual retirement accounts, and strong depreciation 
incentives--all designed to help small businesses create jobs and grow 
our economy.
  The Republican alternative truly reinvents Government by transferring 
Federal land and resources to the States. It also reinvents the 
Department of Agriculture--restoring it as an agency designed to 
empower farmers not bureaucrats.
  The Republican alternative includes comprehensive welfare reform, and 
tough punishment for crime.
  The Republican alternative includes a health care reform plan which 
identifies the problems with our health care system and fixes those 
problems. Our plan builds on the first health care system in the world 
and fundamentally rejects the socialist approach of the Clinton health 
plan. The Clinton health plan promises all the compassion of the IRS 
and the efficiency of the post office.
  The Republican alternative retains a strong defense to guarantee 
peace and security in a dangerous world.
  The Republican alternative calls for a budget which reflects the 
massive cost of Federal regulations and redtape, and then sets out to 
reduce that redtape.
  Now let's contrast this vision of change with Mr. Clinton's budget. 
The White House would like Americans to believe that the President's 
budget is a tough budget filled with spending cuts. Unfortunately, many 
in the media have bought into this deception.
  The facts lead to a very different conclusion. According to the 
President's own budget document, Federal outlays will rise from $1.4 
trillion in 1993 to $1.74 trillion in 1998. Only in Washington would a 
$330 billion increase be considered a tough budget.
  What makes these numbers more striking is that because of President 
Reagan's victory in the cold war we are today able to spend $70 billion 
less in real terms on defense than we did in 1987.
  Even with dramatic declines in defense spending, we find overall 
spending going up. This tells us one simple fact: Domestic spending 
under President Clinton is growing by leaps and bounds.
  Let me point out several specifics which demonstrate the problem with 
the Clinton budget. As a member of the Budget Committee, I was 
responsible for developing four areas in the Republican budget. These 
were natural resources, agriculture, energy, and science. Lets compare 
the difference in these areas with President Clinton's budget.
  The Republican alternative cuts outlays in the natural resources area 
$17 billion more than Clinton over 5 years. In energy, the Republican 
plan cuts $16.4 billion more in outlays over 5 years. In agriculture, 
we achieve $10.6 billion more in outlay savings. Only in science do we 
spend a modest $1.9 more in outlays than Clinton.
  In just four areas, the Republican alternative achieves $42 billion 
more in spending reduction over 5 years. This makes it clear why the 
Clinton budget continues to grow the Government.
  The choice at the fork in the road is clear: More of the same big 
Government with Mr. Clinton, or real change with the Republican plan. I 
vote for change.
  It is clear from this budget debate that the Democrats looked change 
in the eye, and blinked. By contrast the Republicans embraced it.
  President Clinton promised Americans family tax relief; the 
Republicans deliver it with the $500 tax credit for children.
  It is about time we started giving families a break.
  I am always amused when I listen to the media or read studies by 
academics talking about what the biggest expenses for families are.
  Sometimes we hear that the mortgage is the biggest expense.
  Sometimes we hear that food and clothing are the biggest expense.
  Sometimes we hear about education or transportation expenses.
  None of these are close to the biggest expense for most families.

  The biggest expense for middle class American family is taxes.
  Tax Freedom Day is the day each year that the average person works to 
pay the tax bill. Last year it was May 3, the latest ever. It will be 
even later this year with all the new Clinton tax hikes.
  This means that in the typical American family, the parents are 
working for the Government for the first 4 months of the year. Over a 
third of family income goes to Government.
  It is time to recognize this huge tax burden and give something back 
to the hard working families that pay the bills around here.
  It is also appropriate that this tax credit gives something to the 
young people of this country since they are going to be the ones 
responsible for paying the interest on the national debt that Congress 
keeps increasing.
  This $500 credit is the least we can give to our children. As it 
stands now, all the Democrat budget plan gives them is a $4.5 trillion 
debt.
  President Clinton and his Vice President continually talk about 
reinventing government. The Republican budget alternative doesn't just 
talk about reinventing government--we do it.
  Included in our plan is a complete overhaul of the Federal 
Government's natural resources policy.
  We dramatically downsize the Department of Interior--eliminating 
bureaucracy and consolidating the numerous Federal land agencies into 
one Federal Land Management Agency.
  We retain parks and land of an enduring national interest at the 
Federal level and transfer the remaining land and control to the 
States.
  I would like to quote from Vice President Gore's National Performance 
Review [NPR] in support of our proposal. Here the NPR is addressing the 
need to consolidate land programs within Interior:

       Federal lands managed by DOI's Bureau of Land Management 
     (BLM) and the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service 
     often lie side by side or are intermingled in many areas. 
     This dispersed ownership pattern prevents efficient 
     operations and results in fragmented assistance to customers.

  This sounds great, but the President's budget does nothing to address 
this. The Republican plan takes action. We combine the lands of many 
Federal agencies into one land management agency. The Republican plan 
doesn't just talk about the problem, it fixes the problem.
  Similarly, in the Department of Agriculture we work to empower 
farmers, not bureaucrats.
  We close more field offices than the administration, but avoid cuts 
in farm programs such as the administration's dramatic reduction in 
conservation cost share programs.
  Unlike the administration we don't only cut field offices that 
farmers use, we also cut field offices that have only administrative 
functions.
  I would now like to address the issue of health care reform. It is 
interesting to note that neither the President's original budget 
submission, or the Democrat budget plan accounts for the cost of the 
administration's health reform plan.
  Earlier in the year, Representative Penny and I introduced 
legislation to require that all Government mandated health care reform 
be on-budget where the American people can clearly see the level of 
taxes and outlays envisioned under the Clinton health plan or any other 
health reform plan that includes mandates.
  This is no small matter. A recent analysis by the Alexis de 
Tocqueville Institution, which I distributed to all members earlier 
this week, concludes that by the year 2004, when the Clinton plan is 
fully implemented, taxes would be $566 billion higher than without the 
Clinton plan. In effect, under the Clinton plan Federal taxes would be 
increased by 27 percent, by far the largest tax increase every.
  Last month, the Congressional Budget Office recommended that the 
Clinton health plan should be on-budget with the mandated premiums of 
employers and employees counted as Federal receipts and the 
expenditures of the health alliances counted as Federal outlays.
  Since CBO's view was only advisory, I have found it necessary to 
pursue this issue and help ensure that any health care reform enacted 
this year is properly accounted for in the Federal budget.
  Last week during the Budget Committee markup of this resolution I 
offered an amendment making clear that it is the understanding of the 
Budget Committee that any health care reform relying on mandated 
payments should be on-budget. I am pleased that this amendment passed 
and is included in the Sabo budget resolution.
  The American people are presented with two dramatically different 
visions for America in this budget debate. The Democrat-Clinton budget 
sees America's future in higher taxes, more spending, and bigger 
Government.
  By contrast, the Republican plan is a detailed vision of a 
dramatically scaled down Federal Government, lower taxes, and less 
control of our lives by Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, we have indeed arrived at a fork in the road. For 40 
years this House has been controlled by the Democrats. As a result we 
have continued down the road of bigger Government. It is time for a 
change.
  The American people are ready to take the other fork in the road--the 
fork that leads to less Government and more freedom.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the budget resolution 
before the House today.
  This resolution implements the spending cuts mandated by the deficit 
reduction package enacted by Congress last year.
  This resolution projects a deficit of $175 billion in fiscal year 
1995, a full $115 billion less than where our Nation was 3 years ago. 
It results in a deficit that represents the smallest share of our 
economy since 1979. That is significant progress my friends and the 
nay-sayers on the other side of the aisle should stand up and take 
note.
  To achieve these savings, we are trimming discretionary spending to 
$102 billion below the baseline level, by maintaining the spending caps 
on discretionary programs for fiscal years 1994 through 1998. In fact, 
this resolution is $6.8 billion in budget authority below the 
discretionary cap for fiscal year 1995.
  President Clinton's budget presented us with a number of important 
investment opportunities. This budget assumes 92 percent of these 
investments in such efforts as Head Start, job training, compensatory 
education, WIC, and crime control. This budget also assumes most of the 
extensive cuts in discretionary spending with the termination of 100 
programs and spending cuts in more than 200 others.
  This budget resolution wisely rejects the President's proposed cuts 
in low income energy assistance and in mass transit operating funds.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I want to 
congratulate my friend, Chairman Sabo, for his and his committee's 
efforts in putting it together.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, before any Members of this House try to sell 
the American people on the idea that the Federal budget deficit has 
been tamed--that Congress can take a respite from deficit-cutting this 
year--keep in mind that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated 
that the deficit will climb to $365 billion in less than a decade.
  The budget for fiscal year 1995, which has been proposed by the 
Budget Committee, and which closely mirrors the budget submitted by 
President Clinton, raises the white flag in the fight to reduce the 
deficit. In fact, were we not to pass this budget resolution and simply 
allow the budget to run on auto-pilot, deficits would actually be lower 
over 5 years by some $26 billion than they will be under the Clinton 
budget.
  Let me say that again: if we do nothing--if we simply allow the 
current budget to run on auto-pilot--the Nation will accumulate $26 
billion less in new debt than if we pass the Clinton budget.
  Mr. Chairman, the President and the committee had to struggle just to 
say within the spending caps they set in their own budget last year. 
They were left scrambling after the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] 
found that the President's plan exceeded the spending caps by $3.1 
billion.
  But, even that doesn't tell the whole story. The only way the 
President and the Budget Committee can make their budget numbers meet 
the spending caps is by omitting major spending initiatives they 
support.
  For example, the budget before us today does not include the costs of 
the President's health care reform plan, and those costs will be 
significant. Despite the President's suggestion that his health care 
plan will reduce deficits, the CBO determined just a day after he 
submitted his budget that the Clinton health plan would boost Federal 
budget deficits by $74 billion. And a week later, CBO upped that 
projection by $51 billion more--bringing the increase in the deficit 
attributable to the Clinton health care plan to a total of $125 billion 
over 9 years.

  The costs of welfare reform, the crime bill, and immigration reform 
are missing from this budget, as well. Once those are added, spending 
will increase further, and so will the budget deficit.
  This budget is short by $20 billion the amount which the Clinton 
administration's own Bottom-Up Review determined was necessary to meet 
the basic national security needs of the country.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution would score an incomplete in any 
classroom in America.
  This is a budget of stale ideas--just more spending and more debt.
  The alternative budget that is being proposed by the ranking 
Republican on the Budget Committee, John Kasich, is a budget of real 
change. The Kasich budget would reduce the Clinton deficits by $152.6 
billion over 5 years. By setting priorities, the Kasich budget is not 
only able to cut low-priority spending and achieve those savings, but 
also identify the resources and pay for health care reform, welfare 
reform, and a new crime initiative.
  The Kasich budget includes significant new economic growth 
incentives, including indexing of capital gains, fully deductible 
individual retirement accounts [IRA's], extension of the research and 
development tax credit, and immediate expensing of business equipment.
  And, most important, it gives badly needed tax relief to American 
families, providing a $500 per child tax credit. That provision alone 
will pump $375 million into Arizona's economy every year.
  Mr. Chairman, the Kasich budget provides tax relief. It includes, and 
fully funds, health care and welfare reform, and a major anticrime 
initiative. It does all these things and still cuts the Clinton 
deficits by more than $152 billion. How? It sets priorities for 
spending, something that has been lacking for far too long in this 
Chamber.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the committee-Clinton budget, and 
support the Kasich alternative.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this segment.
  Pursuant to the rule, it is now in order to debate the subject matter 
of amendment No. 4.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] will be recognized for 30 
minutes and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will be recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].


                   General debate on amendment No. 4

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], one of the leaders of the family 
movement in the House.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman and Members of the body, I want to strongly 
rise in support of the Kasich budget. This is the most important vote 
that any Member of Congress will be able to vote on with respect to 
helping the American family. In the Kasich budget, in the Republican 
budget, they give a $500 tax credit per child. Now, in the National 
Commission for Children, which President Clinton was on and Marian 
Wright Edelman, noted for being concerned with children, Senator 
Rockefeller, and our colleague from the other side, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller], came on and recommended a $1,000 tax credit. 
We can only give a $500 tax credit, but still it will make a 
difference.
  Second, why should we be for this? The American family is under more 
pressure today than any other time in the history of this country. 
Every indicator that you look at is going the wrong way: Child abuse is 
up, spouse abuse is up, teen suicide is up, teen pregnancy is up, teen 
violence is up. The Kasich budget deals with this issue by allowing 
moms and dads to keep more of their hard-earned money.
  They say the basic problem for the family is the twin deficits, not 
enough money to take care of the kids and not enough time to spend with 
their kids. The Kasich budget allows parents to keep more of their 
hard-earned money. We do not create a new Government agency, we do not 
hire more employees, we do not build more buildings, we just merely 
allow you in your tax returns to keep more of your hard-earned money.

  Last year we had a bill similar to this, with 240 cosponsors, both 
Republican and Democrats alike.
  Second, I as a father of five kids--and none of my kids can take 
advantage of this now, they are too old--but I wanted my children to 
have my values. If you want your children to have your values, you have 
to spend time with your children; you do not just publish a notice 
saying, ``These are the values of the family and you will live by 
them.''
  Values are not only taught to children, values are caught by 
children, as Dr. Dotson says. This bill will enable parents to spend 
more time with their kids. This is clearly--there are many other good 
things in the bill, many other things--but this one provision with 
regard to the $500 tax credit is the most pro-family issue that we have 
ever had.
  So I just strongly urge Members, frankly everyone on both sides of 
the aisle, to support this bill because this bill will do more than 
anything we have done in the last 10 years to help the American family.
  So I strongly rise and urge everyone to support this very, very 
reasonable proposal. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. He has done more 
in this proposal to help moms and dads and kids than anything we have 
done in this Congress for the last 10 years.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Virginia say that the people 
across this country, the American family, would like to cut paperclips 
and printing and transportation of bureaucrats in part to help pay for 
this? Or does the gentleman think they would rather invest in 
paperclips, travel, bureaucracy?
  Mr. WOLF. No, the moms and dads of this country would certainly favor 
this. Particularly, let me say the toughest job in the world is a 
single parent. The gentleman's bill does more to help single parents 
than anything we have done. So, clearly, they would like to make those 
cuts.
  I thank the gentleman again for his leadership. He has done more to 
help parents, particularly single parents, but all parents than any 
other single thing we have done. I hope the gentleman will get a 
unanimous vote from this side as well as the other side.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Kasich budget, putting families first. 
The Kasich budget is a dramatic shift in Government resources that 
directly reinvests in American families and provides incentives to 
increase job creation, private savings, and sound investments in the 
future by providing individuals and families with a greater 
participatory role in shaping and determining their own futures.
  The Kasich budget does all of this while cutting the budget by 
approximately $100 billion more than the President's budget. It also 
does this while putting a good welfare reform plan in place, reforming 
health care in a positive way that will help families and putting more 
money into crime control. This plan also does not harm present Federal 
employees or retirees and in fact will help many Federal employee 
families by providing them with a significant tax break. Given the hits 
they have taken in the past 2 years, this is good news. In short, the 
Kasich budget is good policy and it makes good sense.
  Instead of increasing taxes and writing off the middle class, the 
Kasich budget resurrects many of the promises made to the middle class 
during the election and help to revive the ability of families to 
personally invest in their future. The $500 child tax credit in the 
Kasich budget will scale back the heavy tax burden imposed on American 
families. This is a simple means of allowing families to keep more of 
their own hard earned money and invest it in their own families. Family 
tax relief is a good common sense policy that has support across the 
political spectrum ranging from the Heritage Foundation to the Family 
Research Council to the Progressive Policy Institute to the 
Communitarian Network. The National Commission on Children, which was 
chaired by Senator Rockefeller and included as members Bill Clinton, 
Marian Wright Edelman, and Congressman George Miller, endorsed a $1,000 
child tax credit. Surely, with this kind of broad based support, we can 
at least start this process this year.

  In 1992, candidate Clinton berated Beltway Democrats who want to 
spend more of your tax money on programs that don't embody your values. 
In January 1992 as a Presidential candidate, Bill Clinton said that 
family tax relief was the answer. He said the one glaring difference 
between himself and Democratic rival Paul Tsongas was his support for a 
middle-class tax cut. This tax cut was to be in the form of a child-
based tax credit or a reduction in middle-class tax rates; families 
would select one or the other. In his campaign treatise, ``Putting 
People First,'' Mr. Clinton reiterated this policy: ``Virtually every 
industrialized nation recognizes the importance of strong families in 
its tax code: we should too.''
  In the 102d Congress a family tax relief measure that I introduced, 
H.R. 1277, which increased the dependent deduction for children, gained 
the bipartisan support of 262 House Members. In the 103rd Congress this 
same measure, introduced as H.R. 436, has the support of 208 Members. 
This measure would increase the dependent deduction from the present 
level of $2,350 to $3,500. The $500 tax credit for children included in 
the Kasich budget is the equivalent of increasing the dependent 
deduction to approximately $6,000 for a family in the 15 percent 
bracket. This tax credit serves the same purposes and will allow 
families to keep more of their own hard-earned money.
  The growing tax toll on families burdens millions of, if not most, 
families. When state and local taxes are included, Government now takes 
over one-third of the income of the average family. During the past 
four decades, the tax protection for families has shrunk to one-quarter 
of what it was in the 1950s. If the dependent deduction had kept pace 
with inflation and per capita income, it would stand at over $8,000 a 
person this year, according to the Urban Institute, rather than the 
1992 level of $2,300.
  Furthermore, two-thirds of the average working mother's earnings go 
to paying for increases in Federal taxes over the past several decades 
rather than providing additional income for her family. Uncle Sam gets 
more out of Mom's paycheck than do her own children.

  Not surprisingly, the condition of children and families has declined 
along with this increased taxation on families. Yet, while today's 
families are under tremendous cultural pressures and social changes, 
they are forced by financial realities to spend less and less time 
attending to family matters. Daily, we see the adverse effects of this 
downward spiral.
  A recent report by former Education Secretary William Bennett 
identifying various cultural indicators of well-being paints a 
disturbing picture of our culture today: There has been a 419-percent 
increase in illegitimate births since 1960; more than a 200-percent 
increase in the teenage suicide rate; and quadrupling in divorce rates; 
a tripling of the percentage of children living in single-parent homes; 
a drop of almost 80 points in SAT scores; and a 560-percent increase in 
violent crime, much of it by perpetrators of a younger and younger age. 
Another frequently cited study noted that parents today spend 40 
percent less time with their children than did parents a generation 
ago. And all of this has occurred while total social spending by all 
levels of government--measured in constant 1990 dollars--has risen from 
$143 billion to $787 billion--more than a fivefold increase. Inflation-
adjusted spending on welfare has increased by 630 percent, spending on 
education by 225 percent. Bennett writes, ``Never before has the reach 
of government been greater or its purse larger--and never before have 
our social pathologies been worse.''
  It is time to put families first again. The Kasich budget does 
exactly that. I invite my many colleagues who supported this tax relief 
measure to join us in supporting the Kasich budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the gentleman from Ohio, 
does the gentleman intend to make a general presentation on his plan?
  Mr. KASICH. I would say to the gentleman, what we do is have a lineup 
of some speakers who are going to basically talk about it. I am not 
writing what they are going to say, but they obviously are going to 
reflect the part of the plan that they support, such as the gentleman 
from Virginia has just done. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] is 
going to have some comments of a more general nature.
  Mr. SABO. I was planning a general response to what I assumed would 
be a general presentation by the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. I think it will be more general presentation on the plan, 
and then of course we have the extra time tomorrow to do it again. I am 
not sure what the gentleman is looking for. I am not sure what the 
gentleman wants me to tell him.
  We are going to have 30 minutes' worth of speakers who are going to 
outline why they support this.
  Mr. SABO. They are going to be speaking to individual parts of it, 
not to the totality?
  Mr. KASICH. I would say to the gentleman I cannot tell him that, I do 
not know. I think some will be specific, such as Mr. Wolf; some will be 
more general, like the distinguished gentleman from Texas; Mr. Allard 
will be more general. I do not know about the rest of it yet.
  Mr. SABO. Very well. I was getting geared up to follow the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would first comment 
about some of the comments I heard earlier that somehow things are on 
automatic pilot. That is simply not the case. We are on a program that 
is producing significant deficit reduction. We had projections of 
deficits well over $300 billion a year. They are coming down to 
approximately $255 billion for last year, projected at about $255 
billion this current year, and projected to go down under this program 
to $175 billion in 1995.
  This plan involves significant changes from the administration's 
proposal and from plans of a year ago, as we continue on course on a 
significant deficit reduction program designed to get the economy 
going.
  Let me speak to some of the specifics of the Republican plan which we 
have before us. Clearly, the thought of giving a tax cut to people is 
always popular. But what do they do? You know, a year ago we passed a 
substantial increase in the earned income tax credit for people working 
hard and at the bottom of the economic scale in this country. Are they 
eligible for the Republican tax credit? No.
  If your income is $16,000, you are not eligible if you are a family 
of 4. But the benefit goes, and continues, to people with incomes up to 
$200,000.
  But what strikes me more than anything about this plan is the hidden 
explosion of tax cuts contained in the bill and under their proposals.
  Substantial increases in business depreciation, in IRA's, primarily 
benefiting the most affluent; indexation of capital gains, with over 50 
percent of the benefits going to people with incomes over $200,000. How 
do they do it?

                              {time}  1420

  They structure it so we do not see the costs in this 5-year window, 
but they explode in costs after this 5 years.
  Our estimate:
  We do not say it with detailed language, but our estimates are that 
the costs of the benefits for high income people, changes in business 
depreciation for business, will cost in the neighborhood of $40 billion 
a year once we get beyond the window of the 5-year-pay-go provisions.
  What about what does this amendment do, some of the basic things we 
are trying to do to get America going again both in the short term and 
then in long term?
  I say, if your interest is research, it gets cut whether it is in 
NSF, whether it is in energy and seeking to find funding for 
alternative energy resources in this country. All those programs get 
cut. If you are concerned about a program like NISTA, trying to make 
grants to push the technology of this country, cut, a good number of 
them simply eliminated. Transportation, basic infrastructure of this 
country for highways and transportation, cut. Operating subsidies, cut. 
Costs transferred to local units of government. Amtrak, Northeast 
Corridor, eliminated. Education and training.
  As my colleagues know, I did not support NAFTA, but I listened to 
people who supported NAFTA, and they said, ``We know it is going to 
create some dislocation in our economy. We are going to have to put 
special emphasis on training, over 5 years in education, training, 
employment and social services.''
  Mr. Chairman, the Kasich amendment cuts education by $53.3 billion in 
budget authority, close to $45 billion in outlays. Impact aid, 
eliminated. Guaranteed student loans, changed. So, students have to pay 
close to $10 billion for over the 5-year period, and it goes on and on, 
a couple of billion dollars more cut from training programs.
  The President's proposal for additional job training, not funded. 
Health, increased. Research to deal with the vital health issues before 
this country, cut. And then, of course, we get to Medicare, big, 
substantial cuts in Medicare, $45 billion, most of it involving not 
reduction in programs, but transfer of costs from the Government to the 
elderly, many of the proposals similar to some of the things that the 
President recommends in his program for comprehensive reform of health 
care in this country. And to do some of those things in that context, 
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut the knees off that proposal at 
this point in time.
  So, Mr. Chairman, veterans affairs, cut. Administration of justice, 
cut. It goes on and on.
  Mr. Chairman, it is basically an amendment that says we will do 
something for some middle class families today, but we will hide the 
fact that we are really passing the big tax cuts for business, for the 
high income people, and hide it in such a fashion that the costs show 
up beyond the 5-year window, basically saying, we do not want to 
readjust, reform, Government as the administration is doing, to cut 
what Government is doing in our society, but focusing on some of the 
primary needs of this country in health research, in education, 
training, in training our work force, in doing a better job of solving 
our criminal justice system in this country.
  So, Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I would urge the Members 
of this body to vote no on the Kasich amendment.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I can 
consume here to respond because it is very interesting what the 
chairman has said.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that they no 
longer can criticize our budget fundamentally on the basis of the 5 
years. Now they have got to reach beyond the 5 years in order to talk 
about how there is this great loss of revenue.
  First of all, every time we have been asked to pay for programs, we 
have done it. We met the Clinton challenge when he said, ``If you don't 
like our taxes, give us your specifics,'' and every time we give those 
folks the specifics, Mr. Chairman, they reject them in favor of more 
taxes.
  Now we also do not believe in the static system, making industry in 
America more competitive. As my colleagues know, it is the 
administration that is bashing the Japanese right now, and to some 
degree with good reason, but do my colleagues know what the capital 
gains tax is in Japan right now? It is zero I am told by the 
distinguished ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], and what we are trying to do is to 
say that people should be protected against inflation.
  Mr. Chairman, if a senior citizen sells their home, they bought their 
home at $50,000, they sell it at $100,000, and there is $30,000 worth 
of inflation, they should not pay taxes on inflation. Second, small 
businesses should be given incentive to be able to depreciate plant and 
equipment, and guess who uses plant and equipment in America? The 
American worker, to become more competitive.
  But what the chairman wants to say is, ``Well, we can't get it in the 
5 years. We'll get it in the outyears.''
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, we think we will have a growth. We will 
have added growth in this country by providing incentives to 
individuals and businesses that will help this economy; and, No. 2, we 
will pay for our programs, and it is interesting to note that the 
administration came up here with their health care plan which the 
General Accounting Office said turned health care over to the 
government, and it has disappeared from the budget. Why? Because it 
explodes the deficit, not only in the short run, but into the long run, 
almost into the year 2004, and then 2004 and on. I do not think the 
numbers are very credible.
  But let me tell my colleagues a couple of other things that he has 
said:

  So, in other words, we have got some growth elements, we have got 
family tax relief, we think the one positive element of the Clinton 
plan the last time were the tax incentives for poor Americans.
  We welcomed those. Those are Republican ideas. We went to enhance 
those. We want to give some relief to the American family by downsizing 
the Government more than the Clinton administration.
  The gentleman talks education, job training programs. My colleagues, 
the administration wants to invest in Washington bureaucracy. We want 
to solve the problems of Americans who cannot get job trained. Do my 
colleagues know what we do? We take 84 bureaucracies. We combine the 
programs into seven, and we send the money to the States, and we tell 
the Governors and the county commissioners, we think you are better at 
training people than a bureaucrat in Washington who does not even know 
what time zone it is where you live.
  And let me tell my colleagues what the General Accounting Office said 
about the job training programs:
  When reviewed individually, the more than 150 programs providing 
employment training, assistance, have well intended purposes.
  My colleagues have good purposes when they want to invest in 
Washington Bureaucracy. However collectively, and I am quoting the GAO, 
they create confusion and frustration for their clients and 
administrators, hamper the delivery of services tailored to the needs 
of those seeking assistance and create the potential for duplication of 
effort and unnecessary administrative costs.

                              {time}  1430

  We are convinced that a major structural overhaul and consolidation 
in employment training programs is needed. And we have major 
restructuring of the programs and we empower local people to fix the 
problems.
  I say to the other side, ``No, it is you who want to invest in 
Washington Bureaucracy. It is you who want to invest in government 
overhead.'' What we want to do is we want to trust the people in the 
States and in the local communities. That is why we developed our WIC-
plus program that consolidated all the nutrition programs and send them 
to the States. It saved $8 billion, and we said to the States, ``Double 
the amount of money for poor women, infants, and children.''
  We eliminate bureaucracy, and we eliminate redtape. Americans all 
over this country know that we need to chop the waste, the duplication, 
the redtape, and the inefficiency, and we need to improve the programs. 
That is precisely what we have done, and in the course of doing it, we 
have provided incentives to business so they can hire people. That is 
paid for.
  We decided that it is noble for people to save, so we created IRA's. 
No, we did not create it. Lloyd Bentsen created the IRA program in our 
budget, and we decided in the course of downsizing and improving the 
operation of the Federal Government we will contribute to deficit 
reduction $150 billion more than the administration, and at the same 
time we want to give the American family a piece of the savings because 
it represents some of the money that they send to this town. This town 
is intent and this administration is intent on maintaining the status 
quo.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague that there is not a better 
definition of the difference between the administration and the House 
Republicans than this budget proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, before I yield more time, let me yield myself 
such time as I may consume simply to say this: It is this 
administration that is using Federal employees by over 270,000 over a 
period of 5 years. Under this budget the amount of GDP that the Federal 
Government consumes by itself in goods and services is at the lowest 
level since 1948. It is this administration that is doing the hard work 
of reforming the Federal Government, of making it efficient, of 
streamlining it, and or turning around the record of the last 12 years 
of Republican administrations.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio, specifically to the draconian cuts that it makes 
in an area that I have been working on and that I think is important to 
every American family. I speak today as a microbiologist with a 
master's degree in Public Health and say quite honestly that the 
benefits to health research we have achieved over the last 4 years will 
be destroyed in the Kasich budget.
  We remember how hard we worked in this House to get where we are 
today. I think every American woman is beginning to realize that for 
years she had been completely ignored in health resources. We found 
this out first after the aspirin studies became known to us. We were 
told that an aspirin a day would help men to prevent heart attack or a 
stroke. We were delighted. We said, ``Every man we know shall certainly 
take this aspirin. Now, how much do we take?'' It was then that we 
discovered that women had been left out of the clinical trials, and 
that they had no idea if we would benefit.
  Over the years during the total neglect of the health care of women 
in this country, the incidence of breast cancer has risen in the United 
States while it has fallen in countries that are comparable to ours. As 
a matter of fact, every woman in this country knows that the statistics 
are 1 in 8. If we had any other plague that affected 1 in 8 Americans, 
we would be moving heaven and Earth to make sure we could cure, but not 
when it came to breast cancer. Only since 1990 have we been able to 
direct any money in the budget at all and direct it toward breast 
cancer research.
  There are millions of people, men and women, who devote themselves to 
work on this battle on a daily basis who are going to be angry to find 
that not only will we lose what we gained, but we are going back below 
where we used to be: pre-1990.
  It has taken us the 6 years I have been here to be able to get older 
women's mammograms covered by Medicare. We could lose this with Kasich.
  We talk about giving peace of mind to American families. How do we 
give an American family peace of mind when 1 in 8 of them will lose 
their mother, their daughter, their sister, or their wife. We have 
successfully tried over the years to pay some attention to the diseases 
that affect women most that have been ignored like ovarian cervical 
cancer, osteoporosis, lupus, the diseases related to DES exposure and 
diseases with special risk factors for women.
  We know that every single dollar we spend on health research or on 
prevention will save us $10. What we may lose here is an investment in 
the health of our citizens.
  There is $30 billion less than our budget recommendation for the 
discretionary health programs, and that includes AIDS research, AIDS 
funding, and childhood immunization. We would already, if it were not 
for Colombia and Haiti, have the worst immunization rates for our 
children in the Western Hemisphere.
  Health research and infant mortality, surely we cannot afford to let 
these things go unresearched. And what about tuberculosis prevention? 
That is a disease that is coming back and growing daily.
  These investments, as I have said before, are very important. We 
cannot expect a healthy economy built by an unhealthy Nation. Health 
must be a top priority for our Government.
  As we speak today, more women are dying of breast cancer. I would 
point out that 46,000 women will die this year of breast cancer, and 
300 men will die; this is an incidence in men that doubles almost on a 
yearly basis.
  Mr. Chairman, after so many years of nothing and after 4 years of 
trying to catch up, I urge my colleagues not to take the risk of 
putting us back into that abysmal darkness of illness and no hope.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the last speaker 
and point out that while the Clinton budget does increase health care 
functions by 11 percent, our budget does increase health care functions 
by 6 percent. So the draconian cuts the gentlewoman from New York is 
talking about are simply not true. We do understand the need for this 
kind of research, and we do fund it. We believe there are areas where 
we can make reductions, but we are not talking about the drastic cuts 
the gentlewoman suggested we were talking about.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New York should realize 
that in her district, the 28th District of New York, the Kasich budget 
promises $56.5 million of family tax relief. I am sure her families 
will find that nothing to sneeze at.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this debate from some time, 
and as I listen to the debate, I realize that the American people, when 
they address the question of the budget, make a singular demand of us, 
and that is, in the parlance of the street, to ``get real.'' They want 
us to ``get real'' and understand that this is a real matter of real 
consequences in their real lives.

                              {time}  1440

  What they do not understand in the real world is that in Washington 
we have a different standard for reality. In Washington, perception is 
reality.
  Now, I have just listened to another stock-in-trade tirade against 
the eighties. Mr. Chairman, when will the members of the Democrat Party 
give up on the eighties? When will they finally give up on trying to 
tell the American people that what they understand to be their own 
life's experience for a very important decade in their life is 
something different than what they know it to have been?
  This is an important point. Because if the Democrat spokesman for 
their budget cannot even tell an accurate story about 10 years in the 
life experience of the real American family across this whole Nation, 
if they cannot even understand the reality of life in America for the 
most recent decade in which we have lived in this country, how then can 
we expect them to present to us with any degree of reality what it is 
we are doing now, and what will be the consequences of that in the 
futures?
  The fact is the American people made a magnificent economic success 
of their life during the eighties, especially by contrast to the 
economic horror of stagflation in the seventies, when in fact we had 
the only period in the history of this country, from 1976 to 1980, 
where the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
  During all of the eighties, with the exception of the year 1980, the 
last year of the Carter presidency, the last year prior to this year in 
which the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White 
House, we had 140 percent of all the decrease in average family income 
that took place in this country for the period of time 1979 to 1989. In 
fact, in 1980, only 1 percent, the richest 1 percent of the American 
people, realized any increase in their average family income. Everybody 
else lost.
  That, ladies and gentlemen, is why Ronald Reagan got elected. And 
throughout all the eighties, the rich got richer, and the poor got 
richer. And what galls the Democrats is that the rich got richer and 
the poor got richer on their own, without Government redistribution 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people know the reality of their life 
experience. Why not drop the farce. Leave the eighties alone.
  Also, maybe we could do budget work that is a little bit better than 
good enough for Government work.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the budget 
resolution and in opposition to the Kasich substitute.
  This budget resolution would reduce the deficit to a level that is 
$115 billion less than it was 3 years ago, representing the smallest 
share of the U.S. economy since 1979. It would mark the first time 
since 1969 that discretionary spending would actually fall.
  This budget is concrete evidence that the discretionary budget caps 
are real and they do bite. The Budget Committee even had to cut the 
President's budget by an additional $3.1 billion to bring it into line 
with the caps and Congressional Budget Office scoring.
  In addition, we are under the entitlement caps set last year. And 
entitlement spending will be addressed in health care and welfare 
reform later this year. Both health care and welfare reform will be 
done on a pay-as-you-go basis. Increases in spending in one area will 
necessitate cuts in another.
  Mr. Kasich, on the other hand, assumes the Republican welfare plan. 
As I said to the gentleman from Ohio in the committee, the budget 
resolution, particularly a budget resolution without reconciliation 
instructions, is not the place to do welfare reform. The Republicans 
have their plan; the President will submit his sometime around Easter 
and we will have real debate about this in the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  I agree with the President that welfare ought to be a second chance, 
not a way of life. I certainly hope that those who vote with Mr. Kasich 
today are as serious about reinventing welfare when we get down to it 
in Ways and Means as they purport to be today.
  The Kasich substitute also assumes the Republican alternative health 
care plan.
  Again, this is not the place to debate health care. The Ways and 
Means Health Subcommittee has been in bipartisan markup all week on 
health care. And Mr. Dingell and Mr. Ford are talking with Members 
trying to move a bill in their respective committees.
  We may not have a consensus on health care at this point but we do 
have three major committees hard at work on finding one. I think the 
one area all three committees would agree on at this point is that 
there certainly is not a consensus to support the Republican 
alternative. I can only hope your Members will be as interested in 
health care when it comes down to specifics in the committees.
  The Budget Committee worked hard on this budget to bring it into line 
with last year's caps using CBO reestimates, but we also worked to 
increase funding for important programs.
  One of the few areas where the President asked for a significant 
increase was for crime programs. We have increased funds for the crime 
bill and to move us toward our goal of putting an additional 100,000 
police officers on the street. I don't think there is a single person 
in this body who would disagree with the need to crack down on crime. 
This funding will be of substantial help in that area.
  In addition, the committee added back much of the President's 
proposed cut in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. 
Thousands of families in Connecticut rely on this program for help to 
pay their heating bills. And when you've had a winter like the one we 
had this year, this funding can mean the difference between life and 
death.
  So we did make hard choices in this budget resolution. Do I 
personally wish we could have done more in some areas--aid to cities 
for example--absolutely. But it is not always possible to do everything 
we would like to do, which brings us to Mr. Kasich's $500-a-child tax 
credit.
  Sure, it sounds great. I wish I could support it, and I'll bet the 
President does too. But with future deficits projected to be over 160 
billion per year, we simply cannot afford it. The President has said, 
and I support him in this, that to the extent the economy continues to 
improve and the deficit along with it, he is willing to reexamine this 
issue. But in the interim, it simply is cruel to hold out hope that 
this is going to happen any time soon.
  The Kasich child tax credit is also a cruel hoax on many hardworking 
American families. Many moderate income families simply won't even be 
eligible--families with incomes below $16,000--that is because the 
credit is not refundable. It simply makes no sense that a family with 
$150,000 income gets $500 a child and the working family making a whole 
lot less doesn't.
  The Kasich substitute also promises $119 billion in tax cuts and 
lower deficits over the budget window. But he does it by using a 
different baseline and manipulating the numbers. In fact, the 
depreciation piece alone was estimated by Joint Tax to cost $60 billion 
over 5 years until they manipulated the timing of the deductions--but 
even with the manipulation, the proposal raises $4 billion in the year 
but plunges to costing $1 billion in year five. CRS has estimated that 
outside the budget window, this change would ultimately be more than 10 
times as large as the temporary decrease in the deductions in the 
budget window.
  So I would say to my colleagues be realistic, be responsible, oppose 
Kasich and support the budget resolution. This budget is a good budget, 
and well rounded. It continues the progress we made last year in 
attacking the deficit, progress that contributed to the economic 
rebound in many areas of the country.
  Finally, I would like to thank and commend my good friend, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], for his great leadership in 
shepherding this bill through his committee. He has worked tirelessly 
on this, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard], a member of the committee.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Ohio for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the previous speaker, the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], it is the Republican budget, it is 
the Kasich budget, that is really making the tough choices. In addition 
to making these tough choices, we are providing $500 per child in tax 
credit for family relief from the tax burden they are already facing. 
It is a badly needed relief that we should give to the American family.
  The basic choice is do you do more for Washington or do you do more 
for the people back home or for the American family? And I think that 
the answer is that you do more for the American family. Because when 
you do that, they are going to put their worth in the marketplace, and 
that is where real economic growth is going to occur.
  Mr. Chairman, today this House debates the budget of the U.S. 
Government for the years 1995 through 1999.
  As we move through this debate it is clear that the Congress has 
arrived at a fork in the road. We have a choice.
  We can go down one fork in the road recommended by President Clinton, 
or we can go down the other fork recommended by those of us who serve 
as Republican members of the House Budget Committee.
  The road that President Clinton wants us to take promises the 
American people business as usual as far as the eye can see. Down this 
road we get bigger government, higher taxes, and nearly $1 trillion 
more added to the national debt by 1999.
  Down the other road, mapped out by John Kasich, and unanimously 
supported by all his Republican colleagues on the Budget Committee, the 
American people get change, more for Washington, less for us, the 
American people.
  The Republican budget alternative reduces the deficit by $150 billion 
more than the Clinton plan.
  The Republican alternative provides tax relief for working families 
in the form of a $500 tax credit for children. It also provides capital 
gains indexing, individual retirement accounts, and strong depreciation 
incentives--all designed to help small businesses create jobs and grow 
our economy.
  The Republican alternative truly reinvents government by transferring 
Federal land and resources to the States. It also reinvents the 
Department of Agriculture--restoring it as an agency designed to 
empower farmers, not bureaucrats.
  The Republican alternative includes comprehensive welfare reform, and 
tough punishment for crime.
  The Republican alternative includes a health care reform plan which 
identifies the problems with our health care system and fixes those 
problems. Our plan builds on the finest health care system in the world 
and fundamentally rejects the socialist approach of the Clinton health 
plan. The Clinton health plan promises all the compassion of the IRS 
and the efficiency of the post office.
  The Republican alternative retains a strong defense to guarantee 
peace and security in a dangerous world.
  The Republican alternative calls for a budget which reflects the 
massive cost of Federal regulations and redtape, and then sets out to 
reduce that redtape.
  Now, let's contrast this vision of change with Mr. Clinton's budget. 
The White House would like Americans to believe that the President's 
budget is a tough budget filled with spending cuts. Unfortunately, many 
in the media have bought into this deception.
  The facts lead to a very different conclusion. According to the 
President's own budget document, Federal outlays will rise from $1.4 
trillion in 1993 to $1.74 trillion in 1998. Only in Washington would a 
$330 billion increase be considered a tough budget.
  Let me point out several specifics which demonstrate the problem with 
the Clinton budget. As a member of the Budget Committee I was 
responsible for developing four areas in the Republican budget. These 
were natural resources, agriculture, energy, and science. Let's compare 
the difference in these areas with President Clinton's budget.
  In just four areas, the Republican alternative achieves $42 billion 
more in spending reduction over 5 years. This makes it clear why the 
Clinton budget continues to grow the government.
  I would now like to address the issue of health care reform. It is 
interesting to note that neither the President's original budget 
submission, or the Democrat budget plan, accounts for the cost of the 
administration's health reform plan.
  Last month, the Congressional Budget Office recommended that the 
Clinton health plan should be on-budget with the mandated premiums of 
employers and employers counted as Federal receipts and the 
expenditures of the health alliances counted as Federal outlays.
  Since CBO's view was only advisory, I have found it necessary to 
pursue this issue and help ensure that any health care reform enacted 
this year is properly accounted for in the Federal budget.
  Last week during the Budget Committee markup of this resolution I 
offered an amendment making clear that it is the understanding of the 
Budget Committee that any health care reform relying on mandated 
payments should be on-budget. I am pleased that this amendment passed 
and is included in the Sabo budget resolution.
  The American people are presented with two dramatically different 
visions for America in this budget debate. The Democrat-Clinton budget 
sees America's future in higher taxes, more spending, and bigger 
government.
  By contrast, the Republican plan is a detailed vision of a 
dramatically scaled down Federal Government, lower taxes, and less 
control of our lives by Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, we have indeed arrived at a fork in the road. For 40 
years this House has been controlled by the Democrats. As a result we 
have continued down the road of bigger government. It is time for a 
change.
  The American people are ready to take the other fork in the road--the 
fork that leads to less government and more freedom. We need to do less 
for Washington and more for the American people.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Price], a member of 
our committee.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, to anyone who finds the 
Kasich budget to have a superficial political appeal, all I would say 
is just read the fine print. I want to concentrate on one aspect of 
that here today. This is something we hear a lot of talk about in this 
Chamber, unfunded mandates.
  Members protest unfunded mandates all the time, and rightly so, the 
way we here in Washington sometimes make decisions without any regard 
for their impact on State and local government. Too often, we just pass 
the cost along.
  Well, to anyone who is concerned about unfunded mandates, I would say 
watch out for this Kasich budget. Not only does it have unfunded 
mandates, it has defunded mandates.
  We can do this in two ways: We can lay new responsibilities on the 
States and localities and then let them eat the cost, or we might 
remove the supports they now have. Unfortunately, this Kasich budget 
does both.
  Let me give a few examples. In the natural resources and environment 
area, the Kasich substitute takes away $1.9 billion in Federal 
financial assistance to localities for construction of waste water 
treatment and drinking water facilities. That is what these communities 
have to do to comply with the Clean Water Act and Drinking Water Act.
  The Kasich budget would simply jerk the props out from under them.
  In the transportation area, the Kasich substitute says that the 
Federal share of mass transit capital grants is going to move from 80 
to 50 percent, and there is going to be no assistance, no assistance 
whatsoever for operating costs.
  These transit systems are struggling to comply with the Clean Air Act 
and with the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Kasich substitute 
would simply remove most of their support.
  Let us turn to the education and training budget, and consider impact 
aid. This is what communities that have Federal and military facilities 
nearby rely on for education assistance.
  The Kasich substitute would phase that out completely. How many 
Members will want to tell that to their local communities that count on 
that support?
  The Kasich substitute consolidates five social service programs into 
a single discretionary block grant and cuts their funding. Here we are 
talking about social services block grants, community services, at-risk 
child care, child care and development, and dependent care planning 
grants. What kind of deal is that for State and local governments?
  Then in health, the Kasich substitute says to the States, ``You have 
got to adopt a Medicaid system that reduces per capita costs by 6 
percent.'' The way we suggest you do that, says the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich], is to deny fee-for-service medicine to low-income people. 
Put them all on managed care.
  The Kasich budget would require the States to do this, and whether 
they did it or not, it would cut their Medicaid funding.
  What kind of a deal is that for the States? Managed care has its 
virtues, but to put that kind of mandate on the States and in the 
meantime to remove funding on which they depend, is the sort of thing 
we have seen far too much in this Chamber. And there is far too much of 
it in this Kasich budget.
  Mr. Chairman, we had a visit this week from North Carolina's county 
commissioners. They came up to Washington with unfunded mandates on 
their mind. They reminded our North Carolina Members from both parties 
that government should be a partnership. It is irresponsible to brag 
about economizing in Washington, if we are simply shifting the burden 
to State and local governments.
  Unfunded and defunded mandates are a hallmark of the Kasich budget, 
and that is one of the many reasons that it should be rejected.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, earlier the gentleman from North Carolina 
gave us a list of all the programs and listed all those programs that 
the administration was recommending that we cut. We had a chance 
yesterday to vote on two of those in an authorization on elementary and 
secondary education, to eliminate two of those the President said that 
he wanted eliminated. By a vote of 203 voting aye and 213 voting no, we 
decided not to eliminate the Native Hawaiian Education program. By a 
vote of 202 voting aye and 220 voting no, we decided not to eliminate 
the Territorial Education Improvement Program. Those are two that the 
President of the United States has said we ought to eliminate. This 
body cannot eliminate the things that their own President says that he 
wants to eliminate. Let us not listen to the cuts they are talking 
about. They are meaningless.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to strongly urge support for the 
Kasich budget, particularly to the previous speaker, my good friend, 
the gentleman from North Carolina, in the Fourth District, where his 
constituents would receive, under the Kasich Republican budget, $54.9 
million in family tax relief, if he would join us in supporting that 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I think lawmakers in Washington are finally beginning 
to hear the message. The American people want us to significantly cut 
spending. We will soon vote on several budget resolutions that claim to 
cut spending. A few actually do, but not the President's plan. I still 
don't understand how the President can claim that his plan cuts 
spending when he failed to include funding for his health care reform 
plan and welfare reform in his budget proposal. Including funding for 
health care alone would have increased the President's budget by 25 
percent and resulted in the largest tax hike in history.
  The Republican plan delivers what the President promised, a middle-
class tax cut. Through wise and equitable spending reductions, these 
tax cuts will not increase the deficit. In my Sixth District of 
Virginia alone, the tax cut will amount to over $52 million dollars of 
increased personal disposal income.
  We have a choice today on more than just budgetary guidelines. We 
vote today on the need for real change. The Republican plan includes 
funding for change in how the Government operates; change in health 
care; change in law enforcement; and change in the tax burden of middle 
class American families. We have a clear choice. We can enact change 
for our families or we can vote to continue the status quo and the 
Washington establishment that has burdened each and every member of our 
country, not just taxpayers, with an over $17,000 share of our national 
debt.
  We can choose to pass a budget resolution that listens to the demands 
and acts on the wishes of our constituents, or we can choose a smoke 
and mirror show that protects the Washington establishment and 
continues business as usual.
  I urge support to the Kasich amendment.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Bacchus].
  (Mr. BACCHUS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BACCHUS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the President of 
the United States, Mr. Clinton, accused of many things by the 
Republicans in the past year, rarely have I ever heard him accused by 
Republicans of being a defender of the status quo.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kasich substitute. From 
time to time, I am a fellow traveler of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich]. I am an admirer of his. I work with him. I helped write and 
supported the Penny-Kasich deficit reduction plan last November. I 
voted for it. I will do so again, if it were on the floor today.
  I am sure I will be voting with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
again in the future on other efforts. I am often his fellow traveler. 
But this time my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is taking 
us down the wrong road.
  We are on the right road now, the road to real and enduring 
prosperity. The deficit is down. Jobs are up. We are making the 
transition at long last that we need to make to compete in the world 
economy.
  The President introduced a training program yesterday, a reemployment 
program. I am a cosponsor of that.
  We have technology initiatives in space and defense reinvestment and 
other advanced technologies.

                              {time}  1500

  The Clinton plan is working, and we need to give it a chance to 
continue to work. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] would take us on 
a detour away from recovery and away from prosperity.
  Mr. Chairman, I like the $500 per child tax credit in this plan. All 
of us do. In an ideal world, when we have enough money, we would all 
vote for that. Perhaps some day we will, but at what price? $108 
billion.
  Financed by what? Look at the details, as the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Price] said, look at the fine print. The gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is suggesting not tough choices but wrong choices: 
cuts in Head Start, child nutrition, child care, in many education 
programs, in student loans. Is that really pro-family?
  Mr. Chairman, 34,000 of my constituents have already received a tax 
cut as part of the Clinton deficit reduction plan through an increase 
in the earned income tax credit. Only 3,000 got personal income tax 
increases. I voted for that bill in part because it helped cut taxes 
for a lot of my constituents. I am certain that a similar number would 
have received tax cuts in the district of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich], had he been willing to vote for that. They did, thanks to the 
fact that a majority in the House nevertheless did pass the bill.
  Also in the fine print the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is 
cutting worker retraining, transportation, community development, 
advanced technologies of all kinds. Is that pro growth? I don't think 
so. Inevitably, I believe these cuts in domestic discretionary spending 
would doom the space station and much of the space program.
  My own view, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] knows, is that 
we will be able to achieve all the investments we ever need, public and 
private alike, all the tax breaks that the middle class definitely 
needs, and the balanced budget, only if we make some truly tough 
choices, some truly hard choices. We have to tell the truth to the 
American people about entitlement spending. We have to means test 
entitlements.
  I commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] for the fact that he 
has some means testing for Medicare in his proposal, but we need a lot 
more. I applaud him for the good that he has done. I am sure I will 
work with him to do more good in the future, but it is going to take 
something more than just appeasing the people with phony promises of a 
phantom tax credit.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Inglis], a member of the committee.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I rise in strong support of the so-called Kasich substitute. I would 
point out to my colleagues here in this House that contrary to the 
previous Speaker, there is not calm in the country. In fact, I believe 
we are on the verge of a revolution. The revolution will not start, 
though, with any guns. The revolution will start with two implements: 
one, a calculator, and two, a paycheck stub.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage the people of America to take out 
their little calculator and to take out their paycheck stub, and to 
calculate the percentage of taxes they are paying out of what they make 
to this bloated Federal Government, to their large State government, 
and then keep going, add up the sales taxes that they pay at the 
grocery store, add the taxes they pay as a result of the Clinton budget 
last time at the gas pump; add it all up. The national average is, you 
have 40 cents out of every dollar we make, we pay in taxes. Forty cents 
out of every dollar we make, State and local taxes, is the national 
average. In some places it is up to 50 cents.
  Mr. Chairman, we have people on the other side who say, ``My 
goodness, we cannot cut anything. My goodness, we cannot give money 
back to the American family.'' The previous speaker is actually 
depriving the people of his district of $51.9 million of tax relief. 
That is tax relief that families in that gentleman's district need, 
because they are currently paying 40 cents out of every dollar they 
make in taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit to my colleagues, if we want to stop that 
revolution from happening, that revolution that is going to be caused 
by a calculator and that paycheck stub, that we have to offer middle 
class tax relief. That is what the Kasich plan is about.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Cleveland, Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, $176 billion is not very much money anymore. If we 
believe the gentleman from Florida, if we were to do something about 
reducing that $176 billion deficit any further, we would lose this 
prosperity that we have all of a sudden engaged in overnight.
  Mr. Chairman, I was waiting to hear about a chicken in every single 
pot that might be also a part of our new prosperity. It seems to me 
that we are missing the forest for the trees in this debate, and that 
what is really going on here is a very fundamental difference between 
whether you believe that we ought to send more money to Washington, to 
filter it back through these bloated bureaucracies to the local areas, 
to the places that we come from, or whether we believe that those 
States, those localities, those municipalities, those cities, those 
townships, those counties are in a better position to fund that money 
themselves and to pay for it and to raise the taxes and do with it what 
they want on a local level.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem with the Congress of this country for the 
past 50 years is that we have gotten so self-important that we feel 
that we have to do everything through our own congressional mandate, 
and that that is the best way to spend money. We will tax the citizens 
of this country more and more, raise more and more money, and then 
float it through based on political in-fighting and who has the biggest 
stick politically.
  Mr. Chairman, it is just simply not good policy. It is not a good way 
to run a railroad. It is not a good way to run a country. That is what 
this debate is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, we are going to spend $1.5 trillion next year, in 
fiscal 1995. The debate is only focusing on the little, nitty-gritty 
stuff. The fact is that there is something in a budget of $1.5 
trillion, or $1.6 trillion, that anybody could find fault with. Clearly 
there are going to be disagreements, but the underlying philosophical 
principles have to do with how do we raise this money and how do we 
spend it, and who is in the best position.
  Let me give one simple example. One of the things we were criticized 
for earlier by the gentleman from North Carolina is that we are going 
to supposedly eliminate operating subsidies for mass transit.
  That is not true. It is simply not the case. What we are in fact 
doing is we are amalgamating Federal highway funds in such a way that 
local communities can make their own decisions about how they are going 
to allocate those funds. We are not going to tell them they have to 
spend so much on operating subsidies and so much on highway funds. We 
are going to allow them to make the choices between the two.
  It is a tough business. It is hard choices. The question is who do 
you want spending the money, the people here in Washington, or the 
people in the localities?
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The amendment clearly eliminates operating subsidies, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Berman].
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of differences with the so-
called Kasich substitute. I commend the gentleman for putting together 
a comprehensive alternative, but I think it has many different faults. 
There are two that I think are particularly egregious and I want to 
speak to those.
  One, I really wonder whether my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, has 
thought about his decision to include that portion of the so-called 
Herger amendment on welfare in his substitute which, for the first time 
that I am aware of in history, seeks to create a two-tiered system 
between American citizens and legal American residents of many, many 
years standing on the question of their eligibility for SSI benefits, 
for food stamps, for different kinds of Medicaid Programs, for AFDC 
Programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not talking about a decision that says the welfare 
system would work better if we cut people off of welfare for several 
years. I am not talking about requirements of work. I am talking about 
looking at where a person was born and whether or not they have 
naturalized, and deciding whether or not a 69-year-old person is going 
to get SSI benefits.
  A poor low-income 69-year-old would be ineligible under the Kasich 
proposal simply because of the fact that he had not naturalized, he had 
not become a U.S. citizen, even if his spouse was a U.S. citizen, and 
he had come here legally. It seeks to take the public furor over the 
question of illegal immigration and extend it to cover legal 
immigration, and create a totally unjustifiable two-tiered system.

                              {time}  1510

  It is unconstitutional on its face. It violates the 14th amendment on 
due process which does not apply only to citizens but applies to 
persons. It is blatantly unfair. It is morally bankrupt. I think it was 
not well-considered in its inclusion in the Kasich substitute.
  The second point I would like to make is on the question of the huge 
slash in the foreign assistance program. One-sixth of the purported 
savings of the Kasich amendment, one-sixth, over 18 percent, comes out 
of a portion of the budget which amounts to less than 2 percent, and 
that is the international affairs budget. And where do those cuts come? 
Mr. Kasich's substitute slashes the Export-Import Bank financing 
dramatically at exactly the time we are trying to promote U.S. exports 
and U.S. jobs.
  The Kasich substitute substantially cuts the Public Law 480 food 
program, a program of vital assistance for relief of world hunger and 
critically important to U.S. farmers.
  Then, of course, if Members ask supporters of the Kasich amendment, 
``Well, Israel and Egypt get a huge portion of that foreign assistance 
budget,'' they will say, ``Oh, we don't want to cut them.'' But when 
you cut as many millions of dollars as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich] does out of that budget, to pretend that you are a great 
supporter of Israel and Egypt and the Camp David process and the peace 
process, and have no desire to touch them is the height of 
irresponsibility, and I think people will see through it. This is a 
disproportionately unfair cut in the international affairs budget. It 
will have massive effects on the peace process, the Camp David process, 
and it slashes just the programs that we need for economic strength 
here at home.
  I urge a no vote on the Kasich amendment.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins].
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform that 
previous speaker that the Kasich budget here would put about $60 
million of tax relief for families in his district right back there in 
California where I know those folks would appreciate it.
  I support the Kasich budget because it is crafted after just what the 
American people have been trying to tell this body up here every year. 
We stood here a year ago arguing about budgets, taxes. People keep 
calling and writing and saying cut spending, no more taxation, and they 
meant that.
  But not only is the Kasich budget crafted to cut spending, but it is 
actually crafted to create jobs. When we create jobs we create more 
taxpayers. That is what this system is all about, people working, 
paying into the system.
  Let me just give a couple of examples of what I ran into when I was 
campaigning in 1992 to come up here and join this body. I was in a 
little, small town in middle Georgia in a small shop, a TV rental shop. 
I walked in there and a lady jumped me about taxes and taxation. She 
said, ``You know, I have a little piece of property out here at the 
edge of town.'' This was Barnesville, GA, about 13,000 folks in the 
whole county. She said, ``I have a little piece of property out here. I 
could have sold it three times, but I haven't sold it, and the reason I 
haven't sold it is because I don't want to pay tax on it. The taxes are 
too high.''
  She was talking about capital gains, sir. Do you know what happened 
when she did not sell the property? Nothing. She did not make a profit, 
she did not pay any taxes, and the government, neither the State nor 
the Federal received anything from that property. It is still laying 
there right now.
  Capital gains creates activities, it transfers titles to land, it 
transfers money, it creates profits and it generates revenue for this 
government and other governments. That is what capital gains does.
  Let us talk about incentives for equipment purchases. I have been in 
the trucking business for over 30 years, and many of those years there 
have been incentives to purchase equipment. In 1986 we took away a lot 
of those incentives. Leasing companies that lease equipment, truckers 
especially, were rotating their fleets. They were rotating their fleets 
every 3 years. But after we took away the tax incentive, sir, they 
started rotating them every 5 years, and some of them did not rotate, 
but just rebuilt them, and put them back out on the road.
  What did that do? It cut down on the production on the assembly 
lines, which cuts down on jobs. Incentives to invest create jobs that 
put people to work manufacturing that equipment that people out here 
like Mac Collins will purchase.
  I hear people talk about tax cuts, tax cuts, we are giving incentives 
to business. Well, where in the world do you think businesses get their 
money from? They collect it through the consumer product that they sell 
or the service they render. And who pays for it? Working people, 
working men and women of this country. There is nobody else to pay the 
bill.
  Oh, I hate to hear people talk about giving somebody an incentive or 
giving someone a break, or giving away something from the government 
when every time we give away something from this government we have to 
collect some money from somebody to give it away with. And that 
somebody is working folks. You folks better wake up and understand that 
too, because working America is tired of this business up here. Their 
agenda is a lot different agenda than the agenda of this Congress, and 
that difference is going to be shown later on this year.
  Talking about the $500 a year credit for each child in a family, when 
we leave that money in the private sector that money rotates, it 
revolves itself. it will revolve itself some five times, and every time 
it turns over, money is generated for the government. Why not leave 
more money in that private sector and let it generate more moneys for 
us and for local governments, local governments that we keep putting 
pressure on and causing them to have to raise taxes and spend money? I 
am all for leaving it out there and letting folks that pay the bill 
enjoy and reap some of the benefits from what we are doing here.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], 
about a year ago I asked him something about the budget at that time 
and that budget resolution, and the fact that it looked like we were 
going to have about 6.289 trillion dollars' worth of debt at the end of 
that budget cycle, 5 years, 1998. The gentleman said that was right. So 
I am worried about that, sir. That is not what the American people 
want. The gentleman said, ``I'm worried about it too.'' And the 
gentleman also said if interest rates go up any at all we are sunk. 
Sir, interest rates are going to go up, they are already starting to 
climb. Based on your comments, we are sunk.
  So we ought to leave money out there in that private sector, and 
leave it in the pockets of the families so that it can rotate and 
revolve and generate more money for us.
  I appreciate this time and I just hope that the Members of this body 
will adhere to what the folks back home are saying, and that is cut 
spending and leave more money in our pockets at home to spend on our 
families and quit taking so much of it to Washington.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has 
expired.
  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, quickly may I ask the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Oberstar], chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, if he has made an 
analysis of the Kasich proposal on the FAA and what it would result in?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I say to the chairman we have laboriously 
analyzed the position, and to summarize it, the total airline passenger 
payments that would result from the shifting of costs under this 
proposal would be the equivalent of a tax of 16\1/2\ percent on air 
travelers compared to 10 percent tax now, and new taxes and fees on an 
airline industry that has lost $11 billion over the last 4 years.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Mollohan].
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  There are many sections of this substitute that I do not agree with--
too many to spend time talking about all of them. So I will focus on a 
valuable program my colleague proposes to eliminate--the Advanced 
Technology Program under the Department of Commerce.
  This program is a cornerstone of President Clinton's competitiveness 
agenda and a major part of the President's investment initiative in his 
fiscal year 1995 budget request. Why is this program so important?
  Our Nation's technology policy must begin to reflect the reality that 
both American industry and Government have underinvested in 
manufacturing technology. We need to work to build our manufacturing 
capability and increase our competitiveness in the global marketplace.
  The Advanced Technology Program will help us to achieve this end. It 
is market oriented. While Government provides the catalyst, industry 
conceives, manages, and executes ATP projects. The ATP also emphasizes 
cost sharing--ATP recipients pay more than half the total cost of the 
research and development. This helps ensure that companies have a 
vested interest in the success of projects and in timely 
commercialization.
  Congressman Kasich asserts that if the technology was worth 
developing, the private sector would do it themselves. This simply is 
not true. ATP projects focus on precompetitive, generic technologies, 
those that industry cannot afford to develop on their own, those that 
they must develop in order to be competitive in the future.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address one highly publicized 
point of the Republican plan, the $500 credit for every child for 
families earning up to $200,000.
  I speak to this as perhaps the newest father in this Chamber, because 
it was only 6 weeks ago that my wife and I went out to National Airport 
and picked up an infant from Korea that will become our adopted 
daughter by the end of the year.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], I want to thank you for being 
so generous as to think that we might need this $500 tax credit, in 
fact, that other families in this Chamber might need tax credits, the 
fact that families earning up to $200,000 per year might need this kind 
of assistance from the Government.
  But I think the assistance can better be directed at the poor, the 
lowest earning income people in this country, and it is these people to 
whom you have directed the cuts in your bill.
  This is Robin Hood in reverse, taking from the poor and giving to the 
rich. It just is not fair.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, it is now in order to debate the subject matter 
of amendment No. 3.
  The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] will be recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume].


                   general debate on amendment no. 3

  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the alternative budget that is being offered by the 
Congressional Black Caucus today and that we hope to have voted on 
tomorrow represents an aggressive and yet fiscally responsible approach 
to respond to a number of the problems that are plaguing our Nation 
today.
  The CBC alternative budget stays within the established discretionary 
caps, and that is a point that I am going to continue to make 
throughout this debate, because I think clearly it is one that is quite 
valid.
  In addition, our budget deficit is $1.8 billion less than the budget 
proposed by the House Committee on the Budget, and $2.6 billion less 
than the budget proposed by the administration.
  Every day on the floor of this Chamber we hear speeches about the 
immense problems that are facing and, indeed, plaguing our Nation. 
Unemployment, crime, illiteracy, homelessness, despair, the deficit are 
just to name a few.
  While many of the problems facing America may in fact be exacerbated 
in the inner cities which many members of the Black Caucus represent, 
the problems we address in our budget are endemic, I would remind this 
body, throughout our entire Nation, and they threaten each and every 
one of our States, each and every one of our congressional districts. 
It is because of these problems and the fact that they are so 
widespread and so ominous that we have tried over and over again to 
offer an alternative, and this year have named it a Budget to Rescue 
America.
  First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, our budget proposal is aimed at 
creating jobs. Our proposal allocates more than $2 billion above and 
beyond the amounts proposed by the President and by the Committee on 
the Budget for job training and job creation.
  By creating jobs and ultimately training people, we are helping the 
economy, we are helping to repair our infrastructure, we are in the 
long term, we believe, helping to prevent crime.
  Examples of job-creating programs contained within our proposal 
include an increase in spending on the Community Development Block 
Grant Program and the expedited establishment of community development 
banks.
  The alternative currently under discussion also includes funding for 
many aspects of the Congressional Black Caucus' alternative crime bill. 
The caucus crime bill and, therefore, this proposal focuses on crime 
prevention, something I mentioned a moment ago, and something I think 
that goes to the heart of many of our problems.
  Now, it is clear that crime prevention is preferable to punishment, 
as prevention does not result in a victim. Included in this package is 
funding for the Ounce of Prevention Council, the Community Development 
Corporations, and the Local Partnership Act.
  Another major focus of our proposal is the education of our children, 
and as I indicated earlier, the retraining of our job force.
  The CBC alternative budget calls then for an overwhelming campaign 
for the improvement of education in all American schools, and at the 
heart of this education and training proposal is, in fact, an increase 
of $1 billion for training and employment programs, for health-care-
related jobs. Even without health care reform, there is already a 
shortage of qualified people to deliver a whole spectrum of health care 
services such as child care and workers, and medical record clerks, 
practical nurses, and I could go on and on. Other programs within this 
proposal aimed at improving the state of education in America include 
an educational infrastructure act which has been debated and talked 
about on this floor before, designed to provide emergency funds for the 
repair and renovation of schools and funding to guarantee access for 
the poor to the information superhighways.

  Other budget highlights include the full funding of Federal employee 
salaries, the income protection and housing of our elderly, and the 
full restoration of funding for low-income energy assistance programs.
  Furthermore, the alternative budget that we offer supports the 
President and the Committee on the Budget in a number of areas that we 
feel are important to this Nation and to its people, areas such as the 
expansion of the earned income tax credit.
  Lastly, we support the permanent extension of the targeted jobs tax 
credit, which we feel is an important tool in promoting employment in 
the private sector. As I have said earlier, we have managed this in a 
clear understanding of what we have to work with and what we have to 
do. We have put the focus on the needs of the American people, while 
staying within the established discretionary caps. We were able to do 
this by reducing spending in areas such as defense and intelligence and 
through a small across-the-board cut in areas such as Federal 
Government service contracts.
  While this budget does recommend $8 billion less than the 
administration for defense and intelligence, members of the 
Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus and others who 
have worked on this remain confident that it will not result in 
compromising the Nation's defense capabilities.
  And so the budget being offered by the Congressional Black Caucus and 
the Progressive Caucus creates an additional set of deficit-reduction 
tools through a 20-percent Federal tax on the sale of handguns, assault 
weapons, and ammunition; the sale of handguns, assault weapons, and 
ammunition, the ammunition for those particular assault weapons, and so 
if there is some confusion as we go through this, I want to be very 
clear about that one individual way to raise revenue.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud of this budget and proud of the Members of 
this body in both caucuses who have worked hard to put it together. I 
believe that a thorough review of the document by Members who may be in 
opposition or Members who have still yet to make up their minds will 
demonstrate that it is a fiscally sound, responsible, aggressive, and 
responsive way to deal with many of the problems that are facing our 
Nation.
  Let me stress again before reserving the balance of my time that this 
particular budget that we offer is $1.8 billion less than the budget 
proposed by the Committee on the Budget, and it is $2.6 billion less 
than the budget proposed by this administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. KASICH. I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise in strong support of the Kasich Republican alternative and in 
opposition to the Committee on the Budget's recommended budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Kasich substitute 
budget and in opposition to the Budget Committee resolution.
  In 1992 candidate Clinton promised the middle-class Americans that he 
would give them tax relief. Instead, President Clinton gave us all a 
huge tax increase. We would like to help President Clinton to keep the 
promise that candidate Clinton made to the middle class.
  That is why we are offering a $500 per child tax credit. The 
Republican substitute is a document drafted with the conviction that 
middle-class families deserve to keep more of the money that they earn. 
We understand that average Americans can spend their money more wisely 
and more effectively than the Federal Government can.
  The $500 per child tax credit means more money stays in the pockets 
of the people who go out each day and earn the bread on their table by 
the sweat of their brow. It means that they have more money for school 
clothes, for food, for education, or whatever they decide is in their 
best interests. It is an article of faith with us that the American 
people know what is best for them and their children.
  We also believe that American businesses should be rewarded for 
investing in new plants and equipment which would make our businesses 
more competitive and create jobs for American workers. That is why we 
included the neutral cost recovery plan for business in the Kasich 
alternative.
  American businesses should not be put at a disadvantage in the world 
market place because their overseas competitors are not handicapped by 
the antiquated depreciation rules of the IRS Code. Neutral cost 
recovery will help to level the playing field for Americans.
  The Kasich budget not only addresses the need for neutral cost 
recovery but also removes the impediments in the Tax Code to investment 
in our corporations by indexing capital gains.
  Capital gains indexing is recognized as fair and necessary by 
economists and businessmen if we are to maintain growth of our 
businesses and our economy. Capital gains indexing has enjoyed wide 
bipartisan support in this House in the past and it should be adopted.
  The Republican alternative budget is the budget that truly addresses 
the needs of the American people. Unlike the Clinton budget, as 
modified by the budget committee Democrats, the Kasich substitute 
provides important funding for welfare reform, health care reform, 
crime control, and pays for it all.
  President Clinton, for all of his big talk about being fiscally 
responsible simply does not walk the walk. He does not include his 
budget busting health care plan in his budget, he does not include 
anything for crime control and he does not include anything on welfare 
reform. All of those initiatives are missing in action.
  On the other hand, we not only pay for our programs, we found enough 
waste and fat in the Government to pay for the things that we need and 
still achieve greater deficit reduction than the Democrats.
  Mr. Chairman, I suppose that the differences between our Republican 
budget and the Sabo/Clinton budget say a great deal about our different 
visions of the country. The Republican budget envisions an America 
where individuals and families are in charge of their own lives and are 
free to make decisions about how best to spend their money with the 
least interference from the Federal Government.
  The Republican alternative budget was drafted with an eye toward 
addressing the big issues that need attention such as welfare reform, 
crime control, and health care reform and paying for them; something 
that has become a somewhat radical idea in this institution.
  Our budget looks toward a tomorrow where our economy is larger and 
the Government is smaller and more efficient. That stands in stark 
contrast to the big Government, Washington-knows-best budget that 
President Clinton has sent us.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, initially I want to pay tribute to the 
gentleman from Maryland for his efforts. I must tell the gentleman I 
have not seen the details of the budget yet; we had some folks over 
last night. But I know, as one who kind of single-handedly back in 1989 
and 1990 tried to put something together, know how tough it is.
  I do want to compliment the gentleman for what I think has been an 
impressive, a very impressive performance. And I do not mean 
performance in the sense of an actor, but I mean it in the highest 
sense of promoting an agenda for the Black Caucus, and he has done it, 
and is due kudos from everyone, to force the emergence of an agenda, to 
be able to be heard above, a lot of times, the roar in this House. I 
just think the gentleman has done a very fine job as the chairman.
  I also want to say that I look forward to the day when I can join 
with the gentleman and other members of the Black Caucus to sponsor 
legislation that will remove the terrible class warfare bickering that 
we have experienced in the period of the eighties into the early 
nineties. I would say to the gentleman that one of the reasons why this 
Republican budget alternative has not just deficit reduction, although 
it has that, the reason why we have got the indexing of capital gains 
and more-generous depreciation schedules for businesses is because we 
think that in addition to reducing the deficits, job growth creation 
using the private sector incentives that have made this country so 
prosperous are a key element. And when politicians trip themselves up 
on a debate about class warfare, everybody loses.
  I say to the gentleman the issue of enterprise zones, when I was a 
member of the Ohio legislature, I was the first one to introduce 
enterprise zones because I recognize the value of trying to wipe out 
regulation, wipe out taxes and provide encouragement for the location 
and creation of jobs in areas of high unemployment.
  Our day is going to come, in my opinion, where Members of this 
Republican conference and Members of this very, very hard-working Black 
Caucus are going to be able to come together on a growth agenda. It is 
going to take both sides, both sides are going to have to move a little 
bit toward one another. I want to say to the gentleman that we have the 
same purpose.
  I want to just tell you about this issue of job retraining: You see, 
what we do in our Republican budget on job retraining is we consolidate 
80 programs down to 7, and we send them to the States and say--and the 
gentleman was in the State legislature--we would say, ``You deal with 
it.'' And you county commissioners, ``You figure out the best way to 
apply these resources.''
  I do not know if the gentleman has seen the General Accounting Office 
report. Mr. Shays, the gentleman from Connecticut, was in the hearing 
when the GAO testified. They said that the job training programs of the 
Federal Government, more than 150 that provide employment training, 
have well-intended focuses. Collectively, they create confusion, 
frustration for their clients and administrators. They hamper the 
delivery of services tailored to the needs of those seeking assistance; 
create potential duplication of effort, unnecessary administrative 
costs.
  I would say to the gentleman that what we really need to do is we 
need to figure out a better way to build a mousetrap, a better 
mousetrap, a better way to train people, a better way to feed hungry 
people. That is what we do in our WIC proposal, our WIC-plus proposal. 
We eliminate a lot of bureaucracy. I say to the gentleman--and this is 
not meant to cast aspersions on Government workers--but when you pass a 
$20 bill through 10 offices, the handling costs reduce the value of the 
money that started at the first office.
  We have got to open our minds to all of these arguments. We need to 
send more money to areas of high unemployment, of high crime, high 
poverty. We are going to have to do that, and we are going to have to 
work with the gentleman to streamline this bureaucracy, to index 
capital gains and not get tripped up on something that has existed for 
so long.
  And I want to say I wish the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. 
Pomeroy] was still here. He has got about 143,800, almost 144,000 
children in his district who would qualify for our middle-income tax 
credit and would be able to take almost $80 million back to his 
district for family tax relief. Do you know what he accused us of? 
Class warfare.
  I want the gentleman from Maryland to recognize that the family tax 
credit that the Republicans have in their budget which provides $500 
per child, per family up to $200,000--and I must tell you that the 
President himself said that we should provide $1,000 in tax credit per 
child per family with no means testing, with no means testing, before 
the election. We put a means test at $200,000, but I want to show you 
the impact--90 percent of the benefits of this proposal go to people 
whose income is under $75,000; only 10 percent of this proposal goes to 
families who qualify over $75,000. But I would say to the gentleman 
from Maryland: Is that really the issue, the means testing? Is that the 
issue? Is that really the issue, or is the issue whether it is possible 
to restructure, reshape, privatize, reduce the deficit and at the same 
time give the American family a little piece, a little refund of all 
the money they send to Washington?
  And then we want to get tripped up into a class warfare debate?
  I say to my friend, we have got to move beyond this class warfare. It 
does not work. It does not serve the least prosperous people in our 
society.
  But I want to say to the gentleman I look forward to the time when we 
can work together because I think it will be a productive period for 
all Americans, rich and poor. Again, as I complimented the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dellums] on his effort, this gentleman has done a 
fine job.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say to the gentleman from Ohio, whose words I appreciate and 
whose sincerity I understand and I feel that I genuinely respect the 
gentleman's efforts in fashioning his budget, I think also and hope and 
pray also that one day we get to the point in this House where we are 
not divided by party label, divided by race, divided by region, but we 
recognize on some issues at least there ought to be a coming together, 
a galvanizing, if you will, of the heart, mind, spirit, and energy of 
this body to move forward based on what is right and what may not be 
politically popular to do at any one given time.
  I compliment the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] for his remarks, 
his sincerity. He certainly believes in what he says and does. I would 
suggest, also, that perhaps the time of looking at indexing capital 
gains, if in fact it spurs development, economic development in our 
cities across this Nation, may not be that far off, and that the 
Congressional Black Caucus has been considering that and will stay very 
much open on the idea. The bottom line for us is being able to help 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] who heads the Progressive Caucus 
and has worked very hard on helping to shape this budget alternative.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
alternative budget developed by the congressional Black Caucus in 
coalition with the House Progressive Caucus offered today as the Mfume 
substitute. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I do not support every single line 
of this budget. I would have gone further in the direction of shifting 
some of the tax burden which for a dozen years was transferred to 
working people and the middle class back to the upper class and to the 
wealthy so that they can finally begin to pay their fair share of 
taxes. But there is no question but that this budget is far preferable 
to the administration's budget and far, far preferable to the 
Republican budget, and once again, as it has been the case in many 
years in the past, this budget becomes the conscience of the U.S. 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I think there is no doubt, there should be no doubt, as 
to what has happened to America in the last dozen years. I heard 
reference a moment ago to the issue of class warfare, and it is true, 
in fact, that that is precisely what has been going on in this country 
over the last dozen years, and the headlines of today's newspapers 
reflect that reality. What has gone on is that the wealthiest people in 
this country have become much wealthier, the middle class has shrunken, 
and today we have a significant increase in poverty, and for our 
poorest people we now have some 2 million Americans sleeping out on the 
street, and we have 5 million children in this country who are hungry, 
and I must say to my colleagues in the House that it should be an 
absolute national disgrace that we should work to resolve every day, 
that the United States, with 22 percent of its children living in 
poverty has by far the highest rate of poverty among children in the 
industrialized world.
  When we talk about priorities, Mr. Chairman, maybe we should not be 
worrying about spending a hundred billion dollars a year defending 
Western Europe and Asia. Maybe we should not be talking about space 
stations, and supersonic colliders and more nuclear weapons. Maybe we 
should say that tomorrow we are going to end the disgrace of childhood 
hunger in America, end the disgrace of 2 million people sleeping out on 
the streets.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] talked about class warfare, and 
let us refer to the fact that while the children grow hungry the number 
of billionaires in this has grown. Let us talk about the fact that the 
chief executive officers of the largest corporations now make 157 times 
more than the workers of those corporations. If that is not class 
warfare, what is class warfare?

  Mr. Chairman, let me simply conclude by urging the Members of the 
House to support the Congressional Black Caucus budget. It begins to 
move us in the right direction. It offers some sane priorities in terms 
of how the U.S. Congress should go.
  The people of America are hurting. They are upset about the 
inequality in wealth. They are upset about the hunger that our children 
are facing. Let us change the priorities of America. Let us support the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget that was prepared in coalition with 
the Progressive Coalition.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hobson].
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the gentleman 
from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] that there are 124,330 children in his 
district that would get $62,200,000 in the family tax relief item which 
would go somewhat towards solving some of the problems that exists. It 
is certainly not enough, and certainly a lot of us share his concerns 
that we get on with some of the very difficult choices in this country.
  In looking at the budget of the Congressional Black Caucus which I 
have just gotten, Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk a little bit about 
health care.
  I respect the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] very much. I serve 
on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct with him, and I think 
he brings a great strength to the cause that he speaks for in the 
manner in which he does address that cause, and I think the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] expressed much of my sentiments.
  In the area of health care, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of good 
things that I see in here, certainly on immunization, certainly on HIV, 
certainly in the three million funds, enhanced family community 
violence and stopping things of that sort. Certainly we all share those 
concerns.

  One of the things I am having difficulty in is looking at the budget 
and seeing whether health care is funded, whether the Clinton proposal 
is in there or not. On our side we tried to take the Republican 
alternative health care plan and put it in here. It is not a perfect 
plan, but we think it begins to meet many of the needs that the 
gentleman is discussing. The mental health block grants program they 
have, I think that is a very strong component in their program.
  But I think one of the things that we need to look at, as we look 
towards this health care program, and the problem we all have is that 
we need to look at each of the proposals, but we have a proposal that 
is based very much upon the ability of the private sector to solve the 
health care problems that are out there with some assistance from the 
Government. I cannot tell exactly how this program is put together, but 
I can tell my colleagues that those of us on the Committee on the 
Budget, many of us, and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] is 
probably going to talk later more forcefully on this, share many of the 
concerns that the gentleman has in the health care arena, and I think 
one of the things that we have to do is to make sure that none of us, 
and I am not saying they are not in this at all, but we have very real 
problems that we can expand health insurance to, and health coverage 
and access to everyone as we look forward into this area as we move 
forward. We cannot allow though a lot of programs to go out and have 
people feeling that they are betrayed because we cannot deliver in the 
future on some of these things. We on the Committee on the Budget 
struggled very much on our side in trying to come up with a program 
that we thought was realistic.
  Mr. Chairman, there are things that can be added, and I say to my 
colleagues, ``Certainly, if you look at the Medicaid program that we 
have in there that would expand and allow States to use Medicaid in a 
managed care situation, that would be very helpful, and it would also 
help in the kind of programs you're looking for.''
  So, Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with the gentleman on 
that, but I have a problem with the budget as we have seen it so far, 
and I would urge that the program offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich] be the one that we adopt.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus 
offers this alternative as an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
to the House Budget Committee Resolution.
  The proposed CBC budget for fiscal year 1995 represents a serious and 
responsible alternative to the budget proposed by the President, by the 
House Budget Committee, and by the House Republicans.
  The CBC alternative budget stays within established discretionary 
caps while providing $2.6 billion more in deficit reduction than does 
the President and $1.8 billion more than the House Budget Committee.
  The focus of the CBC alternative budget this year, as it has been in 
years past, is to address the numerous problems facing our constituents 
and indeed the Nation.
  Specifically, our budget:
  Creates jobs--while we appreciate the efforts being made by the 
President and the House Budget Committee to address the serious 
unemployment problems facing this nation, we are nevertheless concerned 
that their attempts to adequately address the problem fall short. The 
CBC budget, therefore, includes more than $2 billion in funding for job 
training and job creation. In addition to resolving some of the 
intractable unemployment problems facing our Nation, the programs that 
receive this funding will help us rebuild our cities and our 
infrastructure.
  Combats crime--included within the CBC budget proposal is the CBC 
alternative crime package. Our package focuses on crime prevention. 
Included in our budget is funding for the Ounce of Prevention Council, 
the community development corporations, and the Local Partnerships Act. 
The CBC alternative budget promotes the concept that the best way to 
stop crime is to eliminate many of the factors that create this 
explosive environment.
  Educates our children and retrains our work force--included in the 
CBC is funding for an intense and much-needed program to help educate 
all of our Nation's children from the very young through post-secondary 
education, including continuing education.
  Other highlights of our budget include the full funding of Federal 
employee salaries, the protection and housing of our elderly, and the 
full restoration of funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program.
  The CBC alternative budget also agrees with the President and the 
House Budget Committee on the amount allocated for the earned income 
tax credit, which the CBC was pleased to see expanded in last year's 
reconciliation legislation.
  The CBC budget also includes a permanent extension of the targeted 
jobs tax credit.
  As I indicated earlier, the CBC alternative budget also includes 
additional revenues to be dedicated to deficit reduction. This money is 
gained through a Federal tax on guns and ammunition, and through the 
assumption, based on Joint Economic Committee estimates, that every 1 
percent of additional employment created by the budget generates an 
additional $1 billion to the Federal budget.
  The reductions made in defense and intelligence are calculated to 
maintain a strong defense and enhanced security for us and our allies. 
The proposed amounts for reduction in spending is $8 billion.
  The CBC alternative budget accepts the economic forecasts and 
projections advanced by the Congressional Budget Office. The numbers 
contained within the budget are calculated against the CBO baseline 
reestimates of March 2, 1994.
  Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I thank you again for your 
time and patience and I hope that you will, as you have in past years, 
allow our caucus this opportunity to offer to the House a budget that 
we feel best addresses the pressing problems facing our Nation today.

                              {time}  1550

  The CBC alternative budget promotes the concept that the best way to 
stop crime is to eliminate many of the factors that create this 
explosive environment.
  It educates our children and it retrains our work force. Included in 
the CBC budget is an intense and much-needed program to help educate 
all of our Nation's children.
  There are many other highlightes of our budget, including the full 
funding of Federal salaries, the protection of housing for our elderly, 
and the full restoration of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program. Our budget also agrees with the President and the Committee on 
the Budget of the House on the amount allocated for the earned income 
tax credit, which the CBC was pleased to see expanded in last year's 
reconciliation legislation.
  The CBC budget also includes a permanent extension of the targeted 
jobs tax credit. As I indicated earlier, the CBC budget also includes 
additional revenues to be dedicated to deficit reduction. This money is 
gained through a Federal tax on guns and ammunition and through an 
assumption based on Joint Economic Committee estimates that every 1 
percent of additional employment created by the budget generates an 
additional $1 billion to the Federal budget.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a serious budget. This alternative budget 
deserves to be considered seriously.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate, as well as my colleagues, the 
Congressional Black Caucus and the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Kweisi 
Mfume, for the tremendous work he has done in this Congress over a 
number of years and congratulate him for a very thorough and, I think, 
extraordinarily comprehensive plan.
  We basically have 4 plans before us. We have the Democratic plan 
brought out by the Committee on the Budget; we have the Kasich 
Republican plan that is presented by the Republican members of the 
Committee on the Budget and endorsed by most members of the Republican 
caucus; we have the Solomon plan; and we have the Black Caucus plan.
  I would submit to the Members that the Kasich plan is far superior to 
any of the other three, but I would say that if the choice were between 
the Black Caucus plan and the Democratic proposal, I would go with the 
Black Caucus plan.
  What I find of concern, though, in general, is that we have simply 
ignored the fact that when the plan passed last year by just 2 votes in 
the House and a tie vote in the Senate broken by the Vice President, 
that plan simply has allowed the national debt to grow too far. If the 
national debt is going to grow by $1.6 trillion in the next 5 years, we 
are not going to have a lot of money in the years to come to deal with 
many of the problems that are in the Black Caucus plan. There is going 
to be such a need in the future, because all we are doing is postponing 
the inevitable.
  What I am struck with is that a year ago we had the Speaker come on 
the floor of the House wrapping up this debate, getting all the Members 
he could to support it, and he promised us this--and I am going to 
quote him--he said, ``The most important thing to note with this plan 
tonight is that it will not by itself accomplish what we need to do. We 
must do more,'' the Speaker said. And he said, ``We must cut more 
spending, and we will, we must reallocate our priorities and we will, 
we must continue the process of deficit reduction, and we will.''
  The bottom line, though, is that we have not, and the plan presented 
by the Democrats out of the Committee on the Budget does not do it. It 
does not reduce the deficit. It does not cut any spending, and as the 
President said when he spoke on the floor in the State of the Union 
address, ``Basically, we must stay the course.''
  We cannot stay the course. The Republican plan changes the course we 
are headed in. It provides $152 billion of additional deficit 
reduction. It provides an extraordinary $500 tax credit per child 
limited to families below $200,000. It has job creation and economic 
growth through changes in our Tax Code. It has welfare reform, it has 
crime control, and it has a basic reform of government operations and 
consolidation. We put in our budget health care reform as well.
  I would just say to the Members of Congress that we did not do what 
the Speaker said we would do, that we are staying the course when we 
should change the course, and that this Republican plan makes major 
changes.
  But I would submit--and maybe not all my Republican colleagues would 
join me in this--that the Black Caucus plan in fact reduces the 
President's plan by $2 billion and makes significant major changes that 
I support. I will vote for the Black Caucus plan over the Democratic 
package.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate my colleague [Mr. Mfume] for the work he 
has done.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, my thanks to the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays] for those kind and gracious remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this Congressional Black 
Caucus/progressive caucus alternative budget. I commend Chairman Mfume 
and all the other members who have worked hard to shape this important 
budget alternative.
  The yearly budget debate focuses our attention on budget choices. 
Despite a modest economic recovery, millions of Americans continue to 
be left behind. The Federal budget does not yet come close to meeting 
the demand for social investment and economic development that could 
make a significant difference in the lives of many Americans. More than 
any other budget before us, the CBC alternative budget would do just 
that.
  Many communities in America are in crisis. For the third straight 
year in 1992, poverty rates increased to 14.5 percent--up from 14.2 
percent in 1991. This rate of poverty is higher than at any time during 
the 1970's. It represents the highest number of Americans living in 
poverty--38.6 million--since 1962. Since 1989, the number of poor 
people in America has risen by 5.4 million.
  Tragically, poverty among children is the highest of any age group. 
Child poverty stands at 21.9 percent; 14.6 million children live in 
poverty. One in every four children under the age of 6 lives in 
poverty. It is hard to rejoice at the good economic news, when so many 
American children, teenagers and adults remain unaffected by the 
economic recovery.

  This budget grapples with the tragic social deprivation which 
strangles millions of Americans. Our cities seethe with anger, despair, 
and hopelessness. Joblessness continues at unacceptable levels. 
Unemployment remains at 6.5 percent. Approximately 50 percent of out-
of-school young Americans--those age 16 to 24--without a high school 
degree are not employed. And more than 70 percent of young African-
American high school dropouts are not employed.
  This budget increases the education and training function by $1.2 
billion over the Budget Committee proposal, including $75 million for 
Youth Fair Chance, a stipend-based job training program and $75 million 
for alternative recreation, gang prevention programs.
  Mr. Chairman, a rising tide clearly does not lift all boats--that is 
why the Federal Government must invest in programs that will spur 
economic development, job creation, and crime reduction. That is the 
central purpose of the CBC budget. More than any other, the CBC budget 
would reduce joblessness, prevent crime and revitalize communities.
  Our budget increases the community and regional development function 
by $550 million, transportation programs by $900 million, community 
development banks by $600 million, and funds neighborhood 
infrastructure programs at $750 million. These job creating programs 
would leverage billions in private sector investment, create hundreds 
of thousands of jobs, and dramatically reduce the underlying social 
tension in society.
  There has been a lot of rhetoric about crime during this session of 
Congress. While some of the hysteria is misdirected, there is certainly 
a desperate need for a serious effort to reduce violent crime in 
America.
  While overall crime has come down over the past twenty years, violent 
crime is up 24 percent since 1973. In 1992, nearly 2 million violent 
crimes were committed. There were 750,000 arrests for violent crimes 
and 410,000 prisoners held for violent crimes. Twenty-three percent of 
American families were touched by crime--violent or otherwise--in 1992.
  The CBC budget increases direct crime prevention programs by $1.2 
billion. These programs, combined with the substantial investment in 
job creation and economic development would go a long way toward 
solving the social problems this institution spends so much time 
discussing.
  This budget tackles the underlying social problems which lead to 
crime. It invests in long-term crime reduction strategies, not short-
term political ones.
  Today's deficit reduction momentum takes place at a time when the 
Federal budget has been cut severely, and State and local funds are 
often more restrained still. While most public officials applaud the 
progress that has been made reducing the deficit, we may be losing 
sight of the purpose of Federal investment--namely encouraging job 
growth and creation, and lending a helping hand to those who the 
private sector leaves behind.
  The CBC budget resolution proves it is possible to invest in our 
communities, responsibly fund the military and reduce the budget 
deficit. The CBC alternative does not resort to robbing-Peter-to-pay-
Paul among important domestic programs.
  This budget presumes that job training and job creation is a short-
term investment that will pay long-term economic dividends. If we train 
and employ our young today, the cost to government tomorrow will be 
greatly reduced. Additionally, by giving idle youth and young adults 
alternatives--especially in inner cities--crime will come down 
dramatically. Most of us understand this principle, but this budget 
backs up the principle with the necessary resources.
  The CBC budget rejects the notion that no serious social investment 
is possible within the discretionary budget caps. On the contrary. With 
targeted reductions in unnecessary spending, this budget puts real 
money in programs that many Members support, but which the other 
budgets underfund. This budget is the best one presented. It is real. 
It would make a difference. I urge support for the CBC alternative 
budget.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wyoming [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I join 
with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] in being concerned 
about children, and point out that her district, the 35th of 
California, would receive $58 million for children under the Kasich 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been listening most of the day. I do not intend 
to talk about details. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] talked 
about helping people, and I agree with that. And I suppose everyone 
here wants to help people.
  The question is, how do we do that? How do we best do that? It seems 
to me that is the great debate. There is no one here that does not want 
to help people.
  So budgets, I think, are predicated on what you want to do, where you 
want to go, what it is you want to achieve. And that is what budgets 
ought to be about. And there is a legitimate difference of view.
  I think we ought to talk about philosophy. How much government do we 
expect to have, how much taxes do we expect to charge, where do we see 
the role of the Government I think these are legitimate philosophical 
questions that make it much easier to decide what budget you really 
support.
  What do you think about the size and the scope of government? Do you 
want more? Do you want less? Do you think the Government is involved 
enough in our lives, or should there be indeed something less. I will 
wager most of us go home and say we will have less government and come 
here and vote for more. Legitimate questions.
  Taxes. Do we want more? Do we want less? Obviously, if you are going 
to have more programs, you have to have more taxes. That is the way 
that works. I have listened to endless numbers of programs today that 
we simply could not get along without. I doubt that. It seems to me 
local government could well do it if we would leave the money there. 
That is a legitimate question. Do you want more taxes or less.
  The role of the private sector. We are all about solving problems. 
Many problems can be solved better in the private sector, better at 
local government. Do you want more emphasis on the private sector, or 
less?
  Individual freedom. That is part of it. If we have more government, 
we have less freedom. With freedom goes some responsibility. We have to 
do that.
  So, Mr. Chairman, these are legitimate questions that we ask. And the 
budget drives the answer. The budget drives the answer. It makes it 
fairly clear to me that the Kasich budget is the one to support to have 
less government, to solve problems in the private sector, to deal with 
problems, have more freedom, more responsibility. If you believe that, 
the Kasich budget is the one to support. And I believe that.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum].
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kasich 
budget because it is the only budget on the floor today or tomorrow 
that will be real reform in Washington, DC, that sets out real 
programmatic changes. That I think is what the American people are 
calling for.
  One such change is a welfare reform bill that was placed in the 
Kasich budget that is supported by 162 of the 175 members of the 
Republican caucus. It is the only bill out there trying to bring the 
Clinton administration to the table on welfare reform, something he 
promised as a candidate.
  One key aspect of the reform we are calling for in the welfare system 
is SSI, supplemental security income. Just to give you an illustration 
of what the Kasich bill will do, of what the welfare reform bill will 
do, and what our proposal accomplishes, and the absolute abuse that is 
going on in the SSI and the welfare system, let us look at the 
explosion of drug addicts receiving SSI.
  These are people who are addicted to drugs so badly that we give them 
money. They are unable to work because they are addicted to drugs, so 
we give them money to help them with their addiction.
  In 1985, we had about 5,000 people who were drug addicts receiving 
SSI. Today, 80,000 people in America are so badly drug addicted that we 
give them $450 a month, at least, in some States more, in cash 
benefits, drug treatment, and Medicaid.
  Now, this sounds terrible. This is a lot of money. This is over $300 
million a year to drug addicts on SSI.
  Now, that sounds bad. There is a requirement, however, that these 
people be in treatment. So when the Social Security Administrator came 
before our subcommittee the other day, I asked her, what percentage of 
these people are in drug treatment as required under the law?
  Her answer, under 10 percent. Under 10 percent. I said well, what are 
you doing with these other 91, 92 percent? She says I do not know. We 
just send them the money. We just send them the money.
  Now, that sounds bad too, doesn't it? It gets even worse. Who do we 
send the money to? The Social Security Administration figured out you 
don't send cash to drug addicts. They figured that out. We give them a 
big point for that one. So who do they send it to? they send it to a 
representative payee, someone appointed to manage the money for the 
drug addict. And who did the General Accounting Office testify before 
the subcommittee is in increasing numbers becoming the representative 
payee? The drug dealer. Of course. We are sending money to the drug 
dealer to take are of the drug addict's habit.

  In some cases we send it to the bartender. There is a case in Denver 
where there is a Denver bartender who received over $10,000 a month in 
SSI checks to take care of the alcoholics who frequent his bar.
  Now, this is a ridiculous situation. This is something that the 
Kasich budget solves. By the way, this is the tip of the iceberg. I 
talked about 80,000 drug addicts. Those 80,000 drug addicts are in 
three States. You say how can 3 States have 60 percent of the 80,000 
drug addicts? The reason is because the Social Security Administration 
came up with a great idea. They came up with the idea that these people 
are sick and we need to help them, so we have to find them and get them 
in the system.
  So they instituted outreach centers in Detroit and in Chicago and in 
Los Angeles, and they go out and find drug addicts and sign them up so 
they can receive benefits. That is why these three States have the 
most.
  Just in January they decided to set up an outreach office in the 
District of Columbia to find alcoholics and drug addicts who were so 
disabled that we have to help them.
  Well, what they found out is in the District of Columbia, of the 
80,000 drug addicts nationwide, 38, only 38, are in the District of 
Columbia. You can find 38 alcoholics and drug addicts within 5 blocks 
of the Capitol. The fact of the matter is this is an addiction program 
that is broken. How do we solve it? We solve some of it by drug 
testing. We say to people if you have an illegal substance in your 
body, we are no longer going to give you cash assistance. You can stay 
on drug treatment. We will help you. We will give you an opportunity to 
rise back in society and get your life together, but we are no longer 
going to pay for something we do not want in our society.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would ask the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, surely he 
does not suggest that the things he found reprehensible are part of the 
Congressional Black Caucus' budget?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, this is part 
of the existing system that Mr. Ford and Mr. Jacobs just had a hearing 
on about 3 or 4 weeks ago. The Subcommittee on Human Resources and the 
Subcommittee on Social Security had this hearing, and that is why we 
proposed this solution in the Kasich budget.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and would like to 
extend my congratulations to those members of the CBC that prepared 
this budget, and say that in the Congressional Black Caucus budget, we 
have the only budget which clearly refuses to accept the President's 
doctrine of no further cuts in defense. That is a major blunder, and we 
should have corrected it in all of the budgets.
  The American people need to know that we are still spending enormous 
amounts of money for defense, when it is not needed. We can fund the 
programs we need to fund in education, we can fund the programs in 
health care and in job training that we need to fund, and we do not 
have to raise taxes for anybody.

                              {time}  1610

  All we have to do is stop spending money on worthless weapons 
systems. We have to stop funding overseas bases in Germany and Japan, 
where if they need bases, they can pay for their own bases. We have to 
stop funding Star Wars and weapons systems that we are never going to 
use. Defense is where the money is. But we have refused to do that, and 
thus we do not have the money to spend for education and for job 
training and for health care that we need.
  In this budget, the theme that education and employment has been 
vitally needed in our big cities runs through the entire budget. We 
have a disaster in most of our big cities. We have an education and 
employment disaster. We appropriated $8 billion for an earthquake 
disaster in California recently. Last year we appropriated $6 billion 
for a flood relief disaster in the Midwest. Before that, we 
appropriated about $6 billion for hurricane disaster relief in Florida. 
Those were stimulus packages for those parts of the country. I have no 
problem with helping people who need help.
  But in the northeast we have a jobs disaster and, we have had a jobs 
disaster for the last 12 years. We need relief. We need education and 
employment disaster relief. We need programs for job training. We need 
programs for education.
  At the heart of this budget is a program which would do that. We have 
programs in here which will help to rebuild our schools. The Education 
Infrastructure Act will provide emergency funds for the repair and 
renovation of schools, for asbestos and lead poisoning abatement, and 
other needs.
  We have a family learning center program for libraries to guarantee 
access for the poor to the information superhighway which we hear so 
much about, but nobody is planning to allow poor people to be a part of 
that. We have opportunity to learn, incentive grants proposed to 
encourage selective local education agencies and to match their 
proposals for curriculum content improvements and increased testing 
with some concrete proposals for improvements in the education delivery 
system.
  We have a school-based building construction training program to 
expand the model which is already developed by the youth build 
experimental program which employs young teenagers, trains them, and 
employs them in the actual renovation and rebuilding of buildings that 
are located in their own community and then their families get the 
first opportunity to occupy those buildings.
  We need relief in the northeast. We need relief in New York, inner 
city communities. We need relief in Chicago. Any census track that has 
unemployment above the national level for the last 12 years ought to be 
declared a disaster area. It ought to be eligible for extensive amounts 
of funds for job training and for employment.
  It is only fair. We have given it to the earthquake areas, to the 
disaster flood areas. God created those disasters. But the disaster in 
our cities was created by man, and the victims of that disaster deserve 
help as much as any other victims of other disasters.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Lazio], a very distinguished new Member of Congress.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kasich substitute and urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, budget resolutions are many things to many people and 
the nature of budget resolutions has changed over time. They have 
evolved to contain policy guidance of a highly specific nature.
  I prefer the traditional concept of a budget resolution. I think of 
budget resolutions as highly aggregated blueprints for fiscal policy, 
intended to offer broad guidance to Congress as Congress sets out to 
put in place a coherent fiscal plan. Any specifics--for example, which 
programs to cut, eliminate, or even increase, or which taxes to cut, 
raise, or revise--should, quite properly be left to the committees of 
actual jurisdiction for these programs.
  This said, the Kasich substitute, unlike the Democrats' resolution, 
contains a high level of specifics, and I doubt if any of my Republican 
colleagues support each and every provision. I know I do not--I am not 
happy with several of the entitlement changes, especially those in 
health programs. Nor do I support the large cuts in the foreign 
assistance. And, rather than repealing Davis-Bacon, I support reform 
which enjoys widespread bipartisan backing.
  But just because a Member disagrees with some provisions of a 
complicated budget resolution is not sufficient reason to vote against. 
As former New York Congressman Barber Conable said in this context, 
``there's always something for somebody to hate.''
  Voting against a budget resolution simply because there are some 
disagreeable provisions is, in my view, an excuse to duck the important 
issue of fiscal policy.
  I support the Kasich substitute because it offers a clearly 
preferable fiscal policy path for our country. Compared to the 
Democrats' resolution, it has significantly greater deficit reduction--
$150 billion more over 5 years--and, in my view, the long-term benefits 
of deficit reduction outweigh the short-term pain of program 
reductions.
  Moreover, the Republican substitute is more honest than the 
Democrats'. Unlike the Democrats', the Republican budget includes 
health policy reform. It also provides for welfare reform and for 
fighting crime. Mr. Chairman, it is nothing short to disingenuous for 
my Democratic colleagues to criticize these provisions of the Kasich 
substitute when their resolution is silent on these three important 
issues.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], a member of the Committee on Appropriations and 
a very strong fiscal conservative.
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my able colleague for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a minute about budget priorities. The 
First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, recently--in a speech at the 
National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda--following, I think, very 
good advice by Secretary Donna Shalala, spoke about the National 
Institutes of Health being one of our national treasures. And, Mr. 
Chairman, it is fascinating to understand how biomedical research 
results in cost savings in health care.
  The amount of money saved by just one discovery, the discovery of the 
Salk polio vaccine, amounts to the entire funding cost of NIH 
throughout its history. What that means to health care cost savingss in 
the future is almost incalculable.
  Yet last year the administration put out a budget that would have 
provided a 1 percent increase for NIH below inflation, resulting in 
actual cuts in 9 of the 17 Institutes. We on the Appropriations 
Committee and the Subcommittee on Labor-Health and Human Services-
Education ended up raising that to 6 percent in the House and 5.2 
percent in the final conference, all within the budget, because we 
considered NIH one of our true priorities.
  This year the President's budget puts NIH at an increase of $517 
million or 4.7 percent. Even if we take out the forward funding, it is 
$417 million or 3.8 percent. However, the House Committee on the 
Budget, on the opposite side of the aisle, provided an increase in 
their budget document of only $259 million or 2.3 percent. This puts 
NIH, again, below inflation and shows that they do not make the agency 
a priority at all.
  The Republican Kasich substitute supports the President's view that 
NIH is a high priority and puts it in at 4.7 percent or $517 million. 
Although this bill cuts made overall, it makes a priority choice to 
fund biomedical research at NIH.
  Mr. Chairman, NIH biomedical research in America is the envy of the 
entire world. If we provide funding on a downward slope, we are going 
to lose an entire generation of research scientists who are dedicating 
themselves to finding cures or preventions for AIDS, cancer, and 
diabetes, and Parkinson's disease as well as all the afflictions that 
affect us as human beings. This research is a priority.
  The Kasich substitute is so much better in this area than the 
Democratic budget. Support the Kasich substitute.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].

                              {time}  1620

  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I ask my colleagues to give a very serious look at the CBC budget 
this year, a year when we can afford this budget.
  Mr. Chairman, in the 1980's we saw a massive transfer of funds from 
the domestic side of the budget to the military side of the budget. If 
we look for a theme in the CBC budget this year, it is giving something 
back from that side of the budget where we have been largely successful 
to the domestic side of the budget, once again. Mr. Chairman, we are 
paying for the transfer and we are paying dearly.
  As we look at the crime in our streets, Mr. Chairman, we know that 
the causes are multiple, but is there a person in this body who would 
not concede that the cities did not profit from the transfer from one 
side of the budget to the other? Look at what our budget would do in 
education, training, and social services.
  We are asking for nearly $2 billion more than the $19 billion that is 
already in the budget. Is that a lot of money, Mr. Chairman? The money 
would go for job training, for Pell grants, for job creation in the 
health care industry, for example.
  Something has begun to happen to me in the streets of the District of 
Columbia. Over and over again, young black men, in particular, come up 
to me say what I have not heard them say directly to my face before, 
``Congresswoman, I need a job,'' over and over again. I don't know if 
this is being orchestrated, but they are young black men.
  I do know this: Last week on the front page of the New York Times we 
were told there were 5 percent fewer black men going to college in the 
1990's than went in the 1980's. That ought to send the strongest 
conceivable message to us.
  The notion that has driven us during the new administration has been, 
to put it pejoratively, ``It is the economy, stupid.'' By paying 
attention to the economy, we have seen some gains with the best economy 
since 1989 and the best deficit reduction ever in the shortest amount 
of time.
  The theme for this coming year surely will be not ``It is the 
economy, stupid,'' but ``It is jobs, stupid.'' It is jobs that, instead 
of leading the recovery, have been following the recovery. A 
substantial amount of the recovery, indeed, has come at the expense of 
jobs, as businesses continues to become lean at the expense of its own 
workers.
  Mr. Chairman, unemployment went down in the country in the last 
cycle. It went up in the black community. What kind of perverse ratio 
is that? The burden is now on us to show that the upturn in the economy 
can have the only payoff that counts, an upturn in jobs, and we will 
not get that without the substantial amount of effort we have put into 
improving the economy itself.
  If we go for 5 years driven entirely by deficit reduction without 
substantially more investment in our people, we may be closer to a 
balanced budget at the end of that time, but much further away from the 
balanced allocation of resources that we need.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith]. One of the reasons why the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich] has been so successful is because of the good work of this 
gentleman.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Republican budget alternative. As chairman of the Republican Physical 
Capital Working Group on the Budget Committee, reviewing commerce and 
housing credit (370), transportation (400), and economic development 
(450) functions, we met for over 1,000 hours over the past several 
months compiling the recommendations included in this budget 
alternative.
  These changes are good policy. We consolidate several economic 
development programs into a single economic development block grant. We 
propose the privatization of the nonsafety-related functions of the 
Federal Aviation Administration. We support an innovative ``risk-
sharing'' initiative in the Federal Housing Administration to reduce 
the risk to the Federal Government in housing guarantee programs.
  For each of these initiatives, we have talked with the experts to 
address their concerns. We met with Secretary Cisneros of HUD, 
Secretary Pena of Transportation, and other experts at CBO and CRS. 
These ideas not only save money, they make good policy sense.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget alternative is not perfect, but responds to 
the American people's request that we reduce spending and increase 
efficiency in the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for the nice words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia [Ms. Norton], as we look at how much the District of Columbia 
would get, our tally is $48.1 million from the $500 child tax credit.
  Does anybody know what we have done in the last year in terms of 
increasing the debt of this country? For the last year, we have gone 
into debt an additional $1 billion a day, $361 billion that we have 
added to the debt of this country. We are mortgaging our kids' futures.
  What I am encouraged about is that I think we have turned the corner. 
The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] last year led an effort to 
balance the budget with his proposal. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich] this year is leading an effort, that we are coming to a lower 
deficit in 1996, for example, than we have come since 1982.
  We have added in this so-called Kasich proposal some tax changes that 
we need. We are saying to business for the first time, ``Look, you can 
consider that new machinery and equipment that is going to help your 
productivity and jobs, you can consider that as a business expense, and 
you can take it off your income tax, you can deduct it from your income 
tax, expensing.''
  We have said not only the $500 child tax credit, but we have said to 
the self-employed that, ``Look, we are going to start being fair to you 
in terms of you being able to have 100 percent deductibility for health 
care costs.''
  I think the $150 billion extra that we cut spending in this budget is 
a giant step forward. We take $150 billion more than the Democrat 
proposal that we will be voting on later.
  If there are 263 of us that can sign a petition to put a balanced 
budget amendment on the floor, it seems reasonable that there should be 
at least 219 of us that are willing to say, ``Yes, let us take the 
first step.''
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer first my congratulations to the 
gentleman and other Members in the caucus that worked so hard in 
putting this Black Caucus alternative budget together.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of that budget, because I 
think it offers to those of us in Congress some real options, some real 
choices, as to how we want to spend the money of the American taxpayer.
  In the first instance, we say in order to fund increased spending, we 
have to make realistic cuts, so the Black Caucus alternative budget 
starts with that premise, and, in fact, does make cuts in defense 
spending reflective of the new age in which we live.
  Second, we say we have to have certain important priorities. I want 
talk about two: education and economic development. In the first 
instance, in terms of education, it is widely accepted that we are not 
going to prosecute our way out of this crime problem. Prevention is the 
key, and the catchword for prevention is education. We have to educate 
young people and provide them with hope and other options, if we hope 
over the long-term to respond to the crime problem.
  Yes, Members can say, ``Put a Band-Aid on it and build some 
prisons,'' but we cannot afford to keep building prisons and spending 
$20,000 per-year-per-inmate.
  Let me suggest that the Black Caucus budget is the preferable 
alternative. It says, first, let us work with young people in the 
Chapter 1 Program, and the Black Caucus Program adds $2 billion to the 
Chapter 1 Program to work with at-risk and disadvantaged young people.
  It says, second, let us put some money into college training, so it 
adds another $2 billion for Pell grants, so that young people who are 
disadvantaged can go to college instead of going to prison.
  It says, third, let us provide support services to those 
disadvantaged college students, many of whom are first generation 
college students, and it provides money for that. It addresses the 
problem of at-risk youth, and fighting gang warfare early in the 
process, and it provides money for job training and education and life 
skills.
  On the other side of the coin, it says the key to economic 
development is job creation. So the Black Caucus budget includes $650 
million for Community Development Banks. That is almost double what the 
administration put in for this same project.
  If we want poor communities, urban communities, poor rural 
communities to prosper and create jobs, we have to have access to 
capital and banking services. The Community Development Bank Program in 
the Black Caucus budget accomplishes that.
  Second, it includes $6 million for minority business development 
within the Commerce Department. Again, minority businesses are an 
engine for creating jobs in the minority community. That is another way 
to fight crime.
  An additional $3 million is for minority and small business 
assistance.
  Putting together a budget is about making choices. The choices are 
the administration budget or the far more progressive Black Caucus 
budget. I urge the Members' acceptance of the Black Caucus 
alternatives.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter], a leader of the House and a member of the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Shays] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the Republican team that put together the so-
called Kasich budget, and I want to also thank the Black Caucus for the 
efforts they have undertaken here.
  Let me just address my friends in the Black Caucus with respect to 
something I think they should consider very strongly. One thing we have 
done correctly in the last 10 to 12 years, one of our constitutional 
duties to all of our people is to protect them. We have done a darned 
good job of it.

                              {time}  1630

  We rebuilt national defense in the 1980's. At the time when I came to 
Congress we had about 1,000 petty officers a month getting out of the 
Navy because they could not make enough money. We had a lot of our 
military personnel on food stamps. We had equipment that would not 
work. Fifty percent of our aircraft were not mission-capable, and we 
had enemies round the world taking advantage of this perceived American 
weakness.
  But we rebuilt national security in the 1980s, and as a result of 
that we brought down the Berlin Wall, and it brought about the 
dissolution of the Soviet Empire.
  That action has allowed us to reduce the defense budget by billions 
and billions of dollars, and in real terms since about 1985, the 
defense budget has come down in excess of 40 percent. So if we look at 
the $300 billion budgets we were funding in the mid-1980s, and put a 
pencil to that, it means that there are tens of billions of dollars 
available now that we have plugged into other aspects of the budget, 
the domestic side of the budget because we were strong, because we 
maintained peace through strength.
  Let me now say we now have a world that is dangerous in different 
ways. It is a world in which North Korea is acquiring a nuclear weapon. 
We are not sure exactly what we can do about that. We are sure there is 
nothing we can do immediately about that problem. China is moving into 
the South China Sea with some force. They are taking the place of the 
Soviet Union as the next superpower, I think. We have a cauldron in the 
Middle east. We have the Balkans exploding. We have a dangerous world 
in different ways than the world in which the Soviet Union and the 
United States were the chief protagonists.
  We have a duty to our men and women in uniform to keep them safe and 
to keep them secure and to keep them well-equipped. We can only do that 
with a good budget, and the Kasich budget has the minimum amount of 
money we should be spending on national security.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of our time.
  Mr. Chairman, we would like to conclude by just once again 
emphasizing the extraordinary need to get our fiscal house in order. We 
have a national debt that is going to go up $1.6 trillion in the next 5 
years, and the Democratic package that passed out of the Budget 
Committee simply allows that to continue to happen.
  The President says we need to stay the course, and yet staying the 
course means we are going to have one of the largest increases in the 
national debt in my 5-years period happening under his presidency. The 
Republican budget initiative was just formed around some basic, major 
Republican principles such as federalism, block granting, real reform 
in health care, welfare reform and immigration reform. We are also in 
our package reforming the organization of Government. We attempt to 
privatize and we attempt to have smaller Government.
  We asked ourselves a basic question: Who do we want to help, the 
people in Washington or the people back home? The people back home need 
our help. We have to get our financial house in order.
  There are going to be four basic budget packages, including a small 
one by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], which makes a 
fifth. But there is the Democratic plan, there is the Kasich Republican 
plan, there is the Solomon plan, there is the Black Caucus plan.
  I would submit that the Kasich plan deals with major reform, and 
addresses so many of the problems we need to address today. I would 
submit, however, that the Black Caucus reform is certainly better than 
the Democratic package that passed out of the House Budget Committee 
last week.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of our time.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion let me just state again that the budget 
being offered today by the Congressional Black Caucus, which we will 
again debate tomorrow, represents an aggressive and yet fiscally 
responsible approach to a number of our problems in our society.
  Again let me remind Members that our budget deficit is $1.8 billion 
less than the budget proposed by the House Budget Committee and still 
$2.6 billion less than the budget proposed by the administration.
  I want to thank the Members of the House Progressive Caucus who have 
worked in conjunction with us in shaping this document. Clearly we want 
to thank the staff. My thanks to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], both of whose visions 
and whose sincerity I appreciate in this very difficult process, and 
both of whom I suspect will have an opportunity to debate again 
tomorrow, and neither of whom I think could have put together this 
package without a sincere understanding at least in their perspective 
of what they wanted to do. And I appreciate that, and I speak on behalf 
of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive 
Coalition who have worked to shape our proposal.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to tomorrow's 
continuation of this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is considered as 
having been read for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of House Concurrent Resolution 218 is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 218

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1995.

       The Congress determines and declares that this resolution 
     is the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     1995, including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, as required by section 301 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1994, October 1, 1995, 
     October 1, 1996, October 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998:
       (1) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $977,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,031,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,079,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,136,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,190,200,000,000.
     and the amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be increased are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $0.
       Fiscal year 1996: $0.
       Fiscal year 1997: $0.
       Fiscal year 1998: $0.
       Fiscal year 1999: $0.
     and the amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act 
     revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels 
     of Federal revenues are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $100,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $106,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $111,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $117,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $123,700,000,000.
       (2) The appropriate levels of total new budget authority 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,246,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,308,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,374,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,447,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,531,400,000,000.
       (3) The appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,225,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,284,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,356,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,419,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,495,000,000,000.
       (4) The amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $247,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $253,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $276,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $282,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $304,800,000,000.
       (5) The appropriate levels of the public debt are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $4,968,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $5,293,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,640,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,996,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $6,367,300,000,000.
       (6) The appropriate levels of total Federal credit activity 
     for the fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1994, October 1, 
     1995, October 1, 1996, October 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998, 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $26,700,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $199,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $32,100,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $174,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $33,800,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $164,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $35,700,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $164,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $37,800,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $163,500,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, new primary loan guarantee commitments, and 
     new secondary loan guarantee commitments for fiscal years 
     1995 through 1999 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $263,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $261,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $252,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$8,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $117,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $130,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$10,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $103,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $95,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $96,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $99,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $12,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $11,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $123,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $122,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $150,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $149,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $166,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $165,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $182,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $181,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $160,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $180,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $178,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $198,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $196,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $217,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $215,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $242,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $239,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $219,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $220,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $234,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $229,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $249,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $242,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $261,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $253,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $272,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $32,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,300,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $247,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $247,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $298,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $298,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $315,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $315,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, -$800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$30,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$30,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$31,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$31,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

     SEC. 4. HEALTH CARE REFORM.

       (a) If health care reform legislation is reported 
     (including by a committee of conference), budget authority, 
     outlays, and new entitlement authority shall be allocated to 
     committees, and the total levels of budget authority, 
     outlays, and revenues shall be adjusted, to reflect such 
     legislation if the legislation in the form in which it will 
     be considered would not increase the total deficit for the 
     period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
       (b) Upon reporting of legislation described in subsection 
     (a) and again upon submission of a conference report on such 
     legislation, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall publish in the Congressional Record revised allocations 
     under section 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     and revised levels of total budget authority, outlays, and 
     revenues to carry out this section. Such allocations and 
     totals shall be considered as the allocations and aggregates 
     under this resolution.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the following legislation 
     should be enacted:
       (1) Legislation providing enforceable limits to control the 
     growth of entitlement or mandatory spending.
       (2) Amendments to the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 to 
     establish a regular procedure to provide assistance for 
     disasters and other emergencies without adding to the 
     deficit.
       (3) Legislation granting the President expedited rescission 
     authority over appropriations measures, as provided by H.R. 
     1578, as passed the House.

     SEC. 6. SENSE OF COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET ON SCORING HEALTH 
                   REFORM.

       It is the sense of the Committee on the Budget that all 
     financial transactions associated with the President's health 
     reform legislation or similar health reform legislation 
     relying on mandated payments to a Government entity be 
     treated as part of the Federal budget, including premium 
     payments by individuals and employees to health alliances 
     (which should be treated as receipts) and payments by health 
     alliances to providers (which should be treated as outlays), 
     for all purposes under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

     SEC. 7. SENSE OF COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET.

       (a) The Committee on the Budget is troubled by the Federal 
     Government's failure to enforce immigration laws and secure 
     United States borders from illegal immigration. The 
     Government has also failed to investigate and prosecute 
     Federal wage and hour violations, thus creating incentives to 
     hire persons illegally in the United States and exacerbating 
     the problem of illegal immigration.
       (b) The Committee on the Budget recognizes that the Federal 
     Government has an obligation to help fund increasing State 
     and local government costs directly resulting from 
     ineffective Federal enforcement efforts in this area. 
     Therefore, the Committee assumes that adequate funding in 
     this resolution will be used to reimburse States and local 
     governments for both authorized program costs and legally 
     binding obligations associated with providing:
       (1) Elementary and secondary education for undocumented 
     children in the public schools.
       (2) Emergency medical assistance to undocumented persons.
       (3) Law enforcement resources and personnel to incarcerate 
     and supervise parole of criminal aliens. This funding can 
     either be used by the Federal Government to take into custody 
     and incarcerate criminal aliens or to reimburse States and 
     local governments for their associated costs.
       (4) Services incidental to admission of refugees under the 
     Refugee Admission and Resettlement program.

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING RESERVE FUNDS FOR 
                   EMERGENCIES.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the emergency designation under section 251 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 has 
     repeatedly been invoked to circumvent the discretionary 
     spending limits for other than emergency purposes;
       (2) amounts for emergencies should be set aside within a 
     reserve fund and subject to the discretionary spending limit;
       (3) the reserve fund shall total 1 percent of annual budget 
     outlays; and
       (4) emergency funding requirements in excess of amounts 
     held in the reserve fund should be offset by a reduction in 
     appropriations.

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNFUNDED MANDATES.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Federal Government should not diminish the fiscal 
     autonomy of State and local governments over their own 
     sources of revenue;
       (2) the Federal Government should not shift the costs of 
     administering Federal entitlements to State and local 
     governments;
       (3) the Federal Government's share of entitlement programs 
     should not be capped without providing States authority to 
     amend their financial or programmatic responsibilities to 
     continue meeting the mandated service; and
       (4) Congress should develop a mechanism to ensure that the 
     costs of mandates are considered during deliberations on 
     authorizing legislation.

     SEC. 10. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING BASELINES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the baseline budget shows the likely course of Federal 
     revenues and spending if policies remain unchanged;
       (2) baseline budgeting has given rise to the practice of 
     calculating policy changes from an inflated spending level; 
     and
       (3) the baseline concept has been misused to portray 
     policies that would simply slow down the increase in spending 
     as spending reductions.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the President should submit a budget that compares 
     proposed spending levels for the budget year with the current 
     year; and
       (2) the starting point for deliberations on a budget 
     resolution should be the current year.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendments are in order except the amendments 
printed in House Report 103-429, which shall be considered in the order 
printed in the report and by the named proponent or a designee, shall 
be considered as read and shall not be subject to amendment.
  Each amendment will be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
  If more than one amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted, 
only the last amendment adopted shall be considered as having been 
finally adopted and reported back to the House.
  At the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
amendment, there will be a final period of general debate which shall 
not exceed 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member on the Committee on the Budget.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 103-429.


    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. frank of 
                             massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Frank of Massachusetts:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1995.

       The Congress determines and declares that this resolution 
     is the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     1995, including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, as required by section 301 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1994, October 1, 1995, 
     October 1, 1996, October 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998:
       (1) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $977,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,031,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,079,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,136,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,190,200,000,000.

     and the amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be increased are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $0.
       Fiscal year 1996: $0.
       Fiscal year 1997: $0.
       Fiscal year 1998: $0.
       Fiscal year 1999: $0.

     and the amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act 
     revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels 
     of Federal revenues are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $100,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $106,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $111,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $117,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $123,700,000,000.
       (2) The appropriate levels of total new budget authority 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,246,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,308,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,374,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,447,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,531,400,000,000.
       (3) The appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,225,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,284,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,356,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,419,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,495,000,000,000.
       (4) The amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $247,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $253,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $276,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $282,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $304,800,000,000.
       (5) The appropriate levels of the public debt are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $4,968,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $5,293,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,640,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,996,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $6,367,300,000,000.
       (6) The appropriate levels of total Federal credit activity 
     for the fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1994, October 1, 
     1995, October 1, 1996, October 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998, 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $26,700,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $199,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $32,100,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $174,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $33,800,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $164.600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $35,700,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $164,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $37,800,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $163,500,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, new primary loan guarantee commitments, and 
     new secondary loan guarantee commitments for fiscal years 
     1995 through 1999 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $260,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,300,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $261,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $252,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$8,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $117,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $130,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$10,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $103,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $95,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $96,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $99,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $12,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $11,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $123,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $122,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $150,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $149,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $166,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $165,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $182,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $181,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $160,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $180,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $178,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $198,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $196,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $217,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $215,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $242,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $239,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $219,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $220,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $234,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $229,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $249,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $242,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $261,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $253,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $272,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $32,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,300,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $247,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $247,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $298,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $298,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $315,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $315,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$30,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$30,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$31,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$31,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

     SEC. 4. HEALTH CARE REFORM.

       (a) If health care reform legislation is reported 
     (including by a committee of conference), budget authority, 
     outlays, and new entitlement authority shall be allocated to 
     committees, and the total levels of budget authority, 
     outlays, and revenues shall be adjusted, to reflect such 
     legislation if the legislation in the form in which it will 
     be considered would not increase the total deficit for the 
     period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
       (b) Upon reporting of legislation described in subsection 
     (a) and again upon submission of a conference report on such 
     legislation, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall publish in the Congressional Record revised allocations 
     under section 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     and revised levels of total budget authority, outlays, and 
     revenues to carry out this section. Such allocations and 
     totals shall be considered as the allocations and aggregates 
     under this resolution.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the following legislation 
     should be enacted:
       (1) Legislation providing enforceable limits to control the 
     growth of entitlement or mandatory spending.
       (2) Amendments to the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 to 
     establish a regular procedure to provide assistance for 
     disasters and other emergencies without adding to the 
     deficit.
       (3) Legislation granting the President expedited rescission 
     authority over appropriations measures, as provided by H.R. 
     1578, as passed the House.

     SEC. 6. SENSE OF COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET ON SCORING HEALTH 
                   REFORM.

       It is the sense of the Committee on the Budget that all 
     financial transactions associated with the President's health 
     reform legislation or similar health reform legislation 
     relying on mandated payments to a Government entity be 
     treated as part of the Federal budget, including premium 
     payments by individuals and employees to health alliances 
     (which should be treated as receipts) and payments by health 
     alliances to providers (which should be treated as outlays), 
     for all purposes under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

     SEC. 7. SENSE OF COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET.

       (a) The Committee on the Budget is troubled by the Federal 
     Government's failure to enforce immigration laws and secure 
     United States borders from illegal immigration. The 
     Government has also failed to investigate and prosecute 
     Federal wage and hour violations, thus creating incentives to 
     hire persons illegally in the United States and exacerbating 
     the problem of illegal immigration.
       (b) The Committee on the Budget recognizes that the Federal 
     Government has an obligation to help fund increasing State 
     and local government costs directly resulting from 
     ineffective Federal enforcement efforts in this area. 
     Therefore, the Committee assumes that adequate funding in 
     this resolution will be used to reimburse States and local 
     governments for both authorized program costs and legally 
     binding obligations associated with providing:
       (1) Elementary and secondary education for undocumented 
     children in the public schools.
       (2) Emergency medical assistance to undocumented persons.
       (3) Law enforcement resources and personnel to incarcerate 
     and supervise parole of criminal aliens. This funding can 
     either be used by the Federal Government to take into custody 
     and incarcerate criminal aliens or to reimburse States and 
     local governments for their associated costs.
       (4) Services incidental to admission of refugees under the 
     Refugee Admission and Resettlement program.

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING RESERVE FUNDS FOR 
                   EMERGENCIES.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the emergency designation under section 251 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 has 
     repeatedly been invoked to circumvent the discretionary 
     spending limits for other than emergency purposes;
       (2) amounts for emergencies should be set aside within a 
     reserve fund and subject to the discretionary spending limit;
       (3) the reserve fund shall total 1 percent of annual budget 
     outlays; and
       (4) emergency funding requirements in excess of amounts 
     held in the reserve fund should be offset by a reduction in 
     appropriations.

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNFUNDED MANDATES.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Federal Government should not diminish the fiscal 
     autonomy of State and local governments over their own 
     sources of revenue;
       (2) the Federal Government should not shift the costs of 
     administering Federal entitlements to State and local 
     governments;
       (3) the Federal Government's share of entitlement programs 
     should not be capped without providing States authority to 
     amend their financial or programmatic responsibilities to 
     continue meeting the mandated service; and
       (4) Congress should develop a mechanism to ensure that the 
     costs of mandates are considered during deliberations on 
     authorizing legislation.

     SEC. 10. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING BASELINES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the baseline budget shows the likely course of Federal 
     revenues and spending if policies remain unchanged;
       (2) baseline budgeting has given rise to the practice of 
     calculating policy changes from an inflated spending level; 
     and
       (3) the baseline concept has been misused to portray 
     policies that would simply slow down the increase in spending 
     as spending reductions.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the President should submit a budget that compares 
     proposed spending levels for the budget year with the current 
     year; and
       (2) the starting point for deliberations on a budget 
     resolution should be the current year.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, before we begin the debate, 
I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that 
the Government Printing Office in printing their report for this bill, 
misprinted two numbers in my amendment. The original copy of the report 
submitted to the printing office by the Rules Committee had the correct 
figures.
  Am I correct that it is the numbers which were submitted by the Rules 
Committee and not those printed erroneously which are the numbers that 
will be governing this amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. It is the Chair's understanding that there is a 
printing error in the Rules Committee report. The correct version of 
the amendment is now pending at the desk.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. A further parliamentary inquiry: That 
means Members who may have read the report might have been misled in 
the effect of this amendment I am offering, which would be to reduce 
the total budget authority by $2.4 billion. The report suggests that it 
would be taking $2.4 billion and moving it into the allowances 
function, but in fact under the ruling that the Chair has just given 
me, adopting this amendment would have the effect of reducing the total 
budget authority by $2.4 billion and not increasing the allowances 
function at all. Is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot rule on the effect of the amendment, 
but the Chair agrees with the initial inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me further inquire then, Mr. 
Chairman, am I correct that the numbers submitted, which were that the 
allowances function would remain the same, and the BA function would be 
reduced by $2.4 billion, that that will be what will govern if the 
amendment is adopted?
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is at the desk available for any Member 
who wishes to read the amendment as it reads now with the correct 
numbers.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, is the amendment at the desk inaccurate as 
well as the one the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has been 
talking about here?
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment at the desk is accurate.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield to me, the 
amendment at the desk is accurate and the amendment at the desk 
reflects that the BA is reduced by $2.4 billion.
  Mr. KASICH. They said they had the amendment printed, and I cannot 
figure out whether the Government Printing Office has printed it right 
or wrong, or which one is up here.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield, he could 
figure it out if he was trying seriously, frankly, to deal with this. 
The Chair has just ruled and made it clear that the error by the 
Government Printing Office does not govern, that it is governed by the 
numbers that are there.
  Mr. KASICH. I was just making a parliamentary inquiry with the 
gentleman who is known to have a good sense of humor. But I appreciate 
what the gentleman is saying.
  Mr. Chairman, am I right in saying that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts' amendment calls for reductions in the authorizing 
amounts for the Department of Defense, not an increase like it was 
spelled out? I think everybody should be clear on that.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield, why does not 
the Clerk read the amount that is before us in only that one 
appropriate part, since the amendment is technically the whole budget?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the corrections that were made in 
the amendment.
  The Clerk will report the corrections.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Corrections to amendment offered by Mr. Frank of 
     Massachusetts:
       Section 2, paragraph (2), strike $1,246,800,000,000 insert 
     $1,244,400,000,000.
       Section 3, paragraph (19), strike $1,600,000,000 insert 
     -$800,000,000.

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be laid at the Clerk's table. I would also say that I think it is 
pretty clear what the amendment does. In an effort to try to 
accommodate the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and laid 
there for Members to read.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate the gentleman's request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the amendment has been considered as 
read. The Clerk was reading the corrections in the amendment.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts made a 
parliamentary inquiry just a minute ago and received a ruling from the 
Chair. Then the gentleman from Massachusetts attempted to explain the 
ruling from the Chair.
  Would the chair, please, repeat the ruling on the parliamentary 
inquiry from the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  The CHAIRMAN. The initial parliamentary inquiry asked about the 
report. The Chair stated that the understanding was that a printing 
error in the Committee on Rules report did exist and that the correct 
version of the amendment is available as it is at the desk.
  Mr. BROWDER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will proceed then, Mr. Chairman.
  That is the number that the Clerk then read?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment, but I want to yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the ranking member of the Committee on 
Armed Services, and 18 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Browder], and before we begin, I ask 
unanimous consent that they then be permitted to yield time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 30 
minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  The gentleman is lucky the Government Printing Office did not have to 
print that up for him.
  Mr. Chairman, what we have now is an amendment that would reduce the 
total budget authority in this bill by $2.4 billion.
  The reason it is submitted is that many of us on the Committee on the 
Budget and elsewhere in the House thought it was a mistake for the 
President to propose last December a change in the budget agreement 
that we had adopted only a few months before. We adopted a budget 
agreement, and it had some tight spending controls.
  The Pentagon alone decided that it could not live with those 
controls. No one was happy with them. The Pentagon then succeeded, as 
part of the earthquake emergency, in getting an additional billion two 
over and above the budgeted amount. That is behind us now. Remember, 
they did get for this fiscal year $1,200,000,000 under the emergency 
procedures to add on to what was voted in the appropriations process 
last time.
  Now, we have a Presidential request, and this is the first part of 
it, which would over the remaining 4 years of this 5-year agreement 
give the Pentagon an additional $11.4 billion. We cannot be sure 
whether this would be an add-on to the deficit, a subtraction for 
domestic programs, or, as is likely, some combination thereof.
  But giving the Pentagon an additional 11.4 or 11.7 billion is clearly 
the first breach in the budget wall adopted last year.
  All departments have had problems. All departments have been told to 
absorb inflation. All departments have been told to absorb pay raises. 
All departments were living within that.
  If we set the precedent of giving the Pentagon the first of a 5-year 
increase, we set a precedent that other departments will follow.
  Today, I simply offer an amendment that would reduce total budget 
authority, and for that reason, it is supported by the National 
Taxpayers' Union, supported by the Citizens Against Government Waste. 
They said it was the least deficit reducing, but it was still under the 
gun, so it reduces total spending authority.
  In future years, there would be an outlay effect to this, and we 
could deal with that. This year, since that additional request came 
with no additional outlay request, it is simply a budget-authority 
request.
  The question is: Do we begin the process today of saying that the 
Pentagon gets an $11-billion-plus increase from the budget agreement, 
an increase that will come either by adding onto the deficit as it did 
during the earthquake emergency bill or by coming out of other 
programs?
  I believe that there are many places where the Defense Department can 
continue to save money. I think it would be an error for us to begin 
the process of breaking down the budget discipline by giving them this 
exemption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important for us to understand what's going on 
here with this amendment. Or, more importantly, let's focus on what's 
not going on here! Exactly what does this amendment not do?
  In the first place, this amendment does not shift our priorities from 
a cold war defense to a post-cold war budget. As you can see from the 
charts in the well, which I requested from the Secretary of Defense who 
used them in his testimony before our congressional committees, that 
shift is already taking place. Defense spending is going down 
dramatically. The question posed by amendments like this is whether we 
pursue a rational, managed defense downsizing over the years or whether 
we gut our national security and our economy. As President Bill Clinton 
said in a letter yesterday to Budget Committee Chairman Marty Sabo, 
``The committee has done a careful job in balancing the needs of the 
Nation, and I am prepared to work with you to oppose any cuts in the 
level of defense funded in the resolution.''
  Second is deficit reduction. Despite promises in some ``Dear 
Colleague'' letters being circulated for this amendment, there is no 
deficit reduction in the amendment. It absolutely does not reduce 
budget outlays or the deficit numbers. The Frank amendment includes the 
exact same budget outlay and deficit figures as the Budget Committee 
resolution. This amendment simply ``squirrels away'' $2.4 billion this 
year and $11.4 billion over the next 5 years for spending somewhere 
else sometime in the future.
  I urge my colleagues to support the President's and the Budget 
Committee's budget resolution and to oppose the Frank amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. To suggest that 
supporters of this amendment are being disingenuous in their comments 
on the amount allocated for national defense in the budget resolution 
would be kind. By suggesting that the $2.4 billion at issue here today 
represents an increase in the Defense budget is to ignore basic simple 
facts about the Federal budget in general and the Defense budget in 
particular.
  Defense spending as percentages of the Federal budget and of gross 
domestic product reached their peaks in 1985. Since then, it has 
declined steadily. The Armed Forces are shrinking; the amount of the 
Defense budget spent on the actual procurement of weapons has declined 
by 67 percent over the last 10 years; military careers, many of them 
exemplary, are being cut short; readiness is degrading; recruiting is 
suffering. To suggest, as supporters of the Frank amendment do, that 
Defense has not been reduced and reduced substantially is, Mr. 
Chairman, simply not correct.
  The $2.4 billion in question is the fiscal year 1995 share of a 2.6-
percent active duty pay raise Congress passed last year. It does not 
represent an increase in the Defense budget. The future years Defense 
plan proposed by the administration was being underfunded in its own 
budget request by, depending on who you believe, from $30 billion to 
$50 billion. The proposed $11 billion added back to the Defense budget 
over the next several years was not an increase in Defense spending so 
much as a reduction in the amount being underfunded.
  Mr. Chairman, I invite supporters of the Frank amendment to venture 
out into the field to visit with the men and women who serve in the 
Armed Forces of the United States. These are people who risk their 
lives in an often harsh, austere environment while separated from their 
families for long periods of time, all the time knowing that they may 
return from 6 months at sea or from an extended deployment in a far 
away desert to discover they are being separated from the service 
against their wishes. I urge the supporters of the Frank amendment to 
compare the 2.6-percent pay raise with the amount of locality pay 
recently provided for Federal civilian employees.
  It is just plain wrong to suggest that the Defense budget is 
receiving preferential treatment because a $30 to $50 billion budget 
shortfall is being marginally reduced to cover the cost of a 2.4-
percent pay raise. No other part of the Federal budget has seen the 
decline that the part allocated for national Defense has. Yes, I know 
that the cold war is over. I also know that the military has seen more 
action--at the behest of its civilian leadership--since the end of the 
cold war than any time after Vietnam.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues in the House to reject this 
cynical attack on a Defense budget already in steep decline. Oppose the 
Frank amendment.

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to 
myself in order to refute the inaccurate statement of the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Browder] when he said this money was being squirreled 
away. The only thing squirrely about that is the logic. The fact is 
this amendment reduces budget authority. It does not squirrel it away, 
it does not put it anywhere else, it reduces budget authority by $2.4 
billion. That is $2.4 billion less than would be available for the 
Appropriations Committee when they do it. The budget deals with 
outlays, but the appropriations process, which deals with budget 
authority, will receive $2.4 billion less. That is why both the 
National Taxpayers Union and Citizens Against Government Waste sided 
with me.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado 
[Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Let me add a few more things. The prior speaker said that folks had 
intimated that the Defense budget had not come down. I do not think 
anyone on our side has said the Defense budget has not come down. But 
the other side, then, what are you saying? That it can never come down? 
There is no reason for it to come down?
  The issue is the Defense budget in every other country in the world 
has come down like an elevator with its cable cut. If you add the total 
amount that we are spending on Defense, it is more than all the rest of 
the countries on the planet combined.
  So I really find it rather shocking to see people standing up and 
saying if you take $2.4 billion out of an over $2.6 billion budget, it 
will be the end, as we know it; people will be really left out there, 
hanging out there with nothing to defend themselves. That really does 
not pass the giggle test. This is even--it is about 1.5-percent cut, 
and it was a cut that was not supposed to have been there in the first 
place. This was an add-on over what we agreed to last year after, as 
the gentleman from Massachusetts has pointed out, many other add-ons 
have happened.
  So let us put this straight and let us be really honest about this. 
Here is a chance to save some money, real money.
  Let me just point out some of the things that we could cut out of the 
budget, I think. I am just reading from my own little part of defense 
bill. How about the tractor rose problem, or the tractor hip problem, 
or the tractor field problem or the tractor flop problem, the tractor 
pump problem, the tractor hike problem, the tractor hole, tractor dirt, 
tractor red, tractor rose, tractor hip again, and here is tractor cage, 
tractor tread, tractor dump comes back again, tractor dirt, and tractor 
dirt. That is in the armed services for the Army. That is for research 
and development.
  If you want to get into the Navy, that is an interesting situation: 
pilot fish, retract juniper, chalk eagle, chalk coral, link hazel--we 
know these are very important things that we had better have--link 
hazel, retract maple, link plumeria, chalk weed, retract elm, and chalk 
poinsettia. You know, if we cut this out, I do not know what we are 
going to possibly do.
  If you also look into the Defense budget, you realize all three 
branches have their own separate chaplains school. I guess each of them 
have a different God--I am not quite sure I understand. I never 
understood why they did not have one chaplain school for the three 
services.
  They have three engineering schools. You would hope engineering for 
each of the services would be similar.
  They have got three different legal schools. Again, you would hope 
the law would be the same in the different services.
  I mean I can go on if you wanted me to. I could find all sorts of 
stuff in here that does not make any sense that I think we could do 
without, and we would still have all sorts of money left over.
  Let us look at other things. When you look at how every other agency 
has suffered, no other agency has been able to come out and add to 
their budget in each supplemental, and they have not been able to add 
in this year when we have such tight budgets. I certainly think if you 
can come forward and tell us exactly why you needed this $2.4 billion, 
why the $260 billion that was decided upon last year was not enough, 
why we absolutely had to have it, why we are getting ready to spend 
another $11 billion, I think everyone would listen. But I think this 
generic talk about, ``Oh, my, it is already going down,'' that does not 
do it. We know that, but it is going down everywhere. The threat is 
going down.
  I think the taxpayers are due much more than that.
  So I salute the gentleman from Massachusetts' amendment, and I would 
hope all of us would stand up and say we are going to treat each agency 
equally and if they have something they need to add, we are going to be 
very critical about it rather than just saying, ``We don't want it,'' 
and we certainly would not want to deny it.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks], a member of the Subcommittee on Defense 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  The President, in his State of the Union speech emphasized:

       There are still dangers in the world--rampant arms 
     proliferation, bitter regional conflicts, ethnic and 
     nationalist tensions in many new democracies.
       * * * Last year I proposed a defense plan that maintains 
     our post-Cold War security at a lower cost. This year many 
     people urged me to cut our defense spending further to pay 
     for other government programs. I said, no. The budget I send 
     to Congress draws the line against further defense cuts. It 
     protects the readiness and quality of our forces.
       * * * We must not cut defense further. I hope the Congress 
     without regard to party will support that position.

  President Clinton has reaffirmed his commitment in a letter sent 
yesterday to Budget Committee Chairman Sabo by stating:

       I want to emphasize my opposition to any cuts in the 
     defense budget below the level provided in the resolution.

  We have already cut Defense significantly since its peak level in 
1985 in recognition of the dramatically changed military threat. The 
cumulative change to date from 1985 will exceed 35 percent in real 
terms. During the 1990's, mandatory spending will go up 38 percent in 
real terms, domestic discretionary will go up 12 percent while defense 
outlays will decline 38 percent under the President's budget plans.
  In order to keep his pledge, and avoid a return of hollow forces, the 
President approved a modest adjustment in defense spending plans over 
the 5-year period that restores about one-eighth of the additional cuts 
that President Clinton proposed beyond the Bush planned reductions. I 
view this as the absolute minimum that can be accepted. It is still 
very unclear whether this modest adjustment will meet the identified 
shortfall below the requirements of the Bottom-Up Review.
  Anyone who thinks that Defense cuts are not producing real hardship 
should visit southern California and talk to unemployed aerospace 
workers, go to Charleston, SC, and discuss the impact on the community 
of base closures, or to go to any base in the country and talk to 
sergeants about the impact of training cuts on his troops.
  We had 18 active Army divisions in 1990, we will have only 10 by 
1999. Naval ship battle forces have declined from 546 to 1990 to 373 
today, and ultimately will go to 346. Air Force active fighter wings 
have already been cut nearly in half from 24 to 13. Planned bomber cuts 
are from 315 to 107. Active military manpower has declined by more than 
half a million, or 32 percent. Defense civilians are going down 330,000 
or 29 percent. Even reserve forces will be 20 percent lower than they 
were in 1990.
  There has been some claim that this amendment promotes deficit 
reduction. But it does not lower discretionary spending caps, and in 
any event involves no outlays at all.
  In addition, the author makes no secret that he views the amendment 
as a statement of congressional intent to make further adjustments 
totaling $11.7 billion in additional Defense cuts over the next 5 
years. As stated in his dear colleague in support of the amendment 
``Stopping new spending now will free up resources for domestic 
priorities in the coming years * * *''
  Do not jeopardize the lives of American troops, lead us back to 
hollow forces and make it impossible for the President to fulfill his 
pledge. Oppose the Frank amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong opposition 
to the Frank amendment.
  In my view, the President's defense budget for fiscal year 1995 was 
totally inadequate as originally proposed. The Secretary of Defense is 
clearly on record as stating that the administration's budget 
submission already underfunds the force structure specified by the 
Bottom-Up Review by some $20 billion. This is the force structure that 
we have repeatedly been told is the absolute minimum acceptable force 
necessary to fight and win two major regional contingencies.
  The amendment that is now pending before the House would impose a cut 
of a further $2.5 billion this year and $11.7 billion over 5 years on 
the Defense Department budget. In my view, that is totally 
irresponsible. The President's budget already represents a reduction in 
real defense funding of nearly 34 percent from the peak we reached in 
1985, and 43 percent by 1999.
  For me, the question is simple: Are we going to ask our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen and Marines to put their lives on the line behind an 
inadequate force structure? Are we going to rob them of the training 
and the systems that they need to help secure our national security 
goals?
  I urge this body to defeat the Frank amendment.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I did bring my own chart. It was not prepared at great 
expense by the Department of Defense. It is a little smaller, but there 
is a point to be made here.
  Are we going to overwhelm our enemies with wasteful spending and big 
charts? Are we going to overwhelm them by being the leanest and meanest 
military in the world?
  Here is the opposition down here.
  The question is: Should the United States spend 10 times more than 
all of its potential enemies combined without any allies? Should we 
spend 15 times? How much is enough to overwhelm our potential foes?
  Here is the United States spending; here is our allies. Add these two 
up. That is 20 times more than the potential of all the bad guys that 
the Pentagon can identify.
  The Frank amendment is so modest, Mr. Chairman, it is amazing that 
the fiscal conservatives around here cannot see through the smokescreen 
that is coming out of the Pentagon. We are talking about $2.4 billion 
out of a $260 billion-plus budget. My colleagues already heard some 
examples of some of the extraordinarily frivolous programs that are 
being funded by this.
  If my colleagues do not believe us, how about Lawrence Korb? How did 
this happen? First, instead of reinventing the Pentagon, the Pentagon 
reinvented the threat and downplayed the contributions, very 
considerable, of our allies. The service chiefs convinced Mr. Aspin and 
Mr. Perry that the regional threats from countries like Iraq and North 
Korea, whose military spending is less than 20 billion a year, are 
almost equal to that posed by the Soviet Union which spend $200 billion 
a year before its collapse. That is Lawrence Korb, my colleagues.
  We have finally got to say that we have spent more than enough. We 
are burying them in dollar bills. We are burying them in contracts. We 
are burying them in charts. We beat them at real war. Now it is time to 
get ready for the conflict of the next century, which is economic, and 
if this country spends itself into bankruptcy, that is the war we are 
going to lose, the real war, the real conflict of the next century, the 
economic conflict with our allies, and ex-enemies and the like.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton], chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Forces 
and Personnel.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask that the chart that we had here 
be replaced?
  Mr. Chairman, those who would cut into this military budget have not 
read the history of this country. After every major conflict and threat 
that we have had we have substantially reduced our military capability. 
We paid for it not in dollars, as the previous gentleman spoke of, but 
we paid for it with the blood of young Americans, Task Force Smith, the 
Kasserine Pass, other places where we did not have enough, did not have 
the proper materiel, did not have the proper training. Let us not make 
that mistake in our day.
  Mr. Chairman, the President of the United States correctly in his 
letter of March 9 to the Honorable Martin Sabo, the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, stated that, and I read from his letter:

       I want to emphasize my opposition to any cuts in the 
     defense budget below the level provided in the resolution. As 
     pointed out in my State of the Union Address, I am fully 
     committed to the principle that our military must be the best 
     equipped, the best trained, the best prepared in the world.

  Mr. Chairman, when was the last time that our defense establishment 
hit rock bottom, and I speak to my side of the aisle. The last time, 
sadly, was when the Democratic administration did so. The President, 
this President, is determined not to repeat that sad experience, and I 
support him in that effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge us to defeat this Frank amendment. My 
colleagues, we are going through the hearing process now dealing with 
the bottom-up review. Frankly the bottom-up review cannot fulfill, in 
my opinion, the two major regional conflicts. We also see the Navy 
coming in with 16 less ships than what was in the bottom-up review, the 
Air Force coming in with 70-some-odd bombers less. We must maintain 
what is in this budget.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kyl].
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] to reverse 
Congress' decision to provide sufficient funding for military pay 
raises in fiscal year 1994. What we have learned over the past 
generation is that readiness in a capable and motivated all-volunteer 
force is, first and foremost, about people. Our young men and women in 
uniform are the heart and soul of military readiness.
  Mr. Chairman, I am at a loss to explain why the President has 
proposed for the second year in a row to send the wrong signal to the 
troops by proposing a cut in pay from levels endorsed by Congress less 
than 6 months ago. Today U.S. military personnel are working harder, 
deployed away from home longer and remain underpaid relative to their 
civilian contemporaries. If the President's pay proposals were to be 
enacted, within 2 years military pay would be a staggering 17 percent 
below comparable civilian pay. One result would obviously be a 
worsening of the already troubling trends becoming apparent in 
recruitment and retention. Today, for example, an E-1, a private, makes 
$832 a month. That is only slightly above the federally defined poverty 
level. We have got people in our military on food stamps.
  Mr. Chairman, military pay is a key issue. The Frank amendment will 
only hurt more of our young men and women in uniform.
  To its credit, Mr. Chairman, Congress rejected the President's budget 
last year on the issue of military pay, and I suspect it will do so 
again this year. Defeating the Frank amendment is an important first 
step in this process. The Frank amendment would undo what we did last 
year. The $2.5 billion that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] proposes to cut from the fiscal year 1995 defense top line was 
added to the budget by the administration late last year for the 
express purpose of funding the military pay raise Congress mandated 
last year.
  I say to my colleagues, ``Let's don't pull the rug out from under our 
troops. Vote no on the Frank amendment.''
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey], a member of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to say that the budget 
reported by our committee points the Nation in the right direction in 
almost every way. I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Sabo] for his hard work in looking out for President Clinton's 
priorities--Head Start; child nutrition; job training and job creation.
  However, there is one number in this budget which is dead wrong. In a 
post-cold-war age when we have to focus on our urgent domestic needs, 
it is criminal Mr. Chairman that the Pentagon is asking for $263.3 
billion in defense spending--a $2.4 billion increase over last year.
  Mr. Chairman, it is therefore with great frustration that I join the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and my other colleagues in 
offering an alternative which eliminates this $2.4 billion increase in 
military spending.
  When I was first named to the Budget Committee, just over a year ago, 
if you had told me that military spending would go up by $2.4 billion 
in 1995, I would not have believed you. This has been quite a wake-up 
call for a first-term Member of Congress.
  This Member was hired by the people of Marin and Sonoma Counties to 
work for them here, in Washington, to make education our Nation's No. 1 
priority and part of this job is to make sure that the military budget 
reflects post-cold-war reality.
  This amendment changes only one part of the budget--military 
spending--and it does not change it much. But, this is a very important 
vote. Make no mistake--passage of this amendment will send a clear 
message that Congress is finally ready to move away from the cold-war 
budgets of the past, and ready to step up to the challenges of the 
future--which are: Education, health care, crime, welfare, and deficit 
reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, the President has sent us a budget which begins to step 
up to these challenges. But we cannot meet them without a post-cold-war 
military budget that eliminates the unnecessary programs we are funding 
today. I urge my colleagues to support the Frank amendment.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  (Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Frank substitute budget 
resolution which seeks to cut $2.5 billion in defense spending from the 
fiscal year 1995 budget resolution. I am not a Member who says--no, 
never cut the defense budget. Like many others, I have tried to keep 
our Nation's best interest and national security needs at the forefront 
of decisions regarding changes in our defense needs. However, I feel 
strongly that on this occasion we should support our President and his 
pledge to avoid further reductions in defense spending at this time.
  With the cold war over, I can understand the desire of some of my 
colleagues to bring about additional reductions in spending. We should, 
however, remember that each major attempt we have made at downsizing 
our military has gone too far. Given the number of volatile situations, 
such as the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, which have emerged 
around the world and the uncertainty of future threats, such as the 
nuclear hopes of North Korea and others, we must remain vigilant.
  I urge my colleagues to remember that defense spending has been 
reduced by 33.7 percent in real terms since 1985 and by 1999 the real 
cut will be 43 percent. In 1999, defense spending will be at its lowest 
post-war levels in terms of its share of GNP, 3 percent, and as a share 
of Federal outlays, 13.2 percent.
  Further reductions in defense spending at this time risk even further 
damage to an already fragile defense industrial base. The Nation is 
already dealing with the effects of reductions made thus far. In my own 
State of Connecticut, thousands of skilled defense workers have been 
displaced because of a shrinking defense budget. Military personnel 
levels have also declined by more than half-a-million since 1985. If 
this $2.5 billion is deleted from the fiscal year 1995 defense budget, 
the Department of Defense will be forced to seek the funds elsewhere in 
its budget. This could amount to further reductions in personnel, 
elimination of weapons systems critical to our future security and a 
continued erosion in our readiness.
  There is yet another side to this question of military expenditures. 
A further reduction in budget authority in the fiscal year 1995 defense 
budget translates to a further reduction in budget outlays in the out 
years. Approving the Frank substitute would force the Appropriations 
Committee to stretch an already shrinking budget to dangerously thin 
levels in coming years. Such a shortage could prevent our military from 
maintaining necessary personnel level or make procurement of needed 
future weapons system extremely difficult.
  I urge my colleagues to follow the Clinton administration in managing 
our defense needs and urge my colleagues to oppose the Frank 
substitute.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy] the chairman of the Mainstream Forum.
  (Mr. McCURDY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Frank 
amendment. I appreciate and respect my colleague, but we do have a 
disagreement on his provisions in this amendment.
  President Clinton has rightfully cited three pillars for an effective 
foreign policy: A strong economy, support for democracy, and a strong 
national defense. He has also stated as his priorities within defense 
policy and goals to preserve the quality of the forces, the quality of 
technology, and preserve readiness.
  During the Presidential campaign when he was outlining his policy for 
how to reduce the defense budget while preserving these important 
priorities, he proposed a reduction of $60 billion on top of what 
President Bush had recommended. But when he came into office, he found 
out that the deficit was larger, and therefore he doubled that request 
and actually cut it $120 billion.
  By cutting $120 billion though, he created a serious challenge for 
the Department of Defense, and that is how do you reduce the overhead, 
the bases, the infrastructure, the overhead of the Department of 
Defense, and at the same time not sacrifice the quality of the force, 
the readiness, and creating a hollow force.
  What he has found is that in doing this, and by having such a rapid 
pace of decline, those very things that he is arguing to protect are 
being threatened today. That is why after a number of us met with the 
President and Vice President expressing our concern about readiness, 
that he decided in his judgment to recommend this offset.
  This is $2.4 billion for the pay raise and to adjust somewhat for the 
increased estimate of inflation.
  My colleagues, there is a serious threat in the world today as the 
changes in Russia are occurring. This is different than when the 
President first proposed the budget. North Korea is highly unstable and 
dangerous. My colleagues are still asking for action in Bosnia. We see 
the changes throughout the world.
  I believe that this is a modest adjustment, it is fair, it continues 
with I think the priorities of the administration, and I think we ought 
to defeat the Frank amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose strongly this 
amendment and respectfully disagree with my colleague from 
Massachusetts. My concern with the amendment before us is the impact it 
will have on the readiness and capability of our armed forces.
  I support President Clinton's statement that we cannot cut defense 
further than the cuts that President Clinton has recommended. The 
defense budget has been cut over 33 percent in real terms since 1985. 
That is right, every year since 1985, the defense budget has been cut.
  While we all celebrate the end of the Soviet Union, we now face a 
different, smaller, and in some ways more complicated threat. As the 
tension of a bipolar world has decreased, instability in the world has 
increased. There are now more than a handful of dictators armed with 
ballistic missiles and other weapons of terror who feel free to make 
mischief, especially in the Mideast.
  If opponents of democracy again rise up, who will defend our 
interests? Who will we send to join our allies in the region to fight 
aggression and terror?
  It is ironic that at a time when our women and men in uniform are 
being asked to shoulder more and more responsibilities, such as 
humanitarian and peacekeeping missions on top of their first 
responsibility of defending U.S. interests, that some want even deeper 
cuts in our defense budget than even President Clinton does.

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this shortsighted 
amendment and support keeping our women and men in uniform prepared.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], a member of the Committee on the 
Budget and former national security official of the United States at 
the State Department.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue that this House must face is the integrity of 
the decision that we made in August. It was a difficult decision, hard 
to come by, just barely met, in which the progress of this country was 
determined. The economy has bolstered, the recession has just about 
disappeared, people have been put back to work, the confidence of this 
Nation was established by that budget resolution.
  We were committed under that budget resolution to certain targets. We 
believed in the integrity of that decision. And yet now this House is 
being asked to violate that compromise which was made in all quarters, 
painfully for many of us. Many of us felt that there were certain cuts 
that were made against the disabled and the elderly and the children of 
our country that should not have been made, but we stuck by the 
necessity for that resolution.
  Today what we are faced with is a violation of that commitment. We 
are being asked, without any defense or explanation, for an increase of 
$2.4 billion in the defense budget. I ask this House to consider not 
the amount of money that is involved here, but the principles which we 
are being asked to violate, which we established in August. And I think 
that that is a very, very important point.
  Why do we allow the Defense Department alone to come before this 
House and get an increase of $2.4 billion in budget authority? No other 
function has been allowed such discretion. Where is the justification? 
Every other department is being asked to suffer cuts in their payroll, 
cuts in the number of personnel.
  Two hundred fifty-two thousand individuals in all of the departments 
all across this country are being cut. They are being asked to absorb 
those deficits. They are being asked to absorb all the other stringent 
requirements that the budget resolution laid before each of the 
departments, except for the Department of Defense.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that is wrong. The budget resolution 
ought to be truthful and faithful to the commitment that it made this 
country in August of last year. I ask this House to support the Frank 
substitute to the budget resolution.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time I have left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has 15 
minutes left, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Browder] has 9 minutes 
left, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] has 4\1/2\ 
minutes left.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense 
Appropriations.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, let me say that over the last 15 years, the 
Defense Department budget has been cut by over $150 billion. I do not 
think anybody can match the record of cuts in defense in any other area 
of the government. Secretary Perry projects a $20 billion shortfall in 
the defense budget over the next 5 years. I project the shortfall could 
be $40 to $50 billion.
  What concerns me is in 1980 we could not pull off Desert One. We had 
the same number of troops in 1991, and we pulled off Desert Storm. 
Readiness was the key, and we are going to lose that edge and will have 
a hollow force if we do not provide the money for defense.
  The reduction of $2.4 billion is for the pay increase. They are 
absorbing the outlays, but the budget authority is for extra pay for 
the troops. The troops are deployed twice as much as they have been in 
the past years.
  The tempo of operation is even greater than when they had a large 
force. So it is absolutely essential that we defeat the Frank 
amendment, which has good intentions, but which would destroy the 
readiness of the armed forces.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to reiterate what the gentleman who preceded 
me just said. The Frank amendment will destroy readiness.
  My friends, let me give you a couple of facts. Since Desert Storm, we 
have flown twice the sorties over Iraq than we flew during Desert 
Storm.

                              {time}  1720

  The airlift in Bosnia has now gone on longer than the Berlin airlift. 
We are talking about 28 sorties a day. We are spending a ton of money 
in fees keeping missions around the world, and the military is taking 
it out of their hide.
  We have cut now our fighter force by 50 percent in the military. We 
have cut, the gentlewoman said we are going to cut 270,000 civilians, 
where is the cut for the military?
  The military, I would say to my colleague from Hawaii, has cut over 
500,000 positions since they started downsizing, over twice what the 
civilian population is taking.
  The last issue is credibility. We stay strong and we maintain a 
strong position in this world because of our credibility.
  We have over 30,000 people in Korea whose lives are protected by the 
credibility of America's strength. If we cut our defense and we have to 
have another so-called peacekeeping operation, we will spend $2.5 
billion, $3 billion in a matter of a couple weeks. This is the worst 
decision we could possibly make to support the Frank amendment. It is 
bad It is bad for readiness. It is bad for the men and women who wear 
the uniform
  Let us vote it down. Let us be rational. Let us keep America strong.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan], who serves on the Committee 
on Armed Serves.
  (Mr. MEEHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, if any other department wanted to break the 
budget caps so they could have an extra couple of billion dollars to 
cover the cost of salary increases, they'd be ridiculed. I'm amazed 
that the Department of Defense can keep a straight face, when they 
argue that they should get an extra $2.4 billion for pay raises.
  This has nothing to do with the pay raise and everything to do with 
the fact that the military has to learn to live within the budget. 
During the early 1980s, the armed forces spent money like drunken 
sailors, and Congress congratulated them for it. I guess it shouldn't 
be surprising that the military thinks it's above the budget law, but 
we have a duty to tell them they're wrong.
  The United States continues to spend more on defense than our NATO 
partners, Russia, Iraq, and a dozen other countries put together. 
Communism is dead. There's no reason the spend more on defense than all 
our potential allies and enemies combined.
  Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle who would not vote 
for the President's deficit reduction package, because it did not cut 
spending enough, and they would not vote for any increases in taxes. 
And next week they will be here to say they want more spending on 
defense. They do not want to touch entitlements, but they are for a 
balanced budget.
  If we can't fight and win two regional conflicts at once, maybe the 
problem is that we're spending too much on the wrong things. A lot of 
people who complain about hollow forces want money for expensive 
modernization programs, not O&M. I'm all for supporting adequate levels 
of readiness, but no one should use a professed concern about readiness 
as an excuse to support pork in uniform.
  The Frank substitute would not cut defense beyond the levels mandated 
by last year's deficit reduction package. It would simply force the DOD 
to set priorities like everyone else. Let's make the budget agreement 
stick.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of sailors in my district. I 
find that none of them use alcohol any worse than anybody else in 
society.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, that was an expression to use for the fact 
that the military spent money in the early 1980's. It has nothing to do 
with alcohol, and the gentleman probably knows that.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], the chairman of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs and vice-chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.
  (Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Frank 
amendment. Between 1989 and 1999, we will bring down the spending and 
strength level of the active forces by 36 percent, and we will bring 
down the spending and the forces of the National Guard and reserve by 
20 percent. Really, is that not enough?
  Since 1991, some of my colleagues have already lost their active 
bases in their communities because of the drawdown. In most cases, we 
have been able to protect the National Guard and Reserve armories and 
flying units.
  If the Frank amendment is adopted, no question about it, National 
Guard units will have to be cut more than they have been cut.
  As I said earlier, we have been able to protect the Guard flags and 
Reserve flags in our communities. If we adopt the Frank amendment, we 
are going to have to close these armories, and they are there for the 
community to help in natural disasters and also national crises.
  I ask Members to vote against the Frank amendment to protect the 
reserve units.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Frank 
amendment. I thought every one knew by now that we are cutting too much 
from defense. We are doing irreparable harm not only to our national 
security but also to our economic security.
  We have already closed more than 200 bases in this country, and over 
600 bases and facilities abroad.
  We are in the painful process of base closures, and we have another 
round of closures coming up next year. We are cutting back too quickly 
and too deeply.
  We have already lost more than one million jobs from our active duty 
military, reserves, civilian employees, and private sector defense 
industrial base workers. I suspect that every Member's district in this 
country has been affected one way or another by these defense cutbacks. 
I know everyone in this Chamber is aware of and sensitive to the 
problems being created by the jobs being lost.
  We are losing thousands of defense jobs every month, hundreds of 
thousands a year, and have been since the late 1980's. We have a 
national defense strategy that was developed by this administration 
called the Bottom-Up Review.
  The Bottom-Up Review, which was meant to address potential threats 
that this country might face, is currently underfunded according to 
administration spokesmen by at least $20 billion. Some estimates put 
the shortfall closer to $100 billion.
  Even President Clinton, the ``mother'' of all defense cuts, is 
opposed to this amendment. I urge Members to vote against the Frank 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse], who is on the Committee on Armed Services, as I 
contemplate the reference to the President as the ``mother of all 
defense cuts.''
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us today is about 
choices. We can choose to reduce the deficit, or we can choose to 
increase the defense budget.
  I support a strong military. But I am opposed to wasting taxpayer 
dollars. Giving an additional $2.4 billion to the Defense Department is 
truly wasteful spending. This is not about a hollow force. Just listen 
to some of the things defense contractors charge the Pentagon for: A 
California defense firm charged the Pentagon more than one-half a 
million dollars for employee conferences in Jamaica, Hawaii, Mexico, 
and the grand Cayman Islands.
  And a Massachusetts military contractor let its employees use its 46-
foot fishing boat for their personal enjoyment and charged the Pentagon 
$62,000, calling it overhead for Government contracts.
  Taxpayers in my home State of Oregon, as well as those from around 
the country should be outraged. I know my constituents would rather pay 
for more cops on the beat than defense contractors' fun in the sun.
  I quote my colleague Mr. Frank, we must also choose whether we are 
Uncle Sam or Uncle Sucker. The rest of the world invests in their own 
economies while U.S. taxpayers pick up the tab for their defense. I say 
it's time to stop being Uncle Sucker.
  The Children's Defense Fund has endorsed our amendment. Because of 
poverty or lack of services American babies are at risk.
  Mr. Chairman, I choose to help American children grow up in safe and 
healthy communities. I call on all of my colleagues to answer the 
following question: Do taxpayers in your district want to pick up the 
tab for waste and frivolous trips? If the answer is no, then you must 
support the Frank amendment. The 1994 level of spending appropriated 
for defense is quite enough.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman], my colleague on the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN, Mr. Chairman, the act of budgeting is about finding 
balances.
  In that regard, I rise to oppose the Frank amendment and to support 
the committee reported budget resolution.
  Our job is to balance our Nation's critical needs with available 
resources. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I know that we 
have struggled to find the proper balance in the defense budget--to 
build a military adequate to meet current and future threats during a 
time of shrinking defense dollars. As President Clinton said during his 
State of the Union speech, we must ``draw the line against further 
defense cuts.''
  Though the fiscal atmosphere calls for tough decisions, both the 
administration and the Budget Committee have managed to retain a strong 
defense budget and stay within the discretionary spending caps. Taking 
an additional $2.4 billion out of defense would place our industrial 
base at risk, and force the Defense Department to make cuts that would 
leave our military vulnerable. The defense question would change from 
``How do we best meet global and regional threats?'' to ``Which threats 
will go unmet?''
  As the representative of the aerospace center of California, I know 
what is at risk. And it is not pork.
  The balance achieved in the committee budget resolution reflects the 
tough budget choices we made last year, enacting the largest deficit 
reduction package in history--nearly $500 billion over 5 years. 
Included in that package was a proposal I coauthored with several of my 
colleagues to create a deficit reduction trust fund to ensure that net 
revenue increases and spending reductions included in the package go 
toward deficit reduction--not new spending.
  This discipline has paid off. The deficit is lower than it has been 
at any point in the 1990's. We have a growing economy, a falling 
jobless rate, historically low interest rates and negligible inflation. 
Our direction is sound, and the committee budget resolution keeps us on 
this fiscal path, and keeps Federal spending within the caps that the 
Congress enacted last year.

  In contrast to maintaining the balance, the Solomon and Kasich 
alternative budgets compromise the investments we need to secure a 
productive future. The Solomon proposal cuts the technology development 
associated with the space station; it cuts wastewater treatment, land 
conservation, job training, education, and law enforcement. The Kasich 
proposal cuts energy research, including renewable energy research; it 
cuts environmental cleanup, civilian technology research, transit, 
student loans, and high speed rail development. And these are cuts 
beyond the substantial scale-back of discretionary spending under which 
we are now operating.
  That is not to say that additional balanced deficit reduction cannot 
still be achieved. During the coming months, many of us will be 
fighting for specific cuts during the appropriations process. We need 
further tools to ensure that those cuts stick. That is why I have 
joined with a bipartisan group of colleagues in drafting a Deficit 
Reduction Lock Box. This lock box will mandate that cuts made in 
appropriations bills go to deficit reduction instead of simply freeing 
up the funds for future spending. We need the lock box to make sure 
that the deficit reduction momentum we have started can continue.
  I commend the work of the Budget Committee in adhering to the 
difficult standards of last year's reconciliation bill and finding the 
proper balance between necessary investments and necessary cuts. I urge 
this House to continue to fight for responsible spending in the weeks 
and months ahead.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for giving me this 
time. I will just take a minute.
  This afternoon we had a hearing in the Armed Services room concerning 
the Bottom-Up Review, and we had about four academics from different 
think tanks and other things, and three of them really were opposed to 
the Bottom-Up Review, and one was pro. And I asked them a very simple 
question at the end. I said, ``It's so simple that all I need is a yes 
or no.'' I said, ``On July 31 of 1990, would you have predicted that we 
would have 500,000 uniformed people 8,000 miles away in the desert by 
Christmas time?'' And they all shook their head and said no. I said, 
``How can a bottom-up review predict where the next conflagration will 
be?''
  Believe me, we need to defeat the Frank amendment and to keep our 
military strong.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] a member of the Committee on Agriculture and the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, as I listened to this debate, from time to 
time it sounded like a prayer meeting. Those who spoke critical of the 
Frank amendment kept using the familiar prayerful chant, ``Hallowed be 
thy Army''. And yet the simple fact of the matter is if the United 
States has any other nation in the world which is a threat, we are 
outspending that nation by at least 10 to 1. And if we combine all of 
the nations which we fear, the so-called rogue nations, all of their 
defense spending combined, the United States outspends them by a margin 
of almost 15 to 1.
  This comes down to some pretty tough choices, as budget debates will. 
Which is more important to America, the defense of Japan or the defense 
of American families against crime? Which is more important to America, 
building President Reagan's cold war relic, the Star Wars Program, or 
building a health care system which protects millions of uninsured 
working families? Which is more important to our future, better schools 
or better Trident missiles?
  Why in the world should we cut money to be spent on medical research 
so that we can turn around and give the Department of Defense the only 
increase over the budget deficit agreement of last year?
  Many argue that these are false choices. I disagree. As the chairman 
of an Appropriations subcommittee, I am facing a freeze in spending. It 
is not pleasant. I think the Department of Defense should be up against 
the same kind of a standard.
  Let me close by saying this: Next week we will have a vote on the 
balanced budget amendment. We will hear some of the most soaring 
rhetoric in the world about cutting spending. Take a close look at this 
roll call and find out how many of these balanced budget warriors are 
going to sign up today to actually cut $2.5 billion in spending.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm], my colleague on the Committee on the Budget.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Frank 
amendment. I do so because of my growing concerns, now supported by 
this administration, that to cut defense further could unnecessarily 
jeopardize our Nation's security.
  There has also been a great deal of confusion as to whether or not 
the Frank amendment reduces the deficit. Let me begin by saying that 
the gentleman from Massachusetts has been very honest insofar as not 
reallocating the $2.4 billion in budget authority which he removes from 
function 050, the National Defense function. Where I differ with Mr. 
Frank is in his claim that this simple lack of reallocation will cause 
deficit reduction.
  In my opinion, none of the facts of the amendment support such a 
claim. First, you will note that while the defense BA has been reduced 
by $2.4 billion, there is no reduction in defense outlays. As we all 
know, the deficit is an outlay number. If you compare the deficit 
numbers of the Sabo committee bill with the deficit numbers of the 
Frank amendment, you will note that they are identical. I do not 
understand how a deficit reduction claim can be made when the amendment 
itself shows precisely the same deficit number.
  Second, if Mr. Frank were committed to his new-found conversion to 
deficit reduction, he would have included in his amendment a lowering 
of the spending caps. As you will recall from last year's Penny-Kasich 
vote, the reason those of us who supported that amendment could claim 
deficit reduction was because we not only made the specific spending 
cuts, but we also lowered the caps. Only by lowering the discretionary 
caps is there an iron-clad guarantee of deficit reduction.
  In truth, Mr. Frank, as always, has been very honest about his hopes 
for these defense savings. His hope is that ultimately it will be the 
desire of this Congress to reduce the amount our Nation spends on 
defense and increase the amount we spend on domestic programs. That's a 
perfectly legitimate position for him to take and I support his right 
to take it. While I, too, want to reduce discretionary spending, where 
I differ is that I believe we must invest not in today's programs but 
in tomorrow's generations by removing the weight of our irresponsible 
spending from their shoulders.
  I am encouraged by my friend's steps toward budget cutting and I hope 
that in the future we will be able to count on him to join the deficit 
reduction army.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Frank amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Blackwell], a member of the Committee 
on the Budget.
  (Mr. BLACKWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BLACKWELL. Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment.
  The amendment would strike the $2.5 billion increase in defense 
spending contained in the budget resolution. By implication, the 
amendment also rejects the proposed $6.4 billion increase in the 
substitute.
  I support the amendment, Mr. Chairman, because I believe it is more 
important to fund certain, key domestic programs than it is to escalate 
the production of weapons.
  When the Congressional Budget Office scored the President's fiscal 
year 1995 budget proposal, it found $3.1 billion in overspending. The 
major part of this overspending was due to an unexpected, proposed 
increase in defense spending.
  Faced with this overspending, the budget committee sought to preserve 
the increases in defense spending, while finding reductions in domestic 
spending to meet the spending caps.
  In my view, however, it is more important to fund drug free schools 
and communities than it is to fund nuclear weapons testing. In this 
budget, we spend almost twice as much on nuclear weapons testing than 
on drug free schools.
  We spend $818 million for the B-2 Stealth bomber, an amount in excess 
of half the funds needed to fund the Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program at the fiscal year 1994 level.
  We spend two and a half billion for the F-22 advanced tactical 
fighter. The cost of one of those planes, $134 million, would be more 
than enough to fund the Impact Aid Program for military dependents.
  The list of defense spending goes on and on, while the list of 
domestic reductions goes on and on. It is time, Mr. Chairman, to put 
our priorities in order. I urge support for the Frank amendment.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] my colleague on the Committee on Armed Services.
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. TANNER. It is an old axiom that the only certainty in this world 
is uncertainty. I do not think anyone here, no matter how you are going 
to vote on this amendment, can seriously argue that we are not cutting 
defense in an orderly manner.
  What we need is certainty in this downsizing. We can downsize the 
military in this country. We can do it safely without jeopardizing 
national security, but we must be left to do that job.
  This approach, this amendment, is wrongheaded.
  May I suggest to you that some had mentioned about pay. There are 
20,000 military households that now qualify for food stamps. That is 
not anything to be proud of, because we asked these young men and women 
in uniform, and will, remembering that the only certainty is 
uncertainty, we will ask them again to go to some foreign land at some 
unknown hour, some unknown day, at some unknown week, some unknown 
month and year in the future, and lay down their lives for this 
country.
  What we are talking about here is a wrongheaded approach to letting 
us on the committee downsize in a rational, logical manner.
  Please, defeat this amendment.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to the Frank 
amendment.
  Since 1985, we have been cutting the defense budget. And we will 
continue to cut in the future. By the year 1999 the defense will be 
only 2.8 percent of GDP--the lowest since before World War II.
  What this means is the Army will lose 45 percent of its divisions, 
the Navy will lose 37 percent of its battle force ships and the Air 
Force will lose almost 40 percent of its attack aircraft.
  If we are to continue to have the world's best equipped, best 
trained, and best prepared fighting forces--we must not undermine our 
Armed Services by accepting this amendment.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Frank amendment.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I keep hearing we should not give 
the Department of Defense special treatment. But the truth is if every 
Federal agency had been cut like the Department of Defense, we would 
not even have a deficit problem.
  The Frank amendment will not reduce the deficit by one dime. What it 
will do is cut military training, COLA's, housing, and possibly even 
health care to open the door for pork-barrel politics.
  Above all, $2.4 billion in extra cuts would mean we are willing to 
put the lives of our military personnel at greater risk in future 
conflicts. We have no right to do that.
  Vote ``no'' on the Frank amendment.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Bishop].
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the Frank 
amendment.
  Cutting the 1995 defense budget by $2.5 billion, as proposed in the 
amendment, cannot be made without serious disruptions.
  The demands on the Department of Defense for peacekeeping, disaster 
relief, environmental cleanup continue to increase while defense 
resources decrease, exacerbating the impact of any additional cut to 
defense.
  There are no easy cuts left. The choice is either to cripple 
readiness or debilitate the modernization program. Maintaining 
readiness of our forces is the first priority, and we have got to 
maintain it.
  I submit that we must oppose the Frank amendment.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Slattery].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Slattery].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. SLATTERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, and my friend, the gentleman from Alabama, for yielding 
me this time.
  I rise in opposition to the Frank amendment. I do so because it was 
the Commander-in-Chief, our President, who spoke to all of us earlier 
this year who said it is time for us to draw the line on further 
defense cuts.
  As far as I am concerned, it is the Commander-in-Chief who has the 
responsibility to defend American interests around this dangerous 
world, and it is critically important for us not to undermine the 
judgment of the President of the United States in terms of what his 
needs are to defend this country.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Frank amendment and to support 
the committee position on defense spending.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Hutto], chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.
  Mr. HUTTO. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, I 
can tell you if we are going to have this tremendous drawdown, we are 
going to have to have ready forces. We cannot, if we have this kind of 
cut.
  We have to give them the proper ops tempo, the number of flying 
hours, the steaming hours, the tank hours that they need. The drawdown 
is already too severe.
  If we are going to have a strong national defense, we cannot tolerate 
this kind of cut.
  Please, vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
remainder of my time.
  First, I have to differ with my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm]. He has been a consistent and principal supporter of deficit 
reduction. When he said the amendment I am offering does not guarantee 
defense reduction, he was right, but I must say I think he overspoke 
when he suggested that it was unrelated to deficit reduction.
  You cannot in the budget resolution repeal statutory caps. I concede 
that. What I can do is to do away with budget authority. Budget 
authority is what this process cedes to the appropriations committees 
to make binding future spending commitments. When you reduce budget 
authority by $2.4 billion, as this does, you take away $2.4 billion in 
future spending commitments.
  That is why the National Taxpayers' Union and Citizens Against 
Government Waste have endorsed this, because it greatly advances the 
cause of deficit reduction.
  Let us now talk about the reductions that have already held. Several 
Members here eloquently refuted a statement that no one has made. No 
one has suggested that there have not been cuts in defense spending. 
The question is: Have they been appropriate?
  Yes, there have been cuts in defense spending. Partly that is because 
during the early 1980's, when we had a Commander-in-Chief named Ronald 
Reagan, defense spending was bloated. Beyond that, however, there has 
been a change in the reality that the Defense Department confronts.
  I guess I should have had some charts. I would have had one chart 
which would have talked about reductions in the Warsaw Pact threat, 
except the chart would have gone down into the first floor.
  Ten years ago we were told that one of the major reasons we were 
spending money in defense was to prevent the Eastern Europeans behind 
the Soviet Union in a land invasion of Western Europe. NATO was created 
for that. We were spending tens and tens of billions of dollars to 
protect Western Europe against an attack in which the Soviet Union led 
the Warsaw Pact countries to the West.
  There is no Soviet Union. There is no Warsaw Pact. And several of 
those countries do not exist anymore.
  No agency of the Federal Government has seen external reality change 
for the better as much as the Defense Department.
  Yes, there are threats in the world. But let us not pretend they are 
new. People said, ``Well, we have these other threats, Iraq and Iran.'' 
Iraq and Iran are menacing countries, but they are not new. What were 
Iraq and Iran in 1984? Disney World?
  There has been a substantial drop in the nature of the threat we 
face. The capacity of the Soviet Union to damage us in nuclear war has 
been substantially diminished, although not totally abolished, and the 
Warsaw Pact has completely disappeared. The significant threat is gone.
  So, of course, we have made some reductions. It would have been nuts 
not to.
  The question is: Have we made enough? People say, ``Well, there is a 
shortfall in defense.'' No doubt from the standpoint of the people who 
run that agency, there is a shortfall, but we have got some other 
shortfalls. We have a shortfall in police protection in this country. 
We have promised and promised and promised again more police 
protection, but you will spend it up when the Pentagon says, ``We need 
it first.''
  We have shortfalls in education, shortfalls in health research at the 
NIH, shortfalls in environmental cleanup, shortfalls in health care for 
people. Yes, there are shortfalls.
  The nature of Government in a time of limited resources is to try to 
do the best you can to deal with shortfalls, but there are people here 
who get scared politically and who will tell you that the one area 
where we must immunize them against the threat of shortfall is the 
Pentagon.
  Where we are talking national defense, that is one thing. But we are 
talking more than national defense. We are talking about the greatest 
charity program in the history of the world, the one by which the 
taxpayers of the United States subsidize again and again and again the 
richest nations in the world in Western Europe.
  Our Western European allies spend a small fraction of what we spend 
as a percentage of national wealth, but that is because there are 
people in this body who believe it is somehow the American taxpayer's 
obligation to subsidize France, Norway, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and 
other countries, because subsidize them we do.
  They will cut their military budgets. They will provide greater 
services for their own people. And we will take up the slack for them.
  No one doubts that we are by far the strongest Nation in the world 
with a considerable margin of superiority over everyone else. Of 
course, we should be. The question is whether we will continue when the 
rest of the world gets richer and when the threat gets smaller to spend 
disproportionately on defense.
  There are plenty of places in this function that they can find $2.4 
billion. We have intelligence. The intelligence agencies are the only 
ones who, when they screw up, say they need more money. When they do 
not do well, that is an argument for giving them more money.
  We have the burdensharing where we carry Western Europe. We have 
weapons systems there. And is it a coincidence, or was there a high 
correlation between those who came and spoke for the budget and those 
who have defense money spent in their districts?

                              {time}  1750

  Now, the Defense Department, like any other department, has a mission 
and it also has goodies to hand out. It also has people who benefit 
from it. Some of my friends on the other side talked again about the 
jobs we would lose. One of the great inconsistencies in this country is 
that conservatives who tell you that the Government is a detractor from 
jobs, the Government hurts the economy, when the Government spends, it 
doesn't hurt anything--except for defense. Where defense is concerned, 
suddenly they become Harold Ickes's and Harry Hopkins. Defense, for 
them, is the WPA.
  Defense spending ought to be treated the same as any other. Yes, it 
has dropped some from the days when it was way too high, but the threat 
has also dropped. If we do this for the Defense Department today, it 
comes either out of the deficit or out of other domestic programs. I 
think that is an unnecessary restriction to place upon ourselves.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Browder] has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
majority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], who will 
urge our Members to support the budget resolution recommended by the 
President and the Committee on the Budget.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I rise with 
great respect of the author of this amendment and the argument he has 
made. On many occasions I have voted with him on issues like this 
because of my belief that we have had to cut our defense budget because 
we live in a different world today than we lived in a few years ago.
  But I also believe that we have to pay attention to our President, 
who has made a decision and asked us to stand behind that decision. I 
would read from his letter, which has probably been read from before, 
where he said on March 9:

       As I pointed out in my State of the Union Address, I am 
     fully committed to the principle that our military must be 
     the best equipped, best trained, and the best prepared in the 
     world. My fiscal year 1995 defense budget was based on a 
     careful, bottom-up review of our defense requirements. It 
     funds the forces required to meet our national defense 
     strategy.

  I think we should stick with that judgment. I understand and 
sympathize with many of the arguments that have been made. I think that 
not only because our strategists in the Pentagon feel we have to be 
prepared to fight a war or 1\1/2\ wars or whatever it is, but because I 
think in the world we are in we are beginning to take on a lot of 
peacekeeping responsibilities. We have been peacekeeping in Somalia, we 
have peacekeepers in Somalia. We have peacekeepers in Macedonia. We are 
likely to have some more there. We are likely to have some more in 
Bosnia if we can get a peace treaty in Bosnia. We are likely to be 
committing peacekeepers in the Middle East if we are fortunate enough 
to get a treaty in the Middle East.
  It is a new world, but it is not a world that is without danger and 
it is not a world without needs for us to keep the peace. That takes 
defense dollars as well as dollars in other areas.
  I urge Members to consider all of this as they vote on this 
amendment. I think what the Budget Committee did was appropriate. I 
think what the President asked for was right, and I hope the Members 
will stick with the President's budget, and I reluctantly speak against 
my friend's amendment.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  My colleagues, I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. Over 
the years I have become intimately familiar with the issues surrounding 
our national defense. I have studied programs affecting readiness, 
personnel, and acquisition. We on the committee have attempted to 
change our defense budget priorities to reflect the end of the cold war 
and the changing threats that we may face.
  The administration also has presented Congress with its view of 
defense spending and posture for the next 5 years. Defense spending is 
being cut significantly. I have expressed concerns that we may be 
cutting too much too fast. But I really must caution the membership 
against supporting any further cuts beyond the 5-year plan envisioned 
by the administration in the bottom up review. We are pushing the 
envelope here.
  The Frank amendment cuts $2.5 billion from our defense budget for 
fiscal year 1995. This is beyond the cuts asked for by the 
administration or the Budget Committee and clearly beyond any good 
judgment.
  Mr. Chairman, we on the committee are about half way through our 
budget hearings. We have heard from all the services. If one walks away 
from those hearings with anything, it is the notion that we are getting 
perilously close to the hollow force of the 1970's. Readiness and 
operations and maintenance is being called into question. Make no 
mistake about it, this type of budget situation has a direct impact on 
the men and women who serve in the military. We have a responsibility 
to provide these men and women with the best equipment, training, and 
benefits we can. The Frank amendment and any further cuts, I believe, 
jeopardizes that commitment.
  My colleagues, sadly, we continue to have a problem with sexual 
harassment in the military. Efforts so far to remedy this situation 
have fallen short. Further resources may be needed to develop the type 
of programs that will educate the military about this issue and 
hopefully eradicate sexual harassment of any kind from the military. I 
could go on and on about other areas that need funding to keep the 
military at a minimum level of readiness.
  Please vote no on the Frank amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Frank 
amendment to the Budget Resolution.
  We've all seen the graphs and heard the figures--next year the United 
States plans to spend as much on defense as the rest of the world 
combined, over 260 billion dollars. In real dollars that's more than 
Richard Nixon's administration spent on defense at the very height of 
the Cold War 20 years ago. Today the Soviet Union is gone and the 
Russian military is only a shadow of its former self. The Pentagon, 
however, insists that it still needs as much money as it had when the 
Soviet threat was real. The bottom-up review starts from the premise 
that the United States must be able to fight two Gulf War type 
conflicts simultaneously. Even given that dubious assumption, I fail to 
understand why this country must spend 23 times more than Iraq and 
North Korea combined.
  I also find specious the argument that we must vote this increase to 
offset the pay raise that Congress mandated last year. Since the size 
of the military will decrease from a high of 1.6 million to 1.2 million 
by 1996--a 25 percent decrease in personnel--the downsizing of our 
military ought to be reflected as a real savings, since pay and upkeep 
of the troops is the single most expensive item in the Pentagon's 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, three decades ago President Eisenhower warned the 
American people against the ``conjunction of an immense military 
establishment and a large arms industry'' and ``the acquisition of 
unwarranted influence * * * by the military-industrial complex.'' His 
warning is one we should be heeding, especially at a time when our 
national security interests need to involve deficit reduction as a high 
priority. Congress courageously took the first important steps along 
that path last year, and now is no time to backtrack.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 105, 
noes 313, not voting 20 as follows:

                             [Roll No. 51]

                               AYES--105

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Barca
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blackwell
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Cardin
     Clayton
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Danner
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gordon
     Hamburg
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Maloney
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Mfume
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Synar
     Towns
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--313

     Allard
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (NC)
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sabo
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Valentine
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Brooks
     Collins (IL)
     Crane
     Dooley
     Edwards (CA)
     Ford (TN)
     Gallo
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Kopetski
     Lewis (CA)
     McMillan
     Miller (CA)
     Natcher
     Pelosi
     Reynolds
     Torricelli
     Washington

                              {time}  1817

  Messrs. OBERSTAR, STOKES, and HOKE changed there vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 103-429.


     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate this amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows: Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
Solomon:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1995.

       The Congress determines and declares that this resolution 
     is the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     1995, including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, as required by section 301 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1994, October 1, 1995, 
     October 1, 1996, October 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998:
       (1) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $977,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,031,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,079,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,136,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,190,200,000,000.
     and the amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be increased are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $0.
       Fiscal year 1996: $0.
       Fiscal year 1997: $0.
       Fiscal year 1998: $0.
       Fiscal year 1999: $0.
     and the amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act 
     revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels 
     of Federal revenues are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $100,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $106,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $111,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $117,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $123,700,000,000.
       (2) The appropriate levels of total new budget authority 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,185,600,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,215,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,255,700,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,313,900,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,360,100,000.
       (3) The appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,187,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,183,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,218,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,245,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,288,700,000,000.
       (4) The amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $209,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $151,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $140,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $108,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $98,100,000,000.
       (5) The appropriate levels of the public debt are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $4,939,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $5,200,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,453,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,862,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $6,193,900,000,000.
       (6) The appropriate levels of total Federal credit activity 
     for the fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1994, October 1, 
     1995, October 1, 1996, October 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998, 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $26,000,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $196,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $30,400,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $170,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $31,900,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $160,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $33,700,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $159,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $35,900,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $160,800,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, new primary loan guarantee commitments, and 
     new secondary loan guarantee commitments for fiscal years 
     1995 through 1999 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $263,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $261,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $252,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $17,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $17,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $17,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $17,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $17,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $8,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $4,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $8,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $4,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $8,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $4,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $8,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $4,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$10,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $117,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $130,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,650,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$13,050,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $103,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $95,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $96,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $99,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $12,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $11,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $118,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $118,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $123,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $131,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $130,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $140,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $138,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $151,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $149,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $151,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $180,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $153,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $198,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $167,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $217,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $179,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $242,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $193,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $207,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $213,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $208,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $210,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $217,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $218,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $232,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $220,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $228,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $229,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9.000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,300,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $32,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,300,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,300,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $242,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $242,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $258,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $266,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $266,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $273,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $273,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $285,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, -$11,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$13,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$9,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$13,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$11,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$14,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$12,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$13,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$30,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$30,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$31,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$32,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$32,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING BASELINES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the baseline budget shows the likely course of Federal 
     revenues and spending if policies remain unchanged;
       (2) baseline budgeting has given rise to the practice of 
     calculating policy changes from inflated spending levels; and
       (3) the baseline concept has been misused to portray 
     policies that would simply slow down the increase in spending 
     as spending reductions.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the President should submit a budget that compares 
     proposed spending levels for the budget year with the current 
     year; and
       (2) the starting point for deliberations on a budget 
     resolution should be the current year.

     SEC. 6. ADJUSTMENT OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO SCORECARD.

       It is the sense of the Congress that upon enactment of a 
     reconciliation bill pursuant to section 4, the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget shall reduce the balances 
     of direct spending and receipts legislation applicable to 
     each fiscal year under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 by an amount equal to 
     the net change in the deficit achieved through the enactment 
     in that Act of direct spending and receipts legislation for 
     that year.

     SEC. 7. SPENDING REDUCTIONS.

       Nothing in this concurrent resolution on the budget commits 
     the Congress to making the specific spending reductions used 
     as assumptions in deriving the appropriate budgetary levels 
     in this concurrent resolution, with the full understanding 
     that the Congress may make comparable spending reductions in 
     other areas to arrive at the same appropriate budgetary 
     levels.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].


modification to amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
                                solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
Solomon amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will not 
object, I do so in order that the gentleman from New York may explain 
his modification.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, because the 
Congressional Budget Office was unable to complete scoring of the 
Solomon substitute and others, we were unable to have the exact figures 
we have. We had plugs in what we had offered. We are now asking to have 
the corrections submitted at the desk.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
offered by Mr. Solomon, is as follows:
  [The text of the amendment will be printed in a future issue of the 
Record.]
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Torres). Without objection, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon] is modified.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In just 1 hour from now this Congress is going to have the 
opportunity to live up to your rhetoric and, for the first time in many 
years, actually vote for a balanced budget.
  Mr. Chairman, this country is drowning in a sea of red ink that has 
literally turned this great country into a debtor nation; where the 
accumulated debt has grown so large--a debt incidently owned by mostly 
foreign nations--the interest on which is now larger than the amount we 
spend on our military budget.
  Mr. Chairman, the Democrat budget before us today does noting to stop 
this hemorrhaging red ink, adding almost $200 billion a year to this 
unconscionable deficit.
  Mr. Chairman, the balanced budget we present to you today stops that 
deficit spiral, and actually produces a surplus that begins to pay off 
the debt in the year 1999, 2000, and 20001.
  Mr. Chairman, this balanced budget contains more than 500 specific 
cuts totalling more than $600 billion.
  To build this consensus balanced budget, we included recommendations 
and suggestions from: the Concord Coalition, the Grace Commission, the 
Congressional Budget Office, Citizens Against Government Waste, 
Individual Member Initiatives, National Taxpayers' Union, Heritage 
Foundation, The Porkbusters Coalition, and many others.
  Mr. Chairman, during the recent Senate debate on the balanced budget 
amendment, President Clinton, OMB Director Leon Panetta, (in twisting 
arms to vote against it), made the point that we don't need a balanced 
budget amendment.
  What we need is a Congress willing to vote for a balanced budget.
  Well Members, Congress is going to get their chance to do just that 
today.
  Other critics and Members--including Senate Majority Leader George 
Mitchell--claimed that you could not balance the budget without dipping 
into the Social Security retirement trust fund, slashing earned 
benefits for veterans and without raising taxes.
  Well, that kind of rhetorical scare tactic was wrong too and we prove 
it with this balanced budget.
  This balanced budget does not touch the Social Security retirement 
fund.
  It does not cut a dime from veterans benefits.
  It does not raise taxes.
  And, instead of decimating the defense budget, it actually restores 
about $50 billion in cuts proposed by President Clinton.
  Mr. Chairman, in this budget, everyone will be asked to tighten their 
belts, including Congress itself.
  Our budget is tough medicine. It cuts congressional spending by 25 
percent.
  Cuts White House spending by 25 percent.
  Consolidates departments like Energy and Interior.
  Terminates many Federal commissions.
  Eliminates programs like the space station.
  Privatizes programs like NOAA.
  Contracts out items like the U.S. Printing Office.
  Eliminates 90 percent of crop subsidies.
  Bars financial assistance to illegal aliens.
  Merges job training programs.
  Sells off the governments direct loan portfolio to the private 
sector.
  And, in all of this belt tightening, which touches every branch of 
Government, we only cut spending by a mere 3\1/2\ percent yet we manage 
to balance the Federal budget.
  Is a 3\1/2\ percent cut over five years too much to ask of this 
Congress?
  Well we think not and the American people think not.
  And we are asking Congress to summon the courage to vote for this 
balanced budget today.
  The buck stops here, ladies and gentlemen.
  No longer can we blame past or present Presidents for the deficit 
crisis.
  We can only blame ourselves if we fail to vote for a truly balanced 
budget today.
  Budget Committee members in the other body, over in the Senate, have 
reviewed this balanced budget that we have before Members here today. 
They are so impressed that they have scored it and have printed it as a 
working document, which I have right here in front of me. They are 
going to use this working document. I would expect them to present this 
in the other body as the official Republican substitute, a balanced 
budget, which the American people insist on.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As I understand it, the gentleman's amendment increases defense 
spending about 50 billion beyond the President's projections over the 
next 5 years.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. SABO. And makes no reductions in Social Security?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that is correct.
  Mr. SABO. And then $600 billion elsewhere?
  Mr. SOLOMON. With one qualification. As most Members know, the Kasich 
budget, which is the official Republican alternative, which I am 
supporting, is a part of this Solomon balanced budget task force 
substitute.
  What we have simply done, so every Member understands, we have 
removed all the tax cutting provisions out of the Republican 
alternative.
  Mr. SABO. Which provisions?
  Mr. SOLOMON. All of the tax cutting provisions out of the Republican 
alternative. And then we have added an additional $300 billion-plus in 
spending cuts, which we have itemized and have passed out to all 
Members. That is how we arrived at this official figure, which I have 
just given the gentleman, which indicates we are reducing the deficit 
over the 5-year period by $698 billion, over the 5-year period, leaving 
a surplus in the fifth year, 1999, a surplus of $8 billion.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am curious what the gentleman is doing with 
farm programs, because as we read the budget, in 1996, it produces a 
billion four of revenue to the Federal Government.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that we do 
not touch any of the agricultural programs other than what is in the 
Kasich budget, except we eliminate the CCC, the Commodity Credit 
Corporation. We eliminate all of it but the milk price supports, which 
certain members of the task force did not feel was a commodity crop 
program.
  Mr. SABO. But I am curious, the Ag programs end up making money for 
us in 1996.
  Mr. SOLOMON. If that is the case, we show that as a revenue in our 
budget.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman, what 
he is saying is, he cut out all farm programs affecting wheat, corn, 
rice, cotton, tobacco, everything. For whatever reason, we leave dairy 
alone in this program, and the dairy program also on occasion costs the 
Government some money.
  I support it, but I do not understand, for the life of me, why the 
gentleman wants to say to the wheat farmer, the corn farmer, the rice 
farmer, the cotton farmer and all of the other farmers in the country 
that they are going to suffer. And by the way, they are in bleak 
economic times, as it is.
  The removal of these programs will probably throw thousands of 
farmers, if not ten of thousands, into bankruptcy. But the gentleman 
leaves the dairy farmer alone.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman raises a very, very good concern. As a 
matter of fact, when I mentioned that we had taken all of the 
recommendations by the Grace Commission, the Concord Commission, et 
cetera, we had over a trillion dollars in cuts, and included in that 
was a recommendation to do away with the dairy as well and a lot of 
other things. They had a recommendation, for instance, to raise the 
Medicare qualifications from 65 to 67 years. That was dropped. The 
dairy was dropped. If we had had the votes, we could have kept it all 
in, but we were unable to do that.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Just 1 additional second, if the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. SABO. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. First of all, I compliment the gentleman from New York. 
He at least comes up with something that makes real proposals. I 
disagree with most of them, but there is at least some intellectual 
honesty in here.
  The problem with his proposals is that it will throw, just this one 
piece of it, vast portions of rural America into cataclysm. With no 
advanced warning the gentleman is removing the entire safety net that 
the government provides for crops in this country, and that will 
produce a great deal of havoc for the people who rely on food and fiber 
in America, and for that reason alone I would ask Members to vote 
against the amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Will the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Because of that very concern, because there are a lot of 
things in here that I do not like, one of them, for instance, is 
privatizing of Amtrak which runs 270 miles right straight through my 
district, and I have probably more stops than anyone, yet I cannot vote 
against this whole budget because it happens to be in here. I put in a 
caveat so if we have a reconciliation bill later on, or if we have our 
13 appropriation bills and the agricultural appropriation bill comes 
forth, there is nothing to prevent the gentleman from substituting and 
putting back in the CCC, and making light cuts within the domestic 
programs. And I would imagine the gentleman would see fit to do that. 
We were looking out for the gentleman's interests when we put this in 
here.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Fawell], a gentleman who has taken this well many times 
as the chairman of the Porkbusters Task Force, and I thank him for his 
input.
  (Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a historic vote that we will be 
having. I rise in support of the Solomon balanced budget resolution, 
and I do for one particular reason at least, but there are others. It 
is because I do not see that the administration, nor do I see anywhere 
else that there is any plans whatsoever to balance the budget either in 
this century or the one that is coming up. And lo and behold, come 
fiscal year 1999, we are going to have new debt, counting trust fund 
borrowing, of over $350 billion as we go into the next century.
  I came to Congress in January of 1985. The debt was $1.4 trillion. I 
have witnessed all kinds of 5-year plans and fancy deficit reduction 
promises, promising literally trillions of dollars of deficit 
reductions. And what have we got but trillions of dollars of new debt, 
$300 billion just to pay interest on that.
  Why is this so? The problem, I suggest, is that all of the deficit 
reduction plans that we have had are founded on the idea of decreasing 
increases in spending. We all know what that means. What we have here 
is not perfect, but it makes the hard choices of eliminating and 
cutting literally hundreds, 500 programs.
  It has been said if you die and go to heaven, and you want to come 
back and have eternal life, come back as a Federal program because we 
never cut. We can put the lie to that.
  Will the Clinton plan save this or change it? No, because the Clinton 
plan adds $1.7 trillion and admits if all the deficit reduction works, 
which it will not, by 1989 the debt will be $6 trillion, and by 1999 
$6.3 trillion.
  We are going to hear all kinds of things from special interest 
groups, ``This is not the time.'' For 24 years it has not been the time 
to balance the budget. They say not now through all types of economic 
times, and we still fail to balance the budget. I ask if not now, when?
  I will say that there are, however, some people that you shall not 
hear from if you vote for this, or as we talk about it. I can tell 
Members who will not call, although a lot of special interest people 
will. For one, Emily Heap, 5 years old in Naperville, IL, will not call 
you. Zoe Fawell, 6 years old in Naperville, IL, will not call you. They 
are two of my eight grandchildren, and your grandchildren and children 
will not call you either because do you know what? They trust the 
Congress. They really trust the Congress. Nobody has told them that no 
one is even planning to do anything about this.
  This budget is for Emily and Zoe, and the millions of other children 
who will have a brighter economic future if Congress has the guts to do 
something about it. We can do it.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Solomon substitute 
to House Concurrent Resolution 218 and in support of the concurrent 
resolution.
  Since I have arrived in Congress, the message has been consistent: 
With precious few dollars to go around, we must pay for programs that 
have a proven track record of working, and we must continue to invest 
in the American people. Both the Solomon and the Kasich substitute 
amendments fail this test.
  The Solomon substitute guts assistance for seniors by cutting the 
valuable Senior Community Service Employment Program as well as by 
cutting Medicare reimbursements to hospitals for health care and lab 
services. If you represent a rural community heavily populated by 
seniors, this alone should convince you to vote ``no.'' Rural health 
care facilities that are disproportionately dependent on Medicare would 
be big losers under this Solomon provision.
  But the slash-and-burn tactics do not stop with our seniors. The 
Solomon substitute hurts young adults by slashing education assistance 
in the form of guaranteed student loans and health professional 
education subsidies. This is not frivolous spending, this is investment 
in our future.

  These are programs that invest in our people, both young and old. 
These are programs that need and deserve our support.
  We also need to fund programs that we know work.
  The Byrne Formula Block Grant has been zeroed out by the 
administration and was not reinstated by the Budget Committee. Yet just 
last week, I and some of my colleagues on the Government Operations 
Committee heard testimony from law enforcement professionals that 
stated that the Byrne Formula Grant must be restored if we are to have 
any success in the war on drugs. My testimony on this issue which was 
submitted to the Budget Committee further illuminates the success that 
States like Michigan have enjoyed under the Byrne Formula Grant 
Program. While the American people have told us that they are willing 
to spend money on an improved criminal justice system, Mr. Solomon's 
substitute makes significant cuts in this and other justice assistance 
programs making any such investments impossible.
  The chairman has done an excellent job of keeping us within our 
discretionary spending limits. This new fiscal discipline, however, 
mandates that we be more careful in choosing spending programs. Funding 
for the Coast Guard is another example of where we should be investing. 
All of the budgets before us today reduce the administration's request 
for Coast Guard acquisition, construction, and improvement. Mr. 
Chairman, this money is not political or controversial. The Coast Guard 
requires a minimum of between $500 and $600 million a year just to 
maintain the assets they have right now. While the Coast Guard is 
running as lean as possible, it would be a mistake to put off investing 
in its most basic capital needs. These reductions would seriously 
degrade the Coast Guard's ability to protect our precious water 
resources in the Great Lakes region.
  Mr. Chairman, where is the investment in our people? Where is the 
investment in programs that have shown success? They are not in the 
Solomon or Kasich proposals. I urge a no vote on the Solomon amendment.
  I would urge my colleagues to cast a vote for investment in the 
American people.
  Vote ``no'' on Solomon.

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Stupak], you know, the same cuts he is complaining about were 
those that were in Penny-Kasich that he and I helped to craft and we 
both voted for.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. For the same reason I had to vote against Penny-Kasich, 
because it cut seniors and it cut the other programs.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] who has had a great input into this piece 
of legislation.
  (Mr. ZIMMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, it is time to put up or shut up. In today's 
Washington Post a deputy House majority whip is quoted as saying we 
don't need a balanced budget Constitutional amendment. ``We shouldn't 
hide behind the Constitution,'' he says. He goes on to say ``If we want 
to balance the budget we should have the courage to just do it.'' Well, 
here is your chance to just do it. The Solomon budget is your only 
chance. Neither the President nor the Budget Committee majority has a 
plan to balance the budget this year, this century, next century or 
ever. The Solomon budget is the only game in town. For those of you who 
say all we need is courage, you can show some today by voting yes.
  For those of us who are committed to a balanced budget amendment 
because we believe it is the only thing that will force Congress to get 
its fiscal house in order, here is an opportunity for us to show we 
have the courage of our convictions and to move from easy rhetoric to 
painful reality. Here is a chance to put the taxpayers' money where our 
month is.
  There are cuts in the Solomon budget that I strongly disagree with. 
If I had written it myself I would have done it differently. But those 
of us who advocate a balanced budget have a moral obligation to get 
specific and show how it can be done.
  Let us show our constituents that Congress is able to do what every 
family has to do, what every business has to do, indeed what every 
State Government has to do and that is to live within our means. 
Support the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy], one of the distinguished new Members of the House 
and one who represents my native State in Congress.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in my analysis, this is the most complete and 
absolutely devastating attack on rural America that I have seen in the 
now 14 months I have been a Member of this body.
  The Solomon amendment would eliminate all farm commodity programs 
vital to virtually every agricultural community in every region of this 
country. It would eliminate Farmers Home, a critical source of farm 
credit, particularly for struggling farmers, family farmers, trying to 
remain on the land.
  It would eliminate the Rural Electric Associations. And what would be 
the consequence of these eliminations? Just a few farmers suffering a 
little more pain? Absolutely not. The result would be dramatically 
higher electric rates for more than 25 million REA subscribers across 
this country.
  The result would be dramatically higher grocery bills because what we 
have with the farm program is not an expensive farm program. What we 
have is a cheap food policy, and the results translate directly into 
the amounts the consumers in rural, in urban, in virtually every city 
of this country pay when they go to their grocery store. That would be 
the consequence of the proposals relative to agriculture proposed in 
the Solomon amendment.
  What is most mystifying to me is that cuts of such a draconian nature 
must be crafted under some kind of belief that everything is fat out on 
the farm when, in fact, the results shows that absolutely directly 
opposite conclusions must be drawn.
  In my State, and I represent North Dakota, one of the most rural 
States in the country, we had 42,000 family farmers in 1975. The count 
as of 1992 showed down to 33,000 family farmers, and the out migration 
proportionate in North Dakota, as reported by United Van Lines, is 
consistently ranked at the very top or near the top of the 50 States in 
the country.
  I can tell you from the personal experience that I see every weekend 
in the coffee shops across my State what a dire and difficult time this 
is for family farmers. I do not just speak for North Dakota when I make 
that point, Mr. Chairman.
  In a survey taken of the 14 plain States, 500 of the 633 counties 
experienced serious out migration.
  If you want to forecast yet additional consequences of voting for the 
Solomon amendment this afternoon, you can add the ramifications of a 
huge new population in our urban areas as people now struggling to 
remain on the farm and sustain family farm agriculture into the next 
generation are forced to throw in the towel and move to the cities.

  There are a lot of other cuts that I seriously question the wisdom 
of, and the deep savaging of Medicare, I think, ought to raise grave 
concern for anyone contemplating supporting this measure.
  But particularly when it comes to agriculture, this matter, this 
proposal, really goes way too far.
  I urge defeat of the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will point out to the gentleman that, first of all, 
we do not eliminate Farmers Home. We simply cut it like we do other 
programs.
  We do not decimate Medicare. We do not even cut it anywhere near what 
President Clinton does in his Health Care Program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the only budget 
amendment before us today that will actually balance the budget, and I 
commend the gentleman from New York for offering it.
  The Solomon-Fawell-Upton budget alternative will give every Member 
the chance to vote for what the overwhelming majority of Americans are 
saying: Cut spending first.
  Mr. Chairman, the Solomon alternative balances our budget in 5 years.
  It does not cut Social Security or earned veterans benefits. It does 
not devastate our already weakened defense budget, and it does not 
raise taxes.
  It does not touch Medicare benefits. In fact, the Medicare budget 
grows under the Solomon proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, what the Solomon budget proposes to do is cut unneeded 
and unnecessary federally subsidized programs that we just simply 
cannot afford any more. I wish we could, but we cannot.
  Mr. Solomon's proposal cuts $27 billion that we have been giving to 
illegal aliens.
  It puts a moratorium on land purchases. In fact, the National Park 
Service already has a backlog of $5.6 billion in land acquisition 
costs. That would take us 37 years to pay off.
  It ends additional U.S. financial support for the International 
Monetary Fund [IMF] and the World Bank, which have consistently failed 
to promote economic development through their lending programs.
  It eliminates the Advisory Commission on Intergovenmental Relations 
which studies Federal-State frictions. This duplicates the work of 
various executive branch and State governments.
  The Solomon amendment would cut in half, by $5 billion, Federal 
spending on furniture and office decorations.
  It would reduce the amount the Federal Government uses to pay 
consultants, saving $24 billion over 5 years, and the list goes on. 
Sadly, these programs are only the tip of the iceberg in unneeded and 
unnecessary programs.
  We have a debt of more than $4.3 trillion. We are spending almost $1 
billion a day of money that we do not have.
  Our Federal debt continues to increase and our children and 
grandchildren will have to pay for this ridiculous expenditure.
  I urge support for the Solomon budget proposal.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], who has had tremendous input in trying to once 
and for all balance this budget.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Solomon budget ensures we can meet a balanced 
budget amendment by cutting waste by fiscal year 1999, and America can 
understand that, while the Clinton budget leaves us way off the mark, 
in fact, about $6 trillion off the mark in terms of the national debt.
  The Solomon balanced budget provides for a specific realistic 
blueprint for achieving a balanced budget, and even recording a surplus 
into the next century.
  This is not a vague pronouncement of principle. This is tough cuts. 
It is hard choices, and it is real deficit reduction.
  Of course, we all find difficult the tradeoffs on this list of more 
than 500 line item budget cuts. Clearly each of us might have done a 
list a little differently as we are hearing in this debate. I, in fact, 
have done House Resolution 377, called the Spirit of '76, and it is a 
list of 76 cuts that does not touch Social Security, does not touch 
Medicare, does not touch Medicaid, does not touch veterans' benefits, 
but does cut $285 billion over 5 years.
  Fortunately, many of my cuts are included in the Solomon substitute.
  Clearly, each Member might prefer cutting more in one area in the 
interests of maintaining more resources in another area. That is what 
this is about. That is why we asked in the Committee on Rules to have a 
deliberate process in considering the Solomon budget where any Member 
could have sought to substitute one cut for another as long as the 
total value of the deficit reduction achieved by the package was not 
reduced.
  Even though the Committee on Rules declined to give us that 
flexibility, I hope my colleagues will agree that this package does 
represent a breakthrough in the campaign to bring our Federal budget 
into balance by cutting.
  This package deserves our support. Seventy percent of America is 
telling us, ``Balance the budget.''
  Now is the time. We can vote for a true balanced budget plan.
  And in the reported words of the gentlewoman from the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania from across the aisle, ``We are putting our money where 
our mouth is,'' and we urge our colleagues from both sides of the aisle 
to follow that advice as well.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New York, 
could you describe the Medicare cuts that you have in here?
  Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman will yield, all of our Medicare cuts 
are again what is in the Kasich budget. We do not touch the eligibility 
of it. Just, for example, I think I told the gentleman that there was a 
rumor that we had raised the qualification requirement from 65 to 67 
years. We do not do that. We do not touch it at all.
  We simply took the entire Republican alternative and incorporated it 
into our budget.
  Mr. SABO. Maybe the gentleman could explain one thing that I do not 
understand in that alternative. They take and have some seniors pay 100 
percent of the national cost, average national cost, for part B of 
Medicare. I looked at that issue last summer and discovered that in 95 
percent of the counties in this country the actual costs were 
substantially less than the national average.

                              {time}  1850

  In my home State of Minnesota, every county, every county was 
substantially below the national average, and in some States the 
difference was even more pronounced. So a very significant number of 
the elderly in this country to which this provision would apply would 
be paying substantially more than the 100 percent of part B premiums.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would say to the gentleman I was not a member of this 
committee, but in talking to the members of the Committee on the Budget 
on the Republican side, they had informed me that the reason that they 
put that in there, in their budget, is because it only affected those 
people, single people with incomes above $70,000 and couples above 
$90,000.
  Mr. SABO. That is right, but there are still significant parts of the 
country which would be asked to pay substantially more than actual 
costs. I have always tried to understand that rationalization. Over 95 
percent of the counties, the actual costs there are below the national 
average.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman not asking that seniors, fairly 
wealthy seniors at that, just have their subsidy from the Federal 
Government reduced?
  Mr. SABO. If the gentleman would yield. No.
  Mr. GILCHREST. That is a subsidy that they are getting from the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. SABO. No. Currently, they pay 25 percent of the national average. 
They go to 100 percent of the national average. The reality is that in 
95 percent of the counties, the actual cost is significantly below the 
national average. So for those seniors, they would be paying 
substantially more than 100 percent of the actual cost for part B.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I am not sure if I would use the word 
``substantially,'' but we are talking about seniors, fairly wealthy 
seniors with that income, having their subsidy reduced for that 
particular health insurance.
  Mr. SABO. No, you eliminate all the subsidy plus ask 95 percent of 
the counties to pay more than 100 percent of their actual cost.
  So, they are being asked to--and I forget what the actual average is, 
something like $130 a month--there are significant parts of the country 
where the actual costs are less than $100 a month.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Apparently, there are significant parts of the country 
where there are wealthier seniors.
  Mr. SABO. No. What there is around the country is significant 
differences in health care costs and significant difference in Medicare 
reimbursements around the country.
  So, for most of the counties, most rural counties and even many urban 
areas, those seniors would be asked to pay substantially more than 100 
percent of actual cost.
  You might want to check into this and find the rationalization.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would just say to the gentleman I would certainly like 
to check into it. Again, that is why we have written into our 
substitute these caps that would allow the Committee on Appropriations 
or the Committee on the Budget, the reconciliation, later on, to make 
those substitutions if there is a problem there. Does the gentleman's 
bill deal with it at all?
  Mr. SABO. No. As a matter of fact, the President has a recommendation 
for changing Part B premiums in his health care proposal. That is 
something the committees will have to be looking at. That is one of the 
potential sources of revenue for funding health care reform in this 
session of Congress.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows I have great respect 
for him and the work that he does, and even Members on that side of the 
aisle, but you know, the gentleman from North Dakota said we are 
decimating rural America. I represent rural America. This budget hurts 
everybody, it is tough medicine, but it does not just go to rural 
America; it goes to suburban America, it goes to inner-core cities. 
Everybody has to take their fair cut. And that is what we are doing in 
this budget.
  We would certainly be glad to hear any other recommendations to get 
to the balanced budget amendment to prevent what is happening there, 
and that is a $204 billion deficit 5 years from now in that 1 year 
alone.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the heart of changing that long-term deficit in this 
country is for us to fundamentally deal with health care reform. There 
is one part of the Federal budget that is growing very rapidly, and 
that is health care, Medicare, Medicaid reimbursements. To get a handle 
on the totality of the health care costs in this country, and the same 
thing happening in the private sector, clearly the most compelling 
issue before this session of Congress is to find agreement on health 
care reform, how we can achieve universal coverage to make sure people 
in this country have health insurance and at the same time control the 
escalating costs for both the public and private sectors.
  There is no issue more important to individual Americans and their 
individual lives, there is no issue more important to us than to be 
able to control the long-term deficit in this country.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield briefly?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I really share a lot of the same concerns with the 
gentleman from Minnesota. That is why--you know, President Clinton is 
proposing to abolish Medicare, for all intents and purposes----
  Mr. SABO. No.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I do not think he ought to be doing that. We ought to 
maintain it. That is a part of the system that is not broke.
  Mr. SABO. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is totally 
inaccurate in his description of the President's program. That is a 
comprehensive plan for reform, a base where we consider as we move to 
deal with that most important issue.
  The fact is the gentleman from New York would substantially impact 
all kinds of programs that are of prime importance to millions of 
Americans while the real issue before us this session is whether we can 
move forward on the very important issue of reforming our health care 
system.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 16\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has 10 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, this body is going to lose one of its most 
valuable Members at the end of this session. If there is anyone who has 
tried to focus on the terrible deficits which are just ruining this 
country, it is the speaker I am going to recommend from the other side 
of the aisle. I refer to one of the most respected Members of this 
body, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny], who has announced his 
retirement at the end of this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Penny].
  (Mr. PENNY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENNY. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I applaud the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
for his articulation of the health reform issue, because clearly we 
must reform out health system with an eye toward reducing the Federal 
deficit. Health care reform that does not cut Federal health care 
expenditures is not worthy of the word ``reform.''
  The health care reform plan adopted by this Congress must show budget 
savings in the first 5 years, not after the turn of the century.
  We have before us today, however, a budget resolution. This comes 
just 1 week ahead of a vote on a balanced budget amendment. A two-
thirds' vote is required to pass a balanced budget amendment, and there 
are currently 260 cosponsors of that measure, nearly the two thirds 
required to pass it.
  With or without a balanced budget amendment, we need to make the 
tough choices. What we want to find out today is whether we have a 
similar number of legislators who are willing to vote for a tough 
budget that would actually balance the Federal accounts within the next 
5 years; 260 cosponsors of the balanced budget amendment, how many of 
them will vote today for a balanced budget? There is only one budget 
under consideration that cuts nearly $700 billion and would balance the 
budget within 5 years. It it the Solomon budget, and it deserves our 
support.
  Any tough budget includes controversial items, and clearly none of us 
would agree with all the details of the Solomon plan. But we ought to 
agree with the goals set forth by this plan.
  I think it is critically important to convey to the American public 
just how painful and far-reaching the cuts must be in order to reach a 
balanced budget, which most Americans claim they want us to achieve.
  Most of this plan I can wholeheartedly endorse. As suggested by a 
previous speaker, I too would have some problems with the severity of 
the agricultural cuts. But on the other hand, I do not believe we need 
to add back money in the Pentagon budget. I can live with the 
President's number. But the totality of this plan still gets us a 
balanced budget in 5 years and it does convey that there are no easy 
choices.

                              {time}  1900

  Too many other budget alternatives gloss over the fact that we still 
have a major deficit problem, and I would rather be identified with a 
budget that takes the deficit seriously rather than one which pretends 
the deficit is no longer a threat.
  Admittedly we have made some progress with the passage of the 
President's economic program, and the deficit is coming down in the 
near term. But under that program, Mr. Chairman, the deficit has 
climbed again in the outyears, and more heavy lifting will be required 
in order to tackle the deficit at that time. We ought to face those 
choices now and not wait a few years, until the deficit crisis 
resurfaces.
  Last year, Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] deserved credit for offering what was the best budget. But it 
only received a handful of votes, and unfortunately in my time in 
Congress I have noticed that the toughest budgets always get the fewest 
votes. We have to change that record, and we ought to start tonight. 
Instead of empty rhetoric about a balanced budget amendment, instead of 
rhetoric about the near term success of the President's economic 
program, let us challenge ourselves and the American public to finally 
face reality.
  Mr. Chairman, we either have to vote for tough budget cuts or we 
cannot have a balanced budget. The Solomon budget places that challenge 
before this institution and before the country. It deserves our 
support.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire [Mr. Zeliff]. New Hampshire has gone through unbelievable 
weather this year, along with my neck of the woods. This gentleman has 
done much since he came here to try to bring this budget under control.
  Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Solomon 
balanced budget proposal. I am proud to have worked with the balanced 
budget task force in creating this proposal to produce a budget surplus 
in just 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, what we have done today is to present to this House a 
document that shows that a balanced budget is possible--without 
touching Social Security retirement or earned veterans benefits, or 
raising taxes.
  This is a significant accomplishment. It shows all the naysayers that 
real spending cuts can be used to reach a balanced budget.
  On the day of the Balanced Budget Amendment vote in the Senate, our 
former colleague and friend, the OMB Director, Leon Panetta, said this 
country does not need a balanced budget amendment. We do not need to 
change the Constitution to force us to do what we are elected to do.
  Mr. Panetta said that a constitutional amendment ``doesn't give 
anybody the guts or courage that they need to make the right choices.'' 
Mr. Chairman, the Solomon amendment enables us to make those tough 
choices today.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot have it both ways. The administration does 
not want a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. The 
administration also will not support our effort to propose a real 
balanced budget with those tough choices today.
  There is no question that this is a tough package of spending cuts. 
And I have to tell you that I do not agree with all of the cuts in the 
Solomon plan. But in the interest of balancing our Federal budget, I 
support it. We need to start somewhere.
  To those Members who do not like these specific cuts, I say: It would 
have been nice to have an open rule on spending cuts? My good friend 
from New York [Mr. Solomon], and I asked the Rules Committee for an A 
to Z style open rule. This would have allowed the House to examine and 
vote on each specific spending cut in this package.
  An open rule would have allowed Members to either add or delete a 
particular program. Unfortunately, we did not get the opportunity and 
we must now vote on the package of cuts before us.
  Mr. Chairman, the Solomon package is a reasonable attempt to balance 
the Federal budget. It is tough medicine, but it is only a 3.5 percent 
spending cut. Any business in this Nation could find a way to cut 3.5 
percent from their budget, so I ask, ``Why can't the U.S. Congress make 
a 3.5-percent cut?''
  It is time that we stop playing the game of telling people back home 
that we care about living within our means and then come back down here 
and do something else. The Solomon budget before us is balanced, and 
while not perfect, will do the job.
  Our problem is spending. It is time to take the medicine, my friends, 
and stop passing our examples on to future generations. Here is the 
plan. Now we need your vote.
  I urge my colleague to vote yes on the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], another Member who has been so 
active in trying to bring this deficit under control.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for yielding this time to me. I want to make a couple of 
comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not live in North or South Dakota, but I live in a 
very rural area of Maryland, and there are certainly things in this 
budget that I would not put as my priority, but in the overall scheme 
of things this is not only good for the country, but it is good for 
rural areas, and I represent a rural community, and, unless we balance 
this budget soon, and that is in 5 years, our debt will consume all our 
dollars, and there will be no money for any programs. Over $290 billion 
just for interest on the national debt, and that amount is increasing, 
not decreasing. That money does not go for seniors, it does not go for 
educational programs, it does not go for health reform, it does not go 
for public safety, it goes for nothing, and it is about time that we 
get a handle on the debt.
  I am sure that all of us agree that the deficit needs to be 
eliminated; about two-thirds of us will probably vote for a balanced 
budget amendment in the near future. But for most of us, it seems that 
deficit elimination should be the responsibility of some other 
Congress, some other time, cutting some other people's programs or 
raising some other people's taxes. This mentality--deficit elimination, 
but not on my watch--is threatening to bankrupt our children.
  Too many of us fail to realize that every year we wait, it will be 
harder to balance the budget because of demographic factors and growing 
interest on the debt. The deep cuts in the Solomon budget may seem 
draconian today, but in a few years they will be necessary just to meet 
the interest payments, and still deeper cuts will be required to pay 
for our spending today.
  Those draconian cuts today will seem mild compared to what we will 
have to do in the future if we do not cut the debt today.
  Many Members are probably concerned about how the Solomon budget cuts 
this program or that program in somebody's district; about how certain 
groups might be offended, about how this could hurt them politically. 
Let us be clear on one thing: this is a budget resolution. The only 
thing binding in this resolution is the bottom line, and that is the 
spending cuts, and that is what we need to do today.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett], a freshman Member in this House whom we 
deeply admire.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to be a member 
of the Balanced Budget Task Force, and I rise in strong support of the 
Solomon budget. This budget does what American citizens have asked us 
to do. It balances the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no way, no way, that we are ever going to 
balance the budget without some discomfort and perhaps without some 
pain. This discomfort and pain is reflected in the appeals of those who 
have stood to oppose this budget.
  It causes me some personal pain, but I say to my colleagues, I think 
that if you're No. 1 in the world, you're the only superpower in the 
world, you need to act like you're No. 1 in the world, and that means 
pursuing programs like the Space Station. But I tell you it's far more 
important to me to get our country back on a track to solvency than it 
is to at this moment pursue the Space Station. I'm willing to put that 
on hold until we balance the budget, and then we'll do programs like 
that, high priority programs on a pay as you go basis.
  My colleagues, let us not send the message to the American people 
that we have just been funning them when we talk about a balanced 
budget amendment, that we are not really serious. Let us make the tough 
choices before we bankrupt our country. Let us vote for the Solomon 
budget resolution.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], a Member of this body who was deprived of 
offering his amendment by the rule that brought this budget to the 
floor. His cuts are a part of this budget, and we appreciate his 
cooperation.
  (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1910

  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the balanced budget 
substitute offered by Mr. Solomon.
  I wish that the full House of Representatives had the opportunity to 
vote on more than deficit reduction substitute. Unfortunately, the 
Rules Committee blocked a vote on my substitute, which ordered a $560 
billion reconciliation, based on the spending reductions in H.R. 3958, 
the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
  Nevertheless, I am pleased to support the Solomon substitute. Too 
many are content that we have done enough deficit cutting for the time 
being. I am here today to tell you that such complacency would be 
misplaced and dangerous.
  Any deficit relief derived from the 1993 reconciliation will be very 
temporary. Within only a few years, the deficit will surpass its 
current levels and race toward new records.
  Mr. Chairman, now is the time to press the attack on the deficit--not 
a few years from now when it is again reaching record levels. We have 
the deficit up against the ropes. We should go for the knock-out punch.
  The Solomon substitute is that knock-out punch and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Inslee].
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, 80 percent of us in this Chamber I believe 
want to get to the summit of a balanced budget. What route are we going 
to take to get there? I think we ought to put a lot of green lights up 
there for this particular bill tonight. Maybe not because it is the 
right route, but because it follows something my brother did for me 
once when I was young. We were trying to climb a mountain. And I looked 
up at the mountain, and it was a long ways up there. There was a cliff. 
I did not see any good way of getting there. All the routes were risky. 
All of the routes involved potential risk to me. I was a little leery 
about taking any of them.
  My brother went up there, and he took a route, and it was not the 
route I would have picked, but he went to the top. And he got there.
  Maybe this bill will not pass or this amendment will not pass 
tonight, but we ought to put some green lights up there to send a 
message to everyone in this country, to the leadership, and our leader 
in the White House, that there are people willing to go up there, to 
take some route to get to the top, even though it involves risk in 
every one of our districts and to every one of our constituents.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] that we have one closing speaker.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just let me briefly say that I rise in opposition to 
the amendment. I commend the gentleman for his work. He clearly has put 
a great deal of work into this amendment. It achieves the goal the 
gentleman sets. It achieves it in a fashion that in my judgment would 
be very detrimental to the economy of this country and to the economic 
future of this country.
  I have to remind this body that we are on a course of significant 
deficit reduction. We moved from $255 billion in the 1993 budget to 
around $225 billion in 1994, to a projection of $175 billion in 1995. 
We are there because the economy responded to the economic package we 
passed last year, which was a disciplined deficit reduction plan. It 
worked. The economy responded.
  We had many people on the other side of the aisle who were telling us 
that things simply were not going to work when we passed it a year ago. 
Fortunately, we passed the program, and the economy has responded. It 
is growing. Jobs are being produced again. So we are on the right 
track.
  I hope and would urge Members to vote down this amendment, but I 
commend the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, for his hard work and 
the sincerity with which he approaches it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the gentleman from 
Minnesota, Mr. Sabo, who is the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget, he is one of the most respected Members on that side of the 
aisle because we know of his perseverance and the hard work he does. We 
commend him for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Upton], one of the cochairmen of the Balanced Budget Task 
Force, who has done yeoman's work for so many years trying to bring the 
budget under control.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I think that everyone here in this House 
would individually write a different budget than is being offered 
today, and I think that is one of the reasons why so many of us in fact 
voted against the rule which denied so many other excellent alternative 
amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I am voting for the budgets that reduce the deficits in 
the outyears. In the few years that I have held office, I can almost 
count on one hand those special interest groups that have stopped by my 
office asking me to reduce spending. Instead, almost every group out 
there is asking for more, and more, and more. That is no way to run a 
railroad, and it is certainly not the way to run the Government.
  Mr. Chairman, several years ago a number of us drafted a freeze 
budget. Everyone sacrificed. However, the Committee on Rules refused us 
the opportunity to even offer that budget for a vote here on the House 
floor. Consequently, we are far worse off today with a $4.5 trillion 
national debt. Too bad we can't turn back the clock and consider that 
amendment anew.
  Mr. Chairman, next week we are debating the constitutional amendment 
to balance the budget. We will hear a lot of rhetoric from the 
opponents of such saying instead that we need only the courage to 
reduce the national debt and the annual deficit.
  Well, unfortunately we have not shown much courage, as was witnessed 
just yesterday when this House failed to approve a couple of cuts that 
even the President cut in his own education budget.
  Remember last year's budget battle, when we finally got rid of the 
beekeeper subsidy that had been stinging the taxpayer far too long.
  Mr. Solomon's budget is not perfect, but it does balance the budget. 
And for those of us that want to believe that this place is not the 
Land of Oz, where deficit spending goes on and on and on down that 
yellow brick road, it is time to get back to reality.
  Mr. Chairman, you can show your courage tonight by voting for the 
Solomon substitute, because if you believe in fiscal responsibility, it 
is indeed time to walk the walk, and not just talk the talk.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would just like to point out this chart 
indicating the CBO deficit projections in terms of where this budget 
process is taking us. Under the Solomon budget, in fact, we get to a 
balanced budget; in fact, we get to a surplus in the fiscal year 1999. 
And I think for all of us that go to those town meetings and read our 
mail and sign it back to the folks that sent us here, they know it is 
time to cut spending first, and that is what this budget does.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my colleagues to show courage 
tonight. Go take a medal from the lion from the Wizard of Oz. You can 
do it tonight by voting yes on the Solomon substitute.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am supporting the Solomon 
amendment because it is the only opportunity to vote on a balanced 
budget this year. I am disappointed that the Rules Committee would not 
allow an open rule so that we could consider changes to these 
proposals.
  I disagree with several cuts in this substitute. In particular, I am 
in very strong disagreement with the language in the Solomon proposal 
that does away with essentially all farm programs starting next year. 
We do need to move to Federal farm policy that allows farmers to get 
reasonable prices at the marketplace. However, this needs to be a 
gradual adjustment to assure that we continue the high quality of food 
and fiber that's available at the lowest prices in the world.
  Hard working farmers, abundant natural resources, world-class 
research and extension, and the free enterprise system have made the 
United States the largest and most efficient producer of food and fiber 
in the world. As a result, Americans spend just 12 percent of their 
disposable income on food, the lowest in the world. The average farmer 
in 1960 fed 16 people. Today that farmer feeds 96, with even greater 
nutrition and quality.
  The fact is that if we want to have a stable supply of food and fiber 
in this country, a farmer cannot stay in business and sell below his 
cost of production. Farm programs have been an inefficient way to make 
adjustments and need to be drastically modified, but cannot be totally 
eliminated as suggested by Solomon.
  In conclusion, I commend Mr. Solomon for having the only balanced 
budget amendment on the floor. Because this budget resolution is a 
guideline for spending and not a mandate to what programs are cut, I am 
casting my vote in favor of a balanced budget.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the budget 
alternative presented by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Solomon.
  I support Mr. Solomon's alternative to President Clinton's budget for 
several reasons.
  But the most compelling reason for my district in southern California 
is that Mr. Solomon's alternative eliminates benefits for illegal 
aliens.
  Now this House has recently been through a very emotional debate 
about benefits for illegal aliens. The debate degenerated into a name 
calling session. Apparently, if you support eliminating benefits for 
those who have broken our laws to enter this country, you are a 
fascist. You can be accused of being a racist.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend Mr. Solomon and his colleagues for 
recognizing this for what it is: an economic issue. It is appropriate 
that eliminating these benefits is put in the context of a budget 
debate, because that is where it belongs.
  As Members of Congress, we are sworn to uphold the laws of this land. 
It is illegal to enter our country without going through the proper 
naturalization process to become a citizen. I don't care what your 
motivation is, that is the law.
  However, the Federal Government will give benefits to those who enter 
our country illegally. This ought to be stopped. Vote for the Solomon 
budget alternative and make this a reality.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the Budget Committee has jurisdiction not 
over the allocation for each function of Government, such as 
agriculture, defense, transportation, and so forth, but only over the 
overall spending amount.
  The Solomon budget would balance the budget by fiscal year 1999 
solely by restraining spending, not by raising taxes.
  While I do not agree with the detail the gentleman from New York 
offers in support of his overall spending limit, I do agree with his 
balanced budget goal and that it is achievable through spending 
restraints, this spirit, and with this understanding, I support the 
Solomon budget substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as modified, offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon].
  The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the ``ayes'' 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 73, 
noes 342, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 52]

                                AYES--73

     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Burton
     Callahan
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Condit
     Cox
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Fawell
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Franks (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Hancock
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (GA)
     Knollenberg
     Kreidler
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Orton
     Packard
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Solomon
     Stenholm
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Upton
     Weldon
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--342

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Michel
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Andrews (TX)
     Brooks
     Collins (IL)
     Crane
     Dooley
     Edwards (CA)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Gallo
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Kopetski
     Lewis (CA)
     McMillan
     Miller (CA)
     Natcher
     Pelosi
     Reynolds
     Shaw
     Smith (TX)
     Torricelli
     Washington
     Wilson

                              {time}  1942

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote.

       Mr. Lewis of California for, with Mr. Shaw, against.
       Mr. McMillan for, with Mr. Dooley, against.

  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, Mr. MFUME, Mrs. BYRNE, and Messrs. KIM, 
MANZULLO, and EHLERS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PAYNE of Virginia, GOODLATTE, KREIDLER, BARTON of Texas, 
FINGERHUT, and SWETT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Smith of Iowa) having assumed the chair, Mr. Serrano, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 218) setting forth the congressional budget 
for the U.S. Government for the fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 
and 1999, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________