[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. GARY A. FRANKS

                             of connecticut

                    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:

  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that the House 
of Representatives would have been able to propose spending cuts under 
the A to Z spending cut plan this year. Unfortunately, a majority of 
the House does not want to give Congress the chance to eliminate the 
waste. We are offered instead the Budget Control Act. I will vote for 
the Budget Control Act, provided that Social Security is exempted from 
the bill, because it is better than what we have now. I am pessimistic 
about this bill ever being able to curb cost overruns by itself. 
Therefore, I will also support the Kasich amendment. It seems that the 
Kasich amendment could make the bill much more effective.
  The Budget Control Act would make entitlement spending targets for 
the next 4 fiscal years and would create a process for adjusting direct 
spending to stay within the targets. Each year the President and 
Congress would have to address direct spending that exceed the targeted 
levels. The weakness of the Budget Control Act as written is that the 
level of entitlement growth allowed under this bill can be set at any 
number high enough to prevent any action on slowing this growth down. 
This bill provides no incentive to change the policy of entitlement 
programs, which is the real problem.
  There are two alternatives offered to allow us to enforce limits on 
entitlement spending. The Stenholm amendment puts the burden of 
entitlement control on Social Security. Older Americans who have had 
money taken from their paychecks over the years do not want Congress to 
take it, especially if their sacrifice allows wasteful spending to 
continue. Another problem with this amendment is that it allows tax 
increases to be used to pay for unexpected entitlement growth.
  I intend to support the Kasich substitute, which has the potential to 
instill much needed accountability into decisions about entitlement 
spending. The Kasich substitute requires authorizing committees to 
review entitlement programs annually and vote on funding levels for 
each one. These levels would be legally binding. In addition, the 
Kasich substitute exempts Social Security and does not allow Congress 
to raise taxes to cover excessive entitlement spending. I feel that the 
Kasich substitute may be the last real chance that the 103d Congress 
has to rein in Federal spending.

                          ____________________