[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 97 (Friday, July 22, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 1994

                                 ______


                               speech of

                           HON. KARAN ENGLISH

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 21, 1994

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4604) to 
     establish direct spending targets, and for other purposes:

  Ms. ENGLISH of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
the Kasich and Stenholm amendments to the Budget Control Act. Although 
there is no doubt that the growth of entitlements is a significant 
cause behind America's deficits, I believe these amendments are ill-
timed and ignore the basic causes behind the growth of entitlements.
  The first amendment we considered, by Representative Kasich and 
others, was a notable attempt to strengthen the intent of this bill. My 
primary concern, however, was that the entitlement caps required by 
this amendment might well lead to rationing of medical care for our 
Nation's senior citizens. Medical costs are increasing at an alarming 
rate. That's why health care reform is so vital. It would be unfair and 
unwise to exact cost containment by limiting the benefits to our 
seniors without regard to the several other causes of rapid health care 
inflation.
  Additionally, the joint resolution on entitlement spending invites 
political gridlock in the event that the priorities by Congress and the 
President are different. The delay that this might cause is unnecessary 
and counterproductive.
  But perhaps the most compelling reason that I voted against Mr. 
Kasich's amendment at this time was because there is currently a 
bipartisan commission studying ways to control entitlement spending. 
Since their final recommendations are expected by the end of this year, 
it does their work a disservice by enacting changes while they are 
developing proposals at the direction of the President.
  The following amendment, by Congressman Stenholm, was flawed by its 
inclusion of Social Security in the entitlement cap mechanism. For the 
foreseeable future, Social Security will continue to take in far more 
revenue than is currently needed by today's retirees. Because of this 
surplus, it would not be fair to cut Social Security, which might be 
required in the amendment's across-the-board cutting requirements.
  Ten years ago, the Social Security system was reformed through a 
bipartisan effort which ensured that the system will remain solvent for 
decades to come. While other reforms may be needed in the future, these 
changes are best accomplished through a cooperative, bipartisan effort 
directed at the system's problems. A one-size-fits-all approach just 
won't work.
  Finally, I voted in favor of the Spratt-Stupak amendment because it 
was consistent with language that was included in last year's deficit 
reduction measure. It requires that Congress and the President 
establish entitlement spending targets and directs them to propose ways 
to deal with any breach in the targeted spending levels.
  Health care reform, if enacted with cost control provisions, will 
help cut the increases in entitlement spending. The bipartisan 
entitlement spending commission should be permitted to finish their 
important work for subsequent action by the President and Congress. I 
support these efforts and look forward to future congressional action 
on both.

                          ____________________