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


[Congressional Record: March 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 1995

  The Committee resumed its sitting.

                              {time}  1221

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 103-429.


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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1994, October 1, 1995, 
     October 1, 1996, October 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998:
       (1) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $971,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,010,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,057,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,106,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,150,800,000,000.

     and the amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be decreased are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $6,706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $21,012,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $22,489,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $29,972,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $39,154,000,000.

     and the amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act 
     revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels 
     of Federal revenues are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $100,270,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $106,324,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $111,933,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $117,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $123,669,000,000.
       (2) The appropriate levels of total new budget authority 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,194,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,236,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,298,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,372,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,440,300,000,000.
       (3) The appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,204,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,229,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,290,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,106,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,150,800,000,000.
       (4) The amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $233,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $219,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $233,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $244,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $272,100,000,000.
       (5) The appropriate levels of the public debt are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $4,963,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $5,269,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,593,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,971,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $6,292,000,000,000.
       (6) The appropriate levels of total Federal credit activity 
     for the fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1994, October 1, 
     1995, October 1, 1996, October 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998, 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $26,000,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $196,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $30,400,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $170,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $31,900,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $160,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $33,700,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $159,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $35,900,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $160,800,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, new primary loan guarantee commitments, and 
     new secondary loan guarantee commitments for fiscal years 
     1995 through 1999 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $269,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $275,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $266,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $269,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $272,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $284,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $275,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $17,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $17,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $17,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $17,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $17,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $8,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $4,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $8,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $4,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $8,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $4,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $8,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $4,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$11,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $117,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $130,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$13,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $103,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $95,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $96,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $99,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $12,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $11,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $122,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $121,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $130,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $130,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $143,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $142,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $158,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $157,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $175,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $174,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $156,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $155,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $172,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $170,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $189,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $187,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $208,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $205,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $230,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $227,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $214,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $220,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $224,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $223,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $238,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $238,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $249,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $260,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,100,000,
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,900,000,
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,300,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $32,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,300,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,300,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $246,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $246,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $264,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $276,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $276,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $289,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $289,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$303,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$303,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$8,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$8,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$10,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$10,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$12,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$12,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,800,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$32,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$32,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$31,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$33,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$33,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Not later than May 16, 1994, the House committees named 
     in subsections (b) through (p) of this section shall submit 
     their recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. 
     After receiving those recommendations, the House Committee on 
     the Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill or 
     resolution carrying out all such recommendations without any 
     substantive revision.
       (b) Committee on Agriculture shall report changes in law 
     within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending, 
     sufficient to increase outlays as follows: $637,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1995, and to reduce outlays as follows: 
     $7,682,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $5,884,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1997, $4,733,000,000 in fiscal year 1998, and 
     $1,759,000,000 in fiscal year 1999, and program changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction, sufficient to result in a 
     reduction of outlays as follows: $3,042,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1995, $3,780,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $4,777,000,000 
     in fiscal year 1997, $5,367,000,000 in fiscal year 1998, and 
     $5,933,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.
       (c) Committee on Armed Services shall report changes in law 
     within its jurisdiction that provide program changes, 
     sufficient to result in a reduction in outlays as follows: 
     $17,000,000 in fiscal year 1995, $27,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1996, $32,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $33,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1998, and $34,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.
       (d) Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs shall 
     report changes in law within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending, sufficient to reduce outlays as follows: 
     $510,000,000 in fiscal year 1995, $297,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1996, $613,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $814,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1998, and $1,022,000,000 in fiscal year 1999, and 
     program changes in laws within its jurisdiction, sufficient 
     to result in a reduction of outlays as follows: 
     $2,332,000,000 in fiscal year 1995, $2,170,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1996, $2,777,000 in fiscal year 1997, $3,062,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1998, and $3,263,000 in fiscal year 1999.
       (e) Committee on Education and Labor shall report changes 
     in law within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending, 
     sufficient to reduce outlays as follows: $1,339,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1995, $9,230,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 
     $7,517,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $6,383,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1998, and $3,409,000,000 in fiscal year 1999, and 
     program changes in laws within its jurisdiction, sufficient 
     to result in a reduction of outlays as follows: $951,000,000 
     in fiscal year 1995, $3,024,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 
     $3,541,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $3,695,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1998, and $3,808,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.
       (f) Committee on Energy and Commerce shall report changes 
     in law within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending, 
     sufficient to reduce outlays as follows: $2,685,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1995, $7,056,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 
     $7,538,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $9,319,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1998, and $11,482,000,000 in fiscal year 1999, and 
     program changes in laws within its jurisdiction, sufficient 
     to result in a reduction of outlays as follows: $107,000,000 
     in fiscal year 1995, $227,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 
     $340,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $316,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1998, and $354,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.
       (g) Committee on Foreign Affairs shall report changes in 
     law within its jurisdiction, program changes, sufficient to 
     result in a reduction of outlays as follows: $602,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1995, $1,319,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 
     $1,579,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $1,712,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1998, and $1,824,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.
       (h) Committee on Government Operations shall report changes 
     in law within its jurisdiction that provide program changes, 
     sufficient to result in a reduction of outlays as follows: 
     $704,000,000 in fiscal year 1995, $2,092,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1996, $2,802,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $3,258,000,000 
     in fiscal year 1998, and $3,406,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.
       (i) Committee on House Administration shall report program 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction, sufficient to result 
     in a reduction of outlays as follows: $0 in fiscal year 1995, 
     $0 in fiscal year 1996, $52,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, 
     $84,000,000 in fiscal year 1998, and $94,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1999.
       (j) Committee on Judiciary shall report changes in law 
     within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending, 
     sufficient to reduce outlays as follows: $0 in fiscal year 
     1995, $0 in fiscal year 1996, $56,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1997, $58,000,000 in fiscal year 1998, and $60,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1999, and program changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction, sufficient to result in a reduction of outlays 
     as follows: $94,000,000 in fiscal year 1995, $419,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1996, $577,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, 
     $675,000,000 in fiscal year 1998, and $503,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1999.
       (k) Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries shall report 
     changes in law within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending, sufficient to reduce outlays as follows: 
     $103,000,000 in fiscal year 1995, $103,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1996, $103,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $103,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1998, and $103,000,000 in fiscal year 1999, and 
     program changes in laws within its jurisdiction, sufficient 
     to result in a reduction of outlays as follows: $3,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1995, $108,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 
     $112,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $114,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1998, and $114,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.
       (l) Committee on Natural Resources shall report changes in 
     law within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending, 
     sufficient to reduce outlays as follows: $233,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1995, $2,433,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 
     $1,177,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $1,190,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1998, and $1,196,000,000 in fiscal year 1999, and 
     program changes in laws within its jurisdiction, sufficient 
     to result in a reduction of outlays as follows: 
     $1,089,000,000 in fiscal year 1995, $1,505,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1996, $1,810,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $2,125,000,000 
     in fiscal year 1998, and $2,440,000 in fiscal year 1999.
       (m) Committee on Post Office and Civil Service shall report 
     changes in law within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending, sufficient to reduce outlays as follows: $0 in 
     fiscal year 1995, $2,050,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 
     $3,100,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $3,150,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1998, and $3,250,000,000 in fiscal year 1999, and 
     program changes in laws within its jurisdiction, sufficient 
     to result in a reduction of outlays as follows: 
     $1,751,000,000 in fiscal year 1995, $3,578,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1996, $5,353,000 in fiscal year 1997, $7,198,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1998, and $8,753,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.
       (n) Committee on Public Works and Transportation shall 
     report changes in law within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending, sufficient to increase outlays as follows: 
     $2,251,000,000 in fiscal year 1995, $2,490,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1996, $2,782,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $3,079,000,000 
     in fiscal year 1998, and $3,388,000,000 in fiscal year 1999, 
     and program changes in laws within its jurisdiction, 
     sufficient to result in a reduction of outlays as follows: 
     $6,660,000,000 in fiscal year 1995, $7,686,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1996, $8,749,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $9,742,000,000 
     in fiscal year 1998, and $10,638,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.
       (o) Committee on Small Business shall report changes in law 
     within its jurisdiction that provide program changes, 
     sufficient to result in a reduction of outlays as follows: 
     $114,000,000 in fiscal year 1995, $182,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1996, $214,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $238,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1998, and $251,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.
       (p) Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in 
     law within its jurisdiction that provide program changes, 
     sufficient to result in a reduction of outlays as follows: $0 
     in fiscal year 1995, $0 in fiscal year 1996, $0 in fiscal 
     year 1997, $0 in fiscal year 1998, and $327,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1999.
       (q)(1) Committee on Ways and Means shall report changes in 
     law within its jurisdiction that provide sufficient to reduce 
     outlays as follows: $5,219,000,000 in fiscal year 1995, 
     $15,451,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $15,190,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1997, $15,258,000,000 in fiscal year 1998, and 
     $14,818,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.
       (2) Committee on Ways and Means shall report changes in law 
     within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues as 
     follows: $6,706,000,000 in fiscal year 1995, $21,012,000,000 
     in fiscal year 1996, $22,489,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, 
     $29,972,000,000 in fiscal year 1998, and $39,154,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1999.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET ON SCORING HEALTH 
                   REFORM.

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

     SEC. 6. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING RESERVE FUNDS FOR 
                   EMERGENCIES.

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

     SEC. 7. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNFUNDED MANDATES.

       (a) It is the sense of Congress that legislation and 
     appropriate House and Senate rules amendments should be 
     adopted that--
       (1) requires the Congressional Budget Office to estimate 
     the cost of unfunded Federal mandates in all legislation 
     before such legislation is considered by a full committee or 
     by the full House or Senate;
       (2) prohibits consideration in the House or Senate of 
     legislation creating or expanding a Federal mandate that 
     increases the net cost to State and local governments of 
     complying with all Federal mandates (subject to a waiver by a 
     three-fifths majority);
       (3) charges the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget with 
     monitoring all unfunded Federal mandates and identifying 
     those mandates that should be repealed; and
       (4) codifies the recommendations of the National 
     Performance Review for broad agency waiver authority and 
     bottom-up grant consolidation.

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING REGULATORY BUDGETING.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that the cost of 
     compliance with Federal regulations--
       (1) constitutes a real, albeit an invisible, tax on 
     America's private and public sectors;
       (2) will cost the American private sector over 
     $600,000,000,000 in 1995; and
       (3) will exceed 9 percent of the Nation's Gross Domestic 
     Product and annually cost the average household between 
     $6,565 and $8,869.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the Federal Government should adopt a regulatory budget 
     that encompasses the economic impact of Federal regulations 
     on the national economy. The ultimate goal of the regulatory 
     budget should be to limit the cost of private and public 
     compliance with Federal regulations to a fixed percentage of 
     the Nation's Gross Domestic Product.

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING BASELINES.

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

     SEC. 10. ADJUSTMENT OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO SCORECARD.

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Sabo] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the budget offered 
by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  The Kasich budget resolution moves this Nation in the right 
direction, and for the most part, is consistent with the pressing need 
for our Nation to regain its prominence in the global economy.
  I would commend to my colleagues, attention a series of articles in 
the New York Times this week on ``Staying Afloat in the 1990's.'' It is 
an excellent analysis of the fears and frustrations facing the American 
middle class, and I would ask that these articles be included in the 
Record as part of my statement. They are the stories of young college 
graduates who cannot find jobs, let alone good ones, and of hard-
working Americans who see their jobs evaporating, next week or next 
year. These people rightfully see themselves falling, ever more 
rapidly, from the middle class. We must take action to reverse these 
trends.

  The Kasich budget moves to get our fiscal house in order so that this 
generation of Americans and the next can confidently look forward to a 
future of good jobs at good pay, and a rightful place in a growing and 
economically secure middle class.
  No, I don't agree with every detail of this budget. For example, I 
strongly oppose the $500 tax credit per child, for those with $200,000 
per year incomes. If a deduction is included at all, there should be an 
income cap to target the deductions for middle-income families. But 
this can be taken up in the tax bill and appropriately targeted.
  I also do not agree that cuts and adjusted means testing of higher 
income seniors and Medicare should be defined today. This needs much 
more work, and a much more thorough examination. Moreover, it should 
only be done, if at all, in the context of health care reform that 
preserves Medicare, and expands coverage for prescription drugs and 
extended care.
  Nevertheless, the Kasich budget has great merit. It puts into 
concrete responsible spending and tax policies, and an economic 
blueprint for the country.
  Our deficit and profligate spending ways are undermining our economy, 
both short-term and long-term. In other words, as I have repeated time 
after time over recent years like a mantra: We need to save and invest 
in America.


                       save and invest in america

  Saving and investing in America is all about improving our economy 
and international competitiveness, enabling Americans to get quality 
jobs, and continued deficit reduction.
  The fact is the Kasich substitute incorporates many of the very ideas 
I have so vigorously supported, including full deductibility for IRA's, 
a neutral cost recovery system, and an extension of the R&D tax credit. 
It is measures like these that will encourage U.S. business to invest 
in new plants and equipment to become more competitive in the ongoing 
global economic wars.


                  deficit reduction/truth-in-budgeting

  The Republican budget package provides real deficit reduction. The 
Kasich substitute would reduce the deficit by roughly $310 billion over 
5 years. I am also pleased that this plan, unlike the President's 
budget, incorporates the cost of reforming our Nation's health care 
system, welfare reform, and crime control. Admittedly, these subjects 
are complex and the estimates we include are subject to close reviews 
legislatively. But it remains that if we are to be intellectually 
honest about our spending priorities, we must have truth in budgeting, 
and at least acknowledge some cost of these efforts now. The American 
public has told Congress that these important issues are their top 
priority. Now it is the Congress' job to give these issues top priority 
in the budget.
  Every Member of this body supports health care reform, although we 
may disagree as to how our Nation's health care system should be 
reformed. However, it is irresponsible for the Sabo substitute 
amendment to ignore the substantial budgetary impact of health care 
reform. If Congress is really serious about enacted comprehensive 
health care reform, we should be building the necessary funding into 
the fiscal year 1995 budget right now. Once again, only the Republican 
substitute amendments budget for health care reform.


                           health care reform

  The Republican budget resolution, in stark contrast to that offered 
by the majority, includes funding for health care reform, notably 
comprehensive health insurance reform, and the provisions of H.R. 3080, 
the Affordable Health Care Now Act of 1993.
  I am a cosponsor of this legislation, introduced by Republican leader 
Bob Michel. The Michel bill represents a solid first step toward 
comprehensive health care reform. Foremost, H.R. 3080 would enact 
comprehensive health insurance reform, restricting insurance companies' 
ability to deny coverage for preexisting conditions; ability to deny 
coverage for preexisting conditions; requiring insurers to enroll 
applicants regardless of health status; and limiting premium increases 
through community rating.
  In addition, the Michel bill includes comprehensive medical 
malpractice reform; an expanded use of small employer health insurance 
purchasing pools; administrative simplification; and and expansion of 
Medicaid to cover more low-income individuals. Each of these 
provisions, which enjoy broad support, is funded in this budget.
  Moreover, the health care funding provisions in this budget addresses 
the most glaring problems of our system, and can improve the lives and 
health care of millions of Americans, without radical restructuring of 
our health care system, vast increases in spending and taxes, and 
decimation of our Medicare Program.


                             welfare reform

  The Kasich substitute also includes funding for the comprehensive 
welfare reform provisions offered by House Republicans.
  The funding contained for the welfare reform provisions in this bill 
reaffirm our fundamental belief that we must enact reform based on 
individual responsibility. Furthermore, welfare reform must restore our 
public assistance system to its original purpose: A temporary safety 
net for those in need--not a permanent way of life or web of 
dependency.

  Foremost, our legislation would limit welfare benefits to 2 years--
after that time, welfare recipients would have to work for their check. 
Furthermore, our bill would require welfare recipients to enroll in job 
training and education programs designed to get them off welfare; allow 
States to eliminate separate AFDC benefits for families with parents 
under age 18; require under-age children to be attending school 
regularly; and finally, eliminate welfare benefits for illegal aliens 
and other noncitizens.
  This budget also includes funding for the bipartisan Roukema 
amendment, which would require women, as a condition of receiving a 
welfare check from the government, to have their children vaccinated 
and up to date on their immunizations, and greatly restricts the 
ability of States to increase AFDC benefits for additional children 
born to mothers already on welfare.
  This budget tells mothers already on welfare that if they decide to 
have another child, the Federal Government will not subsidize that 
choice. Or as one supporter put it: Welfare families must be faced with 
the same tough choices every working American makes--can we afford 
another child, and how will we make our budget meet these choices?
  Finally, this budget resolution makes a down payment on what must be 
the most crucial element of welfare reform, effective child support 
enforcement. Too many parents fail to pay court-ordered child support, 
neglecting their legal and financial obligation to their children. 
Failure to pay timely support ultimately pushes families into our 
welfare system, and the taxpayer picks up the tab for these deadbeat 
dads and sometimes moms. By improving our child support system, we can 
take action as welfare prevention.

  I have introduced a comprehensive child support enforcement reform 
bill (H.R. 1600) which largely tracks the recommendations of the U.S. 
Commission on Interstate Child Support Enforcement. The funding in this 
budget for welfare reform incorporates some of these provisions, 
including increased paternity establishment initiatives; a national W-4 
reporting form for child support obligors; and increased access to the 
national computer networks for locating and dunning deadbeat parents.
  More must be done in this critical, welfare prevention, effort. But 
this budget resolution takes solid first steps toward the comprehensive 
reform of our child support enforcement system which must be central to 
the welfare reform debate.


                             crime control

  Finally, this budget provides funding for one of the most critical 
issues facing Americans today: crime control.
  Our crime situation is out of control, and in need of urgent action. 
Citizens are not safe in their homes, and children can not work to 
school or play in the yard without fear of mounting crime and violence.
  Clearly, we must act now to control crime, and close the revolving 
door of justice that puts criminals back on the streets. Our laws must 
act to punish the criminal, and safeguard law-abiding citizens. We must 
take back our streets.
  This budget does exactly that, fully funding the comprehensive 
Republican anticrime bill. This budget resolution includes $2 billion 
for more cops on the beat, and $3 billion for Federal-State 
partnerships for building new prisons.
  If we are to be serious about three strikes and you're out sentencing 
reforms--which the public demands of us--we must make good on the 
commitment to providing more police to enforce the laws, and more 
prisons to house violent criminals. This budget does that.
  If we are to do more than just talk about crime, we must adopt this 
budget today, providing the funding, then enact the comprehensive 
anticrime bill which Democratic leaders have refused to allow on the 
floor of the House.


                               conclusion

  In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget resolution represents 
the much needed policy reforms and budgetary thinking that will start 
us down the road toward genuine deficit reduction and economic growth. 
We owe it to the American people to take these important steps to 
regain our national economic footing. We must get our fiscal house in 
order so that this generation of Americans and the next can confidently 
look toward a future of good jobs at good pay and a rightful place in a 
growing and economically secure middle class.
  Support the Kasich amendment.

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 10, 1994]

           Low Pay and Closed Doors Greet Young in Job Market

                            (By Tamar Lewin)

       Kansas City, Mo.--Andrew Flenoy has ironed his white shirt 
     until there are sharp creases down the sleeves. His hands are 
     folded in his lap, his back is ramrod straight, and his feet 
     jiggle nervously as he begins his fifth job interview in as 
     many weeks--this one at Sprint, the long-distance telephone 
     company that is Kansas City's largest employer.
       Mr. Flenoy, 21, comes across as nervous and sweetly sincere 
     as he tells the interviewer how much he wants the $17,274-a-
     year job selling long-distance service.
       Mr. Flenoy, a high school graduate who completed a year-
     and-a-half training course at a business trade school, is 
     scrambling for a foothold in a work world that has turned 
     inside out. Even in an economy that has created three million 
     new jobs in the last three years, career positions--the old-
     fashioned jobs offering benefits, vacation, and room for 
     advancement--are increasingly hard to come by.


                              hard reality

       For millions of people across the country, young and old, 
     economists' predictions of the late 1980's have now hardened 
     into the reality of daily life. While there are still plenty 
     of good jobs for computer engineers, nurses and others whose 
     skills fit the changing economy, other workers have had to 
     reconcile themselves to a job market that has little use for 
     them.
       The recovery started almost three years ago in this 
     heartland metropolis of 1.6 million people. In its 
     demographic makeup and economic indicators, Kansas City 
     closely mirrors the national average--and these days, it is a 
     perfect exemplar of the profound changes that have 
     transformed the American workplace for young workers like Mr. 
     Flenoy, including these:
       Once reliable employers like T.W.A. and Sears have dumped 
     workers, and executives with master's degrees remain as 
     vulnerable to layoffs as productionline assemblers. The 
     unskilled castoffs of shrinking industries, used to earning 
     $20 an hour, are finding that the new labor market offers 
     them no more than $6. Many now work two or three jobs, 
     without matching their former salary or benefits.
       Temporary jobs are at their highest levels ever. There are 
     24.4 million part-time and temporary workers, representing 22 
     percent of employed Americans. In Overland Park, Kan., a 
     well-off suburb of Kansas City, one branch office of 
     Manpower Inc., a large temporary employment agency, filled 
     out 4,500 W-2 forms in 1993 for employees who had worked 
     anywhere from a day to a full year--30 percent more than 
     the previous year.
       For some skilled workers, the increasing flexibility of the 
     work world is a boon, allowing them to change jobs at will, 
     work when and how much they want, and earn more as employers 
     compete for them. This group includes not only the computer 
     engineers and other bastions of the changing economy, but 
     also electricians and other blue-collar workers whose skills 
     remain in demand.
       With the layoffs of so many men whose paychecks once kept 
     the family afloat, women are not merely bolstering household 
     incomes--their salaries have become essential to maintaining 
     a tenuous grasp on a middle-class life style. And even though 
     women streamed into the work force during the 1980's, the 
     median household income in Kansas City was $31,637 in 1980 
     but had slipped to $31,613 by 1990.
       While the public's perceptions of the national economy may 
     have improved in recent months, Americans' insecurity about 
     their own jobs is substantial and widespread, according to 
     The New York Times Poll. Two-fifths of the work force voiced 
     worry that during the next two years they might be laid off 
     or forced to take pay cuts. And in the last two years, 24 
     percent said that in the last two years they have personally 
     experienced layoffs, pay cuts or reductions in hours, 
     according to the poll, taken in mid-February.
       For economists and workers alike, the big question is 
     whether the recovery will eventually spur the creation of 
     plenty of good new jobs. Some experts say that is bound to 
     happen, now that the explosive growth of temporary jobs has 
     flattened.
       But others say the American work force has undergone such 
     basic structural changes that many high-paying jobs--from 
     factory foremen to office supervisors and professionals--are 
     gone for good.


              their market--amid a recovery, more layoffs

       Whatever the future, the ``downsizings'' and 
     ``rightsizings'' that began in the recession are continuing, 
     as the largest companies here, as elsewhere, keep pruning 
     payrolls in 100- and 1,000-worker sweeps.
       Last year, Sears Roebuck here closed a distribution center, 
     leaving more than a thousand people jobless. Other companies 
     have also shrunk their work forces, including Marion Merrell 
     Dow, a pharmaceutical company; Allied Signal Inc., which 
     makes nuclear bomb parts here; Hallmark Cards, renowned 
     around town as a benevolent employer; Colgate-Palmolive and 
     A.T.&T.
       Even a young, growing company like Sprint, with 9,000 local 
     workers and 50,400 nationwide, had a round of layoffs in 
     August cutting 1,000 workers nationwide, 120 of them in 
     Kansas City. Overall, the telecommunications industry laid 
     off 60,000 workers in the country last year.
       Certainly some businesses are adding full-time, well-paying 
     jobs with good benefits. Twentieth Century Services Inc., a 
     mutual fund company here, has seen its work force grow from 
     fewer than 300 eight years ago, to 1,900 now, and there are 
     plans to add 300 to 400 this year.
       Transamerica Life Insurance and Annuity Company of Los 
     Angeles is moving 500 jobs here, and hundreds of small 
     businesses are picking up abandoned workers and keeping the 
     unemployment rate down to 5.4 percent last year, below the 
     national average of 6.8 percent. And at least one employer, 
     Ford, is adding people to its 4,000-worker plant to make the 
     new Contour and Mercury Mystique, the successors to the Ford 
     Tempo and Mercury Topaz.
       But new jobs are not coming on stream the way they did 
     after previous recessions. Frank Lenk, the senior economist 
     at the Mid-America Regional Council here, calculates that in 
     the three years since the last recession ended, the Kansas 
     City region has gained about 20,000 jobs--compared with 
     93,000 jobs created after the previous down-turn in the early 
     1980's.


                 Their Jobs--$6 an Hour, 7 Days a Week

       To their bitter disappointment, Mr. Flenoy and most other 
     young workers are finding that ``McJobs''--jobs that pay $6 
     an hour or less, and offer little in the way of a career 
     path--are about the only openings around.
       ``It just seems really difficult for my generation,'' said 
     Mr. Flenoy, the oldest of six children in a rural Arkansas 
     family.
       Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics confirm that 
     impression: in the last decade, the average wage has fallen 5 
     percent, adjusted for inflation. And median full-time weekly 
     earnings for those aged 20 to 24, expressed in 1982 dollars, 
     dropped to $199 in 1993, from $215 in 1989.
       While some young people with specialized skills--those with 
     training in fields like nursing--have employers clamoring for 
     their services, most others have a string of disappointments 
     to recount.
       Some are mailing dozens of resumes a month, and getting 
     nothing but form-letter rejections. Others wonder why, with 
     more education than their parents, they still cannot find 
     work anywhere near as stable or well-paying as their parents 
     have.
       Reese Isbell is one of the lucky ones: He found work he 
     liked just a month after graduating from the University of 
     Missouri-Kansas City in 1992.
       But these days, even lucky young people are likely to land 
     in part-time jobs, if not internships or temporary 
     assignments.
       ``I had an internship my last semester of college, working 
     20 hours a week in the public affairs office at Planned 
     Parenthood, and I really liked it,'' said Mr. Isbell, who was 
     a sociology major. ``My father couldn't believe I would have 
     any trouble getting a job when I graduated. He thought there 
     would be all kinds of people recruiting me. But there 
     weren't. I went to a temporary agency, and got a data entry 
     job, but I hated it so much that I quit after two days.''
       So, Mr. Isbell leapt at the chance for a paid job at 
     Planned Parenthood--still 20 hours a week, but now earning $8 
     an hour. To make ends meet, he also took a $7-an-hour weekend 
     job as an admitting clerk at a hospital, a position he has 
     kept even as the Planned Parenthood job expanded to 30 hours, 
     and soon, to full time.
       ``I'm working seven days a week but I know I'm really 
     lucky, and it wouldn't have happened without the 
     internship,'' Mr. Isbell said. ``My father is a computer 
     programmer, which used to be a shoo-in, but a couple years 
     ago he lost his job and was out there pounding the pavement 
     at the age of 40.''


              Their Prospects--When College Is Not Enough

       ``Reality Bites,'' the current movie hit about 
     twentysomethings, reflected young workers' profound 
     uneasiness about their job prospects. The heroine graduates 
     as valedictorian of her college class, then is promptly 
     dismissed from a television job where she had been warned 
     that she could be replaced by an unpaid intern. Her boyfriend 
     has been dismissed from 12 jobs, and she says, is ``on the 
     inside track to Nowheresville, U.S.A.''
       Her mother urges her to get a job at a burger place. Her 
     best friend tries to recruit her to work at the Gap--and is 
     offended when she says she is not interested. And when she 
     applies for media jobs, she is rejected as overqualified at 
     one, underqualified at the next.
       ``It all sounded very familiar,'' said Dan Wulf, a graduate 
     of Wesleyan University in Connecticut who came to Kansas City 
     a year and a half ago to set up a summer program for 
     children. He now works as a secretary at the University of 
     Kansas Medical Center during the week, and at Kinko's copy 
     center from 2 P.M. to 11 P.M. on weekends. On Sunday 
     mornings, he teaches Hebrew school.
       He and Mr. Isbell have both concluded that to get more 
     challenging jobs--and avoid seven-day workweeks--they will 
     have to go to graduate school.
       ``We're getting more college graduates than we are college-
     level jobs,'' said Dan Hecker of the labor statistics bureau. 
     ``About 20 percent of the college graduates end up in non-
     college-level jobs.''
       The number of college graduates working as street vendors 
     or door-to-door salespeople grew from 57,000 in 1983 to 
     75,000 in 1990, the last year the statistics were compiled, 
     according to the bureau. In the same period, the number of 
     truck or bus drivers with college degrees grew from 99,000 to 
     166,000.


                        From Carhop to Paralegal

       For those without college degrees, the struggle for a good 
     job is even tougher: Renda Rush married at 17 and had her 
     first child the following year. She began working as a carhop 
     at Sonic Drive-In two years later and stayed there--with 
     breaks for the birth of two more children--until the end of 
     1992.
       What started me thinking was seeing a lot of high school 
     girls, home for the summer, working at Sonic,'' said Ms. 
     Rush, now 26. ``Then in the fall, they'd go on to college, or 
     whatever, and I'd still be there. And I finally thought, 
     they're moving on and I've been here five years, I've got 
     kids, and I'll be left behind forever if I don't do something 
     about it.''
       Ms. Rush went back to school, choosing a two-year paralegal 
     training program at Penn Valley Community College. And she is 
     on her way to a career: She started as a receptionist at a 
     personal-injury lawyer's office, but is now doing paralegal 
     work too.
       Ms. Rush, who earned $4.85 an hour at Sonic, earns $7 an 
     hour, with the understanding that her pay will rise when she 
     gets her degree later this year.


                 Their Fallback--A Generation Of Temps

       In the recession, many employers, here and elsewhere, tried 
     to keep their costs low by increasing their use of part-
     timers and temporaries, who work only during busy periods and 
     usually get no benefits.
       According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
     employment with temporary agencies accounted for 15 percent 
     of the new jobs created last year and 26 percent the year 
     before--compared with less than 3 percent of the new jobs 
     created in 1989.
       In dozens of interviews with young workers in Kansas City, 
     temping seemed to be an almost universal experience: Mr. Wulf 
     had a weeklong job in a real estate office through a 
     temporary agency; Mr. Isbell had his data-entry job, and Mr. 
     Flenoy did a market-research project surveying theater-goers.
       And for some young people it becomes a way of life. For a 
     year and half now, Cabrenna Clark, 24, has been working for 
     Kelly Services, a temporary employment agency, earning about 
     $6 an hour, plus some overtime. But every six months, she 
     sends out a round of resumes for the business jobs she 
     covets.
       ``I work every day, and there always seems to be another 
     assignment when one ends,'' said Ms. Clark, who has completed 
     a year and a half of college and plans to return later this 
     year. ``I've had a couple places call me back as a temp. But 
     it seems like right now, people are more interested in 
     working with temps than hiring for permanent jobs.''
       Ms. Clark said her parents, both civil servants--her mother 
     working for the state, her father for the Federal 
     Government--tell her she is wasting her time working as a 
     temp.
       ``I don't think they understand how hard the job market 
     is,'' she said. ``If you're in Kansas City, and you're not in 
     medicine or telecommunications or the military, you can just 
     forget it. Temping is what I can do right now.''
       For Mr. Flenoy, what started as a temporary job has become 
     more permanent than he ever intended. He was hired as a 
     temporary dishwasher at Myron Green, a Kansas City company 
     that runs cafeterias and catering in offices and schools. 
     After 90 days, he was offered a permanent dishwashing job, 
     for 5.50 an hour, then was quickly promoted to cafeteria line 
     server ($5.75), grill cook ($6.00) and catering manager 
     ($6.25).
       Mr. Flenoy, the first in the family to go beyond a high 
     school education, has come tantalizingly close to several 
     good permanent jobs in the last two months. He was almost 
     hired as a secretary-administrator for a church, and was one 
     of the two final candidates for a corporate data-entry job.
       But the Sprint job was the one he coveted, both because it 
     paid more than the others, and because the company offers a 
     generous benefit plan including tuition reimbursement that 
     Mr. Flenoy hoped to use to further his education.
       At the interview at Sprint, Mr. Flenoy began to relax as 
     the recruiter, Mary Reiter, worked through her list of 
     printed questions, asking him to talk about a time he tried 
     hard and failed, a time he was too persistent, how he knows 
     if he has done a good job. Ms. Reiter smiled encouragingly as 
     Mr. Flenoy told about making a special effort to arrange a 
     beautiful food tray; and thinking he had done a spectacular 
     job--until he heard the customers' reactions.
       ``Normally in interviews when they ask questions, I'm 
     completely blank, but this time it just flowed along,'' Mr. 
     Flenoy said after the interview.
       But a good interview was not enough: on Sprint's multiple-
     choice telemarketing aptitude exam, Mr. Flenoy scored too low 
     to win another interview. So for the time being, he must stay 
     at the food-service job.
       ``I'll do it as long as I have to,'' Mr. Flenoy said one 
     recent morning, as he took a break from arranging a taco-bar 
     luncheon. ``But I really want some kind of business job. My 
     resolution for 1994 is that if nothing comes along, I'll 
     relocate and start from scratch somewhere else.''.
       Mr. Flenoy said he knew from the time he was in high school 
     that he wanted to leave Marianna, Ark., where his only job 
     prospect seemed to be packing cotton or farming. He always 
     wanted a career in business. After a semester at a community 
     college, he moved to Kansas City, where he had relatives, and 
     attended Wright Business School in the mornings, while 
     working in the evenings.
       Now he is tired of the burgundy and black uniform he must 
     wear, and of the sense that he works every day from 6 A.M. to 
     2 P.M. just to earn enough money so that he can come back and 
     work some more the next day.
       But he does not tell his family how disheartened he is. He 
     does not want to discourage his younger siblings.
       ``I'm trying my best to be very, very positive for them,'' 
     he said.
                                  ____


               [From the New York Times, March 11, 1994]

        Family Struggles To Make Do After Fall From Middle Class

                           (By Dirk Johnson)

       Kansas City, MO.--With two cars in the garage and a swing 
     set in the backyard, Craig Miller and his family fell easily 
     into the suburban rhythms of Johnson County.
       He was a sheet-metal worker for T.W.A. His middle-class 
     status was stamped on the pay stub: $15.65 an hour. And the 
     shopping mall clerks didn't care if the paying customer wore 
     steel-toe boots or tasseled loafers.
       But the airline was troubled, and it laid Mr. Miller off in 
     the summer of 1992. When he began to search for another job, 
     he quickly learned the market value of a blue-collar worker 
     with a strong back and a good work ethic but few special 
     skills: about $5 an hour.
       Mr. Miller, a 37-year-old father of four, now works behind 
     the counter in a McDonald's hustling orders for Quarter 
     Pounders and chicken fajitas and deferring to teen-age 
     customers with ``Yes, sir'' and ``Thank you, ma'am.''
       Mr. Miller also drives a school bus. And on the side he has 
     started a small business, changing furnace filters. He 
     printed up cards for the venture, ``Sani-Max,'' but there has 
     not been much demand for his service.
       For the last eight years his wife, Susan, 34, has worked 
     part time as a stock clerk at Toys R Us at night, when her 
     husband can watch the children. She recently got a raise and 
     now makes $5.95 an hour.
       In most ways, the nation's economy seems to be racing 
     ahead, evident here in the spiffy shops of Country Club Plaza 
     and the big new crop of $200,000 houses sprouting in the corn 
     fields on the outskirts of town.


                        new jobs, but not enough

       Throughout the country, some two million new jobs were 
     created last year. But for people like Craig and Susan 
     Miller, who lack college degrees as well as coveted skills, 
     the statistics on an increasing number of jobs offer little 
     comfort.
       ``Sure, we've got four of them,'' Mr. Miller said, managing 
     a chuckle. ``So what? So you can work like a dog for $5 an 
     hour.''
       In nearly three years since the 1990-91 recession, 
     employers nationwide have taken on three million workers, but 
     that is less than half as many as they hired after the 1981-
     82 recession. And many of the new jobs are part time or 
     temporary.
       At the same time, the number of manufacturing jobs has 
     fallen 8.3 percent from 1989 through February 1994. Tens of 
     thousands of jobs have moved abroad; advances in technology 
     have taken others.
       As the Millers gaze into the future from their brick-and-
     frame house in Overland Park, Kan., they see an employment 
     landscape shaped like a barbell. At one end are bankers and 
     lawyers and accountants exulting in the high-flying stock 
     market; at the other end are countermen at fast-food 
     franchises and clerks at big discount stores struggling to 
     pay the bills. The solid, working-class middle ground, where 
     the Millers once stood, has meanwhile grown narrow--and 
     slippery.
       Counting all their part-time jobs, the Millers will make 
     about $18,000 this year, less than half what Mr. Miller 
     earned as a union sheet-metal worker. They have found the 
     fall difficult to fathom, and even harder to accept. They 
     could probably qualify for food stamps but refuse to consider 
     applying. ``We're middle-class people,'' Mr. Miller said. 
     ``It's just that we have a lower-class income,''


                           the daily routine

       The work day starts in darkness. Mr. Miller, an Army 
     veteran, crawls out of bed about 6 A.M., careful not to wake 
     his youngest child, 3-year-old Amanda, who shares her 
     parent's bedroom. By 7 A.M. he is behind the wheel of a 
     school bus, stopping and going along tree-lined suburban 
     streets of Overland Park. He will do it again in the late 
     afternoon. The daily pay is $35, no benefits.
       After completing the morning bus route, he stops back at 
     his house to change into his blue McDonald's uniform with his 
     ``Craig'' name-plate pinned onto it. His restaurant job 
     starts at 9:30 A.M., in a strip mall on Highway 69.
       The pay in a fast-food restaurant is low, but the work is 
     relentless. customers are often lined up six deep. Mr. 
     Miller, a man who once fixed dents in the fuselages of jets 
     and felt pride in his craft whenever a plane soared overhead, 
     darts between the counter and the food pickup shelf, back and 
     forth, a hundred times a day, careful not to misfill an 
     order.
       In the slower moments, he comes around the counter, dips a 
     mop in a bucket and drags it across the floor. With the 
     customers, he always tries to wear a polite smile, but he 
     doesn't always meet their eyes.
       ``I still have some pride, you know,'' he said. ``But what 
     am I going to do? I think the needs of my children are a 
     little more important than my ego.''
       When he took the job, Mr. Miller expected to be the oldest 
     worker at McDonald's. He was surprised to find several people 
     past 30.
       Still wearing the McDonald's uniform, he climbs back in the 
     school bus at 2:30 P.M. for the afternoon run. About 5, he 
     arrives home.
       Dinner is served right away, often pasta with ground 
     turkey. The Millers never buy beef anymore.
       Just before 6, Mrs. Miller leaves for her job, six hours of 
     bending and lifting to stock the shelves with toys. It will 
     be midnight by the time she returns home. She also works one 
     day a week at the same McDonald's as her husband.


                           battle with bills

       Every time the telephone rings, the Millers instinctively 
     fear that a bill collector is calling. They are $3,000 behind 
     in medical bills. Mrs. Miller's part-time job provides health 
     benefits, with the company paying 80 percent of medical bills 
     and the employee 20 percent. But with four children, even 
     paying just 20 percent adds up. And one child recently had 
     surgery.
       When a bill collector got huffy on the phone the other day, 
     Mrs. Miller told him wearily, ``Oh, get in line.''
       The couple buy one newspaper a week, for the food coupons, 
     and only one light burns in the house at a time. When a child 
     forgets to flip off the switch, Mrs. Miller chides gently: 
     ``Have you got stock in the electric company? Well, neither 
     do I.''
       Not so long ago, such worries would have seemed absurd. The 
     Millers were saving so they could exchange their rented house 
     for one of their own. At backyard barbecues and church 
     picnics they moved comfortably in a social circle that 
     included college graduates, people who wore suits to work and 
     were therefore deemed ``professional'' but who often earned 
     no more than the Millers.
       When a child in school boasted of a parent who was a doctor 
     or a lawyer, 7-year-old Peter Miller was known to reply, ``My 
     daddy can fix planes so they can fly high in the sky.''
       A quarter century ago, Mr. Miller remembers feeling the 
     same kind of pride in his own blue-collar father. But the 
     rules and rewards were simple then: if a man wasn't afraid to 
     sweat, he could succeed.
       Mr. Miller had watched his father make good on the bargain, 
     factory worker who provided a two-story house, a decent 
     savings account and summer vacations to the California 
     redwoods and Yellowstone National Park.


                            I miss it a lot

       That was the kind of life that Mr. Miller had always 
     planned for his own family. But now there doesn't seem to be 
     much point in even talking about it.
       ``Oh, yeah, I miss it a lot,'' he said, referring to the 
     old job, and perhaps to the old rules.
       He clings to the hope that the fortunes of T.W.A. will 
     improve and that the company will then re-call him and others 
     who were laid off.
       One recent evening, Mr. Miller pulled out some old work 
     tools, grasping them in hands that are now much smoother, and 
     explained the purpose of each.
       On the floor next to the sofa was a two-year-old airline 
     magazine, with a cover article titled, ``How to make good 
     landings.'' On the wall, an art print carried a quote from 
     Isaiah: ``We grope for the wall like the blind.''
       Mr. Miller doesn't care to talk much about McDonald's. He 
     sat in the living room with a visitor for two hours one 
     evening, never taking off the jacket that covered his 
     McDonald's shirt. Finally, for a brief moment, he unsnapped 
     the buttons to reveal the uniform.
       ``There, you see it,'' he said, with a blush of 
     embarrassment and perhaps a glint of rage. Then he closed the 
     jacket again.


                           Sad Stories Abound

       Now and then, Mr. Miller checks with some of his old 
     buddies from the T.W.A. hangar, men who used to talk about 
     rushing yardage and batting averages on coffee breaks. Now 
     they share rumors about the latest threatened corporate 
     `'downsizing.''
       One of the men, Joe Tomczuk, could not find a job that paid 
     more than $6 an hour. He moved back home with his parents, at 
     age 39, and wondered if he should abandon the hope of ever 
     getting married and starting a family.
       ``Women are just like me; they want security,'' Mr. Tomczuk 
     said. ``What are they going to see in me?''
       Another former colleague is now a janitor in a 
     school.Others seem to have disappeared.
       In the months after T.W.A. laid off several hundred workers 
     like Mr. Miller, some marriages collapsed. Alcohol took a 
     toll. And union officials say perhaps a dozen men peered into 
     the bleakness of the future and committed suicide.
       Mr. Miller said some friends had encouraged him to move to 
     a city where good blue collar jobs were more plentiful. But 
     where was that? Even at this father's old factory, in 
     Muscatine, Iowa, a ketchup plant, technology was phasing out 
     workers.


                      Keeping Up for the Children

       But moving is simply not an option. The Millers' eldest 
     child, 11-year-old Jeremiah, has several learning 
     disabilities but has been making significant progress, which 
     his parents credit to the top-notch teachers at the affluent 
     Blue Valley School District. The couple will not consider 
     risking Jeremiah's future in a mediocre school; nor are they 
     willing to put him through the emotional strain of starting 
     over in strange surroundings even if the schools were 
     superior.
       ``We try not to tell the kids too much,'' Mr. Miller said. 
     ``This belongs on our shoulders, not theirs.''
       But some things are difficult to avoid. Not long ago, 
     Jeremiah asked if he could take his friends to a restaurant 
     for his birthday, a custom with many children at his school.
       ``We'll have to talk about that,'' Mr. Miller told the boy.
       Mrs. Miller glanced toward the children and shook her head.
       ``I hope they choose their careers carefully,'' she said 
     later. ``Everything is geared to the college people anymore. 
     If your job isn't sitting in front of a computer, watch 
     out.''
       Mrs. Miller said she and her husband should have seen the 
     writing on the wall. But when times were good, they seemed 
     like they would last forever. Now she has scant hope that 
     those days will ever return.
       ``For people like us,'' she said, ``I'm afraid the good 
     time are gone for good.''

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
Republican leader, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel].
  (Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, my finest compliments to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and all the members on our side on the 
Committee on the Budget. Last year they acquitted themselves in fine 
fashion, coming up with facts and figures and a very credible budget. 
The same applies for their work product this year. That is why I rise 
in strong support of the budget offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich], which we in the Republican leadership adopted as our official 
position. Once again, they provided us with a credible and complete 
budget proposal.
  Let me give the Members the three major reasons why I support this 
budget. First, it is a complete one. The Democratic leadership budget 
makes some adjustments to the discretionary portion of the budget, but 
that is only one-third of the budget controlled by the appropriation 
process.
  What about health care reform and welfare reform? The Democratic 
leadership tells us we will be dealing with them this year sometime. 
How come they are not in the budget? Not even Sherlock Holmes, 
Lieutenant Colombo, or the entire cast of ``L.A. Law'' could find a 
single clue in the Democratic leadership budget as to how these 
initiatives will be financed.
  The Kasich budget, on the other hand, reflects the priorities and 
initiatives that we Republicans seek to further this year, and details 
exactly how those initiatives would be financed.
  Are the Members looking for specific health care, welfare reform, and 
crime control proposals? They will find them in the Kasich budget.
  What about reforming foreign aid or a family tax credit? They will 
find them in the Kasich budget.
  Do they seek specific information on which lower priority programs 
must be reduced? They will find it in the Kasich budget.
  The second major reason for supporting the Kasich budget is this: It 
is the only budget alternative that contains a more realistic level of 
defense funding. The Democratic defense figures are not sufficient to 
fund even their own defense program, as determined by their own Defense 
Department's recent Bottom-Up Review. If they will not take their own 
program seriously enough to fund it, then what are the rest of us 
supposed to be thinking?
  Furthermore, the Democratic budget figures do not support a full 
military pay raise, as we do.
  Finally, the Kasich budget provides approximately $150 billion more 
in deficit reduction over the next 5 years, when the Kasich budget is 
adopted and implemented. A real budget with real savings, is that not a 
refreshing idea? Compare it with a Democratic leadership budget that 
has as many holes in it as the New York Mets' infield.
  The Kasich budget is a reality. The Democratic budget is only virtual 
reality. I would urge my colleagues to vote for the only real budget in 
town, as exemplified and reflected by the good work and handicraft of 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and his colleagues on the 
Republican side of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kasich 
substitute. This substitute is bad medicine for our health care 
programs. It cuts Medicare, it cuts biomedical research, it cuts 
immunizations, it cuts substance abuse treatment, it cuts women's 
health initiatives.
  The substitute is designed, I want the Members to understand, to 
embarrass the President of the United States by enacting in this budget 
the Michel alternative to the health care proposal that the President 
has submitted to us. It would do that by putting in this bill the so-
called Michel substitute, even though the bill has never been referred 
to the Committee on the Budget and has not yet been reported out of the 
committees that have jurisdiction.
  However, this substitute does more than try to trick us into a health 
care proposal that does not provide universal coverage. The substitute 
would shift an additional $30 billion in out-of-pocket costs onto 
Medicare beneficiaries over the next 5 years. It would cut Medicare 
payments to teaching hospitals by $13.5 billion over the next 5 years.
  The Kasich substitute would propose almost $30 billion in new out-of-
pocket costs on Medicare beneficiaries, and would do this by imposing 
coinsurance requirements for home health care and clinical lab 
services. It is true that some of the proposals in Medicare cuts are 
also in the President's bill, but look at the context. The President's 
bill would use some of those savings for pharmaceutical drug coverage 
for the elderly, for some home health care services for them as well. 
That is what they would get in exchange for these proposals under the 
President's health care reform, but in exchange for these higher cost-
sharing requirements, what do Medicare beneficiaries get under the 
Kasich substitute? Nothing, except for higher out-of-pocket costs if 
they do get sick and happen to need home health care or laboratory 
services.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Kasich substitute would reduce the 
Medicare indirect teaching adjustments from 7.7 to 3 percent, taking 
$13.5 billion away from teaching hospitals bearing the responsibility 
for caring for the uninsured.
  Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, a vote for this substitute is a vote 
against the President, a vote against the elderly, a vote against 
teaching hospitals, and a vote against universal coverage for health 
care for our people.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Kasich substitute.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the very distinguished gentleman who just 
spoke represents the 29th District of California, and I would like him 
to know that under the Kasich budget his district would get $31.1 
million worth of family tax relief.
  The Kasich substitute, Mr. Chairman, represents more than sound 
budgeting. It represents sound social policy as well.
  It is high time that Congress understands that the Federal budget 
must be thought of in terms of people's priorities because we are 
spending the people's money.
  A distinguishing feature between the Democrat budget and the 
Republican budget is simply the Republican budget says ``We the 
people,'' and the Democrat budget says ``We the government.''
  These priorities which have shaped the Kasich substitute include 
health care reform, welfare reform, tough and sensible crime control, 
incentives for job creation. It is all in there. And it is capped off 
with the most important proposal to emerge from the 103d Congress, a 
$500-per-child tax credit that begins the process of restoring a 
profamily prochild tax code.
  Imagine doing something explicitly for the family of America. What do 
they think they are, a special interest? Well, indeed they are our most 
important special interest, shielded and strengthened by public policy. 
Instead, the average American family has been a cash cow harnessed to 
pull the Federal gravy train.
  The Kasich substitute represents a radical reversal of all of that. 
For the last 14 months the Congress' message to the taxpayer has been, 
``More for Washington, less for you.''
  Last year's budget blared it with higher taxes and more spending: 
``More for Washington, less for you.''
  The reconciliation bill of 1993 repeated it, and the defeat of the 
Penny-Kasich package of spending cuts last November locked in ``More 
for Washington, less for you.''
  The same message sums up the budget fashioned last week by the House 
Budget Committee. It is just more for official Washington to spend, to 
borrow, to allocate, to redistribute, and less for the workers, the 
savers, the investors, the mothers and fathers of America.
  We want to turn that around. We want to put families first. We want 
to put them at the head of the line, ahead of the bureaucrats and the 
grantees, the contractors, the planners, the regulators, and do not 
forget the consultants.
  Putting families first means first and foremost letting them keep 
more of what they earn. It means recognizing that the people that do 
the most important work in this country are not Congressmen, they are 
mothers and fathers raising kids.
  I concede the good intentions of those who really believe that the 
best way to help families is to expand Government services and to pay 
for those services by billing other families. But we have spent decades 
now trying to ameliorate symptoms of the decline of the family, teenage 
pregnancy, drug abuse, welfare dependency, to educational failure. We 
not only have not accomplished much in those years, but we have 
weakened the families even more by heavier tax burdens and more and 
more Government intrusion.
  We have spent decades and uncounted billions trying to make 
Government assistance a substitute for strong family life, and it has 
not worked. The Kasich substitute points us in a more promising 
direction, letting families control more of their own resources and 
making more of their own decisions.
  Trust the people. That is the key now, and over that long run to 
restoring the family as the force that holds people together, holds 
neighborhoods together, instills values, curbs violence, promotes 
health, and helps young people learn and prepares them for productive 
work.
  We the people, not we the Government.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about he veterans' 
funding under the Kasich amendment. We have examined it very closely. 
It seems that the bottom line for veterans' health care for 1995 under 
the Kasich amendment is that health care will lose $475 million.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], on page 17 of the Republican 
substitute or of his amendment give us $110 million. That is great. 
That is for health care, for helping process claims. But back on page 
24 under the 1994 investments that were put in our legislation for 
veterans' health care in 1994, he eliminates that, which is around $585 
million. If you subtract the $110 million he gave us on page 17 from 
the $585 million he takes away on page 24, the veterans come up short 
$475 million.
  Am I right or wrong? I just need an answer.
  Mr. SABO. The gentleman is correct. My number is $472 million. It is 
either $472 million or $475 million, but the gentleman is essentially 
correct, and I thank him for asking me the question.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Wise].
  (Mr. Wise asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I say to the gentleman who just spoke, I do not know whether he is 
aware that in the State of Illinois families that were eligible for 
earned income tax credits this year, which he and every Member of his 
party voted against in last year's reconciliation bill, numbered 
599,300. That is a tax cut for working families with children already 
in effect, and he and every Member of his party, including the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], voted against it.
  In my own State of West Virginia, 105,000 working West Virginians now 
are getting a tax cut as a result of the budget package that was passed 
and has already been implemented, and while they dangle a $500 tax 
credit for children in front of people, let the Record show who voted 
against the tax relief for children of working families in the last 
bill.
  I might add in Ohio alone, over 500,000 working families are getting 
a tax cut right now, working Ohioans, which the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich] voted against.
  So I think it is important to recognize that this $500 tax credit, 
which incidentally really does not apply to those under $15,000 a year, 
so the sons and daughters of 50 of those in the lowest tax bracket will 
now be paying in years to come to the sons and daughters who enjoyed a 
tax bracket, those up to $200,000 a year. That is real reform.
  Then of course they do not talk about the Medicare cuts, pitting 
grandparents against grandchildren to pay for this.
  This is a tough budget, the House budget, the Democratic budget for 
West Virginians, make no mistake about it. The Appalachian Regional 
Commission is cut.
  I do not enjoy the prospect of that. There are Medicare cuts in 
there, agriculture offices will close, Federal employees are already 
being laid off, programs eliminated, frozen or cut. But in West 
Virginia we like the facts.
  So when we hear the facts, so-called, coming from this side, let us 
remember the words of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] last year in 
August:

       Come next year, we are going to find out whether we have 
     higher deficits, we are going to find out whether we have a 
     slower economy, we are going to find out what is going to 
     happen to interest rates, and it is our bet that this is a 
     job-killer.

  Here are the facts, ladies and gentlemen: Deficits are down, record 
deficit reduction in just 1 year with the passage of that bill. 
Unemployment is up. So much for the job-killer. It was a job-gainer. 
And finally, when looking at the facts, economic growth is at a record 
peak, 3.2 percent in 1 year, which exceeds 4 years of the previous 
years.
  These are the folks who just a few moments ago told you to vote for 
this as a job-killer. Take that into consideration when voting.
  The House budget is the one that continues the progress that we are 
on. The Kasich budget is from the same folks who voted unanimously 
against the package that put us back on track.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I want the people of the Second District of West 
Virginia to know that there are 113,085 children that the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], does not feel ought to get the tax 
credit to the tune of over $56 million.
  I would say to the gentleman, just keep banking on raising people's 
taxes and raising Federal spending and defending the pork-barrel 
politics of the leaders of your State, and you will find yourself with 
a slower economy.

                              {time}  1240

  In addition to the arguments that have been made here, Medicare and 
Medicaid, under the Kasich substitute, Medicare increases by $87 
billion; Medicare increases by $87 billion under our plan. Medicaid is 
$63 billion.
  The Clinton plan, of course, makes $130 billion worth of Medicare 
cuts.
  So I would warn my friends to be very careful of that, and 
furthermore, the Veterans' Administration gets funded at the same level 
under the Republican plan as under the Democrat plan. We get more for 
veterans and less for bureaucracy. We have the numbers for the 
gentleman from West Virginia to show you the raw numbers.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kasich budget.
  It supports economic growth, it cuts the deficit $150 billion more 
than President Clinton's and provides real tax relief for the American 
family.
  During the last 40 years, the Federal income tax burden for a family 
of four has increased by 250 percent as a share of family income. 
Today, most American families pay more in Federal taxes than they pay 
for food, clothing, transportation, insurance and recreation combined. 
That's tragic.
  A recent poll reveals Americans favor family tax relief 3 to 1, even 
if it means cuts in entitlements.
  The Kasich budget provides a $500 per child family tax credit--for 
three children that would be $1,500 more in purchasing power. Ninety 
percent of this relief goes to families making less than $75,000 a 
year.

  The family is the first and best Department of Education;
  The first and best Department of Health and Human Services;
  The first and best Department of Housing;
  And the first and best Department of Energy and Transportation.
  There is no instrument of economic growth, savings, and job training 
as effective as the middle class family.
  It is the repository of values.
  It is the sustainer of society.
  And our Government has chiseled away at its foundation for 40 years.
  The question that confronts us is this: Is our faith in the big 
brother of big Government, or is our faith in the moms and dads of 
America?
  The mantra of the Beltway is: The Government giveth and the 
Government taketh away. Blessed be the hand of big Government.
  The Kasich budget says, ``No more.'' It strikes a blow for the most 
neglected special interest in America--the family.
  For once, let us forget party loyalty and party discipline.
  For once, let us forget the marching orders and let us do right for 
the family.
  Let us return over $20 billion per year to the families of 50 million 
American children.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating the 
Republican alternative to the budget resolution, and we are being more 
or less sidetracked on an issue with respect to tax credits.
  It is important to remember that the Democratic bill that passed last 
August provided the largest tax break to ordinary working families in 
this decade, so do not be fooled by the talk about the tax credit that 
is contained in the Republican alternative. What we must remember is 
what they are doing to the budget. The so-called appeal to family is 
entirely decimated in the Republican alternative. It is bad for the 
children, it is bad for the families, it destroys the underpinning of 
educational and job training support that we have had as a tradition 
and as a policy in programs that have been enacted in the past by the 
Congress.
  The Kasich substitute decimates the investment policy and priorities 
of the Clinton administration. The Kasich substitute cuts $1.9 billion 
from the committee resolution in the area of education, training, and 
social services which over a 5-year period will amount to $53 billion. 
It cuts $1.1 billion from our investment in Head Start. Everybody says 
they are for Head Start. His substitute cuts this program and reduces 
the investment in our young people. It completely exacerbates support 
for child care programs by consolidating them and not providing the 
kind of focus and priority which is needed. It consolidates all the 
hunger and nutrition programs that have been the real bulwark of our 
support for poor people, and food stamps, school lunches and school 
breakfast programs; it cuts about 5 percent of that funding for 
schoolchildren supported by impact aid. It completely wipes out this 
program and eliminates it in 5 years.
  Do not be fooled by the Kasich substitute.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  In the explanation just given by the gentlewoman from Hawaii, you 
have heard precisely, precisely the difference between the two budgets 
you have before you today.
  The gentlewoman from Hawaii just told you about all of the Government 
programs that the Kasich budget would cut. She is absolutely right. 
Programs would be cut. People would be helped.
  That is the big difference. We are attempting to help people, real 
working familie people, middle-class people; 134,000 kids in the 
gentlewoman's district would be eligible for this tax credit, $67.1 
million of family tax relief would go to her district in Hawaii under 
the Kasich budget.
  That is the big difference here.
  They want to talk about all of the good Government programs that they 
want the money to go to, bigger and bigger Government, more and more 
bureaucrats doing things supposedly to help America.
  We want to talk about helping America by giving people tax relief, by 
giving people the ability to help themselves. That is the big 
difference here.
  There is a major difference between these two approaches: More and 
more big Government on behalf of the Democrat budget; the Kasich 
budget, the Republican budget, talks about helping people for real, 
helping families for real.
  And how do we do that? Not just with the tax relief. We help them 
because we put in health care reform. We help them because we put in 
welfare reform. We have crime reform in here.
  Families are being devastated on the streets of America. Mothers 
cannot walk across the parking lots at shopping centers because they 
fear the crime going on in this country. We fund the crime bill in our 
bill.
  And the bottom line is we also protect the kids better in the future, 
because we put $150 billion more in deficit cuts in the Kasich budget 
than are in the Democrat big-Government budget.
  We do what is necessary to help middle-class families for real. 
People are helped by the Kasich budget. People are undermined by more 
and more big Government and by the refusal to deal with reform in the 
Democrat budget.
  Vote for Kasich.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Wyden].
  (Mr. WYDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  [Mr. WYDEN addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in 
the Extensions of Remarks.]
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  (Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kasich substitute. 
I think it is a sound and responsible piece of legislation.
  Last year, we had a clear choice of visions for the Government's role 
in our society. Republicans, ably led by John Kasich, offered a budget 
proposal to achieve greater deficit reduction entirely through spending 
cuts. This plan was unfortunately defeated on a party-line vote. 
President Clinton and his Democrat allies in Congress, instead, 
shepherded through Congress the largest tax increase in U.S. history, 
with few--if any--spending cuts.
  Once again this year, we have a clear set of choices. The Republican 
members of the Budget Committee have drafted a proposal to reduce the 
budget deficit by $150 billion through specific reductions in 
Government spending, provide necessary funding for defense, reform our 
welfare and health care systems, enact a tough anticrime package, 
provide families with a $500-per-child tax credit, and index capital 
gains for inflation.
  The Kasich budget also provides for real reform of the Government by 
contracting out for services which could be more efficiently provided 
by the private sector, combining programs into block grants to enable 
States and localities to determine how best to provide the actual 
services, and ending duplication of Government services. The Kasich 
budget calls for real change and real deficit reduction. I commend the 
Republican Members and staff of the Budget Committee for their hard 
work, and urge Members to vote for the Kasich alternative.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I think everyone should be aware that the gentleman 
from the Third District of Oregon, who just spoke, ought to be aware 
that the Republican budget provides $56.9 million of family tax relief 
for 113,746 children in his district. That is what we are talking 
about.
  You know, as I moved around the floor the last couple of days, I 
talked to one Member in particular of this House about the family tax 
relief. His response to me was very clear about the big difference 
here. He says, ``We can't afford to give families, to give families tax 
relief,'' as if he owned the money.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KASICH. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Also, at the same time, giving families tax relief, we are also 
providing for growth in Head Start. I ask the gentleman, is that 
correct?
  Mr. DeLAY. Absolutely. And that is an excellent point. The point I am 
trying to make is: ``Give the families tax money''? What we are talking 
about is allowing them to keep the money to raise their families. This 
is a big distinction here. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
in his excellent presentation in support of the Congressional Black 
Caucus budget, made a very poignant argument when he said, ``If you 
want to build a nation, you go read the budget of that nation.'' That 
is what we are being presented with here.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for the Black Caucus because 
they are being true to the American people about their vision of 
America and what kind of Government they would have. I do not agree 
with it, but at least they are being honest about it.
  We are being honest about it also with the Kasich budget. We are 
showing you what we would do if the Republicans were in charge of this 
House and in charge of the Senate. It would be a much different 
America, it would be a much different Government.
  The Sabo budget is showing politics and business as usual; more 
Government, keep the Government's money so that they do not have to 
give it to families in tax relief.
  If you are serious about reforming health care and paying for it 
without passing on more debt to our children, vote for Kasich and 
oppose Sabo. If you are serious about overhauling the welfare system 
and paying for it without passing on more debt to our children, vote 
for Kasich and oppose Sabo.
  If you are serious about locking up criminals and making our streets 
safe and paying for it without passing on more debt to our children, 
vote for Kasich and oppose Sabo.
  If you are really serious about ensuring our national security with a 
strong defense and paying for it without passing on more debt to our 
children, vote for Kasich and oppose Sabo.
  If you are really serious about tax relief to families, allowing 
families to keep their own money with a $500-per-child tax relief 
credit and paying for it without passing on more debt to our children, 
vote for Kasich but oppose Sabo.
  Mr. SABO. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me and 
for the superb job that he has done in crafting this serious, solid 
budget resolution.
  In response to the three previous speakers on the other side, I would 
say that if they are serious about tax relief for families, they would 
have voted last year for the reconciliation bill, the earned income tax 
credit. In the State of Arkansas, that would have benefited 202,800 
families; State of Pennsylvania, 510,100 families; State of Texas, 
1,441,000 families would have benefited from the earned income tax 
credit, which they voted against in the reconciliation bill.
  Most of those same families will not get the tax credit proposed in 
the Kasich bill because it is not refundable.
  I want to address myself to what I consider a very serious, what I 
consider a dangerous-to-safety proposal in the Kasich budget plan: to 
totally privatize the Air Traffic Control Corporation. As they claim, 
it will reduce the budget deficit. But it will do so by taking air 
traffic control expenses out of the budget while not making a full 
offsetting reduction in taxes. The proposal would increase user fee 
costs by 65 percent, some $2.5 billion per year. Airlines would still 
have to pay a 6-percent ticket tax to support the rump FAA.
  In addition, airlines would also have to pay new fees to cover the 
costs of the Air Traffic Control Corporation. We have done a careful 
analysis of this in my subcommittee, and we estimate these fees to be 
the equivalent of an additional 10.5-percent tax. Take a close look, 
airlines and air travelers, passenger payments would be the equivalent 
of a tax of 16.5 percent compared to today's 10-percent airline ticket 
tax.
  These are costs that would be borne directly by the traveling public 
in the form of higher airline ticket prices. They will be paying twice.
  What this means, very simply, is this little feat of budgetary 
legerdemain and its cousin, the administration's corporate privatizing 
scheme, will sock the airline industry and air travelers at a time when 
that industry has lost $11 billion over the last years. This proposal 
is bad safety policy and worse budget policy.
  Mr. KASICH. I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
  Mr. GRAMS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield briefly?
  Mr. GRAMS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I do not know where the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] 
quotes his numbers from. He must be reading his own budget or 
something. But we do not raise the ticket tax. In fact, we lower the 
ticket tax. They have a higher ticket tax.
  Second, our proposal does not impact on safety. Our proposal is 
designed to privatize the air traffic control of this, and if the 
gentleman read the Washington Post last Friday, he would see what a 
terrible shape we are in with respect to the technology.
  Mr. GRAMS. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
  Mr. Chairman, everyone should be aware that for the previous 
speaker's district, Mr. Oberstar's 8th District of Minnesota, the 
Republican budget provides $61.4 million of family tax relief for 
122,815 children.
  Mr. Chairman, in a few minutes, every Member of this House will have 
to make a fundamental decision between supporting bigger Government or 
stronger families. The vote on the Kasich substitute will tell the 
American people whose side you're on.
  I believe families are the most basic and effective form of 
Government. Families are the first Department of Education, Health and 
Human Services, Housing, and Transportation. Whatever Government can do 
for children, strong families can do better.
  But Government interference has made it more difficult for families 
to make it on their own. Higher taxes, overregulation, and Federal 
mandates have resulted in poorer families. And who has benefitted most 
from the improverishment of the American family? Big government and the 
Bureaucrats who live off it. The Democrats talk about their tax credit, 
but not their record tax increase. By giving families a $500-per-child 
tax credit and using specific cuts in Federal spending to pay for it, 
the Kasich substitute offers us an opportunity to right these wrongs. 
It takes power away from those who run the Government and returns it to 
those who pay for the Government. It finally gives a voice to those 
families who have worked hard, paid their taxes, and watched Government 
grow at their expense for so many years.
  Yet, some in this body complain that the family tax credit is 
unfair--that low- and middle-income Americans lose out. They're wrong.
  Fully 75 percent of the tax relief in this package goes to those 
making less than $60,000 a year. And those are the folks who are 
getting squeezed--the ones who are not rich enough to hire tax 
lawyers--who are not poor enough to get Government benefits. The middle 
class.
  The Kasich substitute is not simply a Republican budget--it's an 
American budget--an American family budget. It's the budget Clinton 
promised the American people in 1992, the one he could have--and should 
have--introduced this year, and the one his political advisers will 
tell him to propose next year.
  But now, my colleagues, it is time to find out whose side you are on?
  Make the right choice--choose American families. Vote for the Kasich 
substitute. American families will be voting on your performance in 
November.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  The proposal before us has been promoted as family-friendly and 
fiscally responsible. Let us focus on just one provision that puts the 
lie to those claims.
  This proposal would charge market rates for the power supplied by 
three of the Federal Government's power marketing administrations. 
Republicans estimate that charging these rates would increase revenues 
by $1.2 billion a year beginning in 1996. Sounds great.
  The problem is that $1.2 billion in electric rate increases, not a 
penny to the Federal Government because you do not change the term of 
the repayment. You will raise the electric rates. But the money will 
rest with those utilities, those power marketing administrations.
  Beyond that, there would be a net loss to the Treasury. We have 
electric rates of 25 to 60 percent across 13 Western States, which 
would trigger a series of business collapses, job losses, and all to 
make the deficit look better on paper; for millions of ratepayers, 
workers, and small business owners in the States of northern 
California, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, 
South Dakota, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Arkansas.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Chairman, I say, if your Representative comes from one of those 
States, if you live in one of those States, there is nothing family 
friendly about this proposal because your electric bill is going to go 
up more than the tiny amount of tax relief that's being falsely 
promised to you in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not family friendly. It is antibusiness. It is 
antiworker. It is antifamily. And it is not even fiscally responsible 
because it will not reduce the deficit except on paper or provide 
revenues to the Federal Government except on paper by one penny.
  Vote ``no.''
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the point that what we 
do with power marketing is decide that the whole rest of the country 
should not be subsidizing the operation of these units out in some 
parts of the West.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich] for yielding this time to me, and I would just want to let my 
friend, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] know that 114,544 
children would be eligible for the tax credit under the Kasich budget, 
and I know he will have some energetic conversations with the families 
of some of those kids.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Eligible to pay more bills----
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I did not yield to the gentleman from 
Oregon.
  My colleagues, a lot of people have driven around this country, 
literally millions of them, with bumper strips that say, ``I support 
our troops.'' Well, the American people support our troops 
rhetorically. They have given them moral support. They send their young 
men and women to serve in the Armed Forces. But only this House, this 
Congress, can support our troops with the defense budget.
  Mr. Chairman, the Democrat budget hollows America's defenses, and it 
threatens to return us to the days of the 1970's when 50 percent of our 
aircraft were not fully mission capable, when we had a thousand petty 
officers a month getting out of the Navy because they could not make it 
any longer, when we had large numbers of our young men and women on 
food stamps, and let me commend to everyone the McCain report entitled, 
``Going Hollow,'' because I think it prints the pathway that the 
Democrat program and the Democrat budget is following. We are hollowing 
our forces with the Democrat budget in terms of readiness, in terms of 
modernization.
  And for those who say we are at peace, Mr. Chairman, let me just 
remind my Democrat friends that we have now carried on an airlift in 
Bosnia longer than the Berlin airlift. We have now flown more sorties 
over Iraq since Desert Storm than during Desert Storm. Keeping the 
peace is expensive.
  I would say to all of my friends, all of my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle, ``Support our troops. Support your freedom. Support the 
Kasich budget.''
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Kreidler].
  (Mr. KREIDLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KREIDLER. Mr. Chairman, the Kasich substitute is like a hot fudge 
sundae--rich, tempting, and full of empty calories. It is wrapped in an 
awful pretty package, but there is nothing but trouble inside.
  Sure, I would like to give every family $500 per child--who wouldn't? 
But what those who support Mr. Kasich's proposal don't tell you is that 
his bill raises electric bills more than that in the Northwest.
  Yesterday, on the Solomon substitute, we had an intellectually honest 
opportunity to level with the American people--to show them the true 
shape of a balanced budget.
  Well, we failed. And here they go again, playing the same old shell 
game.
  I say to parents in the Pacific Northwest--the tax credit is just an 
illusion. What we need--and what will truly help your family budget--is 
a steady reduction in the Federal deficit so interest rates stay low 
and we keep creating new jobs.
  I am going to pass up this hot fudge sundae. I urge my colleagues to 
do the same and vote no.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, let the last speaker, the gentlemen from 
California [Mr. Hunter] know that in his State 2,146,900 families are 
eligible for the earned income tax credit which his side voted against 
last year.
  Mr. Chairman, the Kasich priorities are clear. This budget lives in a 
time warp. It adds more to deficit reduction at a time when the deficit 
is being dramatically reduced. It adds more to defense at a time when 
the cold war is over and the United States is the only military power 
in the world. And what and where does it cut? It cuts increases that 
were modest indeed, that fund domestic programs that have been on a 
starvation diet: Head Start, educational reform, dislocated worker 
training, compensatory education, infrastructure, mass transit, and 
many others.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] missed one. 
There is no cut in private contractors while career civil servants are 
facing layoffs. We could actually find modest raises for our career 
people if we cut personnel services for private contractors.
  How are we going to reinvent government by laying off some people and 
denying the rest raises? From the private sector we have borrowed the 
notion of buyouts, if we can just get them passed and to conference. 
But there, Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues: ``You do buyouts so 
that you can give regular increases for those who remain to make your 
business more efficient.''
  We should be cutting private contracting no matter what we do with 
the savings. It is wrong to cut the workers we can see while giving a 
free ride to the shadow government.
  We cannot strip the country down any further, in its domestic 
programs, Mr. Chairman. They are close to the bones. That is why we 
made modest investments on the domestic side last year.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] the conference chairman of the House 
Republicans.
  Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the point that we give 
a larger cost-of-living increase to Federal employees than the 
administration does, so if my colleagues are worried about that, they 
should vote for us.
  Second, of course we do reduce private consultants in our overhead 
reduction, and I appreciate the gentleman having yielded to me.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I think everybody should be aware that for 
the previous speaker's district, the city of Washington, DC, in the 
Republican budget we provide $41.8 million of family tax relief which 
covers 83,637 children.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich] and the other Republicans on the Committee on the Budget 
for assembling the best budget I have seen in my 9 years in Washington.
  This Kasich budget is much more than a budget. It is the Republican 
agenda. It is a blueprint that illustrates how Republicans will govern 
when we are the majority.
  Our initiative expands individual freedom and economic opportunity, 
while limiting the size and reach of the Federal Government. Reducing 
the Washington bureaucracy allows us to cut taxes for American 
families, offer incentives for growth in the private sector of the 
economy, and reduce the deficit $150 billion more than the Democrat 
budget.
  In our proposal, we provide families with a tax credit of $500 per 
child, leaving more income and discretion in the hands of ordinary 
people and less in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats. We 
encourage saving and investment, which will lead to more jobs and 
higher take home pay. Republicans believe in the ability of the 
American people to create the jobs of tomorrow and reject the notion 
that higher living standards come from a bloated public sector.
  In our welfare bill, which we pay for in our budget, work and 
families are rewarded--ending the perverse incentives in the current 
welfare system. Our health reform bill, which we pay for, protects the 
sovereignty of the health consumer. We leave health care decisions to 
ordinary Americans and their doctors, not to a national health board. 
In our budget, Republicans put more police on the beat, require tough 
sentencing for violent criminals, and build more prisons, and we pay 
for it.
  More income for families, less for Washington. More investment and 
jobs in the private sector of the economy. Reinventing and reducing 
Government. Welfare and health reform. A tough crime bill. And greater 
deficit reduction.
  This is our Republican agenda for freedom. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Kasich amendment and, Mr. Chairman, let me just add that it 
has been amazing to me to watch, after the American people have made it 
so very clear to us that they want cuts in spending and reductions in 
taxes, to hear all the bleeding, and moaning, and groaning, that has 
come from the other side of the aisle in light of the only honest 
effort to cut spending and reinvent Government. The fact that they have 
only been able to reply by citing their adoption of the Republican idea 
to give families the earned income tax credit shows us once again that 
it is much better to go with the original than those who copy us.

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my hard working, 
dedicated colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Sabo] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kasich budget, but I do so 
with compliments to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich], for his diligence in putting together a responsible 
alternative. John Kasich has been one of those Republicans who has on 
many occasions been willing to reach across the aisle and work with 
Democrats for a real solution to our deficit problem. Last fall he was 
willing to step forward and engage in a process that led to the 
development of a plan to cut spending by $90 billion over 5 years.

                              {time}  1310

  Bipartisan support was registered for that effort, and I was proud to 
stand with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] in making that fight 
for fiscal responsibility. Our differences today are not because of any 
fundamental disagreement about the need for bipartisanship to solve 
this budget problem once and for all, and it is not because I believe 
that this budget as presented by the gentleman from Ohio is an 
irresponsible budget. The difference simply stems from the focus of 
this budget alternative, and in my judgment it does not focus enough on 
deficit reduction.
  It does include 150 billion dollars' worth of deficit reductions over 
5 years, but we have a much larger problem than that will solve. It 
falls short because of a $60 billion add-back for the Pentagon which we 
cannot afford and should not adopt. It falls short because it promises 
over $100 billion of tax cuts for American families, which may sound 
good but does not represent responsible tax policy in the face of a 
$200 billion deficit.
  Mr. Chairman, we need deficit reduction first. This budget 
alternative does not focus enough on that important goal, and it is for 
that reason that I must oppose the plan.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this time we have a new mantra as we get the March of 
the Siamese Children on the other side. Each one is programmed to say 
his little piece when he comes in. This year it is about the tax cuts.
  That is probably because they want to forget last year's mantra. Last 
year they were all programmed to come up and tell us how many jobs we 
would each lose in our districts if we voted for the budget. In fact, 
that prediction has turned out to be totally and completely wrong, so 
that all the Republican Members who marched up very carefully and 
recited what they were told to recite about job loss would like us to 
forget the unremittingly inaccurate predictions they made about last 
year's budget.
  We now have in this budget confirmation that one of the great stage 
plays of all time will take place here shortly when many of the Members 
on the other side vote for the balanced budget constitutional 
amendment, because that, I believe, calls for the budget to be balanced 
by 2001.
  Here is the budget presented officially by the Republican Party. Five 
years from now they call for a deficit of $172.2 billion. There deficit 
5 years from now will be up from the deficit this year, but then they 
would have us believe next week that right after they present us a 
budget in which in 1999 their deficit will be $172.2 billion, up from 
what it was this coming year, they are going to balance the budget in 2 
years and abolish that altogether.
  So let us think when we evaluate their rhetoric about the predictions 
last year of the gentleman from Texas, who told us the budget bill 
would be a job cutter or the gentleman from Ohio, who said it would put 
the economy into the gutter. These are people who spent all last year 
walking around with signs saying that the world is going to end 
Tuesday. It is now Wednesday afternoon and the sun is shining, and they 
are a little distressed.
  I say to the Members, remember when you hear their mantra how 
inaccurate last year's was, and remember when you hear them talk about 
the balance budget, by their own admission, 2 years before their 
balanced budget is to take effect, they will not even be close to the 
goal they are going to profess so piously next week to be supporting.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that last year we were given a challenge by 
the President. The President said, ``If you don't like our tax-and-
spend bill''--and, by the way, the only reason you have any earned 
income tax credit in your bill is to try to offset the tax increases on 
working poor people in this country--``give us your specifics.'' And, 
of course, we did, and we did better than you did in terms of reducing 
the deficit.
  Let me say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that I think 
this debate is perfect, because if my friends in the Democrat Party 
think that higher taxes, more Government spending, more regulation, and 
that putting the power of Washington bureaucrats over the power of the 
American family is the way to go, I will tell them that they are wrong 
and we will be back on this floor again. And I would suggest to my 
colleagues, ``Don't count your chickens before they hatch in terms of 
investing in Government as the answer for our country.''
  This year we did much better. The President delivered a wonderful 
speech up here in which he talked about welfare reform and health care 
and a crime bill. They he sent us the budget, and did he have welfare 
reform on it? Of course not. Did he give us a crime bill? Of course 
not. He withdrew his health care bill because the health care bill 
sends the deficit through the roof. But the President promised us all 
the way back in the Democrat debates that the middle income Americans 
would get tax relief, and that any economic program would give 
hardworking American families some tax fairness.
  I say to the Members. You didn't give us the crime bill and you 
didn't give us the welfare bill and you didn't give us the health bill, 
and you haven't given us the middle income tax relief, so we decided we 
needed to keep the promises that they made. In the Republican bill we 
do have health care, with a down payment, beginning to solve the 
problem, not by turning health care over to the Federal Government but 
by using the private sector.
  We have a welfare reform bill that I trust the Members will believe 
the American people will support which gives training and imposes some 
discipline. And, of course, we also have more money in our crime bill 
for more prisons and more police on the street, and lo and behold, not 
only growth incentives, all of which are paid for, but we have 
delivered on the middle income tax cut the President has been 
promising.
  Imitation is the highest form of flattery, and I think this President 
will come in with tax relief for middle income families because middle 
income families want him to keep his word, and they believe that as the 
Government of the United States begins to be downsized, when we finally 
accept the principle that Washington is not as important as the 
heartland across this country, they believe that Americans should share 
in the benefits of reducing the Government.
  The bottom line on this proposal is simple. We have included all 
these programs, including trying to help the besieged American family, 
and in the course of doing it we have cut deficits by $150 billion more 
then the Clinton plan. And I say to my colleagues who say they do not 
think the American family ought to get any of their money back because 
our deficit cuts are not deep enough, that they cannot vote for the 
Clinton plan because our budget is $150 billion more in greater deficit 
reduction, 5 out of 5 years better.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that we should support the 
Republican proposal that says we should have less for Washington and 
more for the American family, and that is what the American people 
want.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
majority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Kasich substitute to the House budget resolution. I believe it would be 
a painful step backward--at a time when we must keep moving forward.
  One year ago, in this very Chamber, when we passed President 
Clinton's first budget, we voted for fiscal responsibility--for fiscal 
sanity.
  We said we had to start making the tough choices--reining in the 
runaway spending and borrowing, the lop-sided policies that favored the 
rich over middle-class America--policies that had been a proud 
Republican legacy.
  We said it was time for the wealthiest handful of Americans to pay 
their fair share--instead of soaking up huge tax cuts while hard-
working American families watched their paychecks grow smaller and 
smaller.
  We said it was time for basic fairness--fairness to the families that 
sent us here in the first place.
  Fairness to the families who know that, for all the Republican 
rhetoric about ``big government'' and ``tax and spend,'' Democrats have 
been fighting for them for decades. And for a dozen years of Reagan and 
Bush, it was clearly an uphill battle.
  Today, we can choose to continue down that path of fairness and 
fiscal responsibility. A path that has brought more new jobs, and 
higher economic growth, than in all the Bush years. A path that has 
brought a lower deficit, and lower interest rates--lower than we have 
seen in years. A path that has brought more new homes, more family 
investment, and more consumer confidence, than we've seen in a long, 
long time.
  We can keep travelling down this path. Or we can vote for the Kasich 
substitute. We can vote for Congressman Kasich's slap-dash package of 
cuts in crucial programs, and deep tax cuts for the wealthiest 
Americans.
  I believe that would be a grave mistake--and we would pay the price 
for decades.
  We would pay the price for significantly reducing biomedical 
research, child immunizations, drug treatment, and AIDS funding.
  We would pay the price for gouging a whopping $45 million out of 
Medicare.
  We would pay the price for deep cuts in medical care for veterans--
and the outright elimination of legal aid for those too poor to hire 
their own lawyer.
  And for all these catastrophic cuts, you would think that Congressman 
Kasich would at least propose some measure of tax fairness, tax relief, 
for American families.
  But in fact, his tax proposals are regressive, unfair, and downright 
dangerous to our working people.
  He wants a capital gains tax cut for the wealthy. He wants big tax 
breaks for big business.
  His highly trumpeted child tax credit would go to many of the richest 
Americans, and would not even apply to the families who need it most--
those earning less than $16,000 a year.
  So let us make it clear that we have had enough of the rusted 
Reaganomics that hurt us so badly in the 1980's.
  Let us make it clear that, now that we have a budget that works for 
America's middle-class families, we are not going to turn back the 
hands of time.
  And let us reject the Kasich substitute budget--before it has a 
chance to wreck our economy, and our society, and be unfair to the hard 
working middle income American families.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Republican 
whip.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Ohio for 
allowing me this opportunity. Let me say that it is a delight to follow 
the very distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], who is 
such an eloquent advocate of his side.
  We have one difference of opinion I think about the direction of the 
country, and another difference of potentially fact about where our tax 
benefits go. So I just want to make very clear to everybody, first of 
all, I am very, very grateful to all allowed to serve with John Kasich 
and the team he has put together on the Committee on the Budget, 
because these Members, as the Washington Post, hardly a Republican 
bastion, has said, they have produced a budget that adds up. You may 
not agree with their direction, and certainly Members who are too 
liberal to vote for this, Members who believe in big Government, 
Members who want to sustain the welfare state, will not want to vote 
for the Kasich budget, because it represents a basic change in where 
America is going. And I respect that.
  That is a difference of opinion about America's future. And those who 
believe that the welfare state has worked in Washington DC, that the 
murders we see every night are just a random accident, that the 
President was wrong when he came during the State of the Union and said 
beginning 30 years ago families began to decline, a date which is in 
fact the Great Society, according to President Clinton's own words in 
the State of the Union.
  Those who think President Clinton was wrong to say we must strengthen 
families, I can appreciate that in order to protect the welfare state 
they are going to vote no on the Kasich budget.
  But I want to make two points of fact. The $500 per family tax credit 
for children is, in fact, going to help working American families. This 
chart shows it clearly. Ninety percent of the money will go to families 
under $75,000. Ninety percent. That is the families where people get up 
every morning and go to work, often both the husband and the wife, and 
sometimes it is a single head of household, and they go to work. And 
the taxes that over the years the Democrats have raised again and again 
and again leave them with tragically less money than they would have 
had under Harry Truman.
  What we do in this Republican budget, for the first time, is begin to 
give families the money to take care of their children, for a very 
profound difference of opinion.
  Our good friends who wanted to maintain the welfare state believe 
that bureaucrats love your children more than parents. They believe 
that bureaucrats are smarter about raising children than parents. They 
want to take the money out of that family, transfer it through 
Washington, and hire a bureaucrat to reach into that family, so the 
bureaucrat can do what the parents cannot, because the parents do not 
have the money. If you are a family of three children, that is $1,500 
in your pocket, to help you raise your child, to help you save for 
college, to help you buy clothing. Fifteen hundred dollars may not be 
much if you are very, very wealthy. But it is a lot if you are a 
working family or if you are a single mother trying to raise those 
three children.
  Second, we do not have a capital gains tax cut in the traditional 
sense. We do one thing. We index capital investments against inflation. 
We say to you if you buy a family farm, over the next 30 years you 
should not be cheated by your Government with inflation. If you save, 
you should not be cheated by your Government with inflation. If you 
have a little investment or you start a small business, and you happen 
to have that business grow for 10, 15, or 20 years, you should not be 
cheated by your Government through inflation.
  Now, the Democrats I understand may favor inflation. The Democrats 
may want to in fact push that family farm into a higher tax bracket. 
They may want to push that small business into a higher tax bracket. We 
think it is only fair to people willing to save to let them keep the 
money, instead of having the Government take it away.
  But what it comes down to is something very simple: We believe that 
Government is too big and it spends too much. We believe that 
Washington has too much of your money, and when you realize that over 
the next 5 years it will have over $9 trillion to spend, we think 
cutting the deficit deeper, which the Kasich budget does, we think 
cutting taxes for families, which the Kasich budget does, we believe 
that returning power back home by having an unfunded mandate provision, 
to send power back to the counties, cities, and States, which the 
Kasich budget does, we think these are the right steps, because we 
think America is healthier when Americans get to keep their own money.
  Our good friends in the Democrat leadership who believe in the 
welfare state, who believe that this whole structure of public housing 
and public relief and all these things which are destroying the country 
work, let me just say to you, you cannot maintain this civilization 
with 12-year-olds having babies, with 15-year-olds killing each other, 
with 17-year-olds dying of AIDS, and 18-year-olds getting diplomas they 
cannot read.
  The Kasich budget begins to move us away from that system. The Kasich 
budget begins to return money back to families so they can raise their 
children in a decent environment and have a chance to do something 
about their education and give them a better future.
  The Democratic leadership will presently ask you to vote for more of 
the same tired welfare state spending, and I just ask you, look at the 
murder in Washington in that high school, look at what is happening in 
this Nation's Capital, look at the death and devastation the welfare 
state has wrought, and vote for a change. Vote to help families. Vote 
for the Kasich budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Foley].
  (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, we are at the end of this debate and 
virtually at the end of this bill. I would say this has been a good 
debate, a useful debate, and I think, largely, a helpful one. But we 
now have to make the choice between a number of alternative budgets.
  The immediate choice is to decide whether to pass the Kasich budget. 
I want to salute the gentleman from Ohio. I think he is one of our 
talented and able Members, and I think he has made a positive 
contribution to this debate, both with this substitute and with his own 
exceptional efforts.
  But I cannot agree with him, nor with the distinguished Republican 
whip, that this is the wiser course for us to take, or that the Sabo 
budget represents an endorsement of some mythical welfare state.
  It is not a welfare state that provides for basic nutrition for 
nursing mothers in WIC; or provides for educational benefits for our 
children in school; or deals with the problems of our senior citizens 
in Medicare; or provides student loan opportunities for students to 
prepare for their responsibilities in work and citizenship. None of 
these things that this Sabo bill provides, and the Kasich bill cuts 
would, I think, raise any serious question among the American people. 
The Sabo budget is a sound, responsible, effective budget, and it is a 
budget that is reducing the deficit.
  I do not want to go over what has been mentioned before, but last 
year we heard terrible predictions of what would happen if the 
Democratic leadership budget was adopted. We had Members on the other 
side saying that we would have a recession, that the country would see 
huge increases in unemployment levels, and the collapse of the economy.
  Instead, we have an economy that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve 
described recently as underlyingly more healthy and promising than at 
any time in the last two or three decades--two or three decades.
  And we have an economy which is producing lower interest rates, 
providing greater investment levels, and greater employment levels than 
in many, many years.
  I am not going to go into the specifics of the Kasich amendment. I 
think we have talked about that already.
  But it does strike me as exceedingly strange, if we are interested in 
helping children, as the gentleman from Georgia keeps saying, and we 
are interested in being fair to the American people, that this 
amendment provides tax credits for people who earn $200,000 a year and 
more, and denies them to families who earn under $16,000. If that 
represents fairness to American families to my colleagues on the other 
side, then I am perplexed.
  We have a chance to continue to build on last year's great and 
important budget decision, a decision which is reducing our deficit and 
building a healthy and strong economy, which is providing the jobs, 
investment, and growth that we want for the immediate future and 
beyond.
  We can take great pride, every Member of this House who voted for the 
Democratic budget last year. We can, indeed, welcome the opportunity 
that our friends on the other side offered us, to stand up and say, 
this year, ``We were right last year; you were wrong last year.''
  We can be right again this year by voting for the Sabo budget and 
against the Kasich budget.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Kasich budget substitute amendment. My Republican colleagues on the 
Budget Committee have crafted a budget proposal that contains over 250 
real spending cuts and real reforms in how the Federal Government 
works. These recommendations would reduce the deficit by $152 billion 
more than the Democrat resolution.
  In contrast to the Democrat budget, which continues the trend of high 
taxes, high spending, and high deficits, the Republican budget 
alternative offers a real choice to the American people.
  The Democrat budget fails to address the issues of family tax relief, 
welfare reform, crime reform, health care reform, and job creation 
incentives. The Kasich budget includes provisions dealing with all 
these issues, and still achieves more deficit reduction than the 
Democrat budget.
  The Kasich budget plan provides a $500 tax credit for each child in a 
family earning less than $200,000 a year. The 16th Congressional 
District of Illinois contains 138,310 children. That means that the 
16th District would receive $69,155,000 in tax relief. Nationally, 86 
percent of the tax credit would go to families with a gross annual 
income below $75,000 per year. For the taxpayers in the 16th District, 
and across the Nation, this is well-deserved break.
  In 1992, while running for President, then-Governor Bill Clinton 
supported a middle-class tax cut. But as President, Bill Clinton 
reneged on that promise. His excuse was that faced with an unexpectedly 
high budget deficit, we simply could not afford it. Well, by his 
administration's own updated numbers, the budget deficit has shrunk to 
$176 billion. The excuse of a high deficit is no longer valid.
  Lawmakers who oppose tax cuts paid for by spending reductions usually 
rely on taxpayers' ignorance of who actually gains from such spending. 
Federal programs primarily benefit small and powerful interest groups 
at the expense of all taxpayers. But the Kasich budget reverses this 
trend. It benefits millions of American families at the expense of a 
few Washington interest groups by cutting many unneeded Federal 
programs.
  The Kasich plan also includes the House Republican welfare reform 
proposal which stresses work instead of welfare, and seeks to put 
people on payrolls instead of public assistance rolls. It combats crime 
by including $2 billion for additional local police officers and $3 
billion to fund Federal-State partnerships for new prisons. The Kasich 
budget also fully funds the Affordable Health Care Now Act, which 
expands access to health coverage while containing costs and assures 
that medical decisions remain in the hands of patients and doctors, not 
government bureaucrats.
  But it also includes job creation and economic growth incentives. The 
Republican budget makes changes in the Tax Code to boost economic 
growth by encouraging higher levels of saving, investing, and risk 
taking. Specifically, it indexes capital gains, establishes a deduction 
for capital losses on the sale of a primary residence, makes IRA's 
fully deductible, allows expensing of business equipment, and extends 
the research and development tax credit.
  I don't agree with every spending cut in the Kasich plan, but that 
should not detract from the overall goal of this well-drafted budget 
alternative that addresses the needs of what the American people have 
been saying over the last year--cut spending first and make government 
more responsive to its owners: the taxpayers.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the question before us today is quite 
simple--should we keep more money in the hands of Americans back home 
or should we have them send it to Washington so that Congress can 
decide how to spend it?
  The Kasich alternative to the President's budget for fiscal year 1995 
reverses the trend that we have seen since World War II, in which a 
growing percentage of family income gets taxed and spent by the 
Government.
  Mr. Kasich's budget goes well beyond not raising taxes. It changes 
the way the Government does business. It offers reforms to control 
spending now and in the long run. It not only brings down the Federal 
deficit by $310 billion over the next 5 years--$152 billion more than 
the President's budget would--it provides mechanisms to help ensure 
that spending not only goes down now, but stays down in the future.
  It recognizes that the financial and regulatory burdens placed on 
small businesses by government have been creating disincentives for 
employers to create jobs. The Kasich budget offers creative changes to 
encourage savings and investment.
  Unwilling to merely maintain the status quo in such areas as welfare, 
crime, and health care, Mr. Kasich includes in his amendment creative 
new approaches to each of these critical national issues.
  Unwilling to just keep business as usual in such areas as job 
training and counseling, the Kasich budget takes 80 separate Federal 
Government job training programs--each with their own bureaucracies--
and consolidates them into seven block grants. These grants would then 
be given to States, whose Governors and legislatures know how best to 
utilize these funds. In addition, by eliminating program overlap and by 
better targeting our resources in this way, we're able to save close to 
$2 billion and use it to bring down the deficit.
  Thus, we have the opportunity today to say ``no'' to the status quo 
and ``no'' to the proposition that Washington's answer to our problems 
is more government. We also have the opportunity today to say ``yes'' 
to reforming government, ``yes'' to changing the way we do business, 
and ``yes'' to making real progress at bringing the Federal budget and 
deficit under control. We also can go home to our constituents and tell 
them that the Government's answer to our Nation's ills is less 
government and more reliance on the individual citizen and the private 
sector.
  Let's answer the question posed to us today by voting for the Kasich 
budget alternative.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, House Budget Committee Republicans 
have a budget that encompasses four major issues facing our country: 
health care reform, crime, welfare reform, and deficit reduction. It 
also contains tax relief for American families suffering from 
successive tax increases over the past several years. I am proud to 
associate myself with this visionary budget. I hope that one day soon a 
budget similar to the Kasich GOP budget will be the last to pass under 
the King of the Hill procedure employed by the Democrats again this 
year to ensure passage of their lackluster budget resolution.
  By including full funding for the Affordable Health Care Now Act, the 
Republican welfare reform proposal, and a down payment on the Crime 
Control Act, this budget responds directly to these crucial issues. The 
President's budget includes funds for only one-half of the new police 
officers he has promised. The President fails to include funds for 
welfare reform altogether. On health care, the President excludes from 
the budget at least $1.4 trillion in health care spending he has 
proposed over the next 5 years, including in excess of $100 billion in 
payroll taxes that will devastate job providers.
  President Clinton promised tax relief to families in 1992, reversed 
his position and hit Americans with a tax hike. Profamily rhetoric 
served the President well on the campaign trail. However, Republicans 
deliver in this budget by providing a $500 per child tax credit to 
families earning less than $200,000 a year. Sadly, while the President 
aggressively sought to fulfill pledges to abortion rights and gay 
advocacy groups upon inauguration, the tax relief promise to American 
families went out the window. A vote for this budget will remind 
American families that some elected officials still view the family as 
the most important component of our society.
  Finally, the GOP budget cuts the budget deficit by $278 billion over 
5 years, $152.6 billion more than the Clinton-Democrat budget. The 
priorities in the GOP budget as proposed by the Budget Committee 
Republicans reflect a philosophy of limited government, fiscal 
responsibility, and the virtue of the American family. I stand in the 
strongest support of this bold proposal.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Republican budget resolution offered by Mr. Kasich and in opposition to 
the Budget Committee's Clinton budget.
  Once again, I believe the Members have an opportunity to demonstrate 
who is committed to curbing Congress' appetite to spend and who is not. 
The Democrat alternative furthers the Clinton administration's 
philosophy of creating more government, more spending, and higher 
taxes. On the other hand, the Republican budget takes bold steps, many 
of which will affect my constituents, to reduce the size of government 
and annual deficits. But it does so fairly, honestly, and specifically.
  The Republican budget shaves the deficit by $162 billion next year 
alone, and outsaves the Democratic budget by more than $152 billion 
over the next 5 years. And it does so while covering the costs for 
market-based health care reform, the Republican welfare reform plan, 
and a $500 per child tax deduction for middle-income families.
  Although I am supporting the Kasich substitute because it is the only 
choice that is fiscally responsible, I strongly oppose the provision to 
increase revenue from the Power Marketing Administrations [PMAs]. While 
I am not opposed to sharing the sacrifice, this proposal to increase 
PMA revenues by $4.8 billion over 5 years does not meet the definition 
of shared sacrifice. My PMA customers, who are served by the Bonneville 
Power Administration [BPA], have already weathered severe rate impacts 
as a result of droughts and the Endangered Species Act. This is hardly 
the time to increase burden on ratepayers and Northwest businesses, 
such as our aluminum companies, who depend on BPA power for survival. 
As the ranking member of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over 
the PMAs, I can assure my constituents I will continue to fight for 
reasonable and competitive power rates. It is important to remember the 
budget resolution is only a blueprint, and it is the authorizing 
committees who have the final say. You can be certain I would delete 
such a proposal at the authorizing level.
  I want to congratulate Mr. Kasich for his outstanding work in 
crafting a credible Republican alternative. While not perfect, it is a 
big step in the right direction.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Republican Budget Committee alternative. I commend my colleague, John 
Kasich, for his hard work in formulating a comprehensive alternative to 
the resolution reported by the Budget Committee. In developing this 
budget, Mr. Kasich went to authorizing committees seeking advice. He 
sought a plan we could stand behind, instead of resorting to a ``this 
is what you get'' approach. As a Republican leader on the Education and 
Labor Committee for work force issues, I sat down with John Kasich to 
discuss my recommendations to consolidate overlapping and redundant job 
training programs. I was extremely pleased that many of my ideas were 
included in this alternative budget. As Republicans, we may not like 
all, or even most, of the individual cuts. But I can say that we were 
consulted. This budget's merit is the result of many innovative and 
creative Republican ideas which, if enacted, will save the taxpayers 
billions.
  I support many of the concepts in the Republican alternative. While 
President Clinton promised a tax cut for middle-class families, many of 
my constituents called to let me know that they are still waiting. This 
budget does just that--it contains a $500 per child tax credit, 
delivering on the President's campaign promise. This is one small step 
we can take to help families. Furthermore, there is no comparison 
between the levels of deficit reduction achieved between the Democratic 
and Republican Budget Committee proposals. The Republican proposal goes 
$15 billion further in deficit reduction than the Democratic proposal 
in fiscal year 1995 alone. Our Republican budget pays for welfare, 
health care, and crime initiatives. And national defense is funded at a 
much more responsible level.
  To be quite honest, Mr. Chairman, I disagree with specific cuts and 
increased spending in each of the alternatives before us today. None of 
the proposals is perfect. But to say that I would vote against all of 
them is not responsible governing. So, when I looked at each, I decided 
that the Republican Kasich alternative is much closer to my 
expectations for any plan which guides our Government's spending for 
the next year. The Republican plan pays--instead of looking the other 
way--for the President's ambitious domestic agenda. It has more deficit 
reduction, more incentives for working families, and lays a reasonable 
groundwork for reform.
  But I do have concerns with the Kasich plan. My primary concern is 
that this budget cuts $9.4 billion next year in education, training, 
employment, and social services while increasing defense spending by 
$6.4 billion. Although I believe that the Democratic proposal brings 
defense spending to a point where national security could very well be 
jeopardized, it is just as wrong to cut job training and social 
services to a point where we are jeopardizing the future of our work 
force and its ability to compete in a global, high-tech economy. Times 
have changed. We can certainly do better in allocating limited Federal 
resources.
  Mr. Chairman, the Democratic Budget Committee proposal, which 
essentially is a rubber stamp of President Clinton's budget request, 
does not go far to reduce the deficit. The Kasich/Republican plan does 
not eliminate the deficit, either. Since, once again, a balanced budget 
amendment has been effectively killed for yet another Congress, I am 
supporting the Kasich resolution today because it moves the debate 
about deficit reduction in the right direction. By continuing to hammer 
away at this issue, I hope future budget debates can focus on less 
partisanship and more genuine concern for fiscal responsibility and 
cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Kasich substitute.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I enter in the Record the language of two 
amendments that my Republican colleagues on the Budget Committee 
approved for inclusion in the Kasich alternative. The amendments deal 
with health care reform and should have been printed in the report to 
accompany House Concurrent Resolution 218.
  The first amendment makes clear the Republican view that all 
Government-mandated health care reform should be on-budget. The second 
expresses the Republican view that health alliances and similar 
governmental entities should be prohibited from borrowing through the 
Treasury.

               Budgetary Treatment of Health Care Reform

       For purposes of budget scorekeeping by the Office of 
     Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, 
     any proposed change in law concerning health care reform 
     shall be properly reflected in the Federal budget.
       Any obligation, payroll tax, assessment, premium or fee 
     required of an employer or of any other individual and which 
     is to be paid to a particular entity established pursuant to 
     Federal law shall be treated as a Federal receipt. Any 
     related expenditure made by any such entity required pursuant 
     to Federal law shall be treated as a Federal outlay.
       This provision is particularly important in light of the 
     administration's failure to include the true cost of its 
     health care reform plan in the fiscal year 1995 budget 
     submission by OMB. The administration's health care reform 
     plan would constitute the largest tax increase and largest 
     expansion of entitlement spending in U.S. history.


    Alliances or Other Government Health Entity Borrowing Prohibited

       No health alliance or other government health entity shall 
     be granted the authority to engage in public borrowing 
     through the Department of the Treasury.
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Chairman I agree with my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle that we need to further cut Federal spending. I agree that 
we need to continue to reduce our Nation's deficit. But, there is a 
right way and a wrong way to reduce spending and the Kasich substitute 
is the wrong way to accomplish this goal.
  Last year I helped craft and voted for a package of spending cuts 
along with Mr. Kasich and Mr. Penny. While I did not like everything in 
Penny-Kasich, I was willing to make tough choices for the sake of 
deficit reduction. Next week, we will have the opportunity to vote on a 
balanced budget amendment and I will vote for this amendment because I 
believe it is time for this Government to live within its means.
  The debate here is not only about how much money the Government 
should spend, it is also about how we should reorder our national 
priorities. And while I agree that we need to reduce the deficit, I 
don't agree that we should do it by cutting funding for AIDS research 
or funding for research for breast and ovarian cancer or funding for 
student loans. I don't agree that we should cut in half funding for 
fusion research which offers hope for an endless supply of clean 
energy. This is exactly what the Kasich substitute would do.
  The Kasich substitute is not about cutting spending--it is a policy 
statement that, if enacted, would turn our country in the wrong 
direction. There is a difference between making tough choices and 
making irresponsible choices. The Kasich substitute makes irresponsible 
and unacceptable decisions about how we should allocate scarce 
resources and for this reason it should be defeated.
  Mr. Kasich has been a leader in the fight to reduce the deficit. I 
have worked with him in the past and I look forward to working with him 
in the future as we attempt to eliminate wasteful spending. But on this 
substitute and with these choices, I cannot support his effort.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I have the honor and privilege of serving 
the people of the 23d District of Texas. I ask my colleagues to 
remember that all of us were sent here to represent the people. Each 
and every one of us has a responsibility to support a budget which 
serves to increase the individual freedom of our employer, the American 
citizen; and vote against any budget alternative which seeks to turn 
citizens into subjects by expanding the size and power of the Federal 
Government.
  Out in the Davis Mountains, deep in west Texas, is the McDonald 
Observatory. It has one of the world's most powerful telescopes, 
capable of viewing distant galaxies. My colleagues, we do not need that 
great telescope to look into the hearts and minds of the American 
people, we only need to open our eyes and ears.
  I have carefully reviewed the various budget alternatives before us 
and am very disappointed and discouraged to report that most fail to 
serve the needs of the American people. These proposals are just the 
latest jumble of high taxes and deficit spending that Washington has 
concocted. My colleagues, the American people have had enough of these 
business-as-usual budgets. If you can't hear your constituents' voices, 
come to Texas. Come to Laredo, come to Odessa, come to Del Rio, come to 
Alpine--the common sense will be deafening. The jig is up. Government 
must once again serve the people.
  My colleagues, if you are willing to listen to the American people 
there is a bright spot. Mr. Kasich has offered a commonsense 
substitute. Voting for this substitute will be an important step in 
restoring the people's trust in their Government. The commonsense 
budget includes fully funded comprehensive reform of the welfare and 
health care systems. The commonsense budget provides a needed $500 per 
child tax credit for working Americans. The commonsense budget insures 
that our military forces are adequately funded. The commonsense budget 
reduces deficit spending by more than $152 billion.
  My colleagues, let's use common sense when spending the people's 
dollars and cents. Remember, it's their money, not ours. All of us have 
promised to serve the American people. It is time for this Congress to 
keep its word. Vote for the commonsense budget and restore to the 
American people their income and freedom.
  Mr. DORNAN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
opposition to the President's business as usual budget and in strong 
support of both the Republican alternatives.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the economy is improving. How 
much this has to do with the President's policies and how much it has 
to do with the business cycle is another matter. Indeed, polls show 
that a majority of Americans, 64 percent, do not credit Bill Clinton's 
policies with the economy's resurgence. They seem to agree with one 
well-known economist who said the economy would have improved, ``if 
voters had elected Bugs Bunny.'' That seems to be the prevailing 
attitude in the financial community as well. No one seriously believes 
that the President's budget, which did not go into effect until 
October, is responsible for what happened all last year. Positive 
trends were already well in place, but that may not last long.
  Take the employment picture, which, though improving slightly, is 
still very shaky. The economy is simply not creating the types of jobs 
that will propel the economy strongly forward. In the past few months 
we have seen many large companies, GTE, Westinghouse, and others, 
announce huge layoffs. And statistics show that many of the high-wage 
jobs lost during the recession are being replaced with jobs of a lower-
wage, higher-turnover variety, a trend that has been a boon for the 
temporary employment industry.
  One of the reasons temporary workers are so attractive is that they 
are not subject to many of the rules and regulations full-time workers 
are. And if the Clinton administration is successful in enacting its 
labor agenda--which includes a higher minimum wage indexed to 
inflation--and I noticed where the head of the House, Speaker Tom 
Foley's task force on homelessness, recently called for a minimum 
hourly wage of $6 or more, a ban on striker replacements, increases in 
pension plan premiums, and new OSHA regulations--they will succeed only 
in exacerbating the unstable employment situation. The result would be 
even more temps, more overtime, more mechanization, and fewer jobs.
  There is also the need to consider the higher tax bills facing upper-
income Americans this year. Remember, President Clinton raised the top 
marginal rate on income to 39.6 percent and made it retroactive to 
January 1 of last year. So many Americans will be faced with a big tax 
bill come April 15. And even though they can take 3 years to pay it 
off, it will still have a restraining effect.
  Furthermore, the new, higher withholding rates have gone into effect, 
which will reduce take-home pay and is likely to result in less 
borrowing, less investment, less spending, and less saving. And if that 
is not enough to make tax season rougher than usual, many Americans 
will find that refinancing their house has cut the amount they can 
deduct for mortgage interest--by far the largest deduction most people 
take--making their tax bill even higher.
  So I would warn my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to put 
away the ``Happy Days Are Here Again'' sheet music. There is still a 
long way to go before we can assess the effects of Clintonomics.
  Let me return to the specific budgets we have been presented with 
today, starting with the President's plan.
  By the administration's own admission, the Clinton defense proposal 
is underfunded by at least $20 billion. This would require defense 
spending to fall from $292.4 billion in fiscal 1993 to $258.1 billion 
in fiscal 1999. Realistically speaking, how can we possibly project 
American power and protect American interests on an isolationist 
budget? The post-cold war world, as we discover almost every day, is 
still a very dangerous place. I know that is said an awful lot, but it 
is true. The geopolitical map of the world may have changed, but man 
hasn't. As Plato said, ``only the dead have seen the end of war.'' So 
we must still maintain readiness, while planning for a shift in defense 
requirements.
  Further weakening our defense posture is the fact that, under 
Clinton, critical funding is being siphoned away from core defense 
needs to noncore missions such as defense conversion and environmental 
research. We don't have a dime to waste on this type of liberal 
nonsense.
  You know, we on this side of the aisle have taken to calling the 
Clinton budget the MIA budget, because there is so much that is missing 
from it. For example, the budget leaves out $100 billion in mandatory 
premiums paid by businesses and individuals as well as the benefits 
paid out from those receipts. Welfare reform, which is estimated to 
cost some $7 billion a year, is also missing. Neither does Clinton 
offer any clue as to how he is going to pay for implementation of the 
GATT accord, the Superfund, or his crime package. For these initiatives 
alone he will need to come up with $34 billion.
  And what do we get for all this flim-flammery? More deficit spending, 
to the tune of $370 billion over 5 years, and higher deficits. That's 
right. Higher deficits. According to the President's own numbers, the 
budget deficit will increase from $176 billion in 1995 to $201 billion 
in 1999. And another $1.7 trillion will be added to the national debt.
  I am proud to say, however, that two Republicans, Mr. Kasich and Mr. 
Solomon, have offered alternatives that are light years ahead of the 
Clinton plan.
  The Solomon plan does something that Clinton promised to do during 
the campaign, but hasn't come close to achieving--a balanced budget in 
5 years. It does so with a package of 500 spending cuts totaling over 
$600 billion. It does not reduce Social Security, cut veteran's 
benefits, or raise taxes. It does lower the spending caps to ensure 
that the bulk of the savings achieved will be used to balance the 
budget, while including funding for such important initiatives as the 
Republican welfare reform proposal, the Republican crime proposal, and 
the Republican health care reform bill.
  The other Republican plan, the Kasich plan, provides not only more 
deficit reduction than the Clinton plan, but also provides job creation 
incentives, family tax relief, and Government reform, while also 
including health, crime, and welfare reform bills. Among its best 
features is a $500 per child tax credit, which would keep $63 million 
from leaving my district. This would help countless other working 
families throughout America. It also indexes capital gains to 
inflation, something I have strongly advocated for years. Further, it 
would provide for immediate expensing of business equipment. And it 
would do all this and still achieve $153 billion more in deficit 
reduction than the Clinton-Democrat plan.
  In sum, the Clinton administration came in promising change, but it 
is the Republicans who are offering real change. I therefore, urge all 
my colleagues to oppose the President's plan and support the Republican 
alternative of your choice.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we must decide whether to 
stay the course or set out in a new direction.
  The budget before us today was prepared by the Clinton administration 
and rubber stamped by the Budget Committee. It follows the basic 
directions laid out last year in the 5-year plan devised by President 
Clinton.
  I had serious reservations about that plan when it was discussed in 
this room a year ago, and today I am absolutely convinced that it is 
taking us in the wrong direction.
  Granted, objecting to any initiative is easy if one fails to put 
forth some alternative proposal. Indeed, I would not waste your time, 
Mr. Chairman, or that of my constituents by suggesting that the 
President is wrong unless I held a superior plan in my hand--the Kasich 
budget.
  Why is the Kasich plan better? I'll give you five reasons.
  First, the Kasich alternative would refrain from spending $152 
billion over the next 5 years that would otherwise be borrowed and 
spent under the Clinton plan. That is fiscal discipline and it results 
in lower interest costs in the short term and less accumulated debt 
over the long term.
  Second, the Kasich alternative calls for the adoption of specific, 
tangible reforms in the decision-making process here in Washington. A 
cost-benefit analysis would be performed before we ask private citizens 
and the business community to comply with any new bureaucratic rules 
and regulations.
  Of particular interest to me is the section reviewing the need to 
relieve State and local governments from the burden of unfunded federal 
mandates. County commissioners from all over the country met here in 
Washington earlier this week to discuss this matter and I am delighted 
that their concerns have been recognized.
  Third, the Kasich alternative makes a good faith effort to fix our 
ailing health care system and reform Federal welfare programs. And, 
unlike the Clinton health care plan and yet-to-be released welfare 
reform proposal, the Kasich plan locks in savings provided by these 
reforms for deficit reduction.
  Fourth, the Kasich alternative provides a more realistic Defense 
budget that will allow the United States to pursue a sound post-cold 
war national security policy. The Clinton administration has conceded 
their proposed Defense spending levels are insufficient to adequately 
fund their Defense program outlined in the Bottom-Up Review. The Kasich 
plan restores and reprioritizes Defense spending in an effort to 
preserve our military capability and clearly define the United States 
role in the world.
  Finally, the Kasich plan also recognizes the contributions and 
sacrifices our veterans have made in protecting the peace, liberty and 
interests in our country. I strongly support and applauds the Kasich 
plan for increasing veterans medical care by $110 million, restoring 
the Clinton administration's $52 million cut in medical and prosthetic 
research, and adding 50 FTE's to the Board of Veterans Appeals to help 
reduce the 2-year backlog.
  The Kasich alternative is a voluminous, multifaceted document, but I 
believe that these five elements alone would put us on a fundamentally 
different course than that advocated by the President.
  For those of my colleagues who favor this new direction but are 
concerned about the fate of a particular program, I would ask you to 
resist the temptation to reject the entire plan on the basis of a 
single line item. It would be difficult to find two people, much less a 
majority, who could agree on where every penny goes in a budget of $1.5 
trillion.
  Indeed, in my capacity as a Pennsylvanian and as the ranking member 
of the Aviation Subcommittee, I have concerns about elements of the 
Kasich alternative.
  The consolidation of all economic development programs into a single 
block grant program troubles me greatly. Before I was elected to the 
House of Representatives I served as general counsel in the Economic 
Development Administration, and since being elected I have worked hard 
to see that EDA effectively leverages non-Federal money to help 
communities develop the infrastructure that is needed to retain and 
attract new industry.
  As the ranking member on the Aviation Subcommittee, I take issue with 
the Kasich proposal to privatize the air traffic control functions of 
the Federal Aviation Administration. It is, I believe, premature to 
make such a recommendation because the FAA is studying this proposal 
and will make its recommendations to the Congress next month. The 
Public Works and Transportation Committee will then carefully review 
these recommendations.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Kasich plan is the better plan and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, today the House is once again 
presented with a clear choice: between yet another, business-as-usual 
budget from the White House or a budget from this House that cuts 
taxes, makes real spending cuts, and proposes major new reforms in 
welfare and crime. If you want real change, the Kasich budget is the 
one to support.
  In New Jersey, our new Governor, Christie Whitman, has asked for and 
received a 5-percent reduction in the State income tax. At the same 
time, the Governor is committed to reducing government costs by 
submitting all State programs to a strict priority ordering. Governor 
Whitman is determined to give the citizens of her State better 
government for less money. Here in this Congress, we should make the 
same kind of commitment and we can, by passing the Kasich budget.
  The White House still doesn't get it. They talk about serious 
spending restraints, but they continue to increase funding for all non-
military discretionary programs. The Kasich budget does it better--real 
cuts in both taxes and spending and even better deficit reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, the Kasich budget offers the American people what we in 
New Jersey know to be true. Government should pursue its central 
mission--that of serving the people's needs, instead of the needs of 
bureaucrats and their special interest groups. The Kasich budget 
demonstrates that the American people can get better Government at less 
cost, and also get to keep more of their own money which will help our 
economy grow.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Kasich budget.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain a few things 
for those people across the Nation who are watching this debate.
  We will hear a lot of numbers being batted back and forth in this 
Chamber today. We will hear terms like baselines, out years, budget 
authority, allocations, sequesters and CBO scoring.
  But don't be fooled. We're not talking about quantum physics here. 
This debate is really about power--the power of government versus the 
power of the American people.
  On the one hand, we have the Democrats' budget. It relies on the same 
tired formula they have peddled for years: more social spending; more 
careless defense cuts; more big deficits. Equally as interesting is 
what's not in their budget: no health care reform; no welfare reform; 
and no tough crime bill.
  Taken together, this visionless document is the very essence of 
status quo. It continues to feed the same failed Government policies 
with the personal and financial freedom of America's middle-class 
families.
  In stark contrast, we Republicans have offered an alternative called 
putting families first. This comprehensive package provides tax relief 
for families, incentives for job creation, greater deficit reduction, 
and funding for welfare reform, health care reform and a tough, 
comprehensive crime bill--all paid for with meaningful spending cuts.
  In short, the Republican alternative is a blueprint for the future, 
that invests in people not government.
  So as the debate carries on, ask yourself one question: Do I still 
have faith in Government to take my money and look out for my best 
interests? If you do, great--support the Democrats' budget. However, if 
you don't--if you think that Government is too big and that America's 
families need more freedom to look after their own best interests--
support the Republican alternative.
  The choice is simple, and I believe the answer is obvious.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             RECORDED VOTE

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165, 
noes 243, not voting 30, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 55]

                               AYES--165

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--243

     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--30

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

                              {time}  1353

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Barton for, with Mr. Abercrombie against.
       Mr. Fields of Texas for, Mr. Collins of Illinois against.
       Mr. Gallo for, Mr. Dooley against.
       Mr. Lewis of California for, Mr. Meehan against.
       Mr. Lightfoot for, Mr. Orton against.
       Mr. McMillan for, Mr. Slattery against.

  Mr. FORD of Michigan changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. WALSH changed his 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.


                     final period of general debate

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, it is now in order for a final 
period of debate.
  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will be recognized for 5 
minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] will be recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the House will vote today to continue the 
unprecedented and successful economic growth and deficit reduction 
initiatives that the Congress and President Clinton began last year.
  We enter into this debate with an economy that is improving in all 
sectors. Because of the aggressive and realistic deficit reduction 
package enacted last year by this Democratic Congress and the 
Democratic administration, nationwide unemployment is now down to 6.5 
percent, job creation is up by 1.9 million private sector jobs, 
inflation is in check, and the economic outlook is the best we have 
witnessed in decades.
  We achieved these goals through a combination of steady deficit 
reduction and targeted investments. The budget resolution continues 
these efforts by bringing down the 1995 deficit to $175.3 billion, the 
lowest level in 5 year, and more than $100 billion below the 
projections made last year. At the same time, the budget provides for 
increased investment into critical areas such as education and 
training, research and development, the transportation infrastructure, 
and crime control initiatives.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to continue these positive trends. As you know, 
my own State of California is still lagging behind the rest of the 
country. We have been hard hit by defense cuts, by natural disasters 
and by a persistent recession. For this reason, I want our national 
economy to continue to improve so that my State of California will also 
have a chance to benefit more from the positive results of President 
Clinton's national economic program.
  This means adopting the Sabo budget resolution today. This means 
continuing the effective economic growth plan we passed last year. This 
means continuing our tough deficit reduction plan and holding down 
interest rates.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Sabo budget resolution and keep 
our economy moving forward.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent 
Resolution 218, the fiscal year 1995 budget resolution drafted by Mr. 
Sabo and his colleagues.
  House Concurrent Resolution 218 follows the steady path of deficit 
reduction and general economic recovery initiated by the President's 
deficit reduction plan.
  This budget resolution reflects both the realities and the priorities 
of last year's $500 billion deficit reduction package.
  There is deficit reduction--the deficit will drop from $255 billion 
in fiscal year 1993 to $175 billion in fiscal year 1995. Indeed, the 
budget deficit will drop from 4.9 percent of the gross domestic product 
to 2.5 percent of the GDP in fiscal year 1995. House Concurrent 
Resolution 218 cuts $102 billion from domestic discretionary spending, 
terminates over 100 programs, and cuts 200 other programs. Moreover, 
for the first time in 26 years, total discretionary spending will 
actually decline with passage of this budget resolution. It is 
important to note that these cuts are a direct result of last year's 
enactment of the President's deficit reduction package which many of my 
colleagues from the other side of the aisle said would wreak havoc on 
the economy.
  The budget resolution targets $13.6 billion to a number of investment 
priorities. Job training would be boosted by $497 million. Spending to 
stop crime and put more police on the street would be increased by $2.5 
billion. Head Start would receive $700 million, and efforts to reform 
our schools would be augmented with $595 million in new resources.
  This budget resolution is not all things to all people. It is the 
best budget resolution that we will vote on today. In addition, there 
will be plenty of opportunities during the appropriations process to 
cut Federal spending.
  While last year's deficit reduction package and this budget 
resolution will help continue the current national economic recovery, I 
believe that we need to do more to bring jobs to regions of this 
country that have not fully emerged from the recession, like Rhode 
Island. In light of this disparity, I urge my colleagues to consider 
job creating legislation or a regional economic development plan.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to support the Budget 
Committee's resolution today. However, I want to alert you to one 
outstanding issue contained in the budget resolution. In this 
resolution, the House Budget Committee adopted a new baseline for our 
crop insurance system--effectively combining mandatory spending from 
the crop insurance program with ad hoc discretionary spending from the 
disaster assistance program. North Dakotans are very familiar with both 
these programs. North Dakota's producers rank first in participation in 
the crop insurance system for most crops based on acres enrolled. North 
Dakota has also unfortunately become all too familiar with disaster 
assistance, with a severe drought in 1988 and most recently the 500-
year flood of 1993. The House acted in historic fashion today, 
combining these funds to strengthen the crop insurance system in a 
historic tradeoff for disaster assistance that is harder to get.
  I want to caution my colleagues that I believe the House Budget 
Committee did not go far enough and as a result, while the shift in the 
baseline is historic, the funds available may not be enough to 
accomplish our objective of increased individual risk management rather 
than annual disaster appropriations bills.
  Before we enter negotiations with our colleagues in the other body, I 
encourage Members to remember that we cannot accomplish our goal of 
eliminating off-budget, ad hoc spending without the necessary 
investment to improve the Federal crop insurance system.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, the arrival of the President's budget on 
Capitol Hill signals the beginning of the annual budget process in 
Congress. It is a long process, taking the remainder of the year to 
complete and requires the passage of many bills and resolutions. The 
budget resolution and the alternatives debated today define a broad 
guideline on how much the Government will take in through taxes and 
other receipts and also spend on Federal programs. The President's 
signature is not required on the budget resolution, and the final 
product does not carry the force of law.
  I am opposed to the spending plan crafted by President Clinton and 
the House Democrats on the Budget Committee. The President and the 
Democratic leadership have made promises to reform the welfare system, 
provide tax relief, cut spending, reform the health care system, and 
stop crime. Yet, the budget for fiscal year 1995 shows that once again, 
these promises that the American people deserve have not been 
fulfilled. For instance, the Democratic budget glosses over anticrime 
legislation and only calls for funding 50,000 police officers, not the 
100,000 the President promised. In contrast the Republican budget 
initiative fully funds a Comprehensive Crime Control Act and adds $2 
billion for new police and $3 billion for Federal-State partnerships to 
build new prisons. The Democratic budget also fails to fund welfare and 
health care reform proposals. Finally, on the issue of deficit 
reduction, the Republican plan cuts the deficit to about $162 billion 
next year, and includes about $15 billion more in deficit reduction 
than the Democratic plan. Over 5 years, the Republican plan achieves 
$152.6 billion more in deficit reduction than the Democrats.
  On the other hand, the plan drafted by the Republicans addresses many 
of the major problems that my constituents in North Carolina are 
discussing. It establishes real priorities and pays for them. The 
Republican budget initiative provides family tax relief, reforms the 
welfare system, regains control of our streets and neighborhoods 
through anticrime measures, provides incentives for job creations, 
reforms the health care system, and reduces the deficit. Even more 
importantly, this plan is paid for through 200 real spending cuts and 
genuine reform. It lowers spending, taxes, and the deficit. Under the 
Republican plan, the deficit will be reduced approximately $310 billion 
over 5 years. In my considered opinion, it is a strong, well-thought-
out plan and deserves support.
  In particular, one of the major highlights is the $500-per-child tax 
credit. This tax credit will partially offset the burdensome taxes 
imposed by President Clinton and the Democratic leadership last August. 
Under the Republican plan, a $500-per-child tax credit will be 
available to families earning less than $200,000 a year. Seventy-four 
percent of this credit will go to families earning less than $60,000 a 
year. Roughly, $59 million a year in family tax relief will be 
available or about $80 more every month for a family of four for 
groceries or savings. The Heritage Foundation, a Washington, DC, think 
tank, estimates that in the 10th Congressional District there are 
roughly 116,159 children eligible for the tax credit. The $500 tax 
credit would return about $58 million to my district. And again, 
because of spending cuts in the bill, these tax credits will not affect 
the deficit.
  Finally, I would like to say a word about a sincere proposal put 
forth by my good friends Representatives Fawell and Solomon. Since I 
was elected to serve in Congress in 1986, I have worked to reduce 
deficit spending and balance the budget. The Fawell-Solomon plan is a 
package of 500 spending cuts that would reduce the deficit by $600 
billion. It is the only budget plan that does balance the budget. Given 
that the House plans to debate a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution next week, it seemed hypocritical to me to not support an 
effort that achieves this goal. As with other bills considered and 
debated by Congress, this legislation includes some cuts that I 
consider painful and do not support, for example it eliminates the 
tobacco subsidy for tobacco farmers. But, I considered a vote for this 
budget resolution a vote for balancing the budget, not a vote for 
specific policy changes. In fact, as noted above, the budget resolution 
does not have the force of law and there is legislative language in the 
plan that states that the appropriate committees must make the specific 
spending reductions.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Concurrent 
Resolution 218, the fiscal 1995 budget resolution. I wish to commend 
Chairman Sabo and his colleagues on the Budget Committee for their 
outstanding work in developing this measure and bringing it to the 
floor.
  This resolution continues the progress we started last year with the 
adoption of the 5-year budget agreement initiated by President Clinton. 
That plan provided for some $496 billion in deficit reduction over 5 
years, more than half of which comes from hard cuts in every category 
of Federal spending.
  That budget agreement has been enormously successful to date. Indeed, 
the budget deficit was $300 billion when President Bush left office in 
1992. It was $180 billion at the end of 1993. While that is still a lot 
of red ink, clearly we are heading in the right direction.
  The budget resolution we are considering today continues us along the 
deficit reduction glidepath. It conforms to the spending caps for 
discretionary spending which were established under last year's budget 
agreement. In so doing, it actually reduces discretionary spending for 
the first time since 1969.
  For those who believe, as I do, that the best way to balance the 
budget is to cut spending, this is certainly welcome news. Indeed, 
under this resolution, the deficit will fall to $175 billion in fiscal 
1995. That is some $115 billion less than the deficit was just 3 years 
ago.
  Just as importantly, it achieves these targets without increasing 
taxes, and without forcing any single industries or sectors of the 
economy to bear a disproportionate burden of the spending cuts.
  While I am generally satisfied with the framework of this budget 
agreement. I really believe we should be doing even more in the way of 
spending cuts. I intend to continue my efforts this year, just as I 
have always done in the past, to identify and vote against those 
spending programs which we don't need or can't afford.
  For example, I intend to vote once again to terminate funding for the 
$30 billion space station, which we just can't afford. I also intend to 
support across-the-board cuts where necessary, and to vote against any 
appropriations bills which come before the House where spending levels 
cannot be justified.
  In other words, I view this budget resolution as only a starting 
point for deficit reduction--one which we can and will improve on 
through the adoption of additional spending cuts this year.
  I also intend to oppose the substitute amendments which have been 
proposed by Representatives Frank, Mfume, Kasich, and Solomon. While I 
appreciate their efforts, and agree with some aspects of their 
proposals, none of these substitutes represents sound budget or tax 
policy at this time.
  Both the Frank and Mfume amendments would cut defense spending below 
the level requested by President Clinton. While I support the effort to 
reorder our military priorities in the post-cold war era, we must 
maintain an acceptable level of military preparedness. I place great 
weight in the President's determination, as Commander in Chief, that 
these proposals go too far in cutting defense spending at this time, 
and could put our national security at some risk.
  The Kasich amendment would add some $6.4 billion in defense spending, 
which is too much. At the same time, it could threaten the very fragile 
economic recovery we are experiencing by draining some $119 billion in 
tax revenues from the Treasury.
  The last time we enacted a tax cut of that magnitude in 1981--which I 
voted against--the budget deficit quadrupled almost overnight. We don't 
need to repeat that same mistake again.
  Similarly, I believe the Solomon amendment would increase the deficit 
significantly over the long run.
  That is because much of the savings proposed under this amendment 
would come from Medicare. That is the same source of savings which 
President Clinton has proposed to tap to pay for much of his national 
health care reform program.
  As my colleagues know, health care spending is the single fastest 
growing part of the Federal budget. If we are really serious about 
deficit reduction, then we have to start by getting health care costs 
under control.
  The Solomon substitute would make it difficult, if not impossible, to 
get the health care reform effort off the ground, by earmarking these 
savings for deficit reduction instead of health care reform. Indeed, it 
would lock us into a fiscal straightjacket, where long-term health care 
spending--and the Federal deficit--will continue to skyrocket, in 
exchange for some limited, short-term deficit reduction.
  I believe we need to continue to scrutinize the Federal budget very 
carefully, and to identify additional areas to cut. We also need to 
examine ways to control the rising costs of Medicare and other 
entitlement programs.
  However, we have to do so in a manner which makes sense, and which 
will not do more harm than good over the long run. I believe the 
committee resolution is fair and balanced. It offers a reasoned 
combination of spending cuts for the most part, and contains a viable 
enforcement mechanism. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, as we debate the budget resolution for 
fiscal year 1995, I can't help but recall a similar debate that took 
place in this Chamber less than a year ago. At that time, much like 
today, a lot of predictions were being made about the effects of the 
deficit reduction bill. There were those who said then that the bill 
was ``a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster''--Mr. Crane, 
Congressional Record March 18, 1993. Some said ``it will raise your 
taxes, increase the deficit, and kill over 1 million jobs''--Mr. 
Hefley, Congressional Record August 4, 1993. Still others claimed that 
the package simply ``would not lower the deficit''--Mr. Herger, 
Congressional Record August 4, 1993. The ``gloom and doom'' predictions 
of economic devastation went on and on.
  There's one difference in the debate this year, however. The effects 
of last year's deficit reduction bill are no longer a matter of 
speculation. The naysayers have been proven wrong.
  Because of the bill we approved last year, the Federal budget deficit 
is finally moving in the right direction. The expected deficit next 
year--fiscal year 1995--is $126 billion less than President Bush 
predicted it would be under his policies. That's a 40-percent 
reduction. And the size of the deficit compared to the overall economy 
has been cut nearly in half, to the lowest percentage since 1979.
  The economy and financial markets have reacted favorably to the 
actions we took last year. Interest rates are at the lowest levels in 
20 years, and these lower rates have helped many families buy their 
first home and enable millions more to refinance their mortgages and 
save hundreds of dollars each month. Inflation also remains low, and 
consumer confidence and spending is up. And the best news is that more 
new jobs have been created in the past year than in the previous 4 
years combined.
  And what about all those new taxes that were going to crush jobs and 
hurt millions of hard working Americans? The reality is that income 
taxes were raised on only 1.2 percent of the wealthiest Americans.
  The gas tax you heard so much about--the one that was supposed to 
drain your bank account and drive businesses into bandruptcy--hasn't 
even caused a blip in the economy. In fact, gas prices are actually 
lower now than they were before this tax was imposed.
  Not only have taxes not gone up for most Americans, they've gone down 
for the small businesses and start-up companies who've taken advantage 
of the job-creating tax incentives in our budget bill.
  Taxes have also gone down for millions of working Americans under the 
earned income tax credit. This credit makes sure that parents who work 
full time make enough money to put their families above the poverty 
line--an important first step toward welfare reform.
  The bill we passed last year has also laid the groundwork for long-
term economic growth. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently 
said:

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

  The best outlook in 20 or 30 years. That's a far cry from what the 
naysayers were predicting last year.
  We achieved this progress by establishing in law a 5-year program to 
cut spending by $255 billion, cut entitlements, eliminate entire 
programs, and reduce the Government work force. We put tight caps on 
what can be spent on the operations of the Government. The result is 
that Federal spending in 1995 on everything other than entitlements and 
interest will be held below 1994 levels, with no adjustment for 
inflation.
  Now we can and we must do more, especially on entitlement spending. 
This year's budget resolution continues the program of serious deficit 
reduction and fiscal restraint that started last year. It will end 100 
Federal programs and reduce more than 200 others. It will being the 
1995 deficit down to $175.3 billion, the lowest level in 5 years. It 
contains no new taxes and still fully funds the President's anticrime 
initiative.
  The decisions we made last year are working. The economy is 
recovering. Jobs are being created. The deficit is going down. Interest 
rates are staying down. We're in the best economic shape in two or 
three decades. We're building a strong foundation for long-term growth.
  The right vote today is to continue this progress by voting ``yes'' 
on the budget resolution.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, today the House of 
Representatives will consider five directions that the budget of our 
Federal Government can take in the next 5 years. The Clinton budget and 
the four other substitutes that are before us today each have their own 
positive and negative aspects. While deliberating over these five 
plans, I kept certain concerns of my constituents in mind. I knew that 
in a State with tax rates among the highest in the country, families in 
my district would be looking for a break from the tax burden. I knew 
that these same families do not want to leave a massive budget deficit 
to their children. I knew that people in my district, especially those 
in Waterbury, want relief from the terror of violent and random crime. 
Finally, I knew that the supposed economic recovery that President 
Clinton tries to create through words every day has not reached my 
State. It is my feeling that the Kasich substitute best addresses these 
concerns.
  Let me speak a little about each budget alternative. First, the 
Democrat budget supported by President Clinton is a continuation of the 
flawed budget act that I voted against last year. That is, it is a 
budget that focuses on tax increases enacted to fund new spending 
programs. Despite the claims that the Clinton administration is cutting 
spending to lower the deficit, this Democrat budget actually increases 
total spending by $36 billion. Most of the spending cuts are again 
coming from the defense budget and the hardware that Connecticut 
workers have built with years of acquired expertise. While some Members 
of Congress feel that the military and political threats to America are 
gone, I feel that President Clinton and the Democrats are being too 
unwary in their analysis of the world situation. The American military 
was the major obstacle to the extension of Soviet power and influence 
during the cold war. We should not disassemble it so casually. At some 
point in the future, the United States may have to be involved in 
conflict again. Let's make sure that we have the best equipment 
possible to minimize the number of American casualties.
  I was astonished to see that President Clinton did not include his 
health care reform bill in the budget. Considering that health care 
reform is supposed to be a major focus of this administration, I can 
only guess that President Clinton is trying to hide the monster that he 
and his wife created. We all know now that the Clinton health care plan 
would be the largest expansion of Federal entitlements in history, 
along with the largest tax increase in history. I will not vote for a 
budget that does not contain a credible and complete health care reform 
package.
  The Frank substitute only differs from the Democrat budget in that it 
reduces the defense budget by an additional $2.4 billion for 1995 and 
by $25 billion over 5 years. I recognize that, year after year, some 
Members think that national defense is a convenient place to cut 
spending, but I disagree with this view. The Frank substitute is just 
providing another source of funding for President Clinton's new 
spending programs, still included in this version of the budget.
  The Congressional Black Caucus has also offered a substitute budget 
that attempts to deal with the problems of the Nation, especially those 
of the urban poor. While I recognize these problems, I see that the 
Congressional Black Caucus is promoting the same big-Government 
approach that has failed for the past 30 years. How much more money are 
we going to waste before we realize that the Federal Government cannot 
solve problems of the urban poor with costly programs enacted in 
Washington?

  The Solomon budget on the surface seems to be a budget worthy of 
support. It balances the budget in 5 years with a wide range of 
spending cuts. However, upon closer examination, I see that the Solomon 
budget contains too many egregious spending cuts. I have been a 
relentless supporter of the space station as the next step in our space 
program, and I have supported the Seawolf submarine and the C-130H 
aircraft as key elements of our national security for this decade. A 
balanced budget amendment and a Presidential line-item veto would allow 
Congress and the President to make the most reasonable spending cuts 
from the budget.
  In contrast to all of these budget options, the Kasich substitute is 
formed around the concerns that I hear from my constituents. It reduces 
the deficit by $310 billion over 5 years--over $150 billion more than 
the Democrat budget--with a variety of real spending cuts. And at the 
same time, it includes policies that will enhance economic growth 
through business incentives and more money for families to keep at tax 
time.
  The Kasich substitute includes a welfare reform proposal which 
stresses work instead of handouts and seeks to put people on payrolls 
rather than public assistance rolls. States and local governments will 
have greater flexibility to shape aid to families with dependent 
children and other programs. I am especially heartened to note that 
this budget addresses issues that I have been stressing during this 
Congress: illegitimacy and parental responsibility. Finally, the 
welfare reform proposal takes the savings from these changes and gives 
it back to the taxpayer--over $18 billion over 5 years. No more will 
welfare be a income redistribution program perpetuating poverty.
  In addition to welfare reform, the Kasich substitute tackles the 
modern crime problem head on with a comprehensive law enforcement and 
criminal punishment program. The measure includes $2 billion over 5 
years for local police officers and $3 billion for Federal and State 
partnerships for new prisons. These are crime-fighting initiatives that 
Republicans have been advocating for years. President Clinton says that 
he is open to proposals that get tough on crime. This budget contains 
those proposals.
  The Kasich substitute fully funds the Affordable Health Care Now 
Act--The health care alternative that expands access to health 
coverage, contains cost, and most importantly, assures that medical 
decisions are made with patients and doctors, not Government 
bureaucrats. President Clinton does not care about this plan, but it is 
the only health care plan included in the budgets offered today.
  Many of my constituents have been asking me what Congress has been 
doing to improve the job situation. Those Clinton-backed defense cuts 
and increased taxes have not encouraged job growth in my district. 
Changes in the tax code under President Clinton have instead taken 
money away from working people. The Kasich substitute encourages higher 
levels of saving, investing, and risk-taking as a better way to improve 
the economy. One incentive in this budget, fully deductible IRA 
accounts, will allow Americans to save for their retirement while 
providing money for business investment.
  Perhaps the most exciting aspect of the Kasich substitute is the tax 
changes for families with dependent children. Families earning less 
than $200,000 per household would be eligible for a $500-per-child tax 
credit. Ninety percent of this tax break would go to families with 
incomes below $75,000 per year. At a time in which more of our Nation's 
leaders are acknowledging the importance of strong families, this tax 
credit is welcome news
  As I did last year during budget debate, let me repeat President 
Clinton's campaign promise of a middle-class tax cut. Candidate Clinton 
said that he would offer middle-class families $60 billion in tax cuts 
over 4 years in the form of a $300 tax cut per couple or a $300-per-
child tax credit. Well, here's my vote for a $500-per-child tax credit. 
I am still waiting for President Clinton's. While President Clinton 
once had a vision for the future, the Kasich budget is the only budget 
substitute that outlines one.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for the 
budget resolution as passed by the House Budget Committee. As a member 
of the committee who spent many hours drafting this legislation, I know 
this is a good budget. This budget keeps discretionary spending under 
the caps established last year. For the first time since 1969, 
discretionary spending will actually fall under this budget. This 
committee was able to come up with $3.1 billion in additional cuts 
beyond the President's proposal, and even with these cuts I believe 
this budget is effective in carrying out the important initiatives set 
forth by the President, including crime control and prevention and 
criminal justice reforms, more funding for Head Start, health research, 
and job training, and infrastructure improvements.
  The four substitute budgets being offered today contain some 
proposals with merit; however, it is my feeling these proposals have 
not received appropriate scrutiny through the committee process. For 
instance, two of these substitutes recommend the privatization of the 
Federal air traffic control and safety system. While this idea and 
others may be worthwhile, I find it difficult to support such broad 
reform measures without time for careful examination.
  Additionally, I have not seen CBO's estimates of the Solomon 
substitute. And, while I share the goals of the Congressional Black 
Caucus to increase resources for housing, health care, and education, I 
am reluctant to impose any inequitable taxes on law-abiding citizens of 
this country. I also agree with the President's recommendation that 
defense cannot be cut any further. The Frank substitute which proposes 
a $2.4 billion cut to defense could unnecessarily jeopardize our 
national security.
  The Kasich substitute reverses the change in priorities that Congress 
enacted in last year's budget and that the President has tried to 
further in his administration. This substitute proposes entitlement 
cuts of $95.6 billion over 5 years. I agree that entitlement spending 
must be controlled if we are to balance our Nation's budget, but we 
cannot expect senior citizens on Medicare alone to restore our Nation's 
fiscal health.
  The Kasich substitute cuts domestic spending by an additional $282.4 
billion over the next five years compared to the committee resolution. 
The effects to the 12th District of Illinois could be disastrous. The 
following domestic cuts will have a direct and substantial impact on 
southern and southwestern Illinois:
  A 25 percent cut in energy development programs will end research and 
development of clean coal technologies. Future funding for the Clean 
Coal Technology Program is totally eliminated.
  The reduction in highway and mass transit grants will make the St. 
Clair County extension of MetroLink impossible. Eliminating mass 
transit operating subsidies will impose a huge local tax burden and 
effectively shutdown MetroLink.
  The elimination of campus-based student assistance programs such as 
work-study and Perkins loans will limit the educational opportunities 
of thousands of students enrolled at Southern Illinois University at 
Carbondale.
  The elimination of the entire impact aid program could easily 
bankrupt Mascoutah school district and other school districts impacted 
by a federal presence.
  The repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act will put local laborers out of 
work.
  While a $500 per child tax credit may be appealing at first thought, 
I cannot believe this is responsible fiscal policy. Exploding budget 
deficits were brought under control by last year's deficit reduction 
legislation, but future deficits are still projected to be over $160 
billion per year. It is not realistic with this fiscal outlook to 
expect a massive tax cut. The 1981 Reagan income tax cut helped drive 
deficits out of control; this mistake should not be repeated at a time 
when our Federal budget deficit is headed down as the result of the 
Clinton plan.
  Mr. Speaker, the committee-passed budget resolution is sound fiscal 
policy that cuts our Federal budget deficit and builds on changes in 
our national priorities. We must pass this budget to see the 
initiatives--such as crime control and job training--a chance to work. 
As a result of the enactment of the deficit reduction bill from last 
year, the deficit as a percentage of the economy is projected to drop 
from 4.9 percent in fiscal year 1992 down to 2.5 percent in fiscal year 
1995--the lowest since 1979. This budget will help maintain these 
projections. I urge a vote in favor of the budget resolution and 
against the substitutes.
  Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
budget resolution as reported by the House Budget Committee.
  This budget is an important step in further reducing the Federal 
deficit. In fact, the budget will reduce the deficit an additional $53 
billion from the fiscal year 1994 budget. This represents a 23 percent 
reduction of the deficit in one fiscal year.
  Much more remains to be done to cut unnecessary spending, and I look 
forward to working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, as 
the appropriations process continues, to find other areas to trim 
federal spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to mention one other item. That is the 
importance of enacting a plan to bring health care costs under control, 
because under the current system the Federal deficit will rise in the 
out years due to uncontrolled health care spending. And so I also look 
forward to addressing the issue of health care costs with my colleagues 
and enacting meaningful reform.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Kasich] and I 
have an agreement that we will yield this time back. But the leadership 
first wishes to make an announcement.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, in an effort 
for everybody to catch their planes, we are not going to do the last 5 
minutes or whatever it is. But there will be a recorded vote, so nobody 
should leave until we do that. But there will be no more talking. How 
about a cheer for that.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt] the majority leader, to make an announcement.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)


                          legislative program

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this moment to 
inform Members that there will not be further debate; we will go right 
to a vote on the budget. But following that vote there will be 4 
minutes of debate before a vote to instruct on going to conference on 
the employee Federal buyout bill. So there will be an additional vote 
after the vote on the budget, but it will come very quickly.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Moakley] having assumed the chair, Mr. Serrano, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 218) setting forth the congressional budget 
for the U.S. Government for the fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 
and 1999, pursuant to House Resolution 384, he reported the concurrent 
resolution back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the concurrent resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 175, not voting 35, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 56]

                               AYES--223

     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Glickman
     Gordon
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--175

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lancaster
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--35

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (TX)
     Ballenger
     Barton
     Brooks
     Collins (IL)
     Crane
     Dooley
     Fields (TX)
     Ford (TN)
     Gallo
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Kopetski
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     Lloyd
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Meek
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Natcher
     Orton
     Pelosi
     Reynolds
     Rostenkowski
     Shaw
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Towns

                              {time}  1414

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Rostenkowski for, with Mr. Crane against.
       Mr. Abercrombie for, with Mr. Ballenger against.
       Mr. Brooks for, with Mr. Barton, against.
       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Fields of Texas 
     against.
       Mr. Dooley for, with Mr. Gallo against.
       Mrs. Lloyd for, with Mr. Lightfoot against.
       Mr. Meehan for, with Mr. McMillan against.
       Mr. Orton for, with Mr. Miller of Florida against.
       Mr. Slattery for, with Mr. Shaw against.

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________