[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 27 (Friday, March 11, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 11, 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 (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). 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 the further 
consideration of the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 218.

                              {time}  1043


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, March 
10, 1994, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] had been disposed of.
  It is now in order to consider amendment numbered 3 printed in the 
House Report 103-429.


      AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR. MFUME

  Mr. MFUME. 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 in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Mfume:
       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: $1,340,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,410,766,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,478,765,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,555,924,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,629,943,000,000.

     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: $1,528,939,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,615,016,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,697,530,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,775,163,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,870,310,000,000.
       (3) The appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,513,508,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,587,596,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,671,560,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,741,837,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,830,136,000,000.
       (4) The amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $173,508,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $176,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $192,795,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $185,913,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $200,193,000,000.
       (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, $246,501,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $261,488,000,000.
       (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, $237,831,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $249,512,000,000.
       (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, $222,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $234,674,000,000.
       (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, $205,495,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $220,881,000,000.
       (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, $200,617,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $209,813,000,000.
       (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, $17,885,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,227,000,000.
       (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, $16,886,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,031,000,000.
       (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, $17,917,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,177,000,000.
       (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, $18,593,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,111,000,000.
       (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, $20,055,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,602,000,000.
       (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, $17,406,000,000.
       (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, $18,446,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,122,000,000.
       (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, $19,014,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,771,000,000.
       (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, $18,913,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,862,000,000.
       (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, $20,008,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,954,000,000.
       (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, $5,923,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,086,000,000.
       (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, $5,375,000,000.
       (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, $6,189,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,590,000,000.
       (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, $6,411,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,560,000,000.
       (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, $6,179,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,540,000,000.
       (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, $21,187,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,508,000,000.
       (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, $22,194,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,838,000,000.
       (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, $23,518,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,171,000,000.
       (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, $23,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,297,000,000.
       (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, $24,676,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,354,000,000.
       (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, $13,249,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,942,000,000.
       (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, $14,224,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,482,000,000.
       (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, $14,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,018,000,000.
       (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, $15,269,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,543,000,000.
       (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, $15,918,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,208,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,400,000,000.
       (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, $9,655,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$7,501,000,000.
       (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, $6,485,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$11,394,000,000.
       (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, $6,134,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,104,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $95,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,994,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,296,000,000.
       (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, $6,760,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,842,000,000.
       (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, $42,012,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,914,000,000.
       (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, $42,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,205,000,000.
       (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, $46,125,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,572,000,000.
       (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, $47,587,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,206,000,000.
       (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, $49,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,833,000,000.
       (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, $9,633,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,799,000,000.
       (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, $10,110,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,240,000,000.
       (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, $10,669,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,829,000,000.
       (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, $11,071,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,243,000,000
       (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, $11,717,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,927,000,000.
       (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, $58,889,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,649,000,000.
       (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, $60,533,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,221,000,000.
       (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, $63,420,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,207,000,000.
       (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, $65,707,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,716,000,000.
       (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, $69,021,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,694,000,000.
       (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, $124,514,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $123,683,000,000.
       (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, $138,119,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $137,190,000,000.
       (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, $153,012,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $152,000,000,000.
       (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, $169,005,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $167,945,000,000.
       (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, $186,894,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $185,792,000,000.
       (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, $162,436,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $160,479,000,000.
       (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, $18,485,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $178,214,000,000.
       (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, $198,513,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $196,095,000,000.
       (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, $218,778,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $215,142,000,000.
       (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, $242,231,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $239,037,000,000.
       (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, $224,080,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $221,469,000,000.
       (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, $242,554,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $231,580,000,000.
       (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, $264,372,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $245,753,000,000.
       (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, $286,560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,627,000,000.
       (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, $301,889,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,183,000,000.
       (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, $339,202,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $337,349,000,000.
       (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, $355,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $355,206,000,000.
       (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, $374,638,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $373,097,000,000.
       (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, $393,364,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $391,774,000,000.
       (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, $413,059,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $411,228,000,000.
       (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, $34,756,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,288,000,000.
       (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, $35,584,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,050,000,000.
       (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, $36,755,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,803,000,000.
       (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, $37,592,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,868,000,000.
       (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, $39,713,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,233,000,000.
       (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, $17,926,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,999,000,000.
       (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, $20,820,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,085,000,000.
       (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, $22,086,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,919,000,000.
       (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, $23,421,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,551,000,000.
       (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, $22,775,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,104,000,000.
       (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, $13,087,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,231,000,000.
       (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, $13,813,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,129,000,000.
       (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, $14,559,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,708,000,000.
       (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, $15,079,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,233,000,000.
       (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, $15,915,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,094,000,000.
       (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, $213,668,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $213,666,000,000.
       (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, $230,021,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $230,021,000,000.
       (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, $241,215,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $241,215,000,000.
       (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, $252,050,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $252,050,000,000.
       (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, $263,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $263,900,000,000.
       (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, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (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, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (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, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (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, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (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, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (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, -$42,898,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,898,000,000.
       (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, -$37,512,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$37,512,000,000.
       (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, -$37,933,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$37,933,000,000.
       (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, -$39,474,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$39,474,000,000.0.
       (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, -$40,518,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$40,518,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Mfume] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I am not in opposition. I 
will just be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
may control the time.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Mfume].
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today, as we conclude this debate on the budget, 
in support of the alternative budget offered by the Congressional Black 
Caucus. I urge my colleagues to consider it and to support it.
  Let me begin the debate by reemphasizing two very important points, 
the first of which is that the alternative budget of the congressional 
Black Caucus stays within the established discretionary caps. Second, 
the deficit in the Congressional Black Caucus budget is $1.6 billion 
less then the deficit proposed by the Committee on the Budget and $2.6 
billion less than the one put forth by President Clinton. So then in 
addition to being fiscally responsible, our budget aggressively 
addresses many of the problems facing our Nation today.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a number of Members who want to speak and we 
have a limited amount of time. I am going to reserve my own remarks at 
this point in order that we might recognize some of the other Members.
  First, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our representative on the 
Committee on the Budget, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Blackwell].
  (Mr. BLACKWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BLACKWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Congressional 
Black Caucus alternative budget.
  This budget, entitled, ``A Budget to Rescue America,'' underscores 
the urgency that confronts this Nation. This budget puts the priorities 
of America in proper order--it emphasizes jobs, putting people to work.
  Mr. Chairman, policies of the past have left a trail of misery, 
stretching from the hills of West Virginia to the high-technology 
valleys of California. This trail of misery has left millions out of 
work or underemployed.
  Many of these millions have been without a full-time, reasonably 
paying job for an extended period of time. The Congressional Black 
Caucus alternative budget addresses this pressing problem.
  By investing at least $2 billion more in job training and job 
creation than any other budget before us, the CBC alternative comes 
closest to meeting the mandate of the 1978 Full Employment and Balanced 
Growth Act.
  This is a budget that rejects the view of the Federal Reserve Board 
that we must have unemployment to hold down inflation, and it embraces 
the pledge of the President of a lifetime of learning and earning for 
all.
  This is a budget that ignores the debate over who can spend less, cut 
more, and get tougher, and recognizes that the best cure for America is 
to encourage growth, expand the economy, and create jobs.
  This is a budget that understands that the earned income tax credit 
doesn't mean a thing to a person who is out of work. This budget gets 
tough on jobs, and if we do that, there will be less need to get tough 
on crime.
  Unlike the proposed substitute budgets, this budget retains the 
Summer Jobs Program, includes a permanent extension of the targeted 
jobs tax credit, and continues dislocated workers assistance.
  The CBC alternative continues adult and youth job training programs, 
increases the School-to-Work Program and one-stop career centers, 
maintains the Job Corps, and funds the Empowerment Zone Program.
  But, the CBC alternative goes beyond job training and job creation. 
This budget holds the line on such vital programs as public housing 
assistance, elderly housing, critical education programs, and AIDS 
research.
  We continue the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and Head 
Start, and we fund many aspects of the CBC crime bill, thus providing 
for Federal Government intervention in the effort to make our 
communities safe.
  Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, the CBC alternative stays within 
discretionary spending caps, and provides additional money for deficit 
reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Defense budget was defended. At the same 
time, domestic programs are under attack. We are fighting over limited 
resources. We should be fighting to increase our resources.
  We can increase resources by investing in human needs. The CBC 
alternative budget does that. If we hope to achieve real growth and 
prosperity for anyone, we must ensure that such growth and prosperity 
are benefits for everyone.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum].
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kasich budget, and I do so to 
talk about one particular area of that budget, and that is the welfare 
reform proposal contained in it which saves $20 billion but which, much 
more importantly, does something real and substantial to help people 
who are in poverty get out of poverty. It gives people hope and 
opportunity, and it really focuses on putting incentives in the system 
and changing it from a system that is a permanent handout to a system 
that is a temporary hand-up.

                              {time}  1050

  The system as it is right now, if you look, is a system that is a 
long-term dependency system. The source of this chart is the cochairman 
of the President's task force on welfare reform, David Elwood.
  Sixty-five percent of the people on welfare today will be on welfare 
for 8 or more years. That is not what the welfare system was created to 
do. It keeps people poor. If you are on welfare, you are poor. What we 
need to do is get people off of welfare into the mainstream of life, 
and that is exactly what the Kasich budget, what the welfare reform 
proposal contained in the Kasich budget does.
  This is not a get-tough-on-welfare-recipients. This is give an 
opportunity to welfare recipients to get off welfare, to get back into 
the mainstream of economic life from our society.
  There is another major problem with the welfare system. We talked 
about it yesterday in great detail. And that is the dramatic growth of 
the SSI program. Listen, there are a lot of people on SSI that need it. 
This is a needed program for many millions of disabled Americans who 
need some help to get through life. But this program is becoming so 
mismanaged and so blown out of control that it is actually doing a 
disservice to the people who need the help.

  This is a program that has grown 30 percent over the last 3 years. We 
have gone from spending $16 billion on this program to spending over 
$23 billion a year on this program, because we have many millions more 
of non-citizens and children and drug addicts, which I talked about 
yesterday, who are getting on this program, who are sucking this money 
in, and are simply not the folks that we intended to help when we 
crafted this program. And it is an entitlement, so we simply just keep 
paying the money out, year after year after year, and no one in this 
chamber has done anything to try to reform this system. The Kasich 
budget does it.
  Now, there are many Members on the other side of the aisle who say 
well, this is not the time to do welfare reform. This is not the time. 
We have to wait for the President's proposal. He has to come forward 
and do what he promised during the campaign, which was end welfare as 
we know it.
  Well, we have been waiting 15 months to end welfare as we know it in 
this current administration, and still we have seen no bill introduced 
in Congress. But the other day, the President did send to some of us 
his outline of ending welfare as we know it. And I want to take the 
opportunity to go over this proposal and contrast it with what we are 
proposing in the welfare reform bill that we have in the Kasich budget.
  The President proposes $15 billion, not in savings, in the welfare 
bill. We have $20 billion of savings in our bill. He proposes $15 
billion in new spending on welfare. And how does he spend this money?
  Well, here is $2 billion to bring more two-parent families into the 
Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program. Another entitlement. 
Here is $3 billion more for education and training. That is above the 
$6 billion we already spend in the program. And here is $8.4 billion on 
new day-care money. A total of $13.5 billion in new spending.
  Wait a minute here, there is some money for the work program. You 
know, the thing we were supposed to do to end welfare as we know it. 
Yes; $820 million. The sum of $14 in new spending on extending welfare 
as we know it, $1 in ending welfare as we know it.

  Is this a joke? I mean, is this serious? I mean, this is supposed to 
be ending welfare as we know it.
  By the way, there are no offsets to pay for any of this. This is just 
adding more money to the entitlement programs.
  Let us get serious about welfare reform. Let us get serious about 
helping people, not just keeping people poor forever and ever. The 
Kasich budget is the opportunity to do that. It is an opportunity to 
say that we are concerned about the taxpayer who is funding this 
system.
  The American people are generous. They want to help their fellow man. 
But they do not want to throw money into a system that is keeping 
people poor, is keeping them from hope and opportunity, and is trapping 
them in a system that simply does not work anymore.
  Mr. Chairman, the chance is today. The Kasich budget has the reforms 
that are necessary to change America. Please support the Kasich budget.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, if you really want to 
understand what deficit reduction is all about, then what you should do 
is take a look at the amount of money that we are spending to keep 
people in jail, which reaches $40 billion. Think about the cost of 
crime and violence. Think about the cost of AIDS and tuberculosis. 
Think about the cost of having kids dropping out of school, untrained 
and unemployed. And think about the lost competition, the lost 
productivity as a result of these Americans not being able to fulfill 
their potential. And take a look as to where the labor market is going 
to be in the next 10 years.
  I tell you, my colleagues, if you want to reduce the deficit, if you 
want to make this great Republic as responsible in providing the 
leadership that she can, if you want us to go into the next century 
being certain that we will be the leaders in trade, then you will have 
to make the proper investments today.
  Mr. Chairman, you cannot really think you are balancing our Nation's 
budget by not providing for the health care that our families need, by 
not providing for those educations, and by making certain that every 
one of our youngsters that are born today will find it just as easy to 
get into college as this society has made it to get into jail; to be 
able to invest the same amount of moneys, if not more, in our teachers 
and in our schools and in our job training as some of these politically 
motivated bills would provide moneys just for more cops, more wardens, 
and more jails.
  What the Congressional Black Caucus is saying is that yes, we come in 
and reduce the deficit in dollars and cents now, but more important 
than the dollars and cents is where we make that investment for 
America. And we make that investment in Americans that have been 
deprived of the opportunity of life, liberty, and that great pursuit of 
happiness.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kasich budget and in 
opposition to the Mfume budget. Mr. Chairman, I do so for a number of 
reasons, not the least of which is the way the two budgets, the two 
proposed budgets, treat defense spending.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1990, then Secretary Richard Cheney came before the 
Committee on Armed Services, and he said the world is changing. The 
threat that our country faces is changing. We need less defense today 
than we needed yesterday, and we will need less tomorrow than we need 
today. He proposed that we reduce defense spending by some $60 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, we have started on that route where he said we were 
going to reduce defense, but do it right this time, he said, for the 
first time in history.
  And then there was an election and we got a new President, and the 
$60 billion reduction grew for a time to $127 billion over the same 
period, and I understand and this year it has grown under the 
President's proposal to $140 billion over the same relative period of 
time. This year's installment in the President's budget is $14 billion 
in cuts.

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add $9 billion in budget outlay to 
that $14 billion, which in my opinion heads us exactly in the wrong 
direction.
  I brought this chart to try to help clarify my position, and that is 
that this chart shows since 1939 how our defense dollars have been 
spent. The red line represents defense spending, national security 
spending. The blue line represents other domestic spending.
  As you can see, during various conflicts, the amount, the level of 
spending, has gone up and down. But in a general sense, today we are 
about back where we were in terms of percentage of GNP as to where we 
were before World War II. And we all know that we have got to know that 
that is a very, very dangerous situation.
  We use today these defense dollars for a number of purposes. We use 
it for peacekeeping, as we have been doing in Somalia. And as the 
majority leader pointed out yesterday, if we get some kind of an 
agreement in Bosnia, our forces will be called on to be peacekeepers 
there presumably. And if we get an agreement, he said, in the Middle 
East, we will be called on to do peacekeeping there.
  We do conflicts, like the one recently completed in the Middle East 
in Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and we have to be ready to do that. 
And Korea is an issue that we certainly cannot forget about. We use 
these dollars for humanitarian aid, both in the United States and 
abroad.

                              {time}  1100

  Under the Clinton proposal, we are discontinuing a number of 
programs, including the AFX, we are going to stop producing the F-16. 
We are going to stop producing the multirole fighter. We are going to 
stop our airlift, space lift projects. We are going to discontinue the 
SH60-B helicopter, and SH60-H helicopter, and we are buying no more 
armor in the foreseeable future.
  Compared to 1985, our ship procurement is down 80 percent. Aircraft 
procurement is down 86 percent. Armor is down 100 percent. And 
strategic missiles are down 90 percent. We had a hollow force in the 
1970's. We cannot have in this world today a repeat of the hollow force 
that we had in the 1970's.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake].
  (Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Congressional 
Black Caucus budget. There is a question that I am consistently asked. 
That is, how do we change our equations as it relates to the amount of 
money we spend for what many in this Nation call social programming.
  Social programming, to many, is that investment, the moneys that we 
give in entitlement programs for the support of welfare, the support of 
health care, the support of our jails.
  The Congressional Black Caucus budget treats this item differently. I 
think all of us in America need to change our attitude as it relates to 
what we call social. It is time for us to start thinking about 
investments. That is the reason in the Congressional Black Caucus 
budget, Members will find $628 million made available for the 
President's Community Financial Bank Institution Development Program.
  It is important for us to understand that many of the cities in this 
Nation could become very productive communities, if, in fact, we 
learned how to invest in them, as we do in most instances when there 
are opportunities for us not only to rebuild but to build the small job 
sector, to be able to build small businesses, to turn around those 
stores, those blocks of commercial strips that have been ignored for 
the most part for the last 25 or 30 years.
  The Congressional Black Caucus budget understands that if we are 
really going to rebuild America, it is not the money that we put into 
jails that contributes to a burgeoning criminal justice enterprise, but 
rather, it is the money that we put into the communities, communities 
that we feel are opportunities, fields of opportunities that have long 
been ignored, opportunities that are available not only for the banking 
community, for corporate America, and for all who would come into those 
communities and begin to make those investments.
  If we turn those communities around, they become places where 
franchises will be able to open up. They become places where banks will 
be able to bring new branches. They become places where young people 
who now stand idly by on street corners will have opportunities for 
jobs. If we give them jobs, we do not have to build the jails.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], a member of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, although I support the Kasich alternative 
rather than the alternative offered by the gentleman from Maryland, I 
want to commend the the gentleman from Maryland for drafting a budget 
which not only reflects their priorities but which also shows how they 
would pay for them.
  That is exactly what the Republican Kasich alternative does as well. 
Unfortunately, that is not what the President did in his budget, and 
that is not what we find in the committee's resolution.
  The Republican alternative includes welfare reform. It includes a 
tough anticrime bill. It includes reasonable health care reforms. It 
includes incentives to generate job-creating economic growth. It also 
eliminates one-third of last year's tax increase and returns the money 
to families through a $500 per child tax credit.
  The Republican alternative does all this, pays for it, and yet 
results in an additional $152 billion more in deficit reduction during 
the next 5 years than the President's budget.
  The budget crafted by the Democratic majority does not stand up in 
comparison with either our alternative or the alternative offered by 
the gentleman from Maryland because it does not contain funding for 
many items the President has said are his priorities.
  For example, the President has said he is committed to health care 
reform, but it is not in his budget. The President has said he is for 
welfare reform, but he has not budgeted for it. In the 1992 campaign, 
the President said he favored a middle-class tax cut, but the only one 
available this year is contained in the Republican Kasich budget.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Kasich alternative.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
CBC.
  I am very pleased to join with the members of the CBC and other 
Members of the House in supporting the budget that best represents the 
way in which the resources of this country ought to be spent. We are in 
a range of deficit neutrality on the various plans. They are all very 
close.
  The question then is, within that range, how best do we spend the 
money?
  The Congressional Black Caucus budget comes closer than any other to 
dealing with the most significant problems America faces today. We are 
still in a period of cultural lag. We are still in a period in which we 
are focused on an external danger, even though it has greatly 
diminished.
  That is an understandable cultural lag. From at least 1940 until 
almost 1990, for a period of about 50 years, this country was, in fact, 
threatened by outside forces that had no respect for basic human values 
and sufficient power to destroy our way of life. There is no question. 
First the Nazis and then the Communists.
  Therefore, for 50 years, the single greatest focus of American policy 
at the national level was national defense. One need not agree with 
everything done in the name of national defense at that point to have 
denied that.
  Now, however, we are in a qualitatively different world. Yes, there 
are nations in this world that do not share our values, that do not act 
responsibly. But there is a qualitative difference. None of them 
individually, all of them together do not have the kind of power that 
existed in the coalition under Hitler or the coalition under Stalin and 
his successors.
  The survival of the United States as a free and open society is no 
longer at risk from outside. But our budgetary allocation does not 
reflect that. Our major problems are today at home: the loss of 
millions of young people to a life that brings pain to them and loss 
and danger to others, environmental problems, inadequate health for 
people, older people who continue to face their retirement years in 
deprivation, people with illness who cannot get adequate treatment.
  We have, in every other budget, and I must say this is true of the 
Budget Committee's budget as well, I voted for it and if it is the best 
we can do, I will vote for it again. But every other budget except the 
CBC budget continues to reflect that mistaken cultural view that says 
our survival is at risk from outside and to meet that nonexistent 
threat to our survival from outside diminishes the resources available 
to deal with the problems of poverty, of poor education, of inadequate 
health, of the loneliness of age, of environmental disaster.
  The Black Caucus budget will not solve all of those problems, but it 
comes closer than any other to putting our resources where they are 
most needed.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Quinn].
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Kasich 
substitute. Although the President has proposed a sound budget and we 
are discussing an important option though from CBC. The Kasich 
substitute goes further to cut wasteful spending and to reduce the 
deficit while also providing the overburdened middle class with an 
income tax cut.
  My constituents want a fiscally responsible agenda which includes a 
comprehensive anticrime strategy, along with welfare reform and health 
care reform plans--the Kasich substitute delivers.
  My constituents want an often promised and long-awaited middle-class 
tax cut. A $500 per child tax credit for parents which amounts to a $60 
million per district tax credit for families--the Kasich substitute 
delivers.
  My constituents want cuts in wasteful and unnecessary Government 
spending, a 50-percent cut in House mailing privileges, and a 25-
percent cut in the congressional budget--the Kasich substitute 
delivers.
  My constituents want lower deficits in each of the next 5 years 
totaling about $278 billion over the same 5-year period in net deficit 
reductions--over $152 billion more than that promised by the 
administration--the Kasich substitute delivers.
  My constituents want the elimination of wasteful pork-barrel programs 
such as the federally subsidized honey program and the Alaska Power 
Administration--the Kasich substitute delivers.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the only plan which offers a clear agenda to 
fight crime, reforms our health care system, and reforms our welfare 
system without spending a single additional Federal dollar. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to support the Kasich substitute--the budget that 
delivers for the American people.

                              {time}  1110

  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Congressional Black 
Caucus alternative budget. This is the most moderate budget we have 
ever submitted.
  However, we do take small steps in the right direction. We take steps 
in the direction of providing more funds for education and more funds 
for jobs, job training and retraining, and we also take steps to deal 
with the construction of schools and a few other badly needed 
facilities.
  It is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that people who talk about 
welfare reform should understand that the welfare reform problem is 
easily solved by providing for more education and more job 
opportunities. We cannot solve the problem of the subsidies, we cannot 
deal with the welfare kings, the people who were given $11.5 billion by 
the Department of Agriculture in the last 5 years. Yes, taxpayers, 
listen, $11.5 billion in loan forgiveness is forgiven to the 
millionaire farmers of the West and the Midwest over the last 5 years. 
That welfare reform we cannot deal with. We will have to deal with it 
some other way. But we can deal with the welfare reform of mothers with 
children who need help. If they are given jobs, job opportunities and 
job training opportunities, we can solve that problem.
  The Congressional Black Caucus budget is a budget which emphasizes 
more money for jobs, job training, and more money for education. This 
is an alternative which carries America in the right direction. We do 
not need billions of dollars more for defense, we need billions of 
dollars in order to rebuild our infrastructure and to deal with the 
human engineering problems that we have to deal with, the problems of 
job opportunities and education.
  This is the best budget that does that. This is the alternative that 
American taxpayers can support and know that there is a minimum of 
waste here. No more money for welfare kings in this budget, no more 
$11.5 billion in giveaways in this budget. We will stop the welfare.
  If we stop the welfare kings we are sure we can solve the problem of 
welfare in our cities by providing more jobs and more education for the 
people who are on welfare.
  This is a budget for all of the people.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, a little common sense in our Federal budget 
process might really go a long way. I know our constituents back home 
would approve.
  For the last 2 days we have been debating the nonbinding budget 
resolution. It is a blueprint though for our spending for the next 
year. After all of the rhetoric and the smoke has cleared, the majority 
party will pass their budget. I guess the spending buck and the deficit 
buck stops there.
  Under the majority plan, the deficit will go down. That is good news. 
But the bad news is that we are still going to have a daily deficit of 
a half a billion dollars. I guess we only go broke a little slower.
  Common sense would tell us that we have not done enough. We would be 
critical of the average American family in Bloomington, IL if they 
handled their budget this way. And we have an alternative.
  I encourage my colleagues to consider the Kasich budget. We save more 
money, $152 billion. We put money in there for welfare reform, for 
health care reform, for immigration reform.
  It is just so simple, just common sense. It is time that we addressed 
the need to cut spending. Do it now and bring our budget in balance.
  The Kasich budget has enough pain in it for all of us. But it is 
good. it is on the right track. Let us do it now. It is common sense.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay].
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Congressional Black 
Caucus budget.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding the 
time. I know the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] wanted to enter 
into a colloquy.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I understand under the budget of the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the Republican initiative, that he 
assumes that there is going to be a 50-percent reduction in the special 
tax preference for ethanol, is that correct?
  Mr. KASICH. The gentleman from Illinois is correct.
  Mr. EWING. Is the gentleman aware that there are those of us who 
believe this provision, if enacted, would in fact increase spending on 
farm commodity programs rather than reduce spending that the gentleman 
sought in his budget?
  Mr. KASICH. I have been made aware of that fact, that that is the 
opinion of the gentleman and others like him.
  Mr. EWING. Is it now the gentleman's intent to eliminate the 
provision in conference on the budget resolution?
  Mr. KASICH. The gentleman is again correct. I intend to support the 
gentleman's efforts and those of other Members who believe this 
preference is essential and will remove the policy from the assumption 
on this initiative.
  Mr. EWING. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his assistance.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the alternative 
presented to the House by the Congressional Black Caucus.
  We have heard alot about families in this debate. Clearly, the 
families in this country are the strength of this country.
  If we are truly concerned about easing the burden on our families, we 
should defeat the budget offered by the Congressional Black Caucus, and 
pass the Kasich alternative.
  Here are the broad strokes of the Kasich budget: First, it reexamines 
the role of the Federal Government; second, it includes full funding 
for welfare reform, a downpayment on health care reform and funding for 
improved crime control; and third, the Kasich budget actually 
accomplishes what the President promised last year, and then never 
delivered: deficit reduction, and a tax break for families.
  You do not have to serve in Congress to know that you do not reduce 
Government spending by giving the Federal Government more money to 
spend.
  To truly reinvent government you must examine the role of government 
and decide definitely what it should and should not do.
  The Kasich budget accomplishes this: It eliminates the Interstate 
Commerce Commission, a Behemoth bureaucracy that has outlived its 
usefulness; repeals the Davis-Bacon requirements reducing the outlays 
by making Federal contracting more competitive; and privatizes air 
traffic control operations.
  I find it interesting and a sign of the intellectual strength of our 
party that the Kasich budget incorporates some of the best Republican 
proposals to deal with this country's toughest issues.
  Finally, the Kasich alternative provides families with a $500-per-
child tax credit for middle-income families. This will ultimately scale 
back the heavy tax burden President Clinton placed on families last 
year.
  All of this can be accomplished while still reducing our enormous 
Federal deficit. Kasich's budget cuts the deficit by $162 billion next 
year, and approximately $310 billion over 5 years.
  The Republican alternative, presented by Mr. Kasich and the 
Republican members of the Budget Committee is a win-win proposition.
  Win-win means less spending by the Federal Government, and lower 
taxes for the families of America.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Tucker].
  (Mr. TUCKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the alternative 
budget offered by the Congressional Black Caucus. Over the years the 
CBC alternative budget has been characterized as a tax-and-spend 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, this time, those who have opposed us in the past, can 
now step up to the plate and support this budget. Why? Because this 
budget first, stays within established discretionary caps; second, 
spends $1.8 billion less than the House Budget Committee; and third, 
commits $2.6 billion more to deficit reduction than the President's 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the only budget being considered that finally 
and most importantly, is designed to rescue America.
  The American people have made it very clear: What they want is an 
investment in jobs, an investment in infrastructure, and an investment 
in children. This budget does just that. It includes a $98 million 
increase in spending to the Community Development Block Grant Program, 
it establishes community development banks to help spur economic 
investment and opportunities in areas that so desperately need them. 
This budget contains a $500 million increase in Community Development 
Block Programs targeted specifically to meet economic conversion 
planning needs.

  Mr. Chairman, this budget speaks of our commitment to the future of 
this country, our children. It says to our children, we care. We 
provide for additional funding for training programs and after school 
recreational programs. When are we going to learn? Supporting our 
families is more than just providing a $500 tax break per child. We 
must have a comprehensive strategy to save our families and, indeed, 
entire communities.
  This budget funds many of the excellent proposals contained in the 
CBC alternative crime bill, to combat the ongoing violence found in far 
too many cities and towns throughout this country. This budget, Mr. 
Chairman, keeps our commitment to international responsibilities, and 
builds on expanded burden sharing with our allies, in meeting the 
challenge of global security. This budget takes advantage of the new 
geopolitical realities, the increases in requests for global 
peacekeeping activity, and new modifications to projected drawdowns on 
this account.
  Mr. Chairman, the time has come for us to make the American people a 
priority. Let us pass a budget that invests in our future, our 
children's future and rescues America. I ask my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, to vote for the CBC alternative budget.

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, one of the most fraudulent budget 
practices of Congress is being exposed today.
  In the Kasich budget, Republicans adopted legislation introduced by 
Representative Cox and me, to eliminate the so-called current services 
budget baseline. Later, the committee incorporated a similar provision 
into its budget.
  That is progress. For the first time, Congress has admitted that 
baseline budgeting is deceptive and should go.
  We all know the game. Under the present system, Congress builds an 
automatic increase into each Government spending program every year by 
adding the rate on inflation, population growth and various technical 
factors.
  Any time a spending increase does not reach the new baseline, it is 
called a cut by the politicians in Washington.
  As Lee Iacocca said recently, ``If we did that in business, they 
would lock us up.''
  Congress uses this accounting deception to claim it is cutting a 
specific program while actually increasing spending. It is time for the 
deception to end and to run the Federal Government like a business.
  Mr. Chairman, today's action is a positive first step. I thank the 
122 cosponsors of my bill, from both sides of the aisle, for their 
support. Now, let us get rid of baseline budgeting once and for all.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
alternative budget offered by Congressman Mfume on behalf of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, in coalition with the congressional 
progressive caucus.
  Mr. Chairman, this alternative budget is not about outlays. Instead, 
Mr. Mfume and his colleagues are presenting us with a blueprint for the 
safest and wisest investment in this country today--an investment in 
our people.
  First, this budget allows an additional $2 billion in funds for job 
training and job creation. We must make this additional investment and 
make it now. We have been losing the moderate- and high-paying jobs 
that once allowed many workers in this country to lift themselves and 
their families up to a better life. Many are being replaced by low-
wage, low-benefit, no-future employment.
  This alternative budget provides additional resources to give our 
people the skills and training they need to contribute to, and benefit 
from the economy of the future.
  Second, the Congressional Black Caucus' substitute it allows 
additional investments in the education of our children. It would raise 
the number of disadvantaged students served by compensatory education 
programs, fund improvements in elementary and secondary schools 
facilities, and raise the maximum Pell grant awards for low-income 
college students.
  Mr. Chairman, our children are our future. More dollars for education 
means a brighter tomorrow for the Nation.
  Last, the alternative budget makes an investment in the health of our 
Nation. It provides an additional $1.4 billion for health care in the 
next fiscal year. By adding these resources now, we recover a healthier 
and more productive work force and Nation tomorrow.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time that we redirect billions of dollars wasted 
on arms, and invest in job training, in education, and in health care. 
I urge strong support for this progressive, enlightened budget 
proposal.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump].
  (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kasich budget and 
in opposition to the Clinton budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the budget resolution 
before us today. In large respect, it replicates the administration's 
budget for veterans. It is the first real Clinton budget for veterans 
and there are no two ways about it. It is an outrage and travesty for 
veterans and the VA.
  The Budget Committee has not improved on the President's request. 
Both the President's and the Democrat's budget plans are dead wrong. 
Their implication, of course, is that veterans are better served by 
cutting back on spending for veterans' programs. It hasn't happened in 
the past and don't expect it in the future.
  I know my colleagues want to know if we are doing as much as we can 
for veterans. We are not. This budget is short in nearly every 
category. It is severely lacking in resources necessary to make the VA 
health care system competitive with the private sector under the 
Clinton Health Security Act.
  It undermines all claims to maintaining a separate independent system 
which could credibly be expected to compete for veteran patients.
  The almost cavalier attitude toward making any significant progress 
on the claims processing backlog invites future litigation for denial 
of due process.
  On the medical care side, it's a blueprint for health care decline. 
The budget doesn't keep pace with costs. It claims a $500 million 
increase in health care funding, yet VA's own conservative estimate of 
what it needs to produce a current services level is $611 million.
  The budget claims that VA can compete and survive in national health 
reform, yet this budget expects VA to treat 27,000 more veterans with 
3,680 fewer employees and less than current services dollars.
  Instead of demonstrating a commitment to upgrading VA health care, 
this budget shamelessly holds eight ambulatory care projects hostage to 
passage of the Clinton Health Security Act.
  If we are going to keep faith with veterans, the programs serving 
veterans require increases. I am not satisfied with a system where 
veterans must wait months to see a doctor, can't get an answer on a 
phone call, or are unable to begin rehabilitation for service-connected 
disability.
  Our veterans deserve better.
  I am disappointed that this budget overlooks every item, except 
research, that the Veterans Affairs Committee identified on a 
bipartisan basis as shortcomings of this budget.
  This budget rejects the Veterans' Affairs Committee's bipartisan 
request for additions that would move us toward restoring current 
services and toward correcting the critical backlog in medical 
equipment that now stands at nearly $1 billion.
  On the benefit side, this budget rejects bipartisan proposals to 
maintain services that would otherwise fall victim to further erosion. 
VA programs already face an administrative nightmare by any standard or 
definition. We cannot allow this situation to slip further.
  In striking contrast to the needs which VA faces in fiscal year 1995 
and beyond, the administration requested a level of funding 
substantially below what is needed to maintain current services to 
veterans. At the same time, the Veterans Health Administration will be 
required to absorb an unprecedented reduction in total employment as 
part of a government-wide employee reduction.
  The combination of employee reductions and diminished medical care 
funding will require VA to cut services or delay provision of services 
at the very time efforts should be made to expand services and improve 
their quality.
  The Veterans' Committee knows full well that at many facilities the 
lack of a primary care mechanism results in unacceptable waiting lines 
for veterans.
  This budget rejects the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
recommendation, as a high priority, the addition of funding toward 
fuller development of a primary care capacity within VA facilities.
  This budget would simply maintain a situation that requires veterans 
to wait--to wait for examination, to wait for treatment, and to wait 
for appointments to specialty clinics.
  The Committee on Veterans' Affairs identified the longstanding 
budgetary failure to address adequately the physical condition of VA 
facilities. As a result of this deficiency, VA health care facilities 
need to replace aging medical equipment and carry out basic maintenance 
and repair that presently go unmet.
  For fiscal 1995, this budget provides no money to meet the needed 
replacement medical equipment backlog of more than $700 million, or the 
unmet repair and maintenance work estimated at nearly $930 million. The 
veteran service organizations identify funding to eliminate the medical 
backlog as one of VA's most critical needs and point to the repair 
backlog as endangering patient safety and quality of care as well as 
leading to the unseemly public opinion of VA facilities.
  The VA has long led the way in post traumatic stress disorder 
treatment and research, and specialized PTSD treatment teams are 
located at VA facilities throughout the country. The number of veterans 
suffering from PTSD is difficult to determine, but, in fiscal 1992, 
studies indicate PTSD was the fifth most frequent primary diagnosis in 
VA hospitals.
  A comprehensive study of the effectiveness of VA's special PTSD 
outpatient programs found that veterans treated in these programs 
demonstrated significant improvements in symptoms, legal difficulties, 
rate of employment, and outward violence.
  The Veterans' Affairs Committee highlighted the need to modestly 
expand these programs with an additional $2 million and 50 additional 
employees to help establish an additional 30 access points for these 
programs. The budget gives this area no priority and provides no 
additional funding.
  The administration's request for major construction funding, like the 
medical care budget, falls dramatically below prior year levels and 
altogether fails to address the broad system needs. In seeking only 
$115 million in new budget authority for fiscal 1995, the 
administration is requesting $262 million less than was appropriated 
last year and $465 million less than in fiscal year 1991.
  This dramatically diminished commitment to construction does not 
appear to be a one-time phenomenon, with outyear budgets averaging only 
$175 million annually.
  Though it is clear that uncertainty surrounding national health care 
reform adds complexity to construction planning, the need that prompted 
the Congress last year to call for giving greater priority in the 
construction planning process for ambulatory care and nursing home care 
have not changed. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs, therefore, 
believes that the Department's request to the Office of Management and 
Budget of $377 million in major construction for fiscal year 1995 is a 
far sounder target, though still inadequate, than the $115 million 
proposed to Congress in this document.
  The Veterans Benefits Administration faces a serious administrative 
crisis of a growing backlog of claims and a steady delay in the timely 
processing of veterans' claims.
  In fiscal year 1993 some 4,357 employees were provided for VBA 
adjudication activity and 3.4 million claims actions were received and 
completed, leaving a backlog of 531,078 claims. The pending backlog is 
projected to increase in fiscal year 1994 to approximately 700,000 
claims, and in fiscal year 1995, to nearly 900,000 claims.
  At the end of fiscal year 1993, the average elapsed time between 
receipt and completion of an original compensation claim was 189 days, 
compared to VA's goal of 106 days. The average elapsed time is expected 
to increase to 235 days in fiscal year 1995.
  Statistics demonstrate that the backlog of claims is fast becoming 
unmanageable and that timeliness of claims has slipped significantly. 
Moreover, the quality of work has deteriorated. The Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs believes that unless a significant number of 
additional employees are provided and drastic action is taken to modify 
existing procedures, the entire process will only fall further behind.
  This budget produces no sign of future improvement in this serious 
situation. The budget leaves service-connected claims by veterans to 
the whimsy of chance. By choice the budget requests a Veterans Benefits 
Administration decrease of 622 employees. Yet VA officials say they are 
being overwhelmed by claims.
  Nationally, the VA benefit claims backlog was 377,000 4 years ago, 
but by the end of September it could reach 870,000.
  How can a 622 employee reduction in the Veterans Benefits 
Administration be justified in light of the worsening trend away from 
the Department's timeliness goals on compensation and pension? From 
fiscal 1994 to fiscal 1995, timeliness would slip from 226 average days 
for completing a claim to 235 days, when the goal is 106 days. This 
budget will only serve to let this situation slip out of control.
  For the Board of Veterans Appeals, the veterans wait to get a 
decision can be more than 2 years. But VA officials report that the 
processing time could be 2,500 days by the end of fiscal 1995. That's 
nearly 7 years.
  This budget does nothing to address this situation, other than to 
maintain the current structure, leading to delays that would be 
measured in years rather than days. The Veterans' Affairs Committee saw 
fit to add $4 million and 50 additional employees to work this backlog 
down, but this budget rejects any feasible approach to this problem.
  Mr. Chairman, we must begin to process claims for benefits on a more 
timely basis. It takes far too much time to process compensation, 
pension, and education claims.
  Under the Vocational Rehabilitation and Counseling Program, VA 
provides rehabilitation and counseling services for eligible veterans, 
service members and their dependents. VR&C's primary mission is to 
provide all services and assistance necessary to enable service-
connected disabled veterans to achieve maximum independence in daily 
living and, to the maximum extent, to become employable and to obtain 
and maintain suitable employment.
  VR&C continues to experience a significant increase in applications 
for benefits and vocational counseling. The increase is in part due to 
the downsizing of the military.
  Despite the fact that VR&C staff have been unable to keep pace with 
the rapidly growing workload, this budget would contemplate a reduction 
of 19 field staff to handle a projected increase of 3,700 cases in 
fiscal year 1995. With workload target and timeliness standards 
currently failing, how does fewer staff achieve the rehabilitation 
goals of this program for service-connected service members?
  The President recommends and this budget accepts a reduced funding 
level for the Veterans Service Program. The present staff in this 
program operates through VA's 58 regional offices and satellite 
facilities. VA's estimate of 11.1 million public assistance contacts in 
fiscal year 1994 has already been exceeded in barely 6 months.
  Data from traffic studies of VA's 800-service lines indicate that the 
average blocked call rate, in fiscal 1993, was an astounding 62 
percent. These studies reveal that because of inadequate staffing of 
telephone service a significant number of veterans seeking information 
and assistance are not receiving the service to which they are 
entitled.
  The uncertain economic times and the continued downsizing of the 
armed services continues to generate increased requests for information 
and assistance. Additionally, issues which receive wide press coverage, 
such as reports of radiation testing during the 1940's, 1950's, and 
1960's and concerns related to possible illnesses related to service in 
the Persian Gulf, result in increased telephone calls. Without adequate 
staffing and budget resources in fiscal year 1995, the VA staff cannot 
meet the assistance needs of veterans and their dependents.
  In the National Cemetery System, VA received the remains of over 
70,000 veterans in the last fiscal year. In fiscal year 1995, VA 
estimates 73,000 interments. With available funding in fiscal year 
1994, the backlog of essential operating equipment to keep pace with 
timely burial will increase to $6.7 million and VA projects an 
additional $2.7 million in equipment will be due for replacement in 
1995. This budget provides inadequate funding to reduce the backlog of 
replacement equipment. With funding of $1.6 million. The Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs recommended the addition of $7.8 million to meet this 
obvious need.
  Mr. Chairman, this Nation has no greater obligation than to care for 
its veterans. Over the years, Congress has made commitments to veterans 
that a grateful Nation supports. This resolution backs out of those 
commitments and fails to meet our obligations. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against this bill.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Gentlemen of the House, I rise in total opposition to 
the Black Caucus budget resolution and in total support of the Kasich 
resolution. I also rise in opposition to the Budget Committee 
resolution and tell you that through experiences I have had within the 
last 60 days in my district I had the opportunity to hold town meetings 
throughout all of my six counties.
  The one common thread of complaint that I heard was that the people 
of Alabama and the people of America are sick and tired of the 
Government growing at the pace it is growing. They are tired of the 
Federal Government telling us what time of day we are going to get up, 
tired of all of these new programs that tell us how much money we are 
going to earn, how much we are going to keep. They are tired of big 
government, and the message they gave to me was, yes, do something 
about health care; yes, do something about crime.
  But the strongest message was do something about the growth of that 
Government; stop this wasteful spending; stop these new programs. That 
is precisely what the Kasich bill does. It starts us on the road toward 
these reductions in diametric opposition to what the Mfume bill does 
and the budget resolution does, because he is growing big Government.

  In addition to that, the Black Caucus budget reduces the national 
defense to the point that we might not even have enough money for one 
platoon, $175 billion less than the Budget Committee requested.
  So what Kasich does is give us as much money as we can possibly 
afford to ensure we have a strong national defense, cuts back on the 
size of Government, and works toward what all of us are going back and 
telling our people in our respective districts: We are sick and tired 
of Government, too, being so large, and we seriously want to do 
something about this deficit and this growing debt of the American 
Government.
  The only way we have to do that today is to vote down the Black 
Caucus budget and to vote for the Kasich substitute.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in point of fact, if I might, the Congressional Black 
Caucus' budget deficit, as proposed in the bill, is $1.8 billion less 
than the deficit proposed by the Committee on the Budget and $2.6 
billion less than the one put forth by the administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  (Mr. WATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Black Caucus budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the CBC's budget resolution. As a 
member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Development, I want to 
speak specifically about this budget's effect on community growth.
  Last year, we made some tough choices in order to cut the Federal 
deficit and redirect our resources to invest in our people. And while 
we are starting to see the positive effects of these choices in the 
cities and towns in my district, the scars of the recent recession are 
still fresh there as well. Now is the time to redouble out efforts to 
ensure that all of our citizens gain from the recent recovery, 
including the people in the inner cities who suffered so greatly under 
the policies of the 1980's.
  The CBC budget recognizes the magnitude of the need for investment in 
our communities. It increases funding for community and regional 
development by about $530 million over the President's request. It 
provides increased funds for the Community Development Block Grant 
Program. And it adds $750 million for the Neighborhood Infrastructure 
Improvement and Inner City Jobs Creation Act, which funds job creation 
for people in poor communities who are out of work or lack basic 
skills.
  The CBC budget is a fiscally responsible approach to investing in our 
people and our communities. I urge my colleagues to joint with me in 
supporting it.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne].
  (Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Congressional Black 
Caucus budget and urge my colleagues to support this sound economic 
alternative.
  As a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I recommended 
changes in our international funding priorities, which are reflected in 
this budget alternative.
  In view of the shifting political landscape around the globe, it 
makes good economic sense to reassess the allocation of our foreign aid 
dollars to be sure we are using our resources as effectively as 
possible.
  Newly emerging democracies should be encouraged as we move toward the 
establishment of formal bilateral relationships.
  The United States has been generous in our support of the New 
Independent States of the former Soviet Union. Unfortunately, funds for 
this purpose have been diverted from developing country accounts.
  I want to point out that the cold war took its costliest toll on the 
continent of Africa when the United States supported former 
dictatorships at the expense of the African people. I believe that 
restitution is necessary to begin to bring an end to the suffering now 
caused by civil wars and resulting ethnic tensions.
  As Americans and advocates of freedom, let us support the emerging 
democracies on the continent of Africa with the same enthusiasm and 
commitment of resources with which we have endowed the new European 
democracies. With the release of Nelson Mandela and the imminent 
elections in South Africa, the United States has a historic opportunity 
to bring freedom to an era where oppression has long been the status 
quo.
  Our budget proposes restoration of an earmark for the Development 
Fund for Africa at $1.2 billion. We support the creation of a Southern 
Africa Enterprise Fund at $100 million, similar to those in Eastern 
Europe. In addition, we call for the restoration of cuts in Public Law 
480, title 2--the food and work program--and title 3--direct food 
assistance--by $158 million.
  Other objectives of our budget include improved United States 
financial participation in U.N. peacekeeping activities, pursuing 
equitable trade relations with Africa and the Caribbean and monitoring 
the impact of special trade agreements within the hemisphere, as well 
as with Asia, Latin America, and Europe.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize that we have pressing domestic problems--
problems crying out of a solution.
  Some critics of foreign aid say that we should not spend a penny 
overseas until our domestic affairs are in order. The reality is that 
in today's interdependent world, there is a strong link between our 
ability to succeed at home and our ability to build international 
relationships.
  I urge my colleagues to help us build a better country and a better 
world by supporting the Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].
  (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                          ____________________