[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 94 (Friday, June 9, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1219]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                 THE FISCAL YEAR 1996 BUDGET RESOLUTION

                                 ______


                       HON. CONSTANCE A. MORELLA

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, June 8, 1995
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, today we are being presented with four 
alternative budget resolutions--two offered by the majority and two by 
the minority. For the first time in a quarter century, each of the 
resolutions before us would result in a balanced Federal budget. Each 
resolution recognizes that our current pattern of runaway spending is 
both economically unsustainable and morally indefensible. Each 
resolution presents us with very difficult, even painful choices; they 
are not ones that we relish making today or that we will relish making 
in the future. But the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that we will have 
to make them--and postponing them won't make them any easier.
  Let's consider a few facts. Our national debt stands at $4.8 
trillion--that is $18,460 owed by every man, woman, and child in our 
Nation. Interest on our debt is the fastest-growing part of the Federal 
budget; in fact, each year, the Federal Government spends 15 cents of 
every dollar--or more than $200 billion--just on interest on the debt. 
That is almost as much as we spend on all nondefense discretionary 
programs combined--on education, job training, medical research, and 
much more. If current trends are not abated, interest and entitlement 
obligations will continue to grow exponentially until there is little 
left for anything else. Our choice today, then, is not about whether to 
balance the budget; it is about how to balance it.
  This morning, I voted for the budget resolution offered by Democratic 
Representatives Charles Stenholm and Bill Orton. The Stenholm-Orton 
budget would have cut defense expenditures by $60 billion more than the 
committee resolution, and it would have cut domestic expenditures by 
$60 billion less. In addition, the Stenholm-Orton budget would have 
funded a tax cut, would not have increased contributions to civil 
service retirement, would not have cut the student loan program, and it 
would have slowed the growth in Medicare spending more modestly than 
the committee resolution. Unfortunately, the Stenholm-Orton resolution 
was defeated by a wide margin.
  Given the defeat of this resolution, and due to the paramount 
importance of putting our Nation on a glidepath to a balanced budget, I 
will support the Budget Committee's resolution. While I have concerns 
about some aspects of the committee budget, I believe that these 
concerns can be addressed in a House-Senate conference, and that the 
budget process must move forward. In fact, given the prevailing 
sentiment in the Senate, it is my expectation that the final document 
produced by House and Senate conferees will be very similar to the 
Stenholm-Orton budget for which I voted today: it will contain deeper 
defense cuts, more modest domestic cuts, and few, if any, tax cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, a budget on a path to balance--however imperfect that 
path may be--is preferable to one that saddles future generations with 
hundreds of billions of dollars of debt each year. In addition, we must 
remember that a budget resolution is a blueprint, not a fully binding 
document, and that the authorizing and appropriating committees will 
have final discretion in determining how funds are spent in each budget 
category. That is why I will continue to work with these committees to 
protect our national priorities--education, health care, equity for our 
civil service, and much more, as I have done throughout my service in 
the Congress.


                          ____________________