[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E645-E646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL DISASTER 
            ASSISTANCE AND RESCISSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

                                 ______

                               speech of

                            HON. BILL ORTON

                                of utah

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 15, 1995
       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1158) making 
     emergency supplemental appropriations for additional disaster 
     assistance and making rescissions for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1995, and for other purposes:

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I am taking this opportunity to explain my 
vote against the rescissions and supplemental spending bill which 
passed the House last week.
  On Wednesday night, I was pleased to vote for the ``lockbox'' 
amendment offered by Representative  Brewster. I have been involved 
from the beginning in the development of this provision, which ensures 
that spending reductions are strictly dedicated to deficit reduction, 
and not simply reallocated to other spending programs or used to 
finance tax cuts. The lockbox amendment, approved by a 418 to 5 vote of 
the House, clearly stated that spending would be reduced by some $55 
billion over the next 5 years, and that all of these cuts could only be 
used to reduce the deficit.
  Based on this amendment, and the resulting deficit reduction, I was 
prepared to vote for final passage of this bill. However, just prior to 
a final vote on the rescissions bill, the Budget Committee held a 
markup of legislation to lower spending caps for the next 5 years. At 
this markup, the Budget Committee chairman announced that he planned to 
use all of the savings in fiscal years 1996 through 2000 from the 
rescissions bill to finance the Republican tax cuts. He also announced 
that the lockbox provisions which would prevent this maneuver would be 
stripped from the bill prior to a conference report.
  Without ascribing motivations or analyzing negotiations that took 
place, the effect was that the approximately $55 billion in outyear 
savings in the rescissions bill would not end up reducing the deficit 
by even a single dollar.
  This made the bill unacceptable to me. Many of the cuts in this bill 
will be painful, especially in the areas of education, elderly housing, 
and children's programs. I could not in good conscience vote for these 
cuts, without assurance from leadership that they would honor the 
provisions of the lockbox amendment. So, reluctantly, I voted against 
final passage.
  In addition, I must say that this decision was not made any easier by 
the unfair, highly restrictive way in which the bill was brought to the 
floor. Last week I explained in detail how this rule effectively 
protected 80 percent of the discretionary budget from budget cuts.
  I also explained how the rule made it almost impossible to restore 
funds for good programs through cuts in bad or wasteful programs. I was 
prepared to support additional spending cuts in other parts of the 
budget to restore cuts that I believe were
 unfair or unwarranted. I would like to take this opportunity to 
identify those cuts I opposed.

  The rescissions bill makes significant and unwise cuts in programs 
that promote opportunities. Cuts in impact aid and national service 
will hurt our education efforts. Cuts in foster care and grants for 
drug-free schools will have a negative effect on our children. And, 
cuts in information infrastructure grants will slow our efforts to 
develop and expand opportunities on the Information Superhighway. All 
of these are high priority areas.
  I also oppose the excessive level of cuts for the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting. While I could support modest cuts in the CPB, the 
bill makes 30 percent cuts in fiscal year 1997 funding, on a path to 
terminating Federal support. These cuts will have a significant 
negative effect on public broadcasting, especially for rural areas.
  Finally, the bill makes excessive cuts in housing and community 
development programs. Cuts which I believe should have been rejected or 
scaled back include public housing modernization, community development 
block grants [CDBG's] drug elimination funds, and public housing 
operating subsidies.
  Especially unfair is the cut of $404 million in operating subsidies 
for public housing authorities. It is fundamentally unfair to have 
agencies plan on receiving certain funding levels, and then make 
significant cuts in the middle of the year. Furthermore, the way these 
cuts are being implemented is especially unfair. PHA's with a fiscal 
year starting in July 1 will bear a disproportionate portion of the 
cuts, while those with an earlier fiscal year will be largely spared. I 
could not support this.
  Again, I want to make it clear that I was prepared to support 
offsetting cuts to restore these important programs. I was also 
prepared to vote for additional cuts beyond those proposed by the 
committee--if the rule hadn't prevented this.
  For example, I planned on offering an amendment with Rep. Klug to 
zero out funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission. However, 
because of the short time limits placed on debate of this bill, we did 
not have 
[[Page E646]] the opportunity to vote on terminating this program. As a 
result, the chance to cut the deficit by another $100 million was ruled 
out by this arbitrary rule.
  There are many other areas where we could look to make cuts. For 
example, I am a strong defender of national defense, and especially 
readiness. However, the rule precluded amendments to cut unneeded and 
expensive weapons systems. We should also do more to consolidate 
programs and eliminate redundancies. For example, we should abolish the 
Interstate Commerce Commission.
  Finally, there are programs where I feel we are simply spending too 
much. For example, in foreign aid, we should cut back on some of the 
AID programs, eliminate redundant broadcast programs, and reexamine our 
foreign military and economic assistance programs. In agriculture, we 
should cut back on programs which provide excessive crop subsidies. And 
we can do more to cut spending in the legislative branch.
  Last week, the House Budget Committee voted to extend and lower the 
discretionary spending caps for the next 5 fiscal years. Spending bills 
for fiscal years 1996 and beyond will have even greater levels of cuts 
than those made in the rescissions bill. Like many other members of the 
House, I am ready to support such cuts.
  However, I hope that the process to consider such cuts will be more 
fair and more rational than the one we used last week. We must have 
unlimited opportunities to make further spending cuts, and to change 
spending priorities, within predetermined spending limits. This can 
only be done through open rules on appropriations bills.
  Therefore, within the next few weeks, I will be introducing a House 
resolution calling for open rules for all spending bills brought to the 
House floor in the 104th Congress. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
cosponsoring this resolution, and in voting against any restrictive 
rules in the consideration of future spending bills.


                          ____________________