[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.
____________________