[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5260-H5290]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 1996

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
                              {time}  1130

  The CHAIRMAN. When the committee rose, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Orton] had 8 minutes and 50 seconds remaining, and the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich] had 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record two letters of 
support for the amendment, one from the American Council on Education, 
the other from the National Association of Student Financial Aid 
Administrators.
  The letters referred to are as follows:

                                American Council on Education,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 1995.
     Hon. Bill Orton,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Orton: The American Council on 
     Education, on behalf of our 1700 college and university 
     members, urges all members to support the Stenholm-Orton 
     substitute to H. Con. Res. 67--the FY 1996 Concurrent Budget 
     Resolution. The Stenholm-Orton substitute achieves the goal 
     of deficit elimination, while maintaining the critical 
     federal student loan, grant and work programs that ensure 
     access to college for students from middle- and lower-income 
     families.
       In stark contrast, H. Con. Res. 67 would increase the cost 
     of college by more than $24 billion over seven years, 
     subjecting middle-class families to the largest tuition hike 
     in the nation's history. This burden will be borne by 
     students currently in college, as well as by children as 
     young as thirteen years of age who will reach college age 
     during the period of time governed by this resolution.
       Earlier this month, the Census Bureau released the results 
     of a detailed survey of American business commissioned by 
     President Bush, documenting that increases in workers' 
     education levels produce twice the gain in workplace 
     efficiency as comparable increases in the value of tools and 
     machinery. According to this study, for each additional year 
     of schooling in their workforce, employers gain an 8 percent 
     increase in productivity, rising to 11 percent in the 
     nonmanufacturing sector.
       The Stenholm-Orton substitute recognizes the strong linkage 
     between higher education and future national productivity and 
     economic growth. We urge you to vote to defeat the seriously 
     flawed H. Con. Res. 67, and to adopt the Stenholm-Orton 
     substitute.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Terry W. Hartle,
     Vice President.
                                                                    ____

                National Association of Student Financial Aid 
                                               Administrators,

                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 1995.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Association 
     of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) representing 
     over 3,200 postsecondary institutions across the country, we 
     urge passage of the Stenholm/Orton substitute amendment to 
     the House Budget Resolution. We are supporting the Stenholm/
     Orton substitute because it restores $35 billion in Function 
     500 for education programs from levels contained in the 
     committee-reported resolution. It also retains the in-school 
     interest subsidy for student loan borrowers.
       Our members are well aware of the need to constrain federal 
     spending and are fully supportive of responsible efforts to 
     reduce the deficit. However, we respectfully urge you to 
     consider that the federal student aid programs have been 
     essentially frozen since FY-93 and are not contributing to 
     the deficit. To the contrary, research shows increased 
     educational attainment, made possible for millions because of 
     these programs, has accounted for 27 percent of the growth in 
     the national economy during this century. Some will argue 
     that eliminating the interest exemption on student loans will 
     not prevent students from obtaining the loans and will be an 
     additional expense which borrowers can easily repay because 
     they will have higher future earnings. But the fact remains 
     that such a policy will result in significantly higher yearly 
     payments for these individuals and will reduce their ability 
     to purchase other goods and services and save for their 
     children's education. Federal student aid expenditures are an 
     investment in the nation's future, and the monies spent on 
     these programs today are returned by the program recipients 
     many times over in the future.
       Public opinion polls show that there is overwhelming 
     support by Americans from all income categories and of all 
     political persuasions for federal spending on programs to 
     help students go to college. These polls clearly show that 
     75% of Americans do not want to see federal student aid 
     programs and benefits sacrificed in the name of deficit 
     reduction or tax cuts. We therefore strongly urge you and 
     your fellow House members to consider all of the consequences 
     before voting to reduce federal student aid programs below 
     existing levels, or imposing mandatory reductions in spending 
     which would result in a loss of benefits to current and 
     future recipients.
       It is for these reasons that we urge you to vote for the 
     Stenholm/Orton substitute.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Dallas Martin,
                                                        President.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Tanner], a member of the coalition.
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Kasich for 
bringing a bill to the floor that we think we have an opportunity to 
make better. I would like to thank our minority leader, Mr. Gephardt, 
for giving the coalition this opportunity to be on the floor.
  All of us here in this House in the coalition that many of us belong 
to here came to Washington to try to get something done. People are 
tired of partisan political bickering. They are tired of the 
gamesmanship that is being played in this town while the country does 
not do very well.
  Our group, the coalition, has tried to make a difference, a 
commonsense difference, and I would suggest that this is a defining 
moment for us in this budget document.
  Let me say why I think that. Any business person in this country, man 
or woman, faced with a $4\1/2\ trillion debt and wondering how to right 
the wrongs that have been done in the past would say if only this would 
say this. It makes no sense to add another $160 billion on the debt as 
we go to ground zero. At 6 percent that is almost $10 billion more in 
interest payments alone that will have to be made if we adopt the 
Kasich approach.
  I can go home to Tennessee through West Virginia or Kentucky or I go 
home to Tennessee through Virginia and Tennessee. We both get to ground 
zero. There is a businesslike, commonsense way to take our deficit down 
in a way that makes sense, that spends less money, that ties revenues 
to expenditures, as any business person would do, and that is exactly 
what this commonsense, businesslike proposal does. I would recommend it 
to my colleagues. I hope they will consider it and I hope they will 
give it their independent thought and judgment. It deserves that.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has 6 minutes and 50 
seconds remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has the right to 
close.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let me congratulate Messrs. Orton, Stenholm, Browder, and other 
Members who have presented this budget. I intend to vote for it. It 
represents a vary substantial improvement over the Republican base 
bill, both as it relates to basic fiscal policy and as it relates to 
dealing with fundamental problems of the American people. I 
congratulate the gentleman on this amendment and wish him well. I hope 
his amendment prevails.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a tall order before us, $1.2 trillion in 
spending reductions to get to 2002 in a balanced budget.
  [[Page H5261]] The problem I have with the Kasich resolution to start 
with is it adds $400 billion to that problem. It makes tough choices 
even tougher, $70 billion more for defense and $350 billion more out of 
revenues.
  Second, these spending increases in defense are going into effect 
right now. They will be fully implemented in 2 fiscal years. We are 
marking up the defense budget $9 billion now. Tax cuts will be 
implemented, but what do we do? We get spending out of Medicare and 
Medicaid.
  If there is any lesson learned from the fiscal history of the last 
several years it is we have found these goals of reducing Federal 
health care entitlements very elusive, and if we do not reach those 
goals, this will make the deficit worse, not better. So Kasich is not a 
disciplined resolution. It is dangerous. The disciplined, doable 
resolution is the one before us, and we should all support it.
  We have before us a tall order: according to CBO, we will need $1,210 
trillion in spending reduction to get to a balanced budget by 2002. 
This calls for tough choices, tougher than we have ever attempted in 
our efforts to get rid of the deficit.
  The first problem I have with the Republican budget resolution is 
that it makes these choices even tougher. Over 7 years, the Kasich 
resolution adds $70 billion to defense spending and takes $350 billion 
away from revenues. So, instead of having to dig $1,210 billion into 
spending, we have to dig deeper. We have to make $1,600 billion in 
spending cuts over the next 7 years.
  That's my first problem with the Kasich resolution. Here is the next. 
The tax cuts the Kasich resolution supports go into the Tax Code this 
year. The capital gains tax cut dates back to January 1, 1995, for 
example. The revenue losses are backloaded; and grow exponentially over 
time, but they begin immediately, in fiscal year 1995.
  The plus-up in defense spending also begins immediately. Indeed, it 
goes into the defense authorization bill we are marking up right now, 
increasing defense spending $9.5 billion beyond what the Pentagon 
sought for fiscal year 1996, and $15.9 billion beyond what is 
programmed for fiscal year 1997.
  With the $70 billion plus-up in defense spending and the $350 billion 
in tax cuts in the Kasich resolution, the deficit becomes worse and the 
solution gets harder. Stenholm-Orton is more likely to reach the 
target, because it forgoes tax cuts and holds the line on defense 
spending.
  Stenholm-Orton is the conservative choice because it follows the 
lessons of history. If there is any lesson to be learned from history 
of the budget, it's that our efforts to cut or contain entitlement 
spending always fall far short of the goal. And here the Kasich budget 
resolution is bolder--some would say rasher--than anything anyone has 
ever proposed: $288 billion in Medicare cuts, $187 billion in Medicaid 
cuts. Can cuts on this order be achieved? Who knows? All we have before 
us are the numbers, not the policies.
  If these huge numerical goals are not reached, what happens? Well, 
first of all, it will take 2 to 3 years to realize that the entitlement 
numbers are not tracking; and by that time, the defense spending 
increases will be in place, and the tax cuts will be buried in the 
code. Both will be hard to root out and reverse. And the deficit--the 
deficit will be worse, not better.
  That's the near-term risk, as I see it, with the Kasich resolution. 
Stenholm-Orton lowers that risk greatly by forgoing tax cuts, by 
holding the line on defense spending, and by targeting far more 
conservative savings on Medicare and Medicaid. So, Stenholm-Orton is 
better, because it's more likely to succeed.
  There is a longer term problem with Kasich that has hardly been 
mentioned in this debate. Assuming the unlikely, assuming that in 2002, 
the budget is in balance, under the Kasich resolution, it does not stay 
in balance. It is not in equilibrium. That's because the tax cuts are 
back-loaded, and the wedge they take out of revenues keeps getting 
wider and wider in the out-years. In 2003, 2004, 2005, the revenue 
losses increase by over $300 billion. So, under Kasich, when we get to 
2002, we are not home-free, even if the budget that year is in balance; 
we have to got to keep on cutting Medicare and Medicaid and student 
loans, and so on, by another $300-400 billion to make up for the 
additional revenue losses.
  That is why Kasich is not a disciplined resolution; it's a dangerous 
resolution. It could lead us down the path to deeper deficits. 
Stenholm-Orton is not perfect, but it is disciplined and doable, and 
should be supported by all us.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Brownback], a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I will make my comments brief. I applaud 
the coalition plan for coming forward. I appreciate that at least now 
there is something we can have discussion about. There has not been a 
Democrat alternative there, and I think that is a great failing on the 
part of the other side, so I am pleased we can now have at least a 
discussion about options.
  One critical thing I would point out, and that is simply that if we 
are looking at growing this country and growing our way out of this 
debt, we have to have some growth built into it, and that is why we 
have to have the tax cuts, particularly the capital gains tax cuts, so 
we can grow the economy. The last two times this Nation has cut capital 
gains rates, under the Kennedy and Reagan administrations, revenues to 
the Federal Government actually grew. We need that in this plan. That 
is not in the alternative, the coalition plans, and it is one of the 
failings against it, and it is one of the reasons I will be voting 
against the coalition plan.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  (Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Orton-
Stenholm substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the leadership budget 
resolution and in favor of the approach offered by Congressman Stenholm 
and other conservative Democrats.
  I have been in Congress since 1989, and have tried my best during 
that time to learn about the budget process and help people in Illinois 
understand the choices we face. I have held hundreds of town meetings 
where we have gone over the difficult decisions about which programs to 
cut and which must be spared. I have learned that while the issues are 
complex and the process highly technical, we reached this point today, 
where we run $200 billion deficits and have a debt approaching $5 
trillion, by operating on a prescription for economic disaster.
  For far too long, we've had leadership in the executive branch which 
opposed tax increases or even supported tax cuts, leadership in the 
legislature which refused to eliminate programs we couldn't afford, and 
a public which came to expect the best of all worlds--no tax increases, 
no program cuts and a balanced budget.
  The Nation can no longer withstand this approach to spending. I have 
long sponsored a balanced budget amendment, knowing full well that at 
some point in time, I would have to vote on how to get us there. I am 
prepared to do that.
  In any budget proposal, you can select one line and make a case for 
or against it. One of the key questions in this debate will be 
Medicare, so let me spend just a moment discussing why I oppose the 
leadership plan and support the budget offered by Congressman Stenholm 
and other conservative Democrats.
  You will hear a lot about Medicare cuts, and whether a reduction in 
growth is a cut or whether it's an increase in previous year spending. 
Let me try to address this question in a fairly simple way, using round 
numbers which are meant purely as a way of explaining the issue.
  Suppose this year a certain medical procedure costs $50. Medicare, 
using Federal tax dollars, pays the health care provider $40, leaving 
the patient with a $10 responsibility through a copayment, deductible 
or other expense. By the year 2002, suppose the same procedure costs 
$75, and Medicare pays $55, requiring the patient to make up the $20 
difference, a difference between provider cost and Government payment 
which has grown since 1995.
  Any responsible budget proposal will require us to slow the growth of 
Medicare and ask beneficiaries to help us keep pace with the costs of 
the program. But the difference is the leadership proposal asks the 
elderly American to make up more of the costs in Medicare in order to 
finance $350 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens of this 
country. In the Stenholm approach, we do ask folks to help us keep 
pace, but we don't ask them to subsidize tax breaks which this country 
can't afford.
  There are items in every proposal we consider today which I strongly 
support and strongly oppose. But these proposals must be considered on 
balance and in their entirety.
  The Stenholm proposal meets my broad standards for a good budget--
tough spending cuts which occur early in the process and a recognition 
of priorities in health care, education and job creation. Most 
importantly, it does not cut programs for the average Americans to fund 
unwise and unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans. The 
best tax cut we can provide the American people is deficit reduction. 
And the best prescription for deficit reduction and economic growth is 
to cut Federal spending and balance the budget.

[[Page H5262]]

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, balancing the budget is like trying to take a sip out 
of a fire hydrant. Every time you try to do something like that, you 
get pushed back. It is very difficult to do. Mr. Orton's bill that I 
strongly support does it. Mr. Kasich's bill that I will not support 
today does it as well, and I would explain why. I salute the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and have voted for most of his amendments to cut 
spending over the last 4 years.
  First of all we have to make tough choices, but they have to result 
in fair cuts. The Kasich bill does not. It cuts Medicare by $283 
billion because it provides a tax cut. The best tax cut we can provide 
for all Americans, whether they make $200,000 a year or $20,000 a year, 
is to balance the budge and reduce the deficit.
  Second, the budget on the Republican side cuts student loans by $18 
billion. Many students will not go to college, many of them will be 
forced to pick in a two-tiered process between some of the more 
expensive schools and a different set. We think all students should be 
able to provide open choices and not be limited by those choices by a 
$18 billion cut.
  Finally, I would say we need to even go further. I will support 
amendments and offer amendments to cut the space station, to cut star 
wars, and to cut the Central Intelligence Agency, but I salute both Mr. 
Kasich and Mr. Orton.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Democratic substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gephardt substitute and in 
support of the Republican budget resolution and urge my colleagues to 
support it as well.
  For years, people in this body have talked about balancing the 
budget. But nothing happened. Deficits keep rolling along. The debt 
kept climbing.
  But now, we can change that. We have a budget resolution before us 
that will actually put us on a path to a balanced budget. We cannot 
afford to pass this opportunity.
  Because of the election results last November, we have a window of 
opportunity that may never happen again. We have to do it now.
  The Republican budget resolution we consider today is not perfect. It 
is definitely not easy. But it puts us on a path to a balanced budget 
and we have done it in a way that makes spending reductions as fairly 
and as honestly as we could.
  Make no mistake about it, Congress is going to be forced, under this 
budget, to make some very hard choices. That's what leadership is all 
about.
  Unfortunately, the administration provided nothing in the way of 
leadership. The Clinton budget was nothing more than status quo--
business as usual in large letters--and large numbers--$200 billion 
deficits as far as the eye can see. As a result, no one on the minority 
side even plans to offer the Clinton ``deficits forever'' budget as an 
alternative today.
  On the other hand, we promised that we would produce a proposal that 
would lead to a balanced budget by the year 2002--we did it.
  We promised the American people that we would produce a budget that 
provided them much needed tax relief--we did it.
  And finally, we promised that we would produce a budget that protects 
the Social Security trust fund and protects Social Security benefits.
  And as the chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, I am proud 
to say, we did it.
  So, we have a window of opportunity to provide the kind of leadership 
our Nation deserves--the kind of leadership the next generation 
deserves. Honest leadership--leadership that keeps its promises.
 our budget fully preserves and protects Social Security. Our budget 
assumes absolutely no changes--no changes of any kind--in the Social 
Security Program. No COLA cuts. No benefit cuts. No tax increases.

  Unfortunately, there are those who prefer the status quo and who are 
willing to resort to all sorts of fear-mongering and false statements 
designed to frighten senior citizens.
  They used these tactics to help kill--at least temporarily--the 
balanced budget amendment in the Senate. They suggested that a balanced 
budget amendment would result in cuts in Social Security benefits.
  Our budget resolution today proves them wrong. We can--and we will--
balance the budget without damaging Social Security.
  In fact, the majority proposal today would actually strengthen Social 
Security.
  As it stands right now, the greatest single threat to the long term 
solvency of Social Security is continued runaway Federal spending.
  A balanced budget is the greatest guarantee possible that the promise 
of Social Security will be kept.
  A balanced budget is the best long-term protection that we can offer 
for the Social Security trust fund. And our budget will put us on a 
realistic path to a balanced budget.
  If you want to vote to preserve and strengthen Social Security--you 
can vote for the majority budget and feel confident that you are doing 
the right thing.
  This is the right thing to do.
  Unfortunately, some of our colleagues here in the House have chosen 
to demagogue the issue. They are distorting one of the economic 
assumptions in the Republican budget resolution to suggest that 
Republicans are trying to cut Social Security COLA's or to raise taxes 
because of anticipated adjustments in the Consumer Price Index.
  This is pure hogwash. It is totally dishonest.
  Our economic assumptions do assume that the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics will make a correction in the way the Consumer Price Index 
is computed. Every 10 years the Bureau of Labor Statistics does review 
the CPI and does make adjustments to make sure that it measures 
inflation correctly.
  Economists generally agree that the CPI currently overinflates the 
rate of inflation by any where
 between .5 and 1.5 percent. It is generally assumed by honest 
Republicans and Democrats that the Bureau of Labor statistics will 
correct this problem in 1998 when they make their next round of CPI 
adjustments.

  For this reason, we included, in our budget, an estimate of a .6 
percent adjustment in the CPI to take effect in 1999. This is not 
something Republicans in Congress will do--it is something we assume 
that the BLS will do.
  Some people are characterizing this as a Republican COLA cut for 
Social Security and a tax increase. This is totally dishonest and 
hypocritical.
  I would like to point out that in 1987, when the Democrats controlled 
Congress, the Bureau of Labor statistics made a .4 percent downward 
adjustment in the CPI. No one called that a Democrat COLA cut. It was a 
technical correction.
  And I would also like to point out that Mr. Gephardt's substitute 
budget today includes economic assumptions that also include a .5 
percent downward adjustment in the CPI in 1999--almost identical to the 
Republican estimate.
  If you vote for Gephardt, you are voting for virtually the same CPI 
adjustment as the one included in the Republican budget.
  So my friends, don't play fast and loose with the truth and try to 
scare senior citizens. We are not cutting COLA's--we are not cutting 
benefits.
  The fact of the matter is that, no matter what the Bureau of Labor 
statistics does in 1988, the Republican budget does nothing to change 
Social Security law, Social Security benefits or Social Security 
COLA's.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 
67, the House budget resolution, and in opposition to the Gephardt 
substitute. Let me just say I think it is a tremendous effort by those 
who believe in the necessities to cut budgets that they have put this 
forward, but I happen to believe that the right vehicle is the Kasich 
budget which we are working on here today.
  As one who has balanced budgets eight times, as one who has seen the 
States of the United States of America address this problem of deficits 
and realize that the only way to manage the economies of the States and 
the economies of the United States of America is to balance the 
budgets, I stand here pleading with each and every one of us to support 
the budget resolution, which we are ultimately going to go to today.
  We all talk as politicians about tough choices and setting 
priorities, and then when it comes down to it and you really are 
starting to make tough choices and you really are starting to set 
priorities, people start to say well, we are cutting too much. It hurts 
the young people too much, it hurts the old people too much, it hurts 
the colleges too much, or whatever it may be. The bottom line is what 
has hurt the United States of America is the tremendous 
[[Page H5263]] deficit each year and debt we have accumulated, and all 
of the payments on that debt and the impact which that has on the 
economy of the United States of America.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] last year, to his everlasting 
credit, came forward when a lot of Republicans said do not do it and 
presented a budget that would eventually have us in balance by the year 
2002. This year he is in the majority and he has done so again, and he 
has put some very tough choices in there, and I recognize that and I 
think that is vitally important.
  There is discussion of taxes. And as some Members know, as the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] knows, three of us got together and 
worked with others to make absolutely sure that we would not have tax 
reductions until such time as we had the full budget reconciliation in 
place, and there has been some question raised about that. But I want 
to assure the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] in particular that I have 
talked with our leadership on a number of occasions about the 
importance of that, the enforcement of that, and that it should not 
happen and will not happen regardless of how we separate 
reconciliation. So I am convinced that there will be no tax cuts until 
we have the balanced budget in place.
  I congratulate the gentleman. I do not stand in support of what the 
gentleman is doing today because I do support the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich]. I think it is the way to go. But I congratulate the 
gentleman's side for coming forward with this, but I think we need to 
move forward with the process that well could go for 4 or 5 more 
months, and hopefully at the end of this we will have done what we were 
sent here for, to start to balance the budget of the United States of 
America, and if we do that I hope we receive the credit we deserve for 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 
67, the House budget resolution and in opposition to the Gephardt 
substitute.
  First, let me say that I have the highest respect for Mr. Orton and 
Mr. Stenholm, the authors of the Gephardt substitute. I believe they 
are truly committed to balancing the budget. Their work is a good faith 
effort to put forward an alternative budget resolution.
  However, I find it very troubling that this is the first time that 
Mr. Gephardt and the Democratic leadership have endorsed a balanced 
budget plan. I cannot help believe that if the old leadership were 
still in control of this House that the Stenholm-Orton budget would not 
have had the support of the Democratic leadership and probably would 
not have been permitted to be offered.
  The fact of the matter is that the Republican Party has listened to 
the American people and has put forward a real plan to balance the 
budget. The Democrats have been forced to scramble to say ``me too'' to 
the American people. I applaud Mr. Stenholm and Mr. Orton for their 
alternative, but does it have the honest support of the Democratic 
Party? Let's remember that the 1993 Democratic budget resolution relied 
overwhelmingly on tax increases to achieve deficit reduction and that 
the President's 1996 budget simply gives up on deficit reduction and 
would accept $200 billion deficits for the next 5 years and higher 
deficits after that.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with every aspect of the House budget 
resolution. There are some areas of the budget I would allocate more 
funding to and some I would cut more from. I may even agree with some 
of the proposals in the Stenholm-Orton budget. But, John Kasich and the 
House Budget Committee have been true leaders in the effort to put 
forward an honest budget that gets us to balance in the year 2002. This 
is a historic and tremendously difficult task and they have done it.
  Politicians love to talk about making the tough choices and setting 
priorities. Now we have finally arrived at a point when tough choices 
are being made and priorities are being set. Now what we hear from the 
other side is that the choices are too tough and the priorities are 
wrong. The House budget resolution is an honest plan to get this 
Government to a balanced budget by the year 2002. I do not agree with 
every part of the budget, but am willing to take up the task of making 
these decisions and finding alternatives to the choices I do not agree 
with. I support the Kasich budget resolution.
  There is another issue I would like to address. I am one of the 
authors of the Castle-Upton-Martini amendment to the recent tax relief 
bill. This amendment commits the House to ensuring that no tax cuts 
will become law until Congress passes budget reconciliation legislation 
to put the directions of this budget resolution into effect. Our 
commitment to that process has not changed. Despite the assertions of 
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, no tax cuts will 
become law until all parts of the budget reconciliation process is 
completed. While the reform of the Medicare Program will take some 
additional time this year, the other budget decisions and potential tax 
cuts will not become law without action on Medicare. I will work with 
all interested Members on this issue as the reconciliation process 
proceeds.
  Mr. Chairman, the House budget resolution is the first step on the 
vital journey to a balanced budget. I urge its approval and rejection 
of the proposed substitutes.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Orton-
Stenholm coalition budget and in opposition to the Republican budget. 
The coalition budget just proves everybody that if you do not cut 
taxes, you do not have to kill Medicare and our senior citizens. It is 
proof that you can have a balanced budget by 2002 without making the 
massive cuts in Medicare and our senior citizens.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 3 minutes 
and 30 seconds, to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], a member of 
the Committee on the Budget.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in extremely good conscience in 
support of the coalition balanced budget bill amendment before us 
today.
  There has been a lot of good, in fact, excellent debate during the 
past few days and few weeks, and in those cases of elevated debate, my 
respect for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has grown considerably, and I consider them two of 
the most conscientious and philosophically honest leaders in this body.
  There has also been some less-than-excellent or honorable debate 
during the past 2 days and some of which I have heard in the past 1 
hour; much fuzzing the truth around the edges, much exaggeration, much 
failing to treat the opinion of others with respect.
  That is why I want to reiterate a few simple facts about the 
amendment we are about to vote upon. These facts imply an undergirding 
philosophy as pertains to people, real people, from the philosophy of 
the committee resolution.

                              {time}  1145

  These are honest differences of priority. And they should be dealt 
with honestly.
  First, this budget not only reaches a surplus in the year 2002, but 
it does so on a glide path that means we will borrow $160 billion less 
over the next 7 years than the committee resolution, $160 billion less.
  No one needs to convince this Member of the urgency of reducing our 
debt and deficit. To those Members on the other side who have focused 
their message on the gospel of debt reduction, I urge you to consider 
that this substitute is the one which provides the greatest debt 
reduction.
  Second, I have heard many on the other side say we Democrats cannot 
ever bring ourselves to support spending cuts. Let me point out this 
substitute cuts $18.2 billion more in the first 2 years, 
coincidentally, 2 years before the next election.
  Granted, the committee bill makes many more cuts from rates of 
increase, most notably $109 billion more in Medicare and $50 billion 
more in Medicaid over these 7 years. Those and other cuts are necessary 
to balance out the tax cut.
  Make no mistake, our cuts are there, but they are there in a way, we 
believe, that avoids the possible destruction of critically important 
programs to many people of America.
  The third and final fact is that our substitute will not encourage us 
to repeat the mistakes of the early 1980's. We understand that making 
the Medicare reforms the right way will take some time, and I am not 
criticizing the motives of the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich], for establishing two reconciliation bills.
  Motives aside, however, I have tremendous fear the results will be 
yet one more example of enacting the easy things, the popular things, 
like cutting 
[[Page H5264]] taxes, and never quite getting around to making the 
tough 218-vote decisions that are going to be required.
  We have a great opportunity today to pass the first balanced budget 
this House has approved in decades. Let us do it the right way. Support 
the coalition balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I say that I do want to compliment the 
coalition for putting this together, because in 1993 you all know what 
I went through when I wanted to be specific. I bruised elbows and knees 
getting tackled in the hallway on the marble when people said, 
``Please, don't lay anything down. It is not good.''
  My biggest problem with the proposal is the fact, as I had said 
earlier, that $233 billion in additional spending beyond the Domenici 
budget, of course, cancels out any possibility of taking that money and 
giving it back to taxpayers in the form of tax relief. You see, in this 
proposal it is no longer an issue of whether we can afford it. It 
really gets to be an issue of whether we can afford to let people spend 
their money the way they see fit or whether we keep it in the hands of 
government and let bureaucrats spend it the way they see fit.
  Our approach is we ought to take the savings, and we ought to use it 
to give people their money back and to shrink the size and the scope of 
the Federal Government and let people spend money on their children, on 
their nutrition, and on their clothing, and really, frankly, in any way 
they see fit, as opposed to taking the $233 billion and using it on 
additional Federal programs.
  We have a chance here today to do something historic, and that is to 
not just get to zero and balance the budget but also to keep our word 
in terms of giving hard-working American families some of their money 
back and, in addition to that, to provide growth incentives, growth 
incentives in the economy so we can create more jobs and more 
opportunity.
  I would compliment the gentlemen and gentlewomen for coming forward 
with the proposal. It is in the right direction, but in the right 
direction is not good enough when you are in the middle of a 
revolution.
  I would urge rejection of this proposal and ultimately approval of 
the Republican Committee on the Budget blueprint.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I supported the balanced budget amendment 
and, over two Congresses, I have a strong record of supporting budget 
cuts and budget process reforms.
  In doing so, I have not been afraid to stand up to my own party, the 
President, important interest groups, and, in some cases, my own 
husband.
  I have often sided with the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. 
Kasich, as he well knows. One example is my support last year of Penny-
Kasich, which would cut another $90 billion from the budget. Another is 
his proposal on baseline budgeting, but I cannot join him today.
  The budget resolution as reported from the Budget Committee lacks the 
fairness and bipartisanship of many prior proposals.
  The resolution assaults with equal bluntness programs which nurture 
investment in technologies for our country and programs which help 
students and workers acquire skills and knowledge and the tools they 
will need to succeed in the 21st century. The resolution makes no 
distinction in targeting investments in infrastructure, science, and 
health-related research, environmental protection, veterans, or 
fighting crime. In fact, to some it is a badge of honor that all areas 
of the budget are targeted. To be sure, current budget constraints 
force us to make difficult choices, but they should not force us to 
make stupid choices--choices like cutting taxes when budget savings 
should go to deficit reduction or critical investments we have too-long 
delayed; choices that cut Medicare in the absence of reforms to 
mitigate the factors that drive up costs; choices that retreat from 
investments in technology and science and the educational resources 
which will make or break our Nation's ability to compete in the next 
century, and choices that hurt children.
  I have demonstrated that I can take tough votes. But I do so when I 
feel the option is fair and far-sighted.
  I cannot vote for the Budget Committee's proposal.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Stenholm-
Orton proposal to balance the budget. It is time that we balance the 
budget to stop mortgaging our children's future, and we make serious 
choices about our priorities. I support the Stenholm proposal too 
because it balances the budget by the year 2002 by cutting spending, 
does not raise taxes, and does not include a $350 billion tax cut we 
cannot afford.
  This proposal does not attack the Pacific Northwest's future like the 
Republican plan. I am pleased that the Stenholm proposal does not 
eliminate student loans for 90,000 Oregon students, like the Republican 
bill. In addition, the Stenholm plan does not change our labor laws 
which encourages family wages or include changes in Federal employee 
contributions. It does not jeopardize the small business and export 
programs which have helped Oregon increase trade by 40 percent since 
1992. It is also far better than the committee bill in terms of 
Medicare and Medicaid, restoring over $100 billion in funding.
  Let me note that no balanced budget proposal will be perfect; there 
is something to dislike in every balanced budget. While I believe the 
Stenholm proposal is wise to reject the Republican's overall $100 
billion Pentagon spending increase, I believe it is wrong to increase 
any funding for the Defense Department. Study after study, and report 
after report confirms that billions of dollars are wasted in 
unnecessary spending in the Pentagon budget. I have authored amendments 
and bills to cut up to $8 billion in outdated programs. And my bill to 
use commercial aircraft to augment our military airlift saves $15 
billion--the same amount that is increased in the Stenholm-Orton plan. 
The Stenholm-Orton plan does delay any increase until after the year 
2000, and I pledge to fight any proposed increases in Pentagon 
spending.
  With reservations in the area of Pentagon spending, I believe we all 
must put our individual objections aside and focus on doing what is 
right for our Nation's future. Balancing the budget without raising 
taxes is doing what is right. I urge all my colleagues to support the 
Stenholm-Orton plan to balance the budget by the year 2002 by cutting 
spending.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 100, 
noes 325, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 342]

                               AYES--100

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Eshoo
     Fazio
     Furse
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Laughlin
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Luther
     McCarthy
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Pallone
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornton
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Watt (NC)
     Wynn

                               NOES--325

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     [[Page H5265]] Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Kaptur
       

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Berman
     Bono
     Hoke
     Kleczka
     McIntosh
     Rangel
     Serrano
     Smith (MI)
     Torricelli
                              {time}  1208

  Messrs. STOCKMAN, MARTINEZ, CHRISTENSEN, BUYER, and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE 
JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts and Mr. VENTO changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule it is now in order to consider an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to be offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] or the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] consisting of the text of House Concurrent Resolution 66.


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

  Mr. NEUMANN. 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. 
     Neumann: Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert 
     in lieu thereof the following:
     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1996.

       The Congress determines and declares that this resolution 
     is the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     1996, including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, 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, 1995, October 1, 1996, 
     October 1, 1997, October 1, 1998, October 1, 1999, October 1, 
     2000, and October 1, 2001:
       (1) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,056,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,057,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,096,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,138,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,187,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,240,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,300,500,000,000.

     and the amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be increased are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $13,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: -$26,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: -$38,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: -$48,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: -$57,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$70,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$80,500,000,000.

     and the amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act 
     revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels 
     of Federal revenues are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $101,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $105,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $110,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $115,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $120,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $125,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $130,900,000,000.
       (2) The appropriate levels of total new budget authority 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,219,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,236,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,251,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,253,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,275,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,312,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,359,600,000,000.
       (3) The appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,238,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,245,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,251,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,233,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,260,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,302,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,352,400,000,000.
       (4) The amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $182,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $188,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $154,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $94,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $73,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $62,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $51,900,000,000.
       (5) The appropriate levels of the public debt are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $5,214,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,470,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,697,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,896,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,081,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,157,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,216,000,000,000.
       (6) The appropriate levels of total Federal credit activity 
     for the fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1995, October 1, 
     1996, October 1, 1997, October 1, 1998, October 1, 1999, 
     October 1, 2000, and October 1, 2001 are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $18,200,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $170,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $167,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $16,200,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $165,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $162,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $14,200,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $159,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $14,200,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $159,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $14,200,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $159,400,000.000.

     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 
     1996 through 2002 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $261,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $260,000,000,000.
       (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, $260,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $260,000,000,000.
     [[Page H5266]]   (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, $260,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $260,000,000,000.
       (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, $260,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $260,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $260,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $260,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $263,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,000,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $12,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $9,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $4,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $4,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $4,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,000,000,000.
       (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, $14,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       (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, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,500,000,000.
       (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, $3,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $20,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $20,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $20,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $20,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $20,000,000.
     [[Page H5267]]   (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $20,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $20,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$7,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $97,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $97,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $80,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$9,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $97,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $50,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $-2,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$9,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $97,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$9,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $97,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$9,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $97,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$9,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $97,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,200,000,000.
       (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, $6,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,100,000,000.
       (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, $6,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
     [[Page H5268]]   (10) Education, Training, Employment, and 
     Social Services (500):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $118,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $116,000,000,000.
       (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, $120,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $119,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $123,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $122,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $127,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $124,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $131,000,000,000.
       (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 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $133,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $133,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $136,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $171,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $170,100,000,000.
       (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, $181,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $179,600,000,000.
       (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, $191,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $189,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $202,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $200,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $213,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $210,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $223,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $223,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $236,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $236,000,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $205,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $214,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $20,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $208,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $216,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $20,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $214,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $218,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $20,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $220,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $220,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $20,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $229,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $229,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $20,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $233,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $233,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $20,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $237,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $237,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $20,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,600,000,000.
       (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, $5,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
     [[Page H5269]]   (A) New budget authority, $4,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,900,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,100,000,000.
       (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, $16,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,900,000,000.
       (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, $16,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,000,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,000,000,000.
       (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, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,400,000,000.
       (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, $12,400,000,000.
       (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.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $297,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $297,100,000,000.
       (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, $305,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $305,600,000,000.
       (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, $309,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $309,800,000,000.
       (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, $315,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $315,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $321,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $321,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $326,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $326,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $332,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $332,000,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$12,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
     [[Page H5270]]   (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$15,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$13,100,000,000.
       (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, -$15,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$13,400,000,000.
       (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, -$33,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$32,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$32,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,
       (C) New direct loan obligations, -$32,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$20,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$20,800,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$31,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,300,000,000.
       (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, -$31,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (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 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$35,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$35,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$35,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$35,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$37,700,000,000.
       (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 July 14, 1995, the House committees 
     named in subsections (b) through (o) of this section shall 
     submit their recommendations to the House Budget Committee. 
     After receiving those recommendations, the House Budget 
     Committee shall report to the House a reconciliation bill or 
     resolution or both carrying out all such recommendations 
     without any substantive revision.
       (b) The House Committee on Agriculture shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as follows: 
     $6,200,000,000 in budget authority and $6,200,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1996, $11,500,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $11,500,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997, 
     $14,400,000,000 in budget authority and $14,400,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1998, $17,100,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $17,100,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1999, 
     $19,400,000,000 in budget authority and $19,400,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 2000, $21,100,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $21,100,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2001, 
     and $23,600,000,000 in budget authority and $23,600,000,000 
     in fiscal year 2002.
       (c) The House Committee on Banking and Financial Services 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending sufficient to reduce budget authority 
     and outlays as follows: $800,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $800,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996, $800,000,000 in 
     budget authority and $800,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 
     1997, $800,000,000 in budget authority and $800,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1998, $800,000,000 in budget authority 
     and $800,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1999, $800,000,000 
     in budget authority and $800,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 2000, $800,000,000 in budget authority and $800,000,000 
     in outlays in fiscal year 2001, and $800,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $800,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
       (d) The House Committee on Commerce shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as follows: 
     $19,900,000,000 in budget authority and $19,300,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1996, $36,800,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $37,200,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997, 
     $55,900,000,000 in budget authority and $56,100,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1998, $80,300,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $79,700,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1999, 
     $100,600,000,000 in budget authority and $100,800,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 2000, $124,900,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $124,900,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 
     2001, and $148,400,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $148,400,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
       (e) The House Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to 
     reduce budget authority and outlays as follows: 
     $1,600,000,000 in budget authority and $1,600,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1996, $2,500,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $2,500,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997, 
     $2,600,000,000 in budget authority and $2,600,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1998, $2,800,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $2,800,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1999, 
     $2,900,000,000 in budget authority and $2,900,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 2000, $3,100,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $3,100,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2001, 
     and $3,300,000,000 in budget authority and $3,300,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2002.
       (f) The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending sufficient to reduce budget authority 
     and outlays as follows: $1,800,000,000 in budget authority 
     and $1,800,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996, 
     $2,600,000,000 in budget authority and $2,600,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1997, $2,900,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $2,900,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1998, 
     $2,900,000,000 in budget authority and $2,900,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1999, $2,900,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $2,900,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2000, 
     $2,900,000,000 in budget authority and $2,900,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 2001, and $2,900,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $2,900,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
       (g) The House Committee on International Relations shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending sufficient to reduce budget authority and 
     outlays as follows: $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays 
     in fiscal year 1996, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays 
     in fiscal year 1997, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays 
     in fiscal year 1998, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays 
     in fiscal year 1999, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays 
     in fiscal year 2000, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays 
     in fiscal year 2001, and $0 in budget authority and $0 in 
     fiscal year 2002.
       (h) The House Committee on the Judiciary shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as 
     follows: $1,000,000,000 in budget authority and $750,000,000 
     in outlays in fiscal year 1996, $1,000,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $800,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997, 
     $1,000,000,000 in budget authority and $900,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1998, $1,000,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $1,000,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1999, 
     $1,000,000,000 in budget authority and $1,000,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 2000, $1,000,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $1,000,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2001, 
     and $1,000,000,000 in budget authority and $1,000,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2002.
       (i) The House Committee on National Security shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as 
     follows: $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1996, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in 
     fiscal year 1997, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays 
     in fiscal year 1998, $0 in budget authority and $0 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1999, $0 in budget authority and $0 
     in outlays in fiscal year 2000, $0 in budget authority and 
     $0 in outlays in fiscal year 2001, and $0 in budget 
     authority and $0 in fiscal year 2002.
       (j) The House Committee on Resources shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays 
     [[Page H5271]] as follows: $4,200,000,000 in budget authority 
     and $4,100,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996, 
     $5,800,000,000 in budget authority and $5,800,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1997, $5,000,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $5,000,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1998, 
     $3,900,000,000 in budget authority and $3,900,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1999, $4,000,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $4,000,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2000, 
     $3,400,000,000 in budget authority and $3,400,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 2001, and $3,400,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $3,400,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
       (k) The House Committee on Science shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as follows: 
     $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal year 1996, 
     $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal year 1997, 
     $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal year 1998, 
     $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal year 1999, 
     $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal year 2000, 
     $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal year 2001, 
     and $0 in budget authority and $0 in fiscal year 2002.
       (l) The House Committee on Small Business shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as 
     follows: $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1996, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1997, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1998, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1999, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 2000, $0 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 2001, and $0 in budget authority and $0 in fiscal year 
     2002.
       (m) The House Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to 
     reduce budget authority and outlays as follows: 
     $5,000,000,000 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in 
     fiscal year 1996, $8,200,000,000 in budget authority and $0 
     in outlays in fiscal year 1997, $8,500,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal year 1998, 
     $8,800,000,000 in budget authority and $0 in outlays in 
     fiscal year 1999, $9,100,000,000 in budget authority and $0 
     in outlays in fiscal year 2000, $9,400,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $0 in outlays in fiscal year 2001, and 
     $9,800,000,000 in budget authority and $0 in fiscal year 
     2002.
       (n) The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as 
     follows: $1,100,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $1,000,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996, $1,200,000,000 
     in budget authority and $1,200,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1997, $1,300,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $1,300,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1998, $1,900,000,000 
     in budget authority and $1,900,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 1999, $2,100,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $2,200,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2000, $2,100,000,000 
     in budget authority and $2,300,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     year 2001, and $2,400,000,000 in budget authority and 
     $2,600,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
       (o) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the deficit, as follows: $45,300,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 
     $32,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $39,300,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1998, $52,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1999, 
     $66,700,000,000 in fiscal year 2000, $82,100,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2001, and $97,400,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
       (p) For purposes of this section, the term ``direct 
     spending'' has the meaning given to such term in section 
     250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 and the term ``new budget authority'' has 
     the meaning given to such term in section 3(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY.

       It is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
     legislation should be enacted that:
       (1) Prohibits the use of the surplus funds collected as 
     part of the social security payroll tax from being used to 
     balance the budget or reduce the deficit.
       (2) Starting in 1996, sets aside these surplus funds to 
     preserve and protect the social security system.
       (3) Establishes a bipartisan commission to oversee the 
     protection of these surplus funds, the primary purpose of 
     which is to establish a safe and secure mechanism to preserve 
     these funds.
       (4) Provides that as the Federal debt is repaid, the social 
     security funds that are currently part of the 
     $4,900,000,000,000 Federal debt as well as interest on these 
     funds shall also be repaid and set aside under the mechanism 
     established under paragraphs (2) and (3).

     SEC. 6. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING DEBT REPAYMENT.

       It is the sense of the House of Representatives that:
       (1) The Congress has a basic moral and ethical 
     responsibility to future generations to repay the Federal 
     debt. The Congress should enact a plan that not only balances 
     the budget but also institutes a regimen for paying off the 
     Federal debt.
       (2) After the budget is balanced, spending should be 
     allowed to grow at a rate slower than expected revenues so 
     that a surplus is created which can be used to begin paying 
     off the debt.
       (3) Such a plan should be enacted into law so that this 
     generation can save our children and grandchildren from the 
     crushing burdens of the Federal debt.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Neumann] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed will 
be recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] and request to be 
recognized as such.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] will be 
recognized in opposition for 30 minutes.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
yield half of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and 
that he would be able to yield to other Members from that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Consequently the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Kolbe] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin this discussion by reiterating 
that this will be a yes or no vote on balancing the budget in 5 years, 
paying off the Federal debt in 30 years, and restoring the Social 
Security trust fund.
  But it is much more than that, Mr. Chairman. It is a vote about the 
future of a nation.
  Our Founding Fathers gave us a great country, and in doing so, in 
giving us this fine gift, they have also given us a responsibility. It 
is a responsibility that we have not handled very well in the last 15 
years.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is in the last 15 years this 
Nation has accumulated a $4.9 trillion debt. If every single American 
were to pay just their share, every man, woman and child in the 
country, they would have to pay $19,100 of debt. A family of five like 
mine would be responsible for $95,000. A typical American family of 
four would be responsible for $76,000 of debt. And here is the kicker:
  The interest alone on that Federal debt amounts to over $5,000 a 
year. The average households in my district are only earning $32,000 a 
year. They cannot afford to continue spending $5,000 a year.
  The growth in the debt over the last 20 years has been something we 
all need to be very concerned about. This chart shows that from 1960 to 
1980 the Federal debt grew at almost a flat rate. Very little debt 
growth, but from 1980 forward the debt is on a very, very steep 
inclining roll.
  We cannot let this continue. The budget plan we bring to the floor 
this morning solves that problem, and here is how we go about doing it:
  First, we take Social Security completely out of the picture. We do 
not use Social Security revenues, nor expenditures, in our calculations 
of the rest of this presentation. If we do that, the Federal budget, 
the Federal Government, is literally writing out checks for $1,187 
billion. They are making a checkbook deposit of $998 billion. Therefore 
their checkbook is overdrawn by $189 billion. Our first thing that is 
very significant in our plan then is that we set Social Security 
completely aside, completely off the table.
                              {time}  1215

  Our plan recommends that we continue spending, writing out the same 
number of checks, if you like, $1,187 billion through the year 1999. In 
doing so, the growth in revenue will actually reach $1,187 billion 
because of both inflation and real growth in the economy. So by the 
year 1999, we will in fact have a balanced budget. With the tax cuts 
implemented, which we do in our budget presentation, it pushes it back 
by 1 year. So our plan balances the budget by the year 2000.
  After the year 2000, and this is another very significant change from 
the 
[[Page H5272]] discussion that typically goes on out here in 
Washington, after the year 2000, we allow spending to rise at a rate 1 
percent slower than the rate of revenue growth. In doing so, we 
accumulate a surplus each year. That surplus, folks, goes to pay off 
that terrible Federal debt, so that we may pass this Nation on to our 
children debt free instead of the huge burden that we are currently 
accumulating, which will otherwise we passed on to our children.
  I would point out that by doing a 5-year balanced budget plan, rather 
than a 7-year plan, we save our children $600 billion. That is the 
amount of money that will not be borrowed if we implement the 5-year 
plan versus the 7-year plan.
  This also sends a very strong message to the Senate that we are 
interested in getting this job done, and done sooner rather than later.
  My colleagues, this is a plan designed for our senior citizens. It 
protects and restores the Social Security trust fund. This is a plan 
for working families in America. It provides a $500 per child tax cut. 
This is a plan for the future for our children in this Nation. It pays 
off the Federal debt, so we do not pass on this huge burden to the next 
generation of Americans. To my colleagues, folks, this is a plan for 
the future of America, and that is why we are all here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in opposition to the plan 
offered by the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, reluctantly because their plan, like the other plans, lead 
to a balanced budget at some point in the near or farther future. That 
is good for the debate and good for the American people. That is good 
for us as a road map, among many, to try to reach that balanced budget.
  Now, some of the plans are better for defense than others. Others are 
good for our highway system, a little better than some of the others 
presented. So how do we pick and choose? What is attractive about this 
current plan, against which I am going to vote, reluctantly, is the 
funding for the National Institutes of Health. What happens in the 
current proposition, the one that is before us, is that NIH remains 
stable in its ability to provide grants for the much needed research, 
which is, of course, a part of our health care problem.
  The more we are able to bring moneys to the NIH for research, the 
less in the future we will require for health care. That is a logical 
conclusion to reach, which I reached a long time ago. That is why I am 
tempted, with all my heart, to vote for this bill, because it treats 
the NIH, this proposal, better than any of the others that are going to 
come before us.
  Yet, in order to codify, if we will, the move toward the balanced 
budget by 2002 and because the Kasich approach, the committee approach, 
brings us there in a more cohesive way, I will vote against the Solomon 
proposal. But NIH, I am determined, will become a focal point for the 
appropriations process that is to follow.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to 
congratulate him as a freshman Member to get out in front and to do the 
job that has to be done. I want you to know the people that are 
introducing this resolution are going to vote for this resolution.
  I have heard so much about we have got to balance the budget. But you 
know something, my friends? Time is of the essence. If we are going to 
balance the budget, we have got to do it the quickest way possible or 
we are going to lose momentum. That is why I am asking the speaker who 
just spoke here, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], come and 
join us. You want to balance the budget? By golly, let us do it. Let 
walk our talk. We have been giving this speech for a long time. Now is 
the time to vote for it.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] for the job 
he is doing. We have not had a balanced budget since 1969, 26 years. 
How much longer do you want to wait? It is costing us $1 billion 
almost, a day that we do not get this budget balanced.
  This budget that we have got in front of us, this proposal, will 
balance the budget in 5 years, and it is going to do it with fairness. 
We act with dispatch, but we also take into consideration what is 
needed for this country. This budget resolution will save $600 billion 
in interest payments, $600 billion. This is a big savings for our 
country and for our children.
  Now, the House budget resolution is a good budget resolution, too. I 
am going to vote for that, as I expect you will. But it is 7 years. It 
eliminates three Cabinet departments, 14 agencies, 68 Commissions, 283 
Programs. Yes, it is a good resolution, but this is the best of all. 
Why? Because it is going to get the job done in the time required. We 
cannot stretch it out, or else we will never get the job done.
  You know, in Wisconsin, we have a saying, talk if cheap. It costs 
money to buy whiskey. And the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] is 
following that philosophy. He is getting the job done.
  Ther are those who argue that this is an historic day. In 1989, we 
had historic days in Russia and in Germany. But for 1995, it is going 
to be a historic day for America if we balance the budget, and we can 
do it today. I am asking you to vote this way.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott].
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about budgets and 
numbers and about graphs and charts. It is about human beings like Mrs. 
Dolly Johnston. She is a 67-year-old woman from Spokane, WA, who had a 
heart operation in 1993. For 4 months afterwards she had home health 
care from a nurse. Mrs. Johnston, who was a nurse for 32 years, said if 
I had not had here, I was too weak to pour my own medicine.
  Now, this budget that is being laid out here today is making major 
cuts in this program that took care of Mrs. Johnston, the Medicare 
Program. How are they going to do it?
  Let me just think about this woman for a second. The plan that makes 
these cuts will require each senior citizen like Mrs. Johnston to get a 
voucher. think for a minute. She is 67 years old. You give her an 
inadequate voucher that will have to be ratcheted down every year in 
order to make the savings that are proposed over here. She will go out 
into the street with that voucher in her hand. She has a preexisting 
condition. She is 67 years old.
  You tell me where the loving insurance company is in your district 
that is going to give her an adequate insurance policy? Now, I have 
dealt with these people, and no insurance company is going to do that 
for her.
  So, who will pick up the difference between that inadequate policy 
and what she really needs? Her children. For the first time in 30 
years, the young people of this country are going to have to worry 
about their grandmother or their mother and how they are going to pay 
for that.
  When I was young and my grandmother, back in the 1950's, had no 
insurance, we paid it around the table. It was figured out among the 
uncles and brothers. That is going to start happening in this country 
for the first time in 30 years. And it is not just insurance companies. 
Remember Mrs. Johnston when you vote ``no.''
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I was hoping to see some pictures, because I brought 
one, too. This is my family.
  The reason we are doing this, folks, is for the families and children 
all across America. We cannot allow this debt to continue to climb. 
This is for the future of America. We cannot lose the courage necessary 
to do our job.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Graham].
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  This initiative is really supported in full measure by the freshman 
class. We are new to politics but we bring a lot of understanding to 
Congress with us. We understand if you pay the mortgage off 
[[Page H5273]] sooner than later, you save money. That makes sense at 
home. It should make sense up here.
  The real problem I have of waiting any longer is that if a family did 
what we did every day up here, spend beyond their means, they would 
wake up one day and they would lose who they are as people. That is 
what is at risk here. If we continue to be everything to everybody, we 
are going to lose the character of our people. I think you have seen a 
decline in character over the last 30 years directly proportional to 
spending.
  Do not wait any longer. If you did to children what we did to this 
country, giving them everything they want and never say no, you would 
have a child different than what you would hope to have. We have a 
country different than what I would hope to have. Let us not wait 2 
more years.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker on the other side was talking 
about the Medicare cuts. But I think it is worth noting, and we have 
said it before, but it just needs to be repeated, that under our plan 
the average increase per beneficiary would go up from $4,700 to $6,300. 
In the State of Washington the total Medicare spending would go from 
$2.5 billion to $3.7 billion, and the per capita spending would be 
$3,700 to $4,800, an increase of $1,089.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Packard].
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kasich budget 
resolution. The Budget Committee provides us with the itinerary for an 
historic journey towards a balanced budget. Anyone serving in this body 
during the last 26 years, will find themselves in uncharted waters. 
Over the last generation, liberal spenders--who used to control 
Congress--rushed this country down a roaring river of debt. Currently, 
we find ourselves submerged under a $5 trillion sea of red and the 
level continues to rise unabated. By 2010 our debt will reach $8 
trillion. Frankly, we are drowning.
  Some of you may know that I have a relatively large family--7 
children and, as of a couple of weeks ago, 31 grandchildren. Since I 
began my service in Congress, I have always measured everything I do by 
one standard--what legacy am I leaving to them and to our Nation's 
children and grandchildren?
  Under Democratic leadership for the last 40 years, this institution 
promoted the centralized bureaucratic model of government--the 
``Washington knows best'' model. The American people have seen the 
results--fiscal and moral bankruptcy.
  My new grandchild, born just a couple of weeks ago, will pay nearly 
$200,000 over her lifetime if we continue on this path. I cannot leave 
this legacy to her or to anyone else's kids. People outside Washington 
know this and have asked us to change course.
  The American people want something different for their children. They 
sacrifice every day to ensure a better future for this country. They 
work too hard and care too much to see us continue down this 
destructive path. They know that our economic and social well-being 
depends on changing not only what we spend but how we spend it.
  In November, the voters put Republicans at the helm and asked us to 
chart a new course that sets us on a glide path towards a smaller 
Government that spends less, taxes less and regulates less. Chairman 
Kasich's budget resolution sets us on this new course.
  It not only lifts us out of this sea of red, it also provides the 
framework to take the money and power out of Washington. This 
resolution forces this institution to do something no one thought was 
possible--set priorities and rein in big Government.
  This budget eliminates three Cabinet departments, 14 agencies, 68 
Commissions, and 283 programs. It gives us the opportunity to send our 
resources back home where people use it productively.
  This debate really is about much more than balancing the books. It is 
about rethinking just what role our Government will play in our lives 
and choosing just what direction we see this country taking over the 
long term. Chairman Kasich and the Budget Committee charts a future 
which gives us less Government, less taxes, and more freedom.
  This is a journey I have wanted to take since I began my service here 
in Congress. I ask my colleagues to join me on the trip and support the 
Kasich budget resolution.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Cooley].
  Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Neumann 
budget proposal. While no proposal is perfect, this one does not play 
politics, and is a no-nonsense attempt to pay off our national debt. In 
many ways, it is like the district I represent.
  As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I know the difficulties 
that lie ahead for our farm communities as funding levels decrease. We 
in the agriculture community saw this coming.
  But I want to be able to go back to the farmers, ranchers, and farm-
related small businesses in my district having supported a budget that 
shared the pain.
  In fact, because this budget balances our books in 5 years, the 
savings are compressed. However, after the year 2000, the cuts to 
agriculture under the Kasich budget are greater.
  For those who believe in a free market, the increased level of 
savings over the Kasich budget exceeds $600 billion which will 
translate to new growth in all sectors of the economy.
  This amazing amount is better spent by farmers, ranchers, farm-
related industries, and all other citizens than by their Government.
  I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for offering this alternative, 
and urge my colleagues to vote for the Neumann budget.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski].
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kasich 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to House Concurrent 
Resolution 67, the Republican budget resolution for fiscal year 1996. 
This resolution provides huge and expensive tax breaks for wealthy 
Americans, and asks America's working families and senior citizens to 
pay the bill. It calls on older Americans to pay the most for failed 
policies of the past, hinders the efforts of working Americans to earn 
higher wages today, and slams the door on our children's opportunities 
in the future.
  Several weeks ago, the Republicans took the first step in their 
misguided budget proposal when the House approved their Contract With 
America tax package. Over half of the tax breaks in this package 
benefit only the top 12 percent of families with incomes over $100,000, 
and 20 percent of the breaks benefit only the top 1 percent of families 
with incomes over $350,000. Under this tax package, a lucky 1.1 million 
taxpayers--whose incomes exceed $230,000--will enjoy an annual $20,000 
tax break bonus.
  Does this sound familiar? It happened in the eighties, when the 
deficit soared because of huge tax breaks for the wealthy. These tax 
breaks for the rich were supposed to trickle down to the rest of 
America. Instead, incomes stagnated and taxes increased for most 
middle-income American families.
  Like the tax breaks of the eighties, today's Republican tax plan does 
not come for free: over 7 years, it will cost the U.S. taxpayer more 
than $354 billion. And guess who pays once again: middle-income working 
and retired American families.
  In order to pay for these handouts for the wealthy, the Republican 
budget cuts Medicare by $288 billion. These are the largest cuts ever 
proposed for the Medicare Program. They will escalate the cost of 
health care for our Nation's elderly, who on average already dedicate 
21 percent of their income to pay for out-of-pocket health care costs.
  Cuts of this magnitude in the Medicare Program will require seniors 
to pay more of their limited incomes on health care costs. Over the 7-
year period of the budget, the average senior will pay $3,500 in total 
additional out-of-pocket health care expenses.
  But even $288 billion in Medicare cuts is not enough to pay for $354 
billion in new spending for the wealthy. In order to fully pay the 
bill, the Republicans need to raid another program essential to our 
Nation's seniors--Social Security.
  Despite their promise not to touch Social Security, the Republican 
budget actually cuts cost-of-living adjustments [COLA's] between 
[[Page H5274]] 1999 and 2002. These cuts take a deeper bite into Social 
Security checks with each passing year. By 2002, the average senior 
citizen will receive about $240 per month less than what he or she 
would receive under current law.
  The Republicans deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare amount to 
huge reductions in every senior's Social Security checks. By 2002, 
these back-door cuts in Social Security will eat up more than 40 
percent of the typical Social Security COLA. About 2 million seniors 
will have all or more than all of their COLAs consumed by these costs.
  The Republican budget's assault on the elderly does not stop with 
Social Security and Medicare. By slashing $187 billion from the 
Medicare Program--which currently spends two-thirds of its funds on the 
elderly and disabled--the Republican budget threatens long-term care 
coverage for hundreds of thousands of older Americans. These cuts will 
force many families to use their hard-earned savings to pay for nursing 
homes costs, which currently average a staggering $38,000 a year.
  Mr. Chairman, drastic cuts in Medicare and Medicaid will result in 
higher health care costs and reduced quality of care for all 
Americans--young and old. Hospitals in my home city of Philadelphia--
which already rely on Medicare and Medicaid for more than 50 percent of 
their revenue--will be forced to shift their costs to the nonelderly, 
and could even be forced to shut down. This will raise insurance 
premiums, limit choice, and reduce the quality of care for every 
American family.
  The Republican budget also makes deep cuts in programs designed to 
help Americans earn higher wages and a better standard of living for 
themselves, and provide their children with the education they need to 
succeed in the global economy. The budget proposal cuts $82 billion in 
education, training, and child care programs designed to encourage work 
and help people get off welfare. It cuts student loan programs, which 
will add about $5,000 to the cost of going to a 4-year higher education 
institution. It also cuts the Head Start Program, which helps young 
vulnerable children who might otherwise not grow into productive 
students and workers.
  In addition, the Republican budget drastically reduces and eventually 
eliminates mass transit operating assistance that has been absolutely 
essential for SEPTA. Loss of these funds for SEPTA, which already has 
the second highest fare in the Nation, would result in severe cutbacks 
in investment in new equipment, station reconstruction and track 
improvements, service reductions or a fare hike to $1.85. The majority 
budget also proposes cuts in capital investment funds for transit 
systems that will further delay or eliminate SEPTA's planned system 
improvements.
  SEPTA provides a vital service in Philadelphia and the system must 
not be allowed to deteriorate. Transit provides the means to reduce 
congestion and air pollution while improving worker productivity. Cuts 
in transit funds will make it more difficult for millions of Americans 
to reach their jobs and will server the elderly's lifeline to medical 
services.
  Transit means productivity, jobs, and economic growth. Every dollar 
invested in SEPTA returns several dollars to the regional economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe it is fair to slash vital programs 
like Social Security, Medicare, student loans, and mass transit, while 
at the same time giving big tax give-always to the highest-paid 
individuals. Working Americans and senior citizens did not cause the 
budgetary problems we now face. Our deficits resulted from the failed 
trickle-down policies of the eighties, which benefited the rich at the 
expense of the rest. Any serious and fair deficit reduction measure 
should seek to reverse those policies--not repeat them.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, thus far this debate has 
been cast as the Democrats looking out for our senior citizens and the 
poor and the Republicans looking out for future generations. Make no 
mistake about it. This bill is a stake in the heart of the best medical 
health care delivery system in this country.
  If you have heart disease, if you have diseases like diabetes, if you 
have Alzheimer's or cancer, this budget guts the very medical research 
that is required and necessary for us to go out and continue those 
advances that help sick people in this country today have the hope that 
they might get well in the future.
  If we look at the medical education budget in this particular budget, 
over half of that money that goes to our teaching hospitals will be 
eliminated, wiping out the ability of America to go out and train the 
best doctors in the world. We heard the Clinton health care budget 
attacked time and time again last year for what it would do to the best 
medical system in this country. This bill guts that system.
  If ordinary citizens are listening, recognize, we are not just 
talking about defending the poor and the seniors. That is part of what 
the Democratic Party stands for. But this bill goes well beyond any 
attacks on the most vulnerable people in this country. This bill 
eliminates and guts and puts a stake in the heart of a health care 
system that is second to none throughout the world.
  My colleagues, make no mistake, this guts programs that affect our 
Nation's veterans.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the gentleman from 
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, rural America is prepared to do its share 
to balance the budget but the Republican budget asks rural America to 
do much more than is fair or even reasonable by cutting $9 billion out 
of 5 years, $17 billion over 7 years. It will cause, in my State alone, 
a 35-percent drop in net farm income, a 50-percent drop in farm values. 
It will drive thousands of family farmers off the land. We will lose 
international markets and ultimately pay higher grocery prices, all 
because rural America gets hit, in fact, killed under their budget.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at the rhetoric. As somebody 
who provides health care in this country and takes care of Medicare 
patients, to say that we cannot do considerably better is poppycock. 
The fact is, we do have a good health care system in this country. It 
can become a lot better when we get the 15 percent of fraud out of 
Medicare.
  This bill increases spending for health care 25 percent over the next 
4 years. To say that we cannot provide quality health care to our 
senior citizens for those kind of dollars is not true. It is untrue. We 
need to be about efficiency and caring and compassion with our senior 
citizens. And this budget is short on none of that.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  This debate is about the change that we need in America versus the 
status quo. What we hear from one side of the aisle is that the status 
quo is fine. Indeed, we have just heard criticism of what this budget 
does to Medicare.
  My colleague from Massachusetts happens to not know what it does, 
because gross spending goes up from $5.5 to $6.7 billion under this 
budget in Massachusetts. The per capita spending, that is per 
beneficiary spending in Massachusetts, under our budget, goes up from 
roughly $5,900 to more than $7,800 under this budget.
  That is not a cut by anybody's definition. That is an increase in 
spending. What we are doing is reforming a system.
  Under the proposal that they put forward, under the President's 
budget, 6 years from now, no one in America will get Medicare benefits 
because the system will be broke.
  This is a debate over sitting with the status quo and burying your 
head in the sand and doing nothing or moving forward. It is time to 
move forward in America.
  This budget does that responsibly. It takes care of our children by 
saying to them, we will no longer continue to saddle you with an 
immoral debt burden because we are unwilling to control our spending. 
In area after area, while I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Neumann] for putting together an excellent budget, I must also commend 
the Kasich budget. It does a marvelous job of addressing the problem 
that confronts this Nation and about which its citizens are deeply 
concerned.
  I urge support for the Kasich budget.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Neumann budget because 
our national debt will exceed $7 trillion by the year 2002. What does 
this mean in human terms? I, too, have a picture, 
[[Page H5275]] a picture of my year-and-a-half-old son John Micah. Over 
his lifetime, if nothing changes, John Micah will pay over $180,000 in 
interest alone on the national debt. This is wrong. This uncontrolled 
spending must stop.
  Those who are addicted to deficit spending claim to be protecting 
groups such as children and senior citizens. Mr. Chairman, how can 
someone who is willing to suffocate our kids with our debts pretend to 
represent them? How will tomorrow's children be able to afford to go to 
college or buy a home if they are forced to pay for this excessive 
spending? How is someone who is willing to bankrupt programs for 
seniors pretend to be protecting them? How do the American people 
benefit if we reject this last, best chance to put our fiscal house in 
order?
  Mr. Chairman, I say, support the Neumann budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, why are the Republicans cutting Medicare 
to pay for tax cuts for the well-to-do.
  I got a letter yesterday from California that says why. The gentleman 
wrote: You still do not get it; do you? Keep it up; we will win even 
more seats in 1996. We want tax cuts. Your 80 year old is not our 
responsibility.
  This Republican is entitled to his point of view, but I do not see it 
that way, because I would like to look at it from Emily's point of 
view.
  Her late husband helped protect our country when he was in the Air 
Force. Now Emily is elderly and she is sick. Her 40-year-old daughter 
has MS and cannot help. Today Emily has $17 a month after she has paid 
for room, board, and medical care. The Republican budget will raise 
Emily's out-of-pocket Medicare costs by $123 a month.
  There has been a lot of talk on the floor that the budget for 
Medicare is going up, and that is true. But the more pertinent truth is 
that this will not keep up with the number of new elderly entering the 
system, and the cost for individuals will go up.
  Only in Washington could someone tell Emily that her benefits will go 
up when it is going to cost her $123 a month more.
  After all the charts and rhetoric and angry talk have faded, Emily 
will still be facing this question. How is she going to cover $123 when 
all she has got is $17?
  The Republican businessman who wrote to me yesterday says Emily is 
not his responsibility. But when Emily's late husband went off to fight 
World War II, did he say it was not his responsibility?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this has been characterized as an argument 
between the young and the old. I do have my children here because this 
budget does address their needs. We must balance the budget in order to 
preserve their future. My daughter here is the oldest; she is 14, 
Jessica. I also have John and Luke, but Jessica is 14. By the time we 
get the budget balanced and pay off the Federal debt, she will be 
nearly 50 years old. We have literally passed this problem on to the 
next generation.
  It is not just our kids that support the Neumann-Solomon budget. We 
also have other groups who support it. I have had in my hand here a 
letter from the United Seniors Association. They are writing the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], and let me read the last part:

       We greatly appreciate your concern and efforts to deal with 
     the fiscal catastrophe that our Nation faces. It is not just 
     the United Seniors Association, it is also the Sixties-plus 
     Organization, the Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National 
     Taxpayers Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste and 
     the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

  Mr. Chairman, this is a dramatic and historical time. I think we 
should stand in support of the Neumann budget.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about the time on all sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] has 17\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] has 9 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
yielding time to me.
  I would point out to one of the previous speakers that Medicare 
spending in the State of California will increase from $21 to $31 
billion in this budget, and the per person expenditure will increase 
from $5,821 to $7,688.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] for his 
courageous budget and visionary approach that he has taken. But I do 
rise in support of the Kasich budget.
  Nine thousand four hundred dollars, nine thousand four hundred 
dollars. Mr. Chairman, faster than I can actually speak that amount, we 
are adding $9,400 to our debt every single second. In less than 15 
seconds this country will be saddled with more debt than we as Members 
of Congress make in a year.
  If Congress continues to overlook this problem, it will be left to 
our children to clean up the mess. My wife and son James, my child 
already owes more than $4,000 as part of his contribution to interest 
on the debt, and he has not even reached his second birthday yet.
  It is wrong. It is immoral. And we must change this ominous future 
this year.
  Many of my colleagues here today are claiming that this budget will 
somehow retard the quality of life of our children and our seniors. On 
the contrary, I can think of nothing more negligent than our current 
spending practices. If you vote against a balanced budget, you are 
voting to lower the standard of living of our senior citizens and our 
children.
  The blueprint which has been courageously presented to us by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the Committee on the Budget is not 
perfect. There are many programs targeted for cuts which I strongly 
support. But if we fail to see the forest for the trees, we will once 
again fail to put this country on the right path, and the victims will 
be our children.
  Vote for the Kasich budget, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Chrysler].
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, in 18 months we will spend more money on 
the interest on the debt than we spend for the Army, the Navy, the Air 
Force, the Marines, the FBI, the CIA, and the Pentagon combined.
  Let me give you 10 good reasons to vote for the Neumann-Solomon 
budget. You can read it in detail in a book, or you can look at it in 
five pages, and you can understand it all. It gives a Member a choice. 
You can understand it, and you can explain it to others. It will 
balance the budget in 5 years.
  It includes the House-passed tax cuts. It pays off the debt in 30 
years. It does not spend Social Security surplus revenues. It saves 
$600 billion in additional national debt, and it saves $42 billion in 
interest payments in the year 2002.
  I ask Members to support the Neumann-Solomon substitute, and if that 
amendment fails, vote ``yes'' on the House Committee on the Budget 
bill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, is it fair? Mr. Chairman, that is the one 
question that Congress and America's citizens must ask about the 
Republican budget. Is it fair? That is a simple question but a crucial 
one.
  It is a question I asked when I received a letter from Alpha Dunlap 
of Temple, TX, a constituent of mine. She wrote: ``I do not have good 
health, and I do not have money. Most of my money goes for prescription 
medicine and bare necessities. I am widowed and live alone. Please do 
not let Congress make deep cuts to Medicare.''
  To those watching, I ask you this question: Is it fair to cut $1,000 
from Alpha Dunlap's Medicare benefits to pay for tax breaks for 
millionaires such as Donald Trump?

                              {time}  1245

  Is it fair? Worse yet, is it fair for Republicans to cut seniors' 
Medicare benefits to protect tax loopholes for billionaires who would 
renounce their citizenship to get out of paying their rightful taxes?
  [[Page H5276]] That is right, House Republicans want to protect $3.5 
billion in tax loopholes for billionaires who would renounce their 
citizenship to get out of paying their taxes. Members, that is welfare 
for the rich, paid for by the pain of senior citizens.
  Under the Republican plan, 100,000 senior citizens, such as mine, Ms. 
Dunlap, will have to lose Medicare benefits to pay for tax breaks for 
just one billionaire under the Republican plan. That is not fair. That 
is dead wrong, and it is unconscionable. Why should Alpha Dunlap and 
100,000 senior citizens like her have to lose Medicare benefits to help 
those billionaires who would leave this country and not pay their fair 
share?
  The issue is not the future of our children. I point out, Members, 
the pictures that our Republican friends have not shown today are the 
millionaires and billionaires who are going to benefit from their 
budget plan and their tax plans. That is the issue the American people 
must look at.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, in spite of what we hear in 
this Chamber, we have been astounded at the lack of negative response 
to this budget from outside the Beltway. Americans all across the 
country are way ahead of us. They want the budget balanced sooner, 
rather than later. Confidence is very low in our country's future, 
particularly among our young people. Recent polls show that more of 
them believe in UFOs than believe that they will ever get any Social 
Security.
  This budget is a promise to our young people that in the future we 
are going to do better than we have done in the past. Restore their 
confidence in this body and in their country. Vote this gift to our 
children. Vote for Solomon-Neumann.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio, 
[Mr. Hobson].
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to respond to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards] that something happened in the Committee on the 
Budget that has not happened in a long time since I have been there, 
but under Republican control we adopted an amendment of language in the 
bill concerning, ``The committee is also greatly concerned about the 
growing phenomena of millionaire and billionaire Americans renouncing 
U.S. Citizenship in order to avoid paying their fair share of their tax 
burden. The committee strongly believes that Congress should take steps 
to stem the revenue loss of expatriation for tax avoidance.''
  That is in the bill and it was a Democrat amendment put up, and we 
adopted it.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the point I would make is that earlier 
this year we had a vote in this House to change and do away with that 
tax break and that loophole for billionaires, and only five Republicans 
voted for that change.
  I know this is report language, this is not a change in the law 
itself. If Republicans who previously voted to protect the 
billionaires' tax break if they leave this country will change their 
vote, I look forward to working with them to make that change.
  Mr. HOBSON. We are working on it.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the authority of the Chair to preserve the 
decorum of the House, the Chair would request that posters and pictures 
not be displayed except at such time as a Member is actually speaking.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of America's 
contract with our children. The gentleman from Wisconsin deserves a 
great deal of credit for bringing such an honest, aggressive, and 
thoughtful budget proposal to the floor. This resolution has it all and 
does it all. This is not an either or situation regarding the Committee 
on the Budget's version, but it is a real alternative for those of us 
that are willing to take that extra step toward fiscal responsibility.
  I admit, there are things in this budget with which I do not agree. 
While I support the concept of this resolution, I am concerned about 
the funding levels for national defense and what I believe is necessary 
to protect our country's borders, but this resolution is a tradeoff. 
The tradeoff is between committing an additional $600 billion to the 
national debt over the next 7 years, and no longer mortgaging the 
future of generations to come. The interest alone on this $600 billion 
amounts to over $40 billion in the year 2000. We could ignore the cries 
from those who claim this budget is unfair, and that we are mean 
spirited because we care about our children's future, and we should 
jump at the chance to balance the budget as soon as possible.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, balance the budget? We agree, but not this 
budget, with its mean and misshapen priorities. Balance the budget and 
start with a tax cut for the largest, most profitable corporations and 
families earning over $200,000 a year? Tax cuts paid for with $304 
billion of cuts in Medicare and qutting programs important to other 
working American families? No, that is not the way to balance the 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, let us talk about four generations of one Oregon 
family. We have here 74-year-old Doris Wilson. She visited my office 
last week and talked a little bit about Medicare. She had to leave her 
$100 prescription at the pharmacist because she is retired on Social 
Security benefits and she could not afford to take it home with her. We 
are going to make her pay another $1,000 a year for Medicare? That is 
what this budget proposes.
  Gerri Graff, after she was divorced and her husband walked on the 
child support, she had a little trouble making ends meet with her 
secretarial job. She got food stamps for a year and a half, and now has 
been a productive and taxpaying citizen for many years, without any 
help from the Federal Government.
  Tandi Graff, a teenager single mom, is working in my office today, 
thanks to the jobs program, with a healthy kid, Jordan, thanks to the 
WIC Program. She had a little problem with a potential underweight and 
complicated pregnancy.
  These are the people who have benefited by the proper priorities in 
this country, the people we want to help, the people we want to extend 
the ladder of opportunity to, so they can climb up and live the 
American dream. We do not need to help the wealthy and the Pentagon 
anymore.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to acknowledge that the 
last speaker who voted ``yes'' on the balanced budget amendment also 
voted for the Clinton tax bill, which added $431 million in taxes to 
the citizens of his district. We are trying to reduce those taxes.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Nick Smith.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am so proud to be a Member of 
this Congress. We have turned from a nation at risk to a nation with a 
hopeful future.
  How can anybody criticize the Committee on the Budget's budget? it is 
so reasonable in terms of what this Nation faces.
  Just briefly, on this chart we see the President's budget would take 
us to $7.4 trillion public debt by the year 2002. At the bottom line, 
we see the Neumann-Jerry Solomon budget that takes us to a public debt 
of $6 trillion 216 billion. In order to decide how serious the 
situation is, we need to consider where we are on Social Security, 
Medicare, unfunded liabilities for both the veterans trust fund and the 
civil servants Federal employees trust fund. That is another $5 
trillion added onto the $5 trillion debt that we have today. We have 
serious problems ahead of us. We should look at this very seriously.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want Members to listen to the 
rhetoric. I would like to quote from President Clinton: ``Today 
Medicare and Medicaid are going up at 3 times the rate of inflation.'' 
That is the President. ``We 
[[Page H5277]] propose to let it go up at 2 times the rate of 
inflation.'' That is 6 percent. ``This is not a Medicare or Medicaid 
cut.'' That is President Clinton.
  Now when we are proposing the same thing, it is a cut against the 
people. This is what the President himself has said: ``So when you hear 
the business about cuts, let me caution you that we are not cutting, we 
are reducing the rate of growth.'' This is a direct quote from the 
President when he defended his 1993 budget cut.
  If we take a look at what we are doing, the Senate is reducing the 
rate of growth to 6 percent. We are reducing it to 5 percent. The 
President himself wanted to reduce it to 6 percent, and states that it 
is not a cut.
  Look at the fraud, waste and abuse. A lady called up and said ``Hey, 
I have a Medicare problem with a doctor. He charged me twice for a 
mammogram. I did not have a mammogram.'' The doctor said ``Yes, you 
did,'' and she said, ``No, I did not, I had a mastectomy.'' The 
doctor's reply was ``Who cares, Medicare will pay for it.'' There is 
$44 billion per year in just fraud, waste and abuse. We can manage the 
system better and reduce the rate.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Neumann-
Solomon budget proposal, which is an idea whose time has arrived. This 
budget proposal will in fact balance the budget in 5 years, it will pay 
off the debt in 30 years, it protects Social Security, and ensures its 
long-term stability. It preserves Medicare and the best health care 
system in the world. It in fact will save $600 billion in additional 
national debt.
  It is endorsed by the National Taxpayers Union and the Citizens 
Against Government Waste. America is tired of tax and spend. They want 
a budget that is going to work. I rise to support Neumann-Solomon.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey], a member of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the Republicans who wrote this plan 
continue to talk about the tough choices they have had to make when 
crafting their budget. I agree. Choosing to take health care away from 
our seniors in order to pay for special interest tax breaks is 
certainly a tough choice, and I cannot understand why they made it.
  But the choices that the authors of these Medicare cuts have made are 
nothing compared to the choices that Lucy Forest will be forced to make 
if Republicans are successful in their assault.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Members of this House to meet 75-year-
old Lucy Forest from Santa Rosa, CA. Lucy has an income of $800 per 
month. She has to pay rent. She has to pay the heating bills. She needs 
to eat. Lucy also wants to visit her daughter in Tucson, AZ, this year, 
but Lucy says she may have to cancel this trip if Republican proposals 
are passed.
  Lucy understands a lot of things about people and politics, and she 
understands Medicare. She knows that if these cuts are made, there will 
be lower payments to doctors and hospitals, higher premiums, higher 
deductibles, higher copayments, and fewer choices of doctors. She also 
understands that the families of Members of this House can afford 
health care while coverage for 7 million kids will be eliminated.
  But, Lucy Forest does not understand how the Republican budget 
proposals can eliminate $300 billion of health care benefits for our 
Nation's seniors, without telling us how the savings will be achieved.
  She also does not understand why pork barrel military spending on 
cold war weapons continues to go up, while Medicare for seniors is 
going down. She wants to know why the military budget is ``off the 
table'' in the Republican budget.
  Finally, and most importantly, Lucy questions why the Republicans are 
proposing to slash Medicare in order to pay for tax loopholes for the 
wealthy special interests.
  Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, neither do I. Only in Washington would 
people call taking Medicare away from Lucy Forest ``A reduction in the 
rate of increase.''
  I urge the House reject these efforts to slash health care for 
seniors.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, what a new day we have in this Congress. 
Mr. compliments to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] who last year, for the first time 
in 8 years, even offered a balanced budget. The budget has not been 
balanced in 25 years, but no one had even tried for 8 years.
  Now, here today, all we have are 4 different alternative balanced 
budgets to consider. This is what the American people want to see, and 
this budget, the Neumann-Solomon budget, is the fairest and best of 
them all. It is not a battle between seniors and young people. This is 
fair to everybody, because this is the only budget that restores the 
trust funds for the Social Security trust fund, and does it the 
quickest of any. It restores the most.
  It also is fair from the standpoint of reducing, eliminating this 
deficit the quickest in 5 years. That helps people right now, not just 
our young people in the future, which is important, but it helps right 
now.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker, the gentlewoman from California, 
spoke about Lucy Foster not being able to travel to my district, to 
Tucson. I just want to assure her that she is going to be able to make 
it, because Medicare spending is not going to be slashed. In fact, in 
California it is going from $21 billion to $31 billion in the year 
2002. That is a 46 percent increase per beneficiary, from $5,800, to 
$7,688 under our plan. That is certainly no cut. Lucy, welcome to 
Tucson.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  (Mr. McINTOSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the contract with 
our children, the Solomon-Neumann budget. I think it is a tremendous 
effort, because it moves forward in not only ending the deficit 
spending, but paying off the debt that we owe in this country. Right 
now, every family in America owes $50,000 of debt when you divide up 
the national debt for a family. That means that we pay in taxes $2,000 
per family just to pay the interest on that debt.
  The time to act is now, to start paying off the debt, so that we do 
not leave a terrible legacy for our children of a debt that they can 
never recover from. We need to do more work on this. We need to make 
sure that as we cut farm subsidies, we also provide regulatory relief 
so they can continue to make a good living. As we cut defense spending, 
we need to have procurement reform so we are not spending excess and 
wasteful amounts of money. I rise in support of this budget.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
   Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a picture of the woman I 
want to talk about today. She came to see me yesterday. Her name is Ms. 
Betty Glass. She and my husband and I lived in the same neighborhood 
for many, many years, where my husband and I raised our children.
  She is a woman who is bright; she understands things. She read the 
Republican budget. She looks at the figure $280 billion and change in 
Medicare money. She knows you cannot just get there by efficiency, new 
technology, by getting rid of fraud. She knows what is going to happen.
  We talked yesterday about what is going to happen with fees. That 
neighborhood we live in, people used to be municipal workers, teachers. 
They are on small pensions. If the fees are increased, it is going to 
be very difficult.
  We talked about getting a doctor to take care of somebody who is 
elderly. 
[[Page H5278]] Geriatrics was never very popular in the medical 
profession, but if you squeeze down the fees doctors get, people are 
going to have a harder time getting that doctor.
  Then we talked about our town hospital, St. Francis Hospital, that we 
both go to, and we talked about Mt. Sinai Hospital, and St. Francis and 
Mt. Sinai had such a hard time, they had to merge. If Medicare is cut 
back they are going to be squeezed and we don't know if that hospital 
will stay in business.
  This woman is like President Clinton. She knows that we have to 
reduce the rate of the growth of Medicare and she will accept that. She 
came in because she was representing the AARP, the American Association 
of Retired People.
  She is willing to take what they have to have to make sure we balance 
the budget, but she does not think it is fair that you take $280 
billion out of Medicare and say you are not reducing anything. She 
knows better.
  I wish I had her picture here because she represents a lot of people 
across the Nation. Medicare people over 65 want to do their fair share, 
but what they do not want to do is have the one universal system we 
have in this country--we did not do medical health care last year--we 
have a universal system in Medicare, and we should not hurt that 
system.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] for his leadership in the last Congress and over the 
years.
  I am particularly proud also of my freshman colleague, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann]. He came here to Congress as a businessman 
and said this is not the way you run a government. You do not put the 
Social Security surplus in the budget. You do not try to talk just 
about how we are going to get to a balanced budget on an annual basis. 
We have to look at the long-term debt.
  He worked at it, rounded up others and was persistent in all of our 
meetings, through the Committee on the Budget, the Committee on 
Appropriations, and in our class. I want to commend his leadership 
particularly because while I have my mother and father-in-law who are 
struggling in their health care and in Medicare, and I do not have any 
desire to hurt them, which is why we are not cutting it, we are 
increasing it at a slower rate, but I am also concerned for my three 
children. It is a balance that we have to achieve because if we do not 
achieve that balance, there will be no future Medicare for me when I 
get there or Social Security for my children.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today of both the 
Neumann budget and the Kasich budget that are going to be coming in 
front of this body. These are both good bills, and they are both going 
to do a good job and something good for America that we have not seen 
for 25 years--balance the budget. These are important things, and this 
is an incredible and historic debate that the people are watching take 
place that we have not had in 25 years.
  Let me tell you the specific reason why I am also voting for the 
Neumann budget. That is simply this: It pays the debt off in 30 years, 
something we can all identify with. Most of us have mortgages on our 
homes that are 30 years in length. It pays the mortgage on America off 
in 30 years.
  It is tough medicine. this is a tough thing to do. This is difficult, 
but I would submit to you it is very analogous to going to the doctor's 
office, and going to that doctor and getting a shot that would protect 
you against a future disease.
  If you went in to that doctor and you got a shot and you asked the 
popularity of that doctor that day, I would guess that the people that 
got the shot, they would say he is not a very popular doctor. But ask 6 
months or 1 year later when somebody does not get that disease, and can 
live a healthy life and grow and prosper in this country, and they will 
say that is a good doctor.
  This is tough medicine. It is good medicine. It is what we need to do 
for the country. Vote for Kasich. Vote for Neumann.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Mrs. Smith].
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Neumann] for giving me something I can be proud of.
  We see charts up here we cannot really understand, most people 
cannot, but I want to show you a chart that is real. This is the 
generation that President Clinton talked about that would have an 82 
percent tax rate. I was fighting for the women in the 1960's to have 
freedom. That little girl in the middle is going to have no freedom. 
She is going to have an 82 percent tax rate. Tell me how much freedom 
she has with 18 percent left.
  What we are doing is taking the biggest, most expensive credit card, 
our voting card, and we are determining the future of those little 
people. I want to tell Members, I am going to be proud to vote for a 
balanced budget so I give people like my little Dallis or my little 
Heather back their freedom, and that all the women who fought for 
freedom all those years will know that we still have freedom.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about today is really restoring the 
American dream. Time Magazine had a great article in this week's issue 
about the importance of balancing the budget. We start talking about 
the specifics. We have to think about the future. This is the American 
dream, by going to the balanced budget by the year 2002.
  I will probably not be voting for the substitute we are talking about 
now because I think it may be going a little bit too fast. But we have 
to think about the future of our children, of our grandparents today. 
It is so important.
  To think that we have a debt of $19,000 for every man, woman and 
child in this country that we are paying interest on every year, that 
the interest on the national debt in 2 more years will be greater than 
the entire Defense Department debt, it is obscene the amount of money 
we are paying on the cost of this debt. We must balance this budget.
  That is what we are talking about, increasing the standard of living 
of Americans, making it available, the American dream, for all 
Americans. I am excited about that opportunity, that today we are going 
to start that process of going to that balanced budget.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I too will support the Kasich plan and the 
Neumann-Solomon budget. I call the Neumann budget the why-not budget 
because my constituents back at home say to me, ``Why can not we just 
freeze spending at last year's levels?'' People in Washington say it 
can not be done. My constituents say, ``Why not?''
  They ask me, ``Why can't we just bite the bullet and pay off the debt 
while we're at it?'' People in D.C. say it can not be done. My 
constituents say, ``Why not?''
  People back home say, ``Why can't a guy go to Washington and 
immediately make a difference?'' The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Neumann] has proved you can. He is a freshman. This is the why-not 
budget.
  I came here to defend the programs in my district but I came here 
most importantly to defend freedom in this country. In this world, in 
fact. We are the last best hope for freedom in this world, and this is 
the first step toward saving the United States of America from an 
economic train wreck.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the budget that the 
Republicans are supporting and will probably pass today is the greatest 
raid on the wealth, the income and the assets of working people in this 
country.
  It is going to mean that their day care is going to be more expensive 

[[Page H5279]] when they have small children. It means that there are 
going to be fewer school books to teach their children when they enter 
school. It means that nutrition, as we have already seen, is going to 
go up dramatically for those working families that have their children 
in child nutrition programs.
  Student loans are going to be more expensive. If they are trying to 
take care of their elderly parents in nursing homes, that is going to 
become more expensive because of the Medicaid cuts and quite certainly, 
as we have all heard here now, a $1,000 increase in the Medicare to the 
elderly.
  Why? Because Republicans simply chose not to address the tax breaks 
for the wealthy that they insist on clinging to. They chose not to 
address, as we read in this morning's paper, the $25 billion in 
corporate welfare where huge corporations, wealthy corporations are 
taking the taxpayers' dollars from
 working families.

  One of the previous speakers said they could pay off the debt in 30 
years. Yes, working families in their country will shoulder the burden 
for paying off the debt, but the billionaires will not, the 
corporations will not, and the wealthy of this country will not share 
that burden, because you have chosen to put the burden on working 
families of this country.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary].
  (Mr. HILLEARY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, you can't say a whole lot in 30 seconds, 
but I just wanted to rise today in support of the substitute amendment 
of my good friend the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  In the freshman class, ever since we have been elected we are the 
closest to the people by definition. We were only elected a few months 
ago.
  The freshman class has tried time and time again to show that we are 
different, that we can push this Congress and this country in the right 
direction. this budget does it. I rise in support of it today.
  I ask every one of my colleagues to rise and support this. We can 
save $600 billion off the debt if we balance the budget in 5 years.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] has 5 
minutes 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute of my remaining time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 6 minutes 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of rhetoric out here on both sides 
of the aisle. It seems we spend a lot of time talking back and forth 
here as Democrats and Republicans. The Nation was formed by a group of 
people who passed on a country that was great to us. With that they 
gave us a very great responsibility.
  We have got fiscal problems, folks. Let's get past the Democrats-and-
Republicans part of this thing and let's join together today voting yes 
on a package that balances the budget in 5 years, pays off the debt in 
30 years, restores the Social Security trust fund, and saves our 
children $600 billion. Let's do this not as Democrats, not as 
Republicans, but let's do this as Americans who care a lot about our 
country so that together we can pass this Nation on to our children in 
a form that we are very proud of.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. McDermott].
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, this is a wonderful mythological event 
today. The Republicans are trying to sell the idea to the American 
people that you can make massive cuts in programs and give big tax 
breaks to the wealthy in this country and nobody will feel it.
  This budget takes health care away from 7 million children in the 
Medicaid Program. I do not know all about agriculture and defense and 
all the other things, but I do know about this budget with respect to 
health.
  The idea that the Medicare is not a cut, the gentleman from Arizona 
[Mr. Kolbe] today, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] yesterday 
stood up over and over again and said it is not a cut. The Republican 
plan mandates growth of 5.4 percent and says that is all right because 
private insurance is only increasing at 4 percent.
  The 4 percent growth rate from the private sector health insurance 
premiums claimed by Republicans is a made-up number. There is no study, 
no one can bring a study on the floor that shows that, because it does 
not exist.

                              {time}  1315

  It is made up, and everyone agrees that the private health insurance 
rates, at least CBO and Medicare actuaries say it is going to grow at 
7.6 percent.
  That means that for the Republican Medicare voucher plan put forward 
by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the Committee on the 
Budget, if that is adopted, senior citizens will be paying one-quarter 
of their benefits which Medicare now provides in its entirety, and the 
erosion will continue and continue.
  If Members believe that the American people believe that they can 
have a free lunch and they can all be for free, and it will not hurt 
anybody, keep pushing this budget, because there will be another vote 
here, it will not be only on this floor, it will be in November 1996. 
You will find out the result then.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time controlled by the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Sabo] has expired.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hancock].
  (Mr. HANCOCK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANCOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would state I fully support and hope we 
can balance the budget and welcome in the next century.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 5 minutes, 
to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Look at this chart. Look at this newspaper ad. They describe free 
money from the Federal Government. Free guide reveals how people can 
get their hands on billions of Federal tax dollars. Free. Nobody has to 
pay it back. That is what this debate is all about.
  Ladies and gentlemen, today is a truly historic day. It is one I have 
waited for for so long, because 1 hour from right now this House will 
pass a visionary blueprint that will finally lead to a balanced budget 
in this Government. It will put an end to the drunken spending spree 
that this Congress has been on for so many years, a tidal wave of debt 
that has turned this great country into the debtor nation. What a 
shame.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we have almost reached the point of no return. 
But today we can and we will reverse the irresponsible spending habits 
of Congress by finally enacting a balanced budget blueprint. The 
question before us today is not whether we will balance the budget, it 
is how we will do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I am the chairman of the Committee on Rules. I am 
privileged to chair that committee, and with our Members we have 
written a rule that says no budget alternative on this floor today will 
be unbalanced. Members are going to vote today for a balanced budget, 
and they have no choice. And the only remaining question in this debate 
is how do we do it, in 5 or 7 years.
  Mr. Chairman, our balanced budget task force and a large number of 
freshman Republicans that I am so proud of, led by Mark Neumann, have 
before us today a 5-year budget plan. It is almost identical to the 
plan of the Committee on the Budget, including the House-passed tax 
cuts.
  The big difference between these two excellent plans is the 
additional debt added to the accumulated national deficit of $5 
trillion. Our plan accumulates $600 billion less to that astronomical 
debt than does the committee plan.
  Why is that so? Because our plan begins to make the cuts in years 1 
and 2 instead of years 6 and 7. Look at this 
[[Page H5280]] chart. It explains it all. By making the same cuts early 
instead of late we save $600 billion in deficits, including $42 billion 
in interest that we pay out to foreign countries that hold our debt.
  But most of all, we guarantee, ladies and gentlemen, that a balanced 
budget in 5 years is going to happen. Members of this House, I am sure 
you all know as I do, and many of you were here, that after passage of 
the landmark Gramm-Rudman legislation back in 1985, and which would 
have balanced the books in 1991, we began, just like we say we are 
going to do here today, we began to meet those deficit-reduction 
targets in the first 2 years.
  But do Members know what happened? In 1987 there was a new Congress 
just elected, and that is liable to be what happens a couple of years 
from now. And back then we found it too difficult, even though we were 
in an economic recovery with billions of dollars rolling in in new 
revenues for the Federal Government, we found it impossible to meet the 
Gramm-Rudman target dates, and later on the balanced budget goals were 
extended and later they were abandoned entirely.
  Members, we cannot let this happen today. The Neumann-Solomon 
substitute begins restraining the growth in spending right now. Next 
years we dramatically alter the infrastructure of the Federal 
Government so as to ensure that it will not grow back, and that is the 
difference between our budgets. If Members will look at this, our 
budget cuts in the first 2 years, not in the last 2 years.
  Members, balancing the budget is more than a game of numbers or even 
an act of fiscal responsibility. It is a moral imperative given to us 
by the people who are here today in this audience, the people who are 
watching, the American families, my children, my grandchildren, and 
children to come. We have to balance this budget, and we have to do it 
now. Today we have a historic opportunity to choose between a 7-year 
plan that in fact will lead to a balanced budget, but it does so in the 
next century, 7 years from now. Or we can vote for our 5-year plan that 
balances the budget in this century. It does it right, Mr. Chairman. If 
Members vote for a 5-year plan and it fails to get 218 votes, they can 
do as I will do. They can put their heart and soul behind final passage 
of whatever is the standing amendment before this body at the end of 
debate.
  Please do it. America wins. Our budget is a better one. But 
regardless, if we pass either mine or the one from the Budget Committee 
we will have done the right thing. I urge Members to please vote for 
this one, and if it fails, vote for the committee budget. We will do it 
for America and our children.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] is recognized 
for 2 minutes to conclude debate on this amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
and the gentleman from New York for their contribution to this debate. 
This has been a historic debate.
  I also want to respond to the last speaker on the other side who 
talked about again, we have heard it over and over again, the cuts in 
Medicare and in Medicaid, and yet under our plan Medicaid spending 
would increase from $444 billion that we spent over the last 7 years to 
$668 billion over the next 7 years, and Medicare spending would, on a 
per beneficiary basis, go up from $4,700 per beneficiary to $6,300.
  Mr. Chairman, only in Washington, only in Washington, not the State 
of Washington where the gentleman comes from, but only in Washington, 
DC, can we call that cuts. Only in Washington would we consider that 
kind of increase to be cuts.
  The gentleman also talked about the assumptions, say it simply is not 
true. You can have a 4.4-percent private health insurance increase, but 
HCFA, the health care financing agency, says that is exactly what it 
is; that is their document, not ours.
  We have a lot in common in this debate on this amendment versus the 
committee's amendment or the committee's budget. Both of us got to a 
balanced budget, and both of us call for debt reduction following that. 
And that, after all, Mr. Chairman, is what this is all about, not just 
getting to zero deficit, but to get that huge burden of debt off of our 
backs and off of the generation that will follow us, off of their 
backs. And both of us call for doing that.
  Surely this debate is about our future. We say reduce spending, get 
to a balanced budget, do it by reducing spending, return some of the 
tax dollars, the hard-earned tax dollars that belong to the American 
citizens, return it to the people of America, return it to the people 
of America.
  We can and we will achieve a balanced budget at the end of 7 years, 
Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] has 
expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appear to have it.


                             recoreded vote

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 89, 
noes 342, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 343]

                                AYES--89

     Allard
     Baker (CA)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Burr
     Burton
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ensign
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hayworth
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kingston
     Klug
     Largent
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Petri
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stockman
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Waldholtz
     Wamp
     White
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--342

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     [[Page H5281]] Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Berman
     Bono
     Kleczka

                              {time}  1344

  Mr. DICKEY, Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. HORN, and 
Mr. RANGEL changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. COMBEST, CRAPO, FOLEY, QUILLEN, and MOORHEAD changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to be offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Payne] or the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens], printed in the 
Congressional Record of May 16, 1995.

                              {time}  1345


                amendment in the nature of a substitute

                   Offered by Mr. Payne of New Jersey

  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. 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. 
     Payne of New Jersey:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
  


     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1996.

       The Congress determines and declares that this resolution 
     is the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     1996, including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, 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, 1995, October 1, 1996, 
     October 1, 1997, October 1, 1998, October 1, 1999, October 1, 
     2000, and October 1, 2001:
       (1) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,060,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,113,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,199,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,290,530,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,361,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,495,274,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,576,520,000,000.
     and the amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be increased are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $17,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $30,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $64,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $103,130,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $115,930,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $183,774,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $195,520,000,000.

     and the amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act 
     revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels 
     of Federal revenues are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $103,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $109,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $114,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $120,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $126,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $133,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $140,400,000,000.
       (2) The appropriate levels of total new budget authority 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,305,645,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,351,766,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,418,293,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,477,601,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,554,772,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,635,012,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,705,270,000,000.
       (3) The appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,310,531,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,360,603,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,406,588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,473,786,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,532,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,586,550,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,657,024,000,000.
       (4) The amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $249,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $247,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $206,988,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $183,256,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $170,955,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $99,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $80,504,000,000.
       (5) The appropriate levels of the public debt are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $5,195,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,516,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,810,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $6,100,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,374,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,614,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,806,000,000,000.
       (6) The appropriate levels of total Federal credit activity 
     for the fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1995, October 1, 
     1996, October 1, 1997, October 1, 1998, October 1, 1999, 
     October 1, 2000, and October 1, 2001 are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $37,600,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $193,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $40,200,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $187,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $42,300,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $185,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $45,700,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $183,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $45,800,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $184,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $45,800,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $186,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $46,100,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $187,600,000,000.
  


     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 
     1996 through 2002 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $226,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $252,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $215,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $242,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $220,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $236,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $223,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $239,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $230,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $244,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $250,867,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $244,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $250,947,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $244,100,000,000.
       [[Page H5282]] (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,689,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,629,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,540,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,106,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,248,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,420,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,752,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,596,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,951,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,596,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,955,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,596,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,447,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,840,000,000.
       (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, $15,829,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,427,000,000.
       (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, $15,203,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,349,000,000.
       (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, $15,355,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,194,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,940,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,942,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,943,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,940,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,947,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,942,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,654,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,941,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,314,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,645,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,131,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,424,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,744,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,099,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,559,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,475,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,672,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,540,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,750,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,585,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,570,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,212,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,476,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,498,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,874,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,206,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,368,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,775,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,753,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,134,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,836,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,134,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,815,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,134,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,713,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,309,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
     [[Page H5283]]   (E) New secondary loan guarantee 
     commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,598,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,247,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,144,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,993,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,936,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,718,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,207,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,060,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,953,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,066,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,960,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,072,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,191,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, minus $6,339,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,016,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,631,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,151,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,419,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,927,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,504,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,320,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,739,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,381,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,420,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$345,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,369,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,480,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,515,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,429,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,038,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,590,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,677,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,965,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,360,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,519,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,327,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,519,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,389,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,519,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,780,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,325,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,749,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,540,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,181,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,599,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,658,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,226,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,062,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,486,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,374,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,573,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,468,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,661,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,801,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,939,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,853,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,114,000,000.
     [[Page H5284]]   (C) New direct loan obligations, 
     $16,300,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,937,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,732,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $19,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,323,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,894,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $21,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,809,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,238,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $21,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,016,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,366,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $22,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,800,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,011,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,366,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $22,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $128,956,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $127,946,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $140,941,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $140,282,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $154,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $153,746,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $168,335,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $167,729,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $183,031,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $182,276,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $198,841,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $198,036,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $215,541,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $214,736,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $184,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $181,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $202,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $200,700,000,000.
       (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, $221,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $219,400,000,000.
       (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, $243,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $241,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $266,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $292,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $290,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $321,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $319,300,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $235,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $232,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $252,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $250,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $274,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $279,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $301,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $297,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $310,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $306,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $329,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $325,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,894,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,593,000,000.
       (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, $8,030,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,763,000,000.
       (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, $8,795,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,512,000,000.
       (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, $9,561,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,921,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $466,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       [[Page H5285]] (A) New budget authority, $11,022,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $584,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,667,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $734,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,175,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,275,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $26,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,131,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,875,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $21,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,423,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,277,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,700,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,587,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,396,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,897,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,182,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $20,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,182,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,711,000,000.
       (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, $20,869,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,430,000,000.
       (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, $21,788,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,455,000,000.
       (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, $22,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,215,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,371,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,015,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,323,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,015,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,100,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,674,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,170,000,000.
       (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, $14,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,796,000,000.
       (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, $14,125,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,855,000,000.
       (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, $13,980,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,796,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,582,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,625,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,974,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,625,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,964,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,625,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $295,828,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $295,828,000,000.
       (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, $304,289,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $304,289,000,000.
       (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, $308,696,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $308,696,000,000.
       (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, $314,655,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $314,655,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $319,862,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $319,862,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $320,646,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $320,646,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $323,331,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $323,331,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $-1,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-1,195,000,000.
       (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, $-1,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-1,195,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
     [[Page H5286]]   (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $-1,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-1,195,000,000.
       (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, $-1,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-1,195,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $-1,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-1,195,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $-1,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-1,195,000,000
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $-1,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-1,195,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $-31,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-31,293,000,000.
       (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, $-35,961,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-35,961,000,000.
       (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, $-37,148,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-37,148,000,000.
       (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, $-38,127,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-38,127,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $-40,276,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-40,276,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $-41,614,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-41,614,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $-42,937,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-42,937,000,000.
       (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 September 1, 1995, the House committees 
     named in subsections (b) through (o) of this section shall 
     submit their recommendations to the House Budget Committee. 
     After receiving those recommendations, the House Budget 
     Committee shall report to the House a reconciliation bill or 
     resolution or both carrying out all such recommendations 
     without any substantive revision.
       (b) The House Committee on Agriculture shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as follows: 
     $2,250,000,000 in budget authority and $2,061,600,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1996, $2,250,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $2,061,600,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997, 
     $2,250,000,000 in budget authority and $2,061,600,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1998, $2,250,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $2,061,600,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1999, 
     $2,250,000,000 in budget authority and $2,061,600,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 2000, $2,250,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $2,061,600,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2001, 
     and $2,250,000,000 in budget authority and $2,061,600,000 in 
     fiscal year 2002.
       (d) The House Committee on Commerce shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as follows: 
     $5,100,000,000 in budget authority and $5,100,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1996, $5,100,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $5,100,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997, 
     $5,100,000,000 in budget authority and $5,100,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1998, $5,100,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $5,100,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1999, 
     $5,100,000,000 in budget authority and $5,100,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 2000, $5,100,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $5,100,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2001, 
     and $5,100,000,000 in budget authority and $5,100,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2002.
       (h) The House Committee on the Judiciary shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as 
     follows: $43,000,000 in budget authority and $43,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1996, $43,000,000 in budget authority 
     and $43,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997, $43,000,000 
     in budget authority and $43,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 
     1998, $43,000,000 in budget authority and $43,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1999, $43,000,000 in budget authority 
     and $43,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2000, $43,000,000 
     in budget authority and $43,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 
     2001, and $43,000,000 in budget authority and $43,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2002.
       (j) The House Committee on Resources shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as follows: 
     $1,250,000,000 in budget authority and $1,250,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1996, $1,250,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $1,250,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997, 
     $1,250,000,000 in budget authority and $1,250,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1998, $1,250,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $1,250,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1999, 
     $1,250,000,000 in budget authority and $1,250,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 2000, $1,250,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $1,250,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2001, 
     and $1,250,000,000 in budget authority and $1,250,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2002.
       (l) The House Committee on Small Business shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce budget authority and outlays as 
     follows: $14,285,000 in budget authority and $14,285,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1996, $14,285,000 in budget authority 
     and $14,285,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997, $14,285,000 
     in budget authority and $14,285,000 in outlays in fiscal year 
     1998, $14,285,000 in budget authority and $14,285,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1999, $14,285,000 in budget authority 
     and $14,285,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2000, $14,285,000 
     in budget authority and $14,285,000 in outlays in fiscal year 
     2001, and $14,285,000 in budget authority and $14,285,000 in 
     fiscal year 2002.
       (m) The House Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to 
     reduce budget authority and outlays as follows: 
     $1,340,000,000 in budget authority and $1,340,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1996, $1,336,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $1,336,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1997, 
     $1,336,000,000 in budget authority and $1,336,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 1998, $1,336,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $1,336,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1999, 
     $1,336,000,000 in budget authority and $1,336,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal year 2000, $1,336,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $1,336,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2001, 
     and $1,336,000,000 in budget authority and $1,336,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2002.
       (o) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to 
     increase revenues, as follows: $17,800,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1996, $30,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $64,600,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1998, $103,130,000,000 in fiscal year 1999, 
     $115,930,000,000 in fiscal year 2000, $183,774,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2001, and $195,520,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
       (p) For purposes of this section, the term ``direct 
     spending'' has the meaning given to such term in section 
     250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 and the term ``new budget authority'' has 
     the meaning given to such term in section 3(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Payne] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
  Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. KASICH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] will be recognized 
for 30 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne].
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, I am 
proud to join my colleague Major Owens in bringing before the House of 
Representatives a sound, responsible budget plan.
  While members of the Caucus are committed to fiscal responsibility, 
we do question the strict, inflexible 7-year 
[[Page H5287]] deadline for producing a balanced budget which we were 
forced to abide by in order to bring this resolution to the floor. Most 
families in America could not balance their budgets if they were banned 
from getting mortgages and had to pay cash up front for their house, or 
their car, or their children's braces.
  Ours is a blueprint which reflects our belief in the United States of 
America as a land of opportunity, not just for the affluent, but for 
all of us.
  We call our plan the Caring Majority Alternative Budget, because we 
believe in this country as a place where the majority of people care 
about their neighbors, care about our older people who have sacrificed 
so much for the freedoms we enjoy today, care about the children and 
young people who want and deserve a chance to succeed. Our budget 
recognizes the crucial link between education and success. We recognize 
that no nation can
 build a strong economy when we have 40 million illiterate Americans, 
when children are going to schools with leaking roofs and outdated 
books, when college costs increased and student aid decreases. To 
reinvest in America, our budget increases funding for education and job 
training by 25 percent. We continue highly successful programs like 
Head Start, which has given valuable early learning experiences to 
youngsters from low-income families.

  Our budget reflects our concern for the quality of education our 
children are able to enjoy and the job skills they are able to develop. 
We continue President Clinton's successful National Service program, 
which has given young people a renewed sense of community spirit as 
well as an opportunity to succeed. We support school-to-work programs 
and one-stop career centers to help prepare young people for the work 
force. We include innovative ideas such as providing access to 
computers and the information superhighway at local libraries to ensure 
that no one is left behind as we race towards the 21st century.
  Our budget protects Medicare and Medicaid, two crucial programs to 
safeguard the health of older Americans and low-income families. 
Efforts to reform the health care system of our Nation were met with 
vigorous opposition by special interests fearful of losing profits, yet 
we have seen no workable alternative plan. Health care should not be a 
luxury. Too many Americans are only one paycheck or retirement check 
away from losing everything in the event of a major illness or 
accident.
  Our plan also responds to the new global realties and the end of the 
cold war. We recognize that we can provide for a sound national defense 
without pouring
 huge amounts of money into weapons we don't need and for which there 
is no justification or rationale. Funneling valuable resources away 
from our most pressing needs threatens to make our Nation weaker, not 
stronger.

  As a superpower, the United States must also exert moral leadership. 
Our budget provides humanitarian, education, and development assistance 
for struggling nations, some of which have been plagued with starvation 
and other life-threatening crises.
  As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the great Allied victory in 
World War II, our budget keeps our promise to our Nation's veterans by 
maintaining their benefits. Our budget keeps our promise with Federal 
workers and retirees.
  In the wake of the tragedy at Oklahoma City, we recognize the 
contributions of our public servants.
  We refuse to go along with the Republican plan to single out Federal 
workers for a tax increase and a pension cut. Instead of punishing our 
own workers, we have sought to raise revenue by requiring corporations 
to pay their fair share of the tax burden.
  We protect small farmers, who work so hard to supply our Nation with 
an abundance of food. We protect the rural areas of our Nation, which 
were neglected for too long.
  Whether everyone wants to admit it or not, we all know what happened 
to the Federal budget deficit the last time we tried trickle down 
economics. In the 1980's, when the Republican Party controlled the 
White House, the Senate, and was able to put together a working budget 
coalition in the House, the deficit began growing at an alarming rate. 
It grew in leaps and bounds.
  It has finally begun to fall and our economy has gotten back on track 
under President Clinton's leadership.
  The Congressional Black Caucus plan produces a balanced budget in a 
fair and responsible manner. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Congressional Black Caucus Caring Majority Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute for the purpose of 
a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify a provision in the Budget 
Committee report accompanying House Concurrent Resolution 67 with the 
gentleman from Ohio. As you know, language in the report concerning 
NASA's core missions is located in two sections of the report and was 
intended to be identical in both. Am I correct in my understanding that 
the language on page 63 of the report is the correct text and should 
replace the text on page 26?
  Mr. KASICH. Yes, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to, first of all, congratulate the Black Caucus 
on coming forward with a specific proposal in pointing their vision. To 
a large degree I may be a little biased in this, but I give my friend, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], an awful lot of credit 
because he started this process years ago, not just with the budget 
process, but with the defense process as well.
  At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, America has got to be one, and 
we have got to reach across the aisle, and reach across philosophies, 
and make sure this thing works for our country. We will talk about that 
as we get to the close, but I want to really praise the group for 
putting a vision forward, and frankly I am going to spend time over the 
next couple of weeks looking closely at that vision because there is no 
question that there are parts of this plan that ought to be listened 
to, respected and adopted as we go down the road, and I want to 
congratulate the chairman of the Black Caucus, the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Payne].
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. 
Fowler].
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kasich 
balanced budget resolution and in opposition to the Owens budget. My 
reason for doing so is simple: our children. Balancing the budget is no 
longer just fiscally responsible, it is a moral imperative.
  My two daughters will each pay $115,000 in interest payments on the 
national debt in their lifetimes. When they enter the job market, they 
will negotiate a salary knowing that half of what they earn will be 
taken away in taxes. Whether or not they can realize the American dream 
of home ownership may well be affected by the 2 percent higher interest 
rates caused by the deficit.
  The Kasich balanced budget is the most responsible and equitable plan 
before us today. It recognizes our constitutional duty to provide for 
the national defense and it lays the groundwork for a plan to preserve, 
protect, and improve Medicare. It will reduce the size, scope, and cost 
of the Federal Government, and ensure that our children have the future 
they deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Kasich plan.
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens], in support of the 
Congressional Black Caucus' alternative budget.
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the 
Congressional Black Caucus [CBC], Mr. Payne, for his steadfast support 
of the development of this caring majority budget. I also want to thank 
the chairman of the House Progressive Caucus, Mr. Sanders, for the 
steady stream of ideas and positions that have flowed from the 
Progressive Caucus since January. I also would like to thank all of the 
members of the CBC and their staff for 
[[Page H5288]] their help in completing this very worthwhile project. 
Particularly, I would like to thank members of my staff: Paul Seltman, 
Braden Goetz, and Jacqui Ellis, for the herculean effort they put forth 
to produce this budget.
  This caring majority budget of the Congressional Black Caucus and the 
House Progressive Caucus meets the mandate that we produce a balanced 
budget. But this budget does not oppress the poor and the elderly in 
order to favor the rich and the privileged. This budget is balanced by 
eliminating corporate welfare and closing corporate tax loopholes. This 
caring majority budget is a budget for the benefit of all Americans.
  Why is the Republican majority cutting Medicaid and Medicare to give 
a tax break to the rich and the privileged? Why are American taxpayers 
angry about the gross mismanagement of their Government? Why are 
American individual and family taxpayers being forced to shoulder 44 
percent of the current tax burden while corporations are asked to cover 
no more than 11 percent of the tax burden? Since 1943, why has the 
corporate share of the tax burden dropped from a high of almost 40 
percent to the present 11 percent? Why is the national deficit 
careening out of control?
  The deficit is not out of control because we are spending too much on 
vital safety net programs. The deficit is out of control because the 
tax policies of the past few decades have dumped more and more of the 
tax burden on families through the personal income tax while those same 
tax policies have succumbed to massive pandering to the corporate 
sector. There is no fairness, no justice, and no balance in our present 
tax scheme.
  The unique feature of this caring majority budget of the 
Congressional Black Caucus and the House Progressive Caucus is that it 
is a budget balanced by closing abusive tax loopholes and cutting 
corporate welfare. We offer a tax cut for all personal income taxpayers 
in order to begin the progress of restoring tax justice. We propose to 
end the personal income tax as we know it.
  At the same time, we move to systematically begin decreasing the 
taxes on individuals and families, we must insist that the 
irresponsible corporate sector pay its fair share of the Nation's 
budget. This mandate for greater balance in the revenue area is the 
policy key to a balanced budget without reckless budget slashing. More 
balanced revenue collection policies can produce more balanced budgets.
  And balanced is exactly what our plan is, in every sense of the word. 
Our plan has nearly a 1 to 1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue 
increases, while the Republican plan relies solely on spending cuts 
that hit the working poor and middle class the hardest. Our plan 
includes $500 billion in corporate welfare cuts, while the Republican 
plan includes a mere $18 billion.
  I must also point out that the Republicans eliminate extended 
unemployment benefits. While that would save $1.2 billion in 1996, so 
much more could be saved by instead doing what we have done in the 
caring majority budget: invest in the creation of jobs and thereby save 
the Federal Government money in the form of transfer payments, such as 
unemployment insurance and AFDC. In fact, by putting 13,000 more people 
to work, the Republicans could save that same $1.2 billion. Our budget 
puts nearly 1 million more people to work by the year 2002, saving the 
Government $110 billion.
  In conclusion, I think it is pretty clear where the priorities of the 
caring majority are, as opposed to the priorities of the Republican 
Party. We do not protect the rich at the expense of the poor, or the 
powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. Our balanced budget is truly 
balanced in that it: provides a tax cut for hard-working Americans; 
invests more than 27 billion new dollars in education and job training, 
increasing that portion of the budget by 25 percent; creates at least 1 
million jobs; completely protects Medicaid and Medicare at their 
current levels; completely protects Social Security, with no extensions 
of the age for eligibility or COLA cuts; and provides a more sane 
defense budget which offers a peace dividend to the taxpayers who have 
so diligently shouldered the burden of massive modern military costs.
  The Republican budget is a budget for the rich and the privileged. It 
is a budget that is mean and extreme. It is a budget that abandons 
large segments of America. This caring majority budget of the CBC and 
the Progressive Caucus is a budget for all Americans.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OWENS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I intend to support the budget for which the 
gentleman is arguing. It is important to balance the budget, but there 
are more important things than even balancing the budget. It is 
important to keep in effect some of the programs for which we have 
fought over the years. For example, I noticed two items in the paper 
this morning. One indicated that $60 billion is going to be spent for a 
new class of submarines. I do not know who our enemy is that would 
justify the expenditure of another $60 billion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] has used 5 
minutes, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has used 30 seconds.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, today is a time for truth. Today is a time for courage. 
Not too long ago on this floor a huge majority of this House voted in 
favor of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and most 
of those who voted against the balanced budget amendment said that they 
too were in favor of a balanced budget, merely against a constitutional 
amendment to reach that objective.
  Well, today we have the opportunity to show that we have the courage 
of our convictions by moving beyond the easy rhetoric of balancing the 
budget to the difficult reality of actually achieving a balanced 
budget. We have talked the talk. Now it is time to walk the walk.
  As for those who say that this cannot be done without a massive tax 
increase, those who advocate the status quo, those who offer no 
constructive alternative, I suggest that we not waste our time in 
condemning them, because they have condemned themselves by their 
timidity, just as they condemn future generations to a nation that is 
less prosperous, less secure, and less competitive, with less 
opportunity.
  Instead, America should recognize that the new majority in this 
Congress has the courage, has the leadership, and has the commitment to 
live within our means, to stop spending money that does not belong to 
us, so that we can allow future generations to live in America with 
more opportunity, with more prosperity, and with more hope.
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] and ask unanimous consent 
that the gentleman be allowed to yield said time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates] to finish his thoughts.
  (Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the other item I saw in the paper was that 
the National Institutes of Health, in which we have spent so many 
billions of dollars over the years in making it into one of the great 
research institutions of the country, is going to suffer tremendously 
in its research function because its budgets are being cut. I think 
there are more important things, that it is much more important to 
protect the health and welfare of the people of our country than 
cutting an agency like the National Institutes of Health.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Miss Collins].
  (Miss COLLINS of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget. This budget 
demonstrates a commitment to the American people. We will not sit idly 
by and cringe at the possibility that money 
[[Page H5289]] will be taken out of the homes and food off the tables 
of millions of Americans. The CBC budget calls for spending much less 
on defense than the Republican proposal. Believe it or not, we are at 
peace. Those who can least afford cuts, the poor, children, and the 
elderly, should not be required to bear the brunt of the Republican 
agenda. I ask, Mr. Chairman, is human life not more important than big 
business?
  The CBC alternative budget will invest in programs people really 
need. Funding for Medicare and Medicaid will be maintained. In 
addition, education and job training will take high priority.
  I stand before you today on behalf of the tens of millions of 
Americans who cannot stand for themselves. I ask my colleagues to 
balance this country's need with compassion for those who are unable to 
care for themselves.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  (Mr. CLINGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute 
amendment and in favor of the committee resolution. I want to commend, 
first of all, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, Mr. Kasich, 
and his committee, for crafting a very bold and courageous and, most 
importantly, an honest budget resolution. They have tackled a very 
difficult and certainly I not need add a politically dangerous task of 
balancing the budget in a responsible and professional manner, and I 
would applaud them for what I think are Herculean efforts.
  Second, I wanted to remind my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle and supporters of this substitute who seem somewhat squeamish 
about the Republican budget proposal in that it is making some 
significant cuts, that it is only the first step in a very long 
process. Of course, the budget figures laid out by function are 
binding, but the menu of the specific program cuts and eliminations are 
nonbinding. There is plenty of room for adjustment I think in all of 
the authorizing committees and improvement.
  So I too am concerned about some of the suggested cuts, but I plan to 
work to reform the programs that I believe are most critical to my 
constituents and the country and develop alternative means of 
delivering some of these critical services and benefits.
  Third, as chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, I am 
excited about this budget proposal because it is the first major step 
in fundamentally transforming the Federal Government and redefining the 
roles of Federal, State, and local governments. I am one Republican who 
is not afraid to say I think the Federal Government does have important 
roles to play and some important responsibilities. In some 
circumstances the Federal Government can and has improved the lives of 
Americans.
  However, I fear we have come to the point where out of control 
Federal spending and unyielding monolithic bureaucracies have become a 
threat to American prosperity. The budget we have before us proposed 
here continues what I think has been a counterproductive movement over 
the past years.
  It is time to redefine the Federal Government's role in society and 
establish a true partnership. We must recognize the different States 
and different regions have varying needs, concerns and priorities, and 
we in Washington do not understand and cannot possibly address. So I 
would urge defeat of the substitute and support of the Kasich 
amendment.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders], the chairman of the Progressive Caucus.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Owens] and other members of the Black Caucus for the excellent 
work they have done.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time in which the rich are getting much richer, 
the middle class is shrinking, and poverty is increasing, the 
Congressional Black Caucus has come up with a budget that moves us 
toward a balanced budget, but does not do it on the backs of working 
people, the middle class, or the poor. At a time in which the rich have 
enjoyed, over the last decade, huge decreases in their tax burden, the 
Congressional Black Caucus does not give more tax breaks to the wealthy 
or the large corporations, but, in fact, provides tax breaks for the 
middle class and says to the wealthy that it is about time you start 
paying your fair share of taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, the cold war is over. Our standard of living is 
declining. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the 
industrialized world. It is absurd that the Republican budget proposes 
to be talking about significant increases in military spending. Now is 
the time to lower military spending so we can reinvest in this country 
and provide for the needs of our people.
  Mr. Chairman, instead of giving huge tax breaks to corporations and 
the wealthy, the Black Caucus budget has the guts, uniquely, to demand 
an end to corporate welfare. When we talk about welfare, most people 
say that is poor folks. What the Black Caucus budget understands is 
that large corporations and the wealthy end up with much more in 
welfare and subsidies. Let us support the Black Caucus budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, this week I celebrate my son Clark's 16th 
birthday. I remember the joy and excitement years ago when he was born 
on May 16, and I felt the same excitement when our daughter D'Anne was 
born 20 years ago.
  I tell you about my two children, my colleagues, because for my wife 
Pat and I they are the most important things in our lives. When we made 
the decision to bring them into the world two decades ago, we were 
optimistic about their future. We had special dreams and hopes for our 
children. But those hopes for a better life and for a more promising 
future began to fade several years ago.
  That is why 3 years ago I decided to run for Congress. I believed 
then, and I believe now, that we must change the way this Congress is 
spending away their future. This week we have an opportunity to change 
the future direction of our Nation. During my 28 months in Congress I 
have learned firsthand of the dire straits that I only suspected were 
the condition of our national finances.
  Today, my colleagues, I can confirm that the very financial stability 
of our Nation is at stake. Every fund has been depleted. We have 
borrowed against every reserve. Even our Nation's Capital City is in 
receivership. Every cookie jar has been robbed; every dollar tucked 
under the mattress has been spent.
  For our senior citizens, I believe there is no greater threat to 
their Social Security or Medicare than to further ignore our 
responsibility to balance the budget. So now, my colleagues, I urge you 
to cast a courageous vote, to vote for the Republican alternative, and 
defeat this amendment, if we are to restore hope for our children and 
hope for our future.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta], chairman of the Urban Caucus.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, we have heard so much from the speakers 
over the last couple of days, talking about future generations and what 
we must do to protect the future generations and their lives.
  Well, I am concerned about the future generations, but I am also 
concerned about the young people living today, especially people living 
in our cities, the poor and middle class, people yearning for a good 
education, a good home, and for food to eat.
  I believe we should be trying to balance the budget. No question 
about that. But I also believe that we have an obligation, yes, a moral 
obligation, while we are trying to balance the budget, to provide an 
education for young people, to provide health care for young people and 
our senior citizens, to provide mass transportation, food, housing. 
Yes, we need these things. We need a balanced budget, but we have to, 
at the same time, provide for the people and fulfill our obligation, 
our moral obligations, to the people in this Nation, especially the 
poor, 
[[Page H5290]] especially the senior citizens and the middle class of 
our country.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes].
  (Mr. STOKES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Congressional Black Caucus substitute budget for fiscal year 1996. The 
CBC substitute is a caring budget, it shows compassion for the American 
people, and is one that the American people can be proud of. It not 
only balances the budget, the measure is responsive to the housing, 
health, education, and employment training needs of the American 
people.
  Unlike the Republicans' budget proposal, House Concurrent Resolution 
67, which holds our elderly hostage to their compromised health care 
condition and economic status, the Congressional Black Caucus 
substitute treats our elderly
 with the dignity and respect that they not only deserve--but have 
earned. Adequate funding is provided for the older Americans' programs 
including essential nutrition programs, low-income home-energy 
assistance, and assisted housing. Medicare is preserved.

  Unlike the Republicans' budget proposal which forces our elderly to 
choose between food and heat, under the CBC alternative their quality 
of life is enhanced.
  The CBC substitute is also kind to our Nation's children including 
those yet to be born. It provides adequate funding for Healthy Start, 
Child Care, and Head Start. Mr. Chairman, our children are our future. 
They have placed their future in our hands, we cannot sacrifice that 
trust.
  In addition, the CBC substitute budget strengthens support for higher 
education, student aid, trio, education for the disadvantaged, school 
reform, biomedical research, and community infrastructure. The CBC has 
heard the voice of the American people, and responded with a sound 
budget that is fair, responsible, and overturns the Republicans' 
assault on our Nation's most vulnerable citizens--the children, the 
elderly, the veterans, and hard-working families.
  Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus substitute budget stands 
on its own merits. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this budget which establishes our fiscal policy and 
priorities in a responsible and compassionate manner.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Baker].
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, this is the first time in 26 
years that we are actually taking the first step toward balancing the 
budget. That means your grandchildren will not be paying $187,000 in 
interest payments to the national debt during her lifetime, if she is 
born today, if we start today. This budget is more of the same. More 
spending, more taxes, more power in Washington.
  We need a capital gains tax, not as a tax for the rich but for those 
who will create jobs and bring revenue to Washington.
  We need the tax relief for the young families, both parents working, 
so that they can spend not someone else's money but their own. That is 
what a $500 tax credit does for families with children. We have got to 
stop the growth of power in Washington. We have got to stop the 
centralization of regulation in Washington. That is what returning 
power to local governments is all about. That is what the unfunded 
mandates bill was all about. We have to stop the overtaxation.
  In 1960, we only paid about 10 percent of our income to the 
government. We are now paying 30 percent. Vote no on this relief. Vote 
``yes'' on the Republican budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to announce that I oppose the substitute we have 
before us now and that I will vote in favor of the Kasich budget, even 
though I have great concern about the transportation parts of that 
budget.
  Most importantly, to announce that the Speaker today has authorized 
me to announce that he is forming a task force to address the issue of 
taking the transportation trust funds out of the general fund budget, 
that the Speaker himself will chair that task force. And as the Speaker 
says in the letter making this announcement, ``As you know, I have 
consistently stood with you in support of moving the transportation 
trust funds off budget.''
  So this is not the end but, rather, the beginning. I salute the 
Speaker for his dedication to our finding a way to remove these 
transportation trust funds from the general fund budget. It is really 
an issue of honesty in budgeting. We have 206 cosponsors now, I might 
say a majority of Republicans in the House cosponsoring the 
legislation. It is time we get on with doing it. I certainly want to 
compliment the Speaker for deciding that he will chair the task force 
to find a way to make this happen.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Mfume].
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, get ready, because 
after 4 months of blue smoke and mirrors, the Republican budget 
proposal is getting ready to pick your pockets. It gives a new meaning 
to the term ``out of luck.''
  If your are on Medicaid or Medicare, you are now out of luck. If you 
receive unemployment benefits, you are out of luck. If you happen to be 
a college student or the parent of a college student, you, too, are out 
of luck. If you believe in the importance of the National Endowment for 
the Humanities or the National Endowment for the Arts or the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, under the Republican budget 
proposal, you are out of luck. It gives tax breaks to the wealthy and 
gets away from the whole notion of trying to do anything about 
corporate welfare. Spends more money on weapons during a time of peace 
and plays games under the guise of balancing the budget.
  We were given the task to balance the budget also and we have one we 
believe that is more humane, more dedicated to principle, more honest, 
more equitably distributed and more, quite frankly, American in many 
respects because it does not do unto people things that we would not 
have done to us.
  And so I would ask Members of this body, as you watch this debate and 
as you come to the floor to cast this vote, recognize that we are 
talking about years of fiscal policy and ask yourself, when you 
juxtapose these two balanced budget amendments, which one comes the 
closest to where the American people do?
  We believe that the proposal offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
and the gentleman from New York that has the support of the 
Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, meets that 
challenge. And we are prepared to debate that issue with anybody from 
the other side on any day and in this debate at any time.
  I urge support of this and rejection of the so-called balanced budget 
amendment by the Republicans.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Molinari].

                          ____________________