[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]

 
  THE NEED FOR A REALITY BUDGET WHICH PROTECTS THE SKILLED WORKERS OF 
                                AMERICA

  Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, some in this Chamber know I have major concerns about 
how we approach the budget. My own solution would be to convene a 
special session of the Congress to have us, without the Committee on 
Rules' intervention, vote these issues up or down by majority vote. Our 
hands are tied in terms of constructive proposals simply because we are 
faced with four choices which contain a hodgepodge of recommendations, 
often more ideological than rational.
  I favor most of what my colleagues have put in on the Republican 
side. But there has been one major error, and I want to address my 
remarks solely to that. That is the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act.
  I can think of nothing that would undercut the working people of this 
country more than the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act.
  Mr. Chairman, James Davis was the Secretary of Labor under three 
Republican Presidents: Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. In 1931, as a 
Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, he joined with Robert Bacon, a 
Republican Member of the House from New York, and together they 
authored and led through Congress, President Hoover's request for this 
historic legislation, which has been on the books for over six decades.
  What the Davis-Bacon Act provides is that construction, alteration, 
and repair, which is funded with Federal money shall meet the 
prevailing wages in the locality of the projects for similar crafts and 
skills on comparable construction work.
  Why did they do this? Because in the midst of the Depression, when 
millions of our citizens were out of work and there was great misery, 
often fly-by-night contractors would come with pickup untrained labor 
and bid on contracts with low-wage workers and thus undercut the 
workers and contractors in a local labor market.
  That Davis-Bacon law is on the books and should remain on the books, 
for good reason. The contractors in a locality who bid on these 
projects with workers who are paid the prevailing wage--the carpenters, 
the electricians, the operating engineers, the laborers, the plumbers, 
and many others in their important crafts--generally continue to live 
in that community. We should not do anything to undercut what our 
neighbors, the construction working people of America, have achieved, 
both men and women, in terms of the prevailing wage.
  Only three Presidents have created exceptions to this law. Those were 
shortlived--in a few weeks in the case of Franklin D. Roosevelt and 
Richard M. Nixon, a longer period but limited to the areas in the three 
States affected by the hurricanes which struck parts of Florida, 
Louisiana, and Hawaii in the fall of 1992. This Congress should not 
create any exceptions to the Davis-Bacon Act. I include as part of my 
remarks. ``The Purpose of the Act'' as described by William G. 
Whittaker, Specialist, Economics Division, Congressional Research 
Service of the Library of Congress:


                           purpose of the act

       In the late 1920s, the Federal Government undertook a major 
     program of public building which, as the Nation moved into 
     the depression after 1929, had important implications for the 
     areas where the work was to be performed. Such contracts were 
     normally awarded to the lowest bidder. Certain itinerant 
     contractors, through the employment of non-union workers from 
     low-wage parts of the country, were able (or were believed to 
     be able) to underbid local contractors for such projects. 
     Thus, the employment impact of public construction on 
     localities was reduced, distressing both local contractors 
     and their workers.
       The Davis-Bacon Act was fashioned to protect ``fair'' local 
     contractors and workers, residing in and employed in local 
     markets, from ``unfair'' competition by low-wage (often 
     itinerant) contractors. Further, it was intended to help 
     assure quality of construction, to help stabilize the local 
     economy and industry, and to make the Federal Government, 
     indirectly through its power as a consumer, a model for 
     private sector employers in the area of labor standards.
       When drafting the Davis-Bacon Act, Congress was not 
     searching for the cheapest labor for Federal construction 
     work. Instead, it was concerned with preserving ``fair'' 
     labor standards and the stability of local markets. Some may 
     argue, however, that there is no essential conflict between 
     the purposes of the original enactment and securing a bargain 
     for the public agency consumer. Employment of skilled labor 
     at a ``fair'' wage (which Congress has determined to be the 
     locally prevailing wage for the craft), may result in economy 
     in the long term: better work, more quickly performed, and 
     less costly to maintain.


                    consistent congressional support

       Since 1931, Congress has consistently broadened and 
     strengthened Davis-Bacon. In 1934, it added the Copeland 
     ``anti-kickback'' provisions to insure compliance with the 
     prevailing wage requirements of Davis-Bacon. In 1935, 
     Congress reduced the dollar volume threshold for triggering 
     the Act from the original $5,000 to $2,000--to prevent 
     fragmentation of contracts in order to circumvent the 
     statute. In the 1950s, Congress began to add Davis-Bacon 
     provisions to various program statutes in which, while the 
     Federal Government might not be the direct contractor, 
     Federal funding would make the work possible.
       [From William G. Whittaker, ``The Davis-Bacon Act: Action 
     During the 103rd Congress,'' page CRS-2]

  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. 
Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, 
and I thank the caucus for doing a wonderful job once again.
  This is the budget with vision. We either believe in equality and 
justice for all or we do not. This is the budget that gives a hand up 
to people.
  Let me talk about what a lot of perceptions about this budget are 
that are wrong. A lot of people have the perception that the Black 
Caucus budget is about handouts, it is about training for no jobs that 
are there, and so on. Let me answer what this budget has in it.
  It has some very, very good job creation, better than anything else. 
They increase science and space. And they put extra money in for 
creating jobs in things like high-definition television and many other 
places that are the jobs of the future.
  In energy, they increase energy. And guess what they do? They 
transfer money from nuclear fission to alternative fuels for creating 
new kinds of automobiles and so forth.
  We have heard all sorts of people talk on this floor, talking about, 
If you vote for this budget, we won't be able to afford but one platoon 
in the military. Oh, yeah? Does one platoon cost $260 billion, then you 
get all the rest of it for the additional $10 billion that the Black 
Caucus passed?
  Now that does not pass the giggle test. But that is what it is.
  If you really believe that--and it is very sad that we do not have 
truth-in-advertising that we have for selling toothpaste in the same 
thing for selling the budget--but if you listen to people saying, ``If 
you vote for this, defense is over, America will be overrun,'' they 
only cut $10 billion out of $270 billion. That is one-twenty seventh or 
16.8. It barely shows up.
  Now let me tell you something: I have been ahead of burden sharing 
for ever and ever and ever. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
has shown all sorts of money overseas. You can save this money by 
burden sharing.
  Yesterday on the floor I read 12 different tractor programs in 
research and development. No one stood up to defend any of them. I said 
you could take all of those out. I went on about how you consolidate 
the chaplains' schools and the engineering schools and all sorts of 
things. You can do all sorts of things which save money.

                              {time}  1140

  But let us stop just saying, ``If you vote for this, you will 
decimate defense,'' because that will not happen at all. This is 
talking about base closings overseas where it is most expensive to do 
it. Leave the bases at home. Train at home. Be flexible at home. And do 
things like the Colorado National Guard is doing now, serving the 
homeless at home. That is what this budget is about.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Herger] for yielding this time to me, but I say to the gentleman from 
California who just yielded that he may be disappointed in yielding to 
me because I am inclined to support the Black Caucus budget because the 
Black Caucus budget is the only one that has a forward look about it on 
the funding for NIH, the National Institutes of Health. Why do I say 
that?
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] to 
pay close attention to what I am saying because I may engage him in a 
dialog on this.
  If my understanding is correct, Mr. Chairman, the budget that is 
presented by the Black Caucus maintains the President's proposals for 
funding for NIH but then allows a flexibility therein to do expansion 
of that budget for some inflationary or other purposes.
  Is that correct?
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct in that assumption.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, on that basis I am going to try to persuade 
myself to back the Black Caucus budget on that point alone. Every other 
budget that has been presented cuts back either actually, or 
potentially, or in the future on the funding for NIH.
  What are we doing? In a day and an hour when we are arguing about 
health care and about funding for our health care needs in this 
country, Mr. Chairman, we are cutting back on something that adds to 
the preventative care mode of our health care system and which can cut 
costs in the future. On that basis alone I am persuading myself to 
support the Black Caucus budget.
  Another point that has to be made here, Mr. Chairman:
  In cutting back on research, in rationing the power of Dr. Varmas who 
is the head of the NIH, rationing his power, forcing him to ration the 
allocations to researchists, we are rationing future cures for our 
Nation and its citizens, and it seems to me that, if the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] were here with me, he would be helping me with 
my argument here because we are being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] 
has expired.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, could I ask for an extra minute?
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I will not be able to yield an extra minute 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Now I am more than ever persuaded to vote for the Black 
Caucus budget.
  Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] yield?
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I can yield 30 seconds to the gentleman who 
is undergoing transformation.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Maryland, ``No, 
you are because you recognize the importance of NIH, and that's 
important.''
  What I intend to do is to pursue a policy that we have begun to 
expand the virtues of NIH. The Medical Research Caucus of the Congress 
has had 25 separate sessions on why we should be supporting increases 
in NIH for the purpose of health care reform in our country.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], a member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Herger] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today, not in support of the amendment, the 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume], but to 
say that it is an intellectually honest one and it is a good faith 
effort. It is one that clearly deserves to be debated because of the 
effort that it makes here today. But the primary reason that I would 
oppose it is because of the cuts it makes in the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, despite what the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. 
Schroeder] said, the $175 billion additional cut below the baseline of 
the Clinton plan, and that is on top of the cuts that the Clinton plan 
would make, would be devastating to national defense.
  Well, is there an alternative to the Clinton budget? Yes, there is. 
There is one that will be debated next, and it is that plan that is 
offered by the Republicans on the Committee on the Budget led by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. Chairman, there are four points that I would make about this 
alternative:
  First, it has $150 billion deeper cuts than the Clinton budget does 
in actual spending; second, it changes the way that government does 
business, by returning a lot of the responsibilities of government to 
where it should be, to local and to State governments, and we do that 
through block grants of programs that will enable us to have the same 
services, but provided by the States without the overhead of the 
Federal and State governments for each of the separate programs; and 
third, it fully and honestly accounts for the actual costs of programs 
in health care, the welfare reform, and the crime initiative, all of 
which are strikingly absent from the Clinton plan; and of course last, 
it has a $500 per child tax credit.
  A lot of groups have supported this in large measure, Mr. Chairman, 
because of the tax credit that is in there for children and for 
American families. Let me just read to my colleagues a few of the 
organizations:

       Citizens Against Government Waste.
       Concerned Women for America.
       The Association of Concerned Taxpayers.
       The Family Research Council.
       The National Taxpayers Union.
       Americans for Tax Reform.
       The Associated Builders and Contractors.
       The Financial Executives Institute.
       The Small Business Survival Committee.
       The Eagle Forum.
       The Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation.

  Mr. Chairman, these are groups which have looked at this tax credit 
and understand the reasons for it.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is this:
  Do we have a budget to give Washington more of our money for paper 
and paper clips, or should we leave the money with our constituents and 
their families? I think it should be the latter.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown].
  (Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering a number 
of budget substitutes. The CBC budget builds on the foundation of 
economic growth we have seen over the last year. Yet of all the 
measures we are considering today, only the CBC budget makes the 
necessary investments to continue that trend, and to give our children 
the chance to grow up in safe neighborhoods, be educated in world class 
schools, and to create the type of high-skilled, high-paid jobs that 
will give them a chance at a bright future.
  How can we doom the hope of these children? My distinguished 
colleague from Ohio wants to give a $500 tax credit for families, which 
sounds like a wonderful idea.
  But then he turns around, hits kids, elderly, the poor, and 
unrepresented right between the eyes.
  My dear colleague, and some of his friends on the other side of the 
aisle, propose to take away money from schools, over $15.5 billion from 
education alone. He hits the elderly and poor by cutting $10 billion 
from Medicare. Then he hits the poor again, by eliminating the entire 
legal services program.
  The CBC budget cuts the deficit but maintains compassion. I urge my 
colleagues to look closely at the CBC alternative budget--and support 
its passage.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], a member of our 
committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Herger] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus spends slightly less 
than the President's budget and should be congratulated for that. It 
represents a reallocation of resources and, in many cases, a 
reallocation that I agree with, but it still, in my judgment, does not 
represent change.
  Mr. Chairman, we have 12-year-olds who are having babies. We have 14-
year-olds who are selling drugs. We have 16-year-olds who are killing 
each other. We have 18-year-olds who cannot even read the diplomas that 
they have supposedly earned. I believe this is the legacy of the 
welfare state, and I believe that, if we do more of the same, we will 
see the continuation of what I have just described.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason I support the budget being offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is primarily because it reduces the 
budget deficits by over $150 billion in the next 5 years, and we need 
to do that. But in addition it represents true change. There is welfare 
reform, substantive welfare reform. There is immigration reform which 
is so necessary. There is health care reform in this package. There is 
reform of government operations, the consolidation of programs, the 
elimination of others. There is regulatory reform in the Kasich 
Republican plan. There is even a component of crime control. There is 
job creation and economic growth in the Kasich Republican plan. There 
is also a family tax credit that says, ``If you have a child, you will 
get $500 from the Federal Government if your income is less than 
$200,000. If you have two children, you will get a thousand dollars. If 
you have three children, you will get $1,500.''
  Mr. Chairman, this represents a sincere effort on the part of the 
Republicans to recognize the pledge of the administration now in office 
to have a focus on the middle class and the families.
  What troubles me the most, however, is the fact that when this plan 
of the President passed last year we were told by the Speaker and 
others, and I am reading from the document to get the votes necessary 
to pass this plan last year; the Speaker said:

       We must do more. We must cut more spending, and we will. We 
     must reallocate our priorities, and we will. We must continue 
     the process of deficit reduction, and we will.

                              {time}  1150

  The bottom line is that the President has not and his people have 
not. They have done the exact opposite. They have not cut spending 
more, they have not reallocated priorities, and they have not continued 
the process of deficit reduction.
  I believe that in the years to come the Congressional Black Caucus 
and the Republicans will recognize that we have much in common because 
the problems they want to address need to be addressed, and the way the 
Republicans want to address them is the way to help solve the problems 
they are concerned about.
  We need welfare reform. We need to reform this Government. We simply 
cannot ignore the deficits. The national debt will go up to $1.6 
trillion in the next 5 years. If it goes up $1.6 trillion in the next 5 
years, we will not be able to solve our problems.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I realize that we have come to the end of 
this debate, and, quite frankly, I want to offer my thanks to the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] for their 
efforts to put forth an honest, frank, and sincere debate on the budget 
to guide our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield the remainder of our time to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], who is the 
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, to close debate, and I 
take this opportunity to say that it was he, along with other senior 
members of our caucus, who began this notion of an alternative budget 
out of their sincere desire to bring about change and a vision of 
leadership for our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] to close debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] is 
recognized for 6 minutes to close debate.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his generosity 
in yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me at the outset of my remarks make three points.
  First, it is always with a great sense of pride that I rise in 
support of the efforts on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus to 
change the priorities of this country. Second, I rise to say to all the 
Members here that it has always been my belief that the most important 
function that we have in carrying out our responsibilities is to 
develop a national budget for this country.
  Third, let me suggest to my distinguished colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle and assert aggressively without fear of contradiction 
that the Congressional Black Caucus is about change and has always been 
about change as we have always stood on the cutting edge of change in 
the 23-plus years that this gentleman has served in the U.S. Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I have often said that if I were to travel to a country 
and could only read one document in order to understand the most about 
that nation, I would read its budget. I would read that document 
because a nation's budget is the expression of its national priorities, 
its aspirations, its vision of its place in the world and its 
obligation to its citizens.
  As we join today in the debate on those priorities, I urge my 
colleagues to keep in mind this important goal of our budget process, 
and to understand the obvious: Money spent in one category of the 
budget is unavailable for other national purposes--whether within a 
budget line, in another budget line, or simply left in the economy 
through deficit reduction. This is true of the national defense line of 
the budget as well as of any other portion.
  I rise today as a member of the House who represents a district that 
has been in the forefront of communities arguing that we have a 
precious and obvious opportunity at this moment in history to turn 
dramatically to a course of rebuilding our Nation from the resources 
that we no longer have to spend on what was characterized as the cold 
war. I do not rise as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, 
or speak on behalf of that committee--a committee which must have its 
debate on how forces will be molded within the framework of the budget 
resolution target.
  However, as a member and now chairman of that committee, this member 
has had a profound opportunity to focus closely on the defense budget 
and on the relation of that budget to our national needs.
  There are those who will argue today and the Budget Committee heard 
many voices arguing that defense has borne more than its share of 
deficit reduction, that the President has already cut defense 
drastically, and that further cuts would produce a hollow force and 
endanger national security. In particular, some cite the Defense 
Department's Bottom-Up Review force structure as a minimum level for 
national security, and any cuts below the President's budget are 
alleged to endanger the Nation's ability to support that force level.
  In the view of this gentleman, these arguments are all built on 
faulty premises.
  As to defense already having absorbed its fair share of budget cuts, 
the question is not how much defense has been cut but rather whether we 
still have more of a budget and force structure than we need to keep 
the country safe, meet our national security needs and our foreign 
policy obligations and interests. With the end of the cold war and the 
demise of the Soviet military as a global threat, the need for defense 
forces went down dramatically.

  Moreover, defense is the only major budget function of which it can 
be said that objective circumstances have produced a decline in 
mission. In this time where additional domestic investment and social 
programs are urgently needed, every penny of unnecessary defense 
spending must be eliminated and transferred to more productive uses. In 
addition, we must remember that securing our economy is one of the four 
cornerstones of our national security policy--a failure properly to 
size our defense budget imperils that policy goal.
  There is good reason to believe that defense could be cut further 
than it has been already. At the end of the current build-down, U.S. 
defense spending will still equate to 80 percent of the average 
purchasing power devoted to defense during the cold war, excluding 
periods where we were actually engaged in military hostilities. 
Needless to say, there is no threat on the horizon any where near 80 
percent as large as that posed by the nuclear-armed Red Army, much less 
that army and its alliance structure. In fact, the United States 
military is now larger than that of Russia. Under current plans, the 
United States will vastly out-spend all of its plausible military 
antagonists put together. By themselves, our European allies and Japan 
will spend more than Russia and China.
  The Clinton administration, far from cutting too deeply, is actually 
providing robustly for defense. It plans increases in key elements of 
military capability. By the end of the decade, the United States plans 
to have more early-arriving ground combat capability for regional 
conflicts than it did at the time of Desert Storm, and an order of 
magnitude more capability for delivering precision-guided munitions 
from the air. Just since last year at this time, President Clinton has 
added over $24 billion to its 5 year defense plan.
  The Clinton defense program is only about 6 percent lower in real 
program terms than that of the previous administration, and it was 
common knowledge that the Cheney Pentagon was planning further cuts in 
defense for a second Bush administration. Our current military is the 
best trained and most ready in history. Compared to other post-cold war 
draw-downs, this one has been shallower and less steep. By reducing 
force structure and placing a priority on readiness, all indications 
are that a return to the hollow force of the 1970's can be avoided. In 
fact, current projections show per-unit readiness spending remaining at 
the high levels reached in the Reagan years.
  Finally, the Bottom-Up Review, as Defense Secretary Perry 
acknowledged before the Armed Services Committee, is incomplete in some 
important respects and must be considered to be an evolving document. 
The force structure levels it recommended it were developed without 
consideration of major operational changes, further reductions in 
nuclear forces, or realignments in roles and missions. It pretty much 
asked what elements of the current force--as built and operated during 
the cold war--should be retained if we as a nation wish to build toward 
a capability to conduct offensive armored warfare in two major regional 
contingencies at once--without participation by our military allies.

  This is a substantially more stringent force planning criterion than 
was established by the Bush administration. New investment--especially 
in the area of strategic mobility and other supporting forces--will be 
required to achieve such a war-fighting capability; we do not have it 
today.
  The Bottom-Up Review also programs additional naval forces for 
overseas presence--requirements that operational changes might obviate. 
To keep the Bottom-Up Review force modern will require additional 
investment after the turn of the century, and so either defense budget 
increases, further force cuts, or an increased reliance on National 
Guard and Reserve Forces will be required at that time.
  The wisdom of building up to meet such a planning criterion is open 
to question--especially since both Gen. Colin Powell and Defense 
Secretary Perry have suggested that fighting two wars at once is 
unlikely in the extreme. Planning to fight two wars at once without our 
NATO allies is questionable in view of the American public's desire for 
more multilateralism and burden-sharing in 
national security. In the case of the Korean contingency, economic 
growth in the South and isolation and adversity in the North suggest 
that the South will increasingly be able to take up a greater share of 
the burden of its own defense.
  Thus, in brief, our defense effort dominates the world military scene 
and the Clinton administration plans a ready and robust military force 
that does not take full advantage of the end of the cold war, that 
appears to be in excess of our national needs, and that will require 
either more spending or further force structure cuts in the future. For 
the longer term, the Congress needs to investigate alternative 
approaches to defense planning. Since fiscal year 1995 is still a year 
of substantial force reductions in the administration's plan, major 
force structure decisions will affect late years. At the same time, 
there remains an urgent need for spending on defense conversion and 
reinvestment, including base closure and realignment funds, to help 
communities, individuals, and industries adjust to the decline in 
defense spending and to become economically productive.

  For fiscal year 1995, the administration has increased operations and 
maintenance spending by 13.5 percent per active-duty service member, 
which may be more than is needed. While the administration has cut 
procurement substantially, several programs are being continued for 
industrial base purposes that could be advanced in other, more 
economical ways. Thus neither the administration's 5-year plan nor its 
fiscal year 1995 budget should be taken as a floor for defense 
spending. At a minimum, defense should not be exempted from the normal 
nips and tucks that are part of the budget process.
  Within the CBC budget alternative before you is a national security 
budget that can meet our legitimate national security goals, pay for 
our participation in multilateral peacekeeping operations, pay for the 
base closure and realignment procedures as well as fund urgent base 
cleanup. It is a budget that achieve the substantial savings in the 
military budget that can be realized from the advent of the post-cold 
war era--while neither imperiling our industrial base or too hastily 
reducing our force structure.
  It would leave a robust force, well equipped for the challenges of 
the twenty-first century--being able to respond with our allies to 
significant security challenges; improving our national economy and 
protecting our technology developments; equipping our forces to 
participate in the types of military actions that seem most likely in 
the future; and bringing about the types of arms control, human rights 
and promotion of democracy initiatives that will stabilize the world 
and its regional environments, thereby reducing the prospect of the 
armed violence that we all seek to avoid.
  It is the best option on the table, in this gentleman's humble view, 
to meet our national security goals. It is the only option on the table 
that also sets forth a domestic investment agenda that speaks 
appropriately to the challenges--and I would assert the priorities--
that we face in this time of urgent domestic crisis. And this is not a 
parochial document, because it seeks to meet the needs of all Americans 
throughout all communities.
  The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., once issued a prophetic 
statement about the Vietnam war's effect on our national priorities. He 
said that the bombs we were then dropping on Vietnam were exploding in 
the ghettos and the barrios of America.
  That statement's relevance to today's debate should be obvious to us 
all. Throughout the cold war we spent hundreds of billions of dollars 
to prepare bombs to meet what our Nation perceived as a global 
challenge. Those bombs, like the ones Dr. King saw dropped in Vietnam, 
have exploded throughout the cities of America. They have wreaked 
devastation and have created hopelessness in many communities.
  The CBC alternative budget that you have before you would dedicate 
the resources necessary to begin the rebuilding from that devastation, 
to rekindle the hope that nurtures the dreams of our children. In doing 
so, we can build a better and a stronger United States.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Congressional Black 
Caucus alternative budget amendment. The passage of a budget resolution 
represents the best efforts of the Nation's elected leaders to reach 
some consensus on National priorities for the coming fiscal year. The 
priorities reflected in the CBC alternative focus on meeting the needs 
of our most vulnerable citizens, while investing in the Nation's 
technology and infrastructure.
  While the economy is strengthening, and consumer and business 
confidence increase, we cannot lose sight of those Americans who 
continue to be left behind--families and individuals who have little 
confidence in the future, and little reason to believe, that, as the 
economy strengthens, they will somehow share the benefits.
  The Congressional Black Caucus budget recognizes that Federal 
programs intended to improve the lives and living conditions of 
Americans, and enhance opportunities for all citizens to share in 
economic revival, are vital investments in the future of the Nation. If 
this country does not act to stem poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, 
and homelessness, or address the lack of affordable health care, we 
will face a larger price tag to alleviate them in the future.
  The increases in the CBC budget in education acknowledge the severe 
situation facing our Nation's schools, and the need for additional 
Federal involvement to improve the quality of elementary and secondary 
school facilities. The $530 million increase in community and regional 
development represents a recognition of the dire circumstances of the 
Nation's urban and rural communities.
  Notwithstanding my support for the priorities incorporated in the 
CBC budget document, I do have reservations about the size of defense 
reductions contained in the proposal. There have been enormous changes 
around the globe in recent years. The reevaluation of our strategic 
interests and defense needs continue. We must continue to scrutinize 
how best to use our limited resources to meet our future defense needs, 
but we must also take care to ensure our military readiness in the face 
of continued uncertainty around the world. In the coming year, the 
House will have the opportunity to debate many of the goals prioritized 
in the CBC budget alternative, as we consider reforms in health care, 
welfare, employment and training programs, and proposals to curb 
violent crime. I strongly endorse the Mfume budget amendment as a 
valuable instrument in illustrating how these objectives can be 
accomplished.

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Congressional Black Caucus [CBC] alternative budget for fiscal year 
1995, a budget to rescue America. I want to take this opportunity to 
commend my colleague, Congressman Mfume, chairman of the Congressional 
Black Caucus, for his leadership in crafting this alternate budget, and 
bringing the CBC alternative budget to the floor as an amendment to 
House Concurrent Resolution 218, the budget resolution for fiscal year 
1995. The CBC alternate budget is a thoughtful and serious plan 
designed to meet the pressing domestic needs of our Nation, while 
keeping very close to the overall deficit reduction numbers contained 
in the President's proposal, and the Budget Committee's resolution.
  The CBC budget calls for substantially lower defense spending levels 
in fiscal year 1995 than the committee resolution; $16.5 billion less 
in budget authority, and $9.0 billion less in outlays. Over a 5-year 
period, the CBC budget recommends cuts in defense spending of $175.1 
billion in budget authority, and $125.3 billion in outlays below the 
levels contained in the Budget Committee resolution. Our alternative 
budget uses these savings to fund desperately needed increases in 
funding for vital domestic programs, such as education, job training, 
health, and crime prevention.
  The Defense spending levels called for in the CBC budget are directly 
in keeping with U.S. Military requirements for the post-cold war world, 
and are adequate to meet any projected threat from a regional power. In 
addition, we recognize that an expanded policy of burden-sharing by our 
allies will help reduce our Nation's defense funding needs. The CBC 
budget assumes that savings from personnel reductions resulting from 
Military downsizing will be directed to job training, severance pay, 
and pension benefits for individuals separated from the Military or 
civilian service. We also assume that $3 billion of the savings will be 
designated for plant restructuring, job training and income support for 
communities with military-dependent economies.
  Mr. Chairman, the CBC alternate budget uses a portion of the savings 
realized from reduced defense spending to fund education and training 
programs to increase employment, especially for health care related 
jobs. These savings will also help raise the maximum Pell grant award 
from $2,300 to $2,500, and expand chapter 1 compensatory services to 75 
percent of eligible children. Additional savings from defense will be 
used to improve transportation and veterans programs, and expand income 
security programs.

  I am especially pleased that the CBC alternative budget calls for a 
redirection of savings to increases in health programs, specifically 
towards programs which serve the minority community. Reform of our 
Nation's health care delivery system is of utmost importance to 
African-Americans and other minorities who, despite the tremendous 
medical advances in this country, have not benefited fully or equitably 
from these gains. This crisis in health for African-Americans has been 
well documented in recent years, and is a driving force behind the 
movement toward national health care reform. The CBC budget for health 
programs will provide assistance to minority health providers until a 
comprehensive, universal health care reform package can be enacted, and 
implemented.
  Crime prevention is an issue of primary concern to nearly every 
American, and the Congressional Black Caucus is alarmed by the crime 
epidemic in our country. We seek to address this urgent National issue 
through increased funding of crime prevention programs, funded from 
savings from the defense budget, and new taxes on the three most 
immediate threats to the health of African-Americans; assault weapons, 
handguns and ammunition. The tragedy of drive-by shootings, and the 
escalation of handgun violence in domestic disputes, are placing a 
tremendous strain on our health care system, especially since a large 
proportion of the emergency medical care necessitated by these 
incidents is provided to individuals with inadequate or no health 
insurance.
  Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus budget has been crafted 
to meet the true needs of the American people, while adhering to the 
goal of deficit reduction established in President Clinton's 5-year 
deficit reduction plan enacted last year. The CBC budget is a 
comprehensive, intelligent and compassionate answer to the competing 
interests of increased domestic investment and significant deficit 
reduction. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this plan, and 
to vote in favor of the Mfume amendment to the budget resolution for 
fiscal year 1995.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, since the Clinton administration began, 
there have been two disaster relief appropriations: $6 billion for 
Midwest flood disaster relief and $8 billion for far west earthquake 
disaster relief. In the last year of the Bush administration, billions 
were appropriated for Southern hurricane disaster relief. The 
Congressional Black Caucus [CBC] substitute offered today represents 
the key components of an education and employment disaster relief 
program for long neglected, inner-city disaster areas. A ``jobquake'' 
has wrecked our cities for the past 12 years. This is a disaster which 
deserves fair and equal treatment. A population far greater than the 
combined populations in the three disaster areas I have mentioned is 
victimized by public policies which are discriminatory and 
shortsighted.
  Consistent with our position in the CBC budget of 1994, we again 
insist that ``an overwhelming campaign for the improvement of education 
in all American schools is needed.'' Emergency Federal funding for 
education is needed to help alleviate the disaster which has resulted 
from combined Federal, State, and local budget cuts that have all but 
wrecked many urban school systems. Twelve years of draining resources 
from our cities to build defense plants and bankrupt shopping malls 
financed by the savings and loan swindle have created an employment 
disaster which is documented by the inner-city census tract statistics 
on long-term joblessness.
  We owe inner-cities their fair share of disaster relief. The funding 
of education and job training programs represents the simplest and most 
effective vehicle for the delivery of disaster relief to these 
neighborhoods in turmoil.
  At the heart of the education and employment disaster relief program 
is an increase of $1 billion for training and employment programs for 
jobs in the health care sector. Even before the passage of health care 
reform legislation, there is already a shortage of jobs in many allied 
health professions such as child care workers, medical record clerks, 
practical nurses, physician's assistants, and medical technicians. Most 
of these occupations require 2 years of training; a few require only 1 
year of training. Instead of transferring funds for youth training 
programs out of the cities to dislocated defense workers who have 
enjoyed full employment for at least 10 of the last 15 years, we 
propose that the funding for youth training programs be increased on 
the condition that only 1-year training programs be funded.
  Adult training programs also should be increased in order to cover 
the cost of 1-year and 2-year programs focused on health care-related 
jobs. Employment is guaranteed at the end of the training cycle for 
participants in health care training programs. Welfare recipients faced 
with the 2-year ultimatum may greatly benefit from job training in this 
category where wages are high enough to provide significant incentives 
and long-term employment.
  Other programs included in this 1995 CBC budget which were not in the 
1994 budget are: First, an Education Infrastructure Act to provide 
emergency funds for the repair and renovation of schools, asbestos, and 
lead poisoning abatement, and other needs; second, a family learning 
center program for libraries to guarantee access for the poor to the 
information superhighways; third, opportunity to learn incentive grants 
are proposed to encourage selected local education agencies to match 
their proposals for curriculum content improvements and increased 
testing with concrete proposals for improvements in the education 
delivery systems; and fourth, a school-based building construction 
training program to expand the model already developed by the 
YouthBuild experimental programs.
  The CBC substitute represents the best possible reordering of Federal 
budget priorities. Moreover, the substitute includes deficit levels 
over a 5-year period which are slightly less than those in the 
committee resolution.
  This substitute is not a radical proposition. It has only $9 billion 
less in defense outlays than the committee resolution for fiscal year 
1995. In cutting defense, while we envision personnel reductions, we 
also commit $3 billion to plant restructuring, retooling, job training, 
and income support for communities with military-dependent economies. 
To help pay for this, we insist on our allies finally stepping up to 
the plate and carrying their fair share of the burden of global 
security.
  We must ask ourselves whether we want a budget which reflects the 
needs of the people, or a budget which reflects the desires of high-
priced military contractors and high-paid lobbyists of large 
corporations. I think that the voters answered that question loud and 
clear in the 1992 election, and we have a duty to live up to their 
expectations.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I, like many of my 
colleagues, am very pleased that the President has submitted a budget 
that pays more than lipservice to the needs of Americans, both poor and 
not so poor. I applaud his efforts but I must say that the plan that 
has been reported to the floor of this body has fallen short of the 
needs of my constituents who have been ignored by past administrations 
for so long. For that reason, I rise in support of the Congressional 
Black Caucus alternative budget.
  The CBC budget increases funding in several important areas such as 
community development. By providing $650 million for community 
development banks, banks like Chicago's South Shore Bank and programs 
like the Women's Sell Employment Project may have more opportunity to 
show the world that people can provide for themselves if given the 
opportunity through good lending programs. These initiatives provide 
self-starting low-income citizens the ability to get capital to start 
businesses that will create for them a way out of poverty. I can think 
of no better way to invest in the future of America but to tap the 
potential that is dormant today among the poor in our communities.
  The CBC budget puts a premium on education and training. It provides 
$1.9 billion more in fiscal year 1995 budget authority and $19 billion 
more in budget authority over 5 years than the committee resolution for 
education, training, and social services programs. In addition it 
specifically raises the Pell Grant maximum awards from $2,300 to 
$2,500. This change brings this program a little closer to the reality 
of college costs in 1994 which, as any of you with children can 
appreciate, have grown dramatically. The importance of this program 
cannot be overstated. Pell grants are a major way that we ensure that 
the hope of a better life exists for children growing up poor in 
America.
  This budget also provides more funding for substance abuse prevention 
and treatment. By getting at some of these root problems, we can really 
fight crime more cost effectively than by building more prisons which 
house rather than rehabilitate. The residents of my district know that 
we must find funds in any budget we approve to tackle this very 
difficult problem. In some areas of the Seventh Congressional District, 
they see the constant late night traffic on their streets and the 
strangers who visit frequently. Every recognized authority on the 
subject has pointed to the need for more treatment and the targeting of 
our resources toward hard to reach and at-risk populations along with 
increased law enforcement. The CBC alternative provides for both.
  Additional funds for transportation, community development block 
grants and other infrastructure-building programs will shore up our 
physical communities while they provide needed jobs to fan the flames 
of the economic recovery which has only just began to burn.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Congressional Black Caucus have 
offered this alternative. At some point we must focus on the social and 
economic disasters that our cities and communities are coming to 
resemble. If not today, what? I urge my colleagues to support this 
reasoned and principled alternative budget proposal.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Congressional 
Black Caucus substitute budget resolution and commend Chairman Mfume 
and the Congressional Black Caucus for their leadership and vision in 
presenting this alternative.
  Essentially this alternative budget proposes to accelerate savings 
from defense accounts and accelerate investments in education, 
training, health, and soclal services. This alternative is about 
investing in people and our future. The substitute assumes greater 
funding for job training and job creation--it responds to the goals of 
both welfare reform and crime prevention. It offers hope to the young 
people of America's cities.
  Expansion of the Jobs Corps is an example of building on what we know 
works best. For 30 years, this program has helped disadvantaged young 
people turn their lives around. As you all know, job training programs 
are expensive, however, these programs are far less expensive than 
housing unskilled young people in prisons after they turn to crime. 
This budget offers us the opportunity to prevent crime and give hope to 
American youth.
  Our Federal budget is a statement of our national values. This 
alternative budget resolution represents the best of the American 
dream. I urge my colleagues to support the Mfume substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 81, 
noes 326, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 54]

                                AYES--81

     Andrews (ME)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de Lugo (VI)
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gekas
     Green
     Hamburg
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Lewis (GA)
     Maloney
     Markey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Mink
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Stark
     Stokes
     Thompson
     Torres
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Wheat
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--326

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (TX)
     Barton
     Brooks
     Collins (IL)
     Cox
     Crane
     Dooley
     Fields (TX)
     Ford (TN)
     Gallo
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Kopetski
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Miller (CA)
     Natcher
     Neal (NC)
     Orton
     Pelosi
     Reynolds
     Rostenkowski
     Shaw
     Slattery
     Towns

                              {time}  1219

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Abercrombie for, with Mr. Dooley against.
       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Orton against.
       Mr. Meehan for, with Mr. Slattery against.

  Mr. HEFNER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BARRETT of Wisconsin, CONYERS, and MARKEY changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order that the 
House may receive message.

                          ____________________