[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 69 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5189-H5240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1997

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 435 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 435

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for further 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 178) 
     establishing the congressional budget for the United States 
     Government for fiscal year 1997 and setting forth appropriate 
     budgetary levels for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 
     2002. No further general debate shall be in order. The 
     concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under 
     the five-minute rule. The concurrent resolution shall be 
     considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except 
     those designated in section 2 of this resolution. Each 
     amendment may be offered only in the order designated, may be 
     offered only by the Member designated or a designee (except 
     that if no Member offers the amendment designated in 
     paragraph (3) of section 2, then that amendment shall 
     nevertheless be considered as pending at this point), shall 
     be considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. All points 
     of order against the amendments designated in section 2 are 
     waived except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment. 
     After the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution for amendment and a final period of general 
     debate, which shall not exceed 40 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Budget, the Committee shall rise and report 
     the concurrent resolution to the House with such amendment 
     as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and 
     amendments thereto to final adoption without intervening 
     motion except amendments offered by the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to achieve 
     mathematical consistency. The concurrent resolution shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question of 
     its adoption.
       Sec. 2. The following amendments are in order pursuant to 
     the first section of this resolution:
       (1) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by 
     Representative Payne of New Jersey printed on May 15, 1996, 
     in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for 
     that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.
       (2) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by 
     Representative Orton of Utah printed on May 15, 1996, in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.
       (3) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by 
     Representative Sabo of Minnesota printed on May 15, 1996, in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII, which may be offered by 
     any Member, or that failing, shall be considered as pending 
     under the terms of the first section of this resolution.
       Sec. 3. (a) If House Concurrent Resolution 178 is agreed 
     to, then for all purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 as it applies in the House--
       (1) the allocations of spending and credit responsibilities 
     that are depicted in House Report 104-575, beginning on page 
     158, shall be considered as the allocations otherwise 
     required by section 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 to be included in the joint explanatory statement of the 
     managers on a conference report to accompany a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget; and
       (2) the Congress shall be considered to have adopted House 
     Concurrent Resolution 178 in the form adopted by the House.
       (b) Upon adoption by the Congress of a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997, subsection (a) 
     shall cease to apply.
       (c) This section supersedes section 603 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 with respect to the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997.
       Sec. 4. Rule XLIX shall not apply with respect to the 
     adoption by the Congress of a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 1997.

                              {time}  0945

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at 
this point in the Record and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this budget resolution is to 
set overall national priorities in how we spend the taxpayers' money. 
It is not the place to haggle over the details of Federal spending. The 
opportunity for that will come later in the appropriation bills; and, 
of course, the reconciliation bills that will be brought up during June 
and July.
  Because we are balancing competing priorities, Members submitting 
amendments to the Committee on Rules were asked to send up only 
complete substitutes for the budget of the United States, and they were 
asked to draft budgets which would lead to a balanced budget by the 
year 2002.
   Mr. Speaker, this is the second year in which the Committee on Rules 
has demanded that every single budget proposal, every alternative, 
balance the budget, and that is the way it is going to be until we get 
that budget balanced.
  Three complete substitutes were presented to the Committee on Rules, 
one by the Black Caucus, one by the group known as the Coalition, and 
one by the President of the United States. I was going to offer the 
President's budget myself and had brought it to the desk yesterday 
afternoon, but the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the ranking 
Democrat on the Committee on the Budget, assured us that he would be 
offering the President's budget this afternoon and, therefore, I 
withdrew my request to present the President's budget for debate.
  This rule provides for a vote on each one of those alternatives, Mr. 
Speaker, as well as the proposal from our Committee on the Budget. Each 
of the three substitutes will be debated for 1 hour with the time 
divided equally between the proponent and the opponent. The substitutes 
will not be subject to further amendment and all points of order are 
waived to protect them.
  After each of the three substitutes are debated and voted on, there 
will be a final 40 minutes of debate on the budget resolution that will 
naturally be equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of 
the Committee on the Budget. This rule includes a provision stating 
that the budget allocations in the report accompanying that budget 
resolution will be considered as the allocations required--and this is 
very important to Members, especially chairmen of committees and 
subcommittees--will be required by section 602(a) of the Budget Act 
until the final allocations are made in the conference report.
  These allocations are important because they tell the Committee on 
Appropriations and the other committees how much money they have to 
spend for the next fiscal year.
  Finally, the rule includes a provision stating that House rule 49 
will not apply to this year's budget resolution. House rule 49 provides 
for an automatic engrossment of a bill raising the debt limit when the 
conference report on the budget resolution is adopted. In other words, 
in years past that has been automatic, but we have put a stop to that.
  Since the debt limit has already been set, it will not be necessary 
to have a

[[Page H5190]]

further increase until at least October 1997. By that time the House 
will have adopted the third year budget of our glidepath to a balanced 
budget over a 7-year period. And if we have in any way veered off that 
glidepath, I, for one, will lead the fight and will refuse to vote for 
any increase in the debt limit. I have only done it once in 18 years 
and, hopefully, will never have to do it again.
   Mr. Speaker, with regard to the budget resolution itself, first I 
want to commend the Committee on the Budget and particularly the 
gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Kasich, for making the tough choices 
necessary to keep this Government on the glidepath to a balanced 
budget. In the past there have been efforts to reach a balanced budget 
by setting statutory deficit reduction levels, for example in the 
Gramm-Rudman statute, but the Democrat-controlled Congress proved 
unable to stick to the glidepath toward a balanced budget over that 5-
year period back in 1985. The urge to spend was just too strong.

  But this budget, my friends, is staying on that glidepath. This 
budget also contrasts with the Clinton budget, which is being sold as 
leading to a balanced budget, but for next year the Clinton budget 
actually proposes a higher deficit. Can Members imagine a higher 
deficit than we have now?
  And the worst part is, and this is what we should all pay attention 
to, the President's budget calls for 64 percent of the spending cuts to 
occur in the years 2001 and 2002, long after President Clinton will 
have left town, whether he is reelected this fall or not. In other 
words, all the cuts, almost all of them, come in the 6th and 7th year. 
In other words, when are we ever going to get to these cuts if we do 
not do it today? We do not get there.
  Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on the Budget proposal has backed up 
a series of assumptions showing with great specificity how it is 
possible to implement the numbers in this resolution. For example, this 
budget resolution will allow for net new tax relief of at least $122 
billion over the next 6 years.
  What does that mean? This means there can be a $500-per-child middle-
class family tax credit for hard-working American families. And believe 
me, they need that $500. We in the Government do not need it.
  This budget provides medical care for the senior citizens of this 
country. Medicare is currently projected to go bankrupt by the year 
2001, and we had better do something about it, and we start to do 
something about it in this budget.
  This budget is designed to preserve Medicare. It recommends 
increasing Medicare spending for each beneficiary from an average of 
$5,200 in this budget in 1996 to $7,000 in the year 2002.
  This budget also takes into consideration the debt we all owe our 
Nation's veterans for defending the country in time of war. I spent 10 
years on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and served as its ranking 
member, and this, to me, is so terribly important, particularly when we 
see the World War II veterans, veterans like the gentleman from Kansas, 
Bob Dole, who left his job when he was a young man and went to war to 
save his country.
  And for those that are listening, that is exactly what Bob Dole did 
yesterday. He left his job to go serve his country, and we sure hope he 
is going to be successful. I am going to do everything I can to make 
sure he is.
  In this budget for the veterans it recommends $5.1 billion more than 
President Clinton for Veterans' Affairs spending, which is principally 
for hospital, for outpatient care, medical care. It calls for 
improvements to the Veterans Administration mandatory programs, 
including things like an increase in auto allowances for certain 
severely disabled veterans and improved compensation payments for 
surviving spouses.
  This budget resolution provides also, my friends, for a strong 
national defense by allocating $12.9 billion more in budget authority 
and $4 billion more in outlays than the President had requested for 
fiscal year 1997, which at least allows us in the Defense Department 
and the defense budget to keep up with inflation, to provide for a very 
small increase in the wages of those young men and women serving in our 
all-voluntary military today, and to give them some increase, a very 
small increase, in housing allowances. This will make it possible to 
ensure a decent quality of life for military personnel and their 
families, and also provide for a sound missile defense for the United 
States of America as well.

  Mr. Speaker, this budget provides assistance to students seeking 
higher education. Believe me, I just finished educating five children 
through college and that expense is just unbelievable. This budget 
today before us assumes continued growth in a student loan program. The 
volume would increase from $26.6 billion today to $37.4 billion in the 
year 2002.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget is also designed to protect our environment 
so that our children and our grandchildren can enjoy a pollution-free 
future. It calls for increased funding to improve the quality of our 
national parks. It recommends reform of the Superfund Program and 
boosting its funding to $2 billion a year; that is a $700 million 
increase.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this budget saves money for the American 
taxpayer, and this, perhaps, is the most important thing that we have 
in this budget today. It assumes the termination or privatization of 
130 Federal programs and the elimination of the Department of Commerce 
and the Department of Energy. These savings will help us to reach a 
balanced budget by the year 2002 by cutting back and shrinking the size 
and the power of the Federal Government, particularly that part that is 
inside this beltway today.
  Why is a balanced budget so terribly important? I see some Members on 
that side of the aisle who strongly support a balanced budget, the 
gentleman from Utah, [Mr. Orton] as well. It means their children and 
our children will not have to spend the rest of their lives under an 
ever-increasing crushing burden of interest payments. Today we have a 
$5 trillion debt that has accumulated over the years. To pay for the 
interest, just the annual interest, the yearly interest on that $5 
trillion today is costing as much, almost, as we spend on our national 
defense budget. The real reason we need a Federal Government is to 
provide for a common defense for our States, and we spend almost as 
much on interest as we spend on the defense of our country, $250 
billion.
  Let me tell my colleagues something. Interest rates are fairly low 
today, compared to what they have been sometimes, and inflation is 
fairly low, but let me say this. If inflation goes from 3 to 4 percent 
up to 13 percent, the way it did in the mid-1970's, and if interest 
rates go from 8 or 9 or 10 percent now to 21\1/2\ percent prime the way 
they did in the 1970's, what happens to that interest payment that we 
have to make each year? It balloons from $250 billion up to $380 
billion. That means $130 billion less that we will not have to spend on 
those priority programs, whether they be defense or whether they be 
social programs for the truly needy.
  That is what this whole debate is all about. It means lower interest 
rates, since the Government will not have to be at the head of the line 
borrowing most of the available money; and lower interest rates means 
it will cost less to borrow money to buy things that the American 
people need.
  What are those things? For example, an auto loan will cost $900 less 
over the course of that 3-year loan, $900 less by balancing the budget. 
A student loan will cost $2,200 less over the course of that 10-year 
span. Imagine. That is found money, $2,200, that the American people 
will not have to shell out, just giving the money away in too high 
interest payments.
  More important than all, when we talk about young people being able 
to save enough money for a downpayment and being able to then meet 
those mortgage payments, and listen to this, if we can stay on this 
glidepath to a balanced budget, by the year 2002 we will reduce those 
interest payments on a mortgage. A mortgage on a small home will cost, 
listen to this, $37,000 less over the 30-year life span of that loan.

                              {time}  1000

  Thirty-seven dollars less on a very median mortgage. A large home 
mortgage will result in savings of about $65,000 over the term of that 
loan.

[[Page H5191]]

  Mr. Speaker, that is like found money. I just mentioned having 
educated five children. Let me say, if you can accumulate $65,000, 
whether it is to your retirement, whether it is to pay off your 
mortgage sooner, whether it is to educate your children, let me tell 
you, that is worth doing.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why we need to bite the bullet today, and we 
need to pass this very responsible budget that we have on the floor 
this afternoon.
  I, for one, am going to do everything I can to make sure we do that 
and that we succeed in passing it for the next 4 years as well so that 
we try to bring some fiscal sanity and an end to this sea of red ink 
which is literally bankrupting not only the Government but local 
governments as well, and the private sector even more so.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert the following for the Record:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of May 15, 1996]                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-Open \2\..............                 46                 44                 68                 60
Structured/Modified Closed \3\......                 49                 47                 29                 25
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                 17                 15
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................                104                100                114                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A structured or modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may  
  be offered only to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany 
  it, or which preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be   
  completely open to amendment.                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                              [As of May 15, 1996]                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 95).            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)...........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 17..  Social Security.......  A: 255-172 (1/25/
                                                    H.J. Res. 1......  Balanced Budget Amdt..   95).            
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 101.........  Land Transfer, Taos     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
                                                                        Preserve.                               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............  O................  H.R. 2...........  Line Item Veto........  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                2/95).          
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 665.........  Victim Restitution....  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                7/95).          
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 666.........  Exclusionary Rule       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-100; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-127 (2/15/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 889.........  Defense Supplemental..  A: 282-144 (2/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 450.........  Regulatory Transition   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)...........  MO...............  .................  ......................  A: 257-155 (3/7/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 956.........  Product Liability       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps.                95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                15/95).         
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY   PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1817........  MilCon Appropriations   PQ: 223-180 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                245-155 (6/16/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1854........  Leg. Branch Approps.    PQ: 232-196 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                236-191 (6/20/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1868........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   PQ: 221-178 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   217-175 (6/22/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1905........  Energy & Water          A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       12/95).         
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 79.....  Flag Constitutional     PQ: 258-170 A:   
                                                                        Amendment.              271-152 (6/28/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1944........  Emer. Supp. Approps...  PQ: 236-194 A:   
                                                                                                234-192 (6/29/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 235-193 D:   
                                                                        1996.                   192-238 (7/12/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 230-194 A:   
                                                                        1996 #2.                229-195 (7/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1976........  Agriculture Approps.    PQ: 242-185 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2020........  Treasury/Postal         PQ: 232-192 A:   
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 96.....  Disapproval of MFN to   A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        China.                  20/95).         
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2002........  Transportation          PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       95).            
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 70..........  Exports of Alaskan      A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Crude Oil.              24/95).         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2076........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       25/95).         
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2099........  VA/HUD Approps. FY      A: 230-189 (7/25/
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95)..........  MC...............  S. 21............  Terminating U.S. Arms   A: voice vote (8/
                                                                        Embargo on Bosnia.      1/95).          
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2126........  Defense Approps. FY     A: 409-1 (7/31/  
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1555........  Communications Act of   A: 255-156 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1995.                   95).            
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 2127........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY  A: 323-104 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1594........  Economically Targeted   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Investments.            12/95).         
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1655........  Intelligence            A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Authorization FY 1996.  12/95).         
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1162........  Deficit Reduction       A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Lockbox.                13/95).         
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1670........  Federal Acquisition     A: 414-0 (9/13/  
                                                                        Reform Act.             95).            
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1617........  CAREERS Act...........  A: 388-2 (9/19/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2274........  Natl. Highway System..  PQ: 241-173 A:   
                                                                                                375-39-1 (9/20/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 927.........  Cuban Liberty & Dem.    A: 304-118 (9/20/
                                                                        Solidarity.             95).            
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 743.........  Team Act..............  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1170........  3-Judge Court.........  A: voice vote (9/
                                                                                                28/95).         
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1601........  Internatl. Space        A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Station.                27/95).         
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 108....  Continuing Resolution   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        FY 1996.                28/95).         
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2405........  Omnibus Science Auth..  A: voice vote (10/
                                                                                                11/95).         
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2259........  Disapprove Sentencing   A: voice vote (10/
                                                                        Guidelines.             18/95).         
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2425........  Medicare Preservation   PQ: 231-194 A:   
                                                                        Act.                    227-192 (10/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            

[[Page H5192]]

                                                                                                                
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95).........  C................  H.R. 2492........  Leg. Branch Approps...  PQ: 235-184 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (10/ 
                                                                                                31/95).         
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95).........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 109.  Social Security         PQ: 228-191 A:   
                                                    H.R. 2491........   Earnings Reform.        235-185 (10/26/ 
                                                                       Seven-Year Balanced      95).            
                                                                        Budget.                                 
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95).........  C................  H.R. 1833........  Partial Birth Abortion  A: 237-190 (11/1/
                                                                        Ban.                    95).            
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95).........  MO...............  H.R. 2546........  D.C. Approps..........  A: 241-181 (11/1/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Res. FY 1996....  A: 216-210 (11/8/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2586........  Debt Limit............  A: 220-200 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2539........  ICC Termination Act...  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                14/95).         
H. Res. 261 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Resolution......  A: 223-182 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2586........  Increase Debt Limit...  A: 220-185 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95).........  O................  H.R. 2564........  Lobbying Reform.......  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                16/95).         
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95).........  C................  H.J. Res. 122....  Further Cont.           A: 229-176 (11/15/
                                                                        Resolution.             95).            
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2606........  Prohibition on Funds    A: 239-181 (11/17/
                                                                        for Bosnia.             95).            
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95).........  O................  H.R. 1788........  Amtrak Reform.........  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                30/95).         
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95).........  O................  H.R. 1350........  Maritime Security Act.  A: voice vote (12/
                                                                                                6/95).          
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2621........  Protect Federal Trust   PQ: 223-183 A:   
                                                                        Funds.                  228-184 (12/14/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95).........  O................  H.R. 1745........  Utah Public Lands.....                   
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95).........  C................  H.Con. Res. 122..  Budget Res. W/          PQ: 230-188 A:   
                                                                        President.              229-189 (12/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95).........  O................  H.R. 558.........  Texas Low-Level         A: voice vote (12/
                                                                        Radioactive.            20/95).         
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95).........  C................  H.R. 2677........  Natl. Parks & Wildlife  Tabled (2/28/96).
                                                                        Refuge.                                 
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2854........  Farm Bill.............  PQ: 228-182 A:   
                                                                                                244-168 (2/28/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96)..........  O................  H.R. 994.........  Small Business Growth.  .................
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)...........  C................  H.R. 3021........  Debt Limit Increase...  A: voice vote (3/
                                                                                                7/96).          
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3019........  Cont. Approps. FY 1996  PQ: voice vote A:
                                                                                                235-175 (3/7/   
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2703........  Effective Death         A: 251-157 (3/13/
                                                                        Penalty.                96).            
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2202........  Immigration...........  PQ: 233-152 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (3/21/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 386 (3/20/96)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 165....  Further Cont. Approps.  PQ: 234-187 A:   
                                                                                                237-183 (3/21/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 388 (3/20/96)..........  C................  H.R. 125.........  Gun Crime Enforcement.  A: 244-166 (3/22/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 391 (3/27/96)..........  C................  H.R. 3136........  Contract w/America      PQ: 232-180 A:   
                                                                        Advancement.            232-177, (3/28/ 
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 392 (3/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3103........  Health Coverage         PQ: 229-186 A:   
                                                                        Affordability.          Voice Vote (3/29/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 395 (3/29/96)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 159....  Tax Limitation Const.   PQ: 232-168 A:   
                                                                        Amdmt..                 234-162 (4/15/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 396 (3/29/96)..........  O................  H.R. 842.........  Truth in Budgeting Act  A: voice vote (4/
                                                                                                17/96).         
H. Res. 409 (4/23/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2715........  Paperwork Elimination   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    24/96).         
H. Res. 410 (4/23/96)..........  O................  H.R. 1675........  Natl. Wildlife Refuge.  A: voice vote (4/
                                                                                                24/96).         
H. Res. 411 (4/23/96)..........  O................  H.J. Res. 175....  Further Cont. Approps.  A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        FY 1996.                24/96).         
H. Res. 418 (4/30/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2641........  U.S. Marshals Service.  PQ: 219-203 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (5/1/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 419 (4/30/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2149........  Ocean Shipping Reform.  A: 422-0 (5/1/   
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 421 (5/2/96)...........  O................  H.R. 2974........  Crimes Against          A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Children & Elderly.     7/96).          
H. Res. 422 (5/2/96)...........  O................  H.R. 3120........  Witness & Jury          A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Tampering.              7/96).          
H. Res. 426 (5/7/96)...........  O................  H.R. 2406........  U.S. Housing Act of     PQ: 218-208 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   voice vote (5/8/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 427 (5/7/96)...........  O................  H.R. 3322........  Omnibus Civilian        A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Science Auth.           9/96).          
H. Res. 428 (5/7/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3286........  Adoption Promotion &    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Stability.              9/96).          
H. Res. 430 (5/9/96)...........  S................  H.R. 3230........  DoD Auth. FY 1997.....  A: 235-149 (5/10/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 435 (5/15/96)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 178.  Con. Res. on the        .................
                                                                        Budget, 1997.                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York, Mr. 
Solomon, for yielding me the customary half hour and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that my Republican colleagues would have 
learned their lesson. I was hoping that after the resounding ``no'' 
they got in response to their last budget that cut Medicare to pay for 
tax breaks for the very rich, my Republican colleagues would have quit 
while there were behind.
  But, as today's budget bill shows, they have not.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have not learned that the 
American people want something a whole lot better than the horrible 
budget they gave us last year.
  My Republican colleagues have not learned that the American people do 
not want their Medicare cut under any circumstances particularly to pay 
for tax breaks for the very rich.
  But it looks like they're at it again. This year's budget is the same 
old collection of bad ideas that Speaker Gingrich came up with last 
year and it's still awful.
  Mr. Speaker, a year may have passed but the American people still 
don't want Medicare cut by $168 billion to pay for tax breaks for the 
wealthy; they still don't want $72 billion cut from Medicaid; and they 
certainly don't want their children's direct student loans cut, and 
their Pell grants and their work study frozen.
  These ideas were bad last year and they're even worse this year. This 
budget-for-the-special-interests is a lousy collection of cruel cuts to 
pay for tax breaks for the rich. It doesn't even come close to helping 
American families and it's an embarrassment to the Congress.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if--God forbid--my Republican colleagues 
have their way, these cuts will have very, very bad consequences for 
the most needy Americans.
  The $72 billion they cut from Medicaid and $168 billion they cut from 
Medicare will leave thousands and thousands of poor children and senior 
citizens without health care--all to pay for tax breaks for the rich.
  As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, that's not what Government is 
for. Government is not here to hurt the people who need help and help 
the people who don't need it.
  But, I'm sorry to say, that's exactly what my Republican colleagues 
are doing.
  These Medicare and Medicaid cuts will probably also force a lot of 
hospitals to close.
  This budget could very easily cause Medicare premiums to go up or 
even double. Since more than a third of American seniors get by on 
Social Security alone, an increase in their Medicare costs could mean 
serious financial trouble.
  And the Republican medical savings accounts are basically health care 
for the healthy and wealthy once again at the expense of the seniors 
who remain in traditional Medicare and people who are either sick or 
lower income.
  Mr. Speaker, as far as I'm concerned these tax cuts for the rich come 
at far too high a price.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question to make in order 
the Orton amendment prohibiting tax cuts until the budget is balanced 
and the Meek amendment which will put back the earned income tax credit 
and take out the tax cuts for the rich.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], a very valuable member of the 
Committee on Rules, my right arm.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, who is well known as a tireless fighter for a balanced budget, 
for yielding me this time.
  I rise in very strong support of this fair rule for the budget and 
what it brings to this House and the United States of America. The rule 
as advertised makes in order the fiscal year 1997 budget proposed by 
our Committee on the Budget under the tremendously strong leadership of 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] who is the chairman of that 
committee.
  The rule allows for three complete substitutes, as Chairman Solomon 
has said, all of which comply with the prerequisites of obtaining 
balance in the budget by the year 2002. That is wonderfully good news 
for Americans. We

[[Page H5193]]

should stop and think about that for a moment. This Congress has 
accomplished a truly remarkable feat in changing the focus of the 
discussion here in Washington from if we should balance our budget to 
how we will balance the budget.
  We made a promise to the American people that we would do just that 
and get the Nation's fiscal house in order, and we are delivering on 
that pledge today. Promises made, promises kept. We have changed the 
terms of the debate, and now we are going to lock into place a 
blueprint for matching our deeds to our words.

  Mr. Speaker, the budget presented to this House by Mr. Kasich 
reflects balance both in terms of bottom line and in terms of its 
priorities, what it provides for. We find in this budget that we can 
save the important quality of life programs that so many Americans 
depend on while still increasing the Federal commitment to seniors, to 
children, and to those most in need in our society over the next 6 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, we find that we can provide relief from the excessive 
taxation of the Clinton administration in order to promote investment, 
productivity, and job creation without jeopardizing our efforts to 
balance the books. This budget does all that. We find that we can 
reduce the size and scope of Federal intrusion into our lives, bringing 
decisionmaking power closer to the home for every average American, 
without undercutting the fundamental purposes of our national 
government.
  Mr. Speaker, what Chairman Kasich and his Committee on the Budget 
have shown us in this budget is a blueprint that we can make the 
fundamental changes in the way we run this country and we can finally 
begin to lighten the load, the crushing national debt that otherwise 
would burden our children and their children for generations to come.
  Americans should not be taken in by the defenders of the big 
government and the Washington-knows-best crowd who undoubtedly find 
fault with this budget plan. They are the ones who support it and in 
fact cheered for the largest tax increase in history, the Clinton tax 
hike. They are the ones that defined the very rich as anybody who is 
not on welfare. The truth is that we are following through on our 
promise to restore fiscal sanity. That is something we all should be 
proud of, and most of this Chamber will be.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate my commitment to 
seeking ways to improve our budget process.
  While I firmly believe that we cannot use process to avoid the tough 
substantive decisions we must make to achieve a balanced budget, I 
believe just as firmly that the process that we are using today can be 
greatly improved to help force us to make those tough decisions and to 
ensure they stick. I look forward to working with Chairman Solomon on 
this effort and with my friend, the Budget Committee chairman, Mr. 
Kasich, and all of our many colleagues who have expressed interest.
  Meanwhile, I suggest we stay firmly focused on this budget, get it 
passed today so Americans have something to cheer about, knowing that 
fiscal sanity has indeed returned.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Orton].
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, the 
ranking member on the Committee on rules, for yielding me time.
  First of all, let me thank the Committee on Rules for making in order 
one amendment which I have submitted, the amendment to offer as a 
substitute the coalition budget. I believe we will have adequate debate 
and discussion on that later in the day, and I look forward to that 
discussion. But I also filed an additional amendment which was not made 
in order. Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I am going to ask my colleagues 
to defeat the previous question so that we can bring that amendment to 
the floor.
  That amendment, let me explain to my colleagues, is a very simple 
amendment. It does only one thing. It takes language from last year's 
conference budget resolution, language which the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, and in both the House and Senate, placed into 
the conference report during the last conference on the budget 
resolution. It is entitled in fact section 210 in the budget conference 
report on the budget resolution. The title of that section is ``Tax 
Reduction Contingent on Balanced Budget in the House of 
Representatives.''
  Why was that section placed in the conference report last year? It 
was placed in the report because during last year's debate and 
discussion, there was much talk about tax cuts, tax cuts not as 
subsequent to or contingent upon a balanced budget, but simply tax 
cuts. Many in this body felt very strongly that we ought not to.
  As the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], my friend says when you 
find yourself in the bottom of a deep hole, the first thing you do is 
stop digging. We ought not to continue digging ourselves deeper by 
generating more and more tax cuts that are not paid for. The people 
want a balanced budget. Well, to show the commitment to obtaining that 
balanced budget while providing tax cuts, the leadership in both 
houses, to their credit, placed a guarantee in the budget resolution 
that in fact there would be no tax cuts unless and until we actually 
had certified by the CBO that we would achieve a balanced budget, 
including the tax cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, in fact, let me quote to Members what the CBO said about 
section 205 for the Senate and 210 for the House. This is a quote from 
CBO: ``Both procedures require CBO certification that enacting the 
proposed reconciliation legislation would lead up to a balanced budget 
in 2002 before the Senate or the House can consider proposals to cut 
taxes.'' The Senate majority leader, Senator Dole, during the debate 
last year, said the following in describing these sections. He said 
that tax cuts, ``Do not take effect unless and until the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office certifies that we are absolutely on the 
path to a budget that is balanced in the year 2002. That is the safety 
valve. They,'' meaning the tax cuts, ``do not take effect until that 
has been certified,'' as the chairman has pointed out time after time.
  The chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget, Chairman 
DeConcini, in pointing that out also said: But let me suggest that in 
the final analysis, we will have tax cuts for the American people only 
when we get a balanced budget. That is the premise of the budget 
resolution. We will have bills before us ready to be enacted that will 
get a balance before the tax cuts will be viable.
  Now, it was important to have that language in the budget resolution 
last year. It is also important to have it in the budget resolution 
this year, but it is not there. I originally felt that it had been 
perhaps left out by oversight. So, in the Committee on the Budget 
markup process, I asked the Committee on the Budget to put that very 
language back into the budget resolution this year, simply to guarantee 
to the public that our ultimate goal of balancing the budget will be 
achieved, that we will not repeat what occurred in the decade of the 
1980s where we promised, Congress promised the people that we would 
balance the budget.
  They said: We are going to do this by cutting taxes and cutting 
spending. They cut the taxes. They never got around to making the tough 
choices on cutting spending. Three point five trillion dollars later, 
here we are again, saying we are going to cut taxes and it is not 
contingent upon cutting spending and actually getting a balanced 
budget. So that is why the language was put in. That is why the 
language ought to be in now, but it is not in. It is purposefully left 
out. The people have to ask why.
  Mr. Speaker, I will submit the balance, and I urge my colleagues to 
defeat the previous question.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Smith], a very valuable Member of this body.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are faced with several very different budget 
proposals. First we have the Clinton plan. The Clinton plan raises the 
deficit in 1997 and again in 1998, but promises somehow to balance the 
budget after the President leaves office.

[[Page H5194]]

  Then we have two ``Washington knows best'' plans. The same people who 
passed the largest tax increase in history now offer ``business as 
usual'' schemes with either no take relief or actual tax increases. 
Anyone who believes that our deficits result because families pay too 
little in taxes should support these budget plans.
  Finally, we have the House Committee on the Budget proposal, the only 
plan that puts taxpayers first. This taxpayers' budget is historic 
because it is the only plan that reduced both the deficit and middle-
class taxes. Some special interests will attack this taxpayers' plan. 
These Washington insiders attack returning hard-earned money to the 
American families. These folks actually think that it is the 
Government's money.
  Mr. Speaker, they are wrong. It is not the Government's money to 
take; it is the people's money to keep. Working Americans, not 
politicians, produce wealth. Businessmen and women, not the Secretary 
of Labor, create jobs. Family income growth, not Government spending, 
enhances wealth.
  If my colleagues want more jobs, support the budget that returns more 
money to small business, the House Committee on the Budget plan, the 
taxpayers' bill. If my colleagues want stronger families, support the 
proposal that returns money, power and decisions to the families, the 
House Committee on the Budget plan, the taxpayers' budget. Support the 
only proposal that puts taxpayers first, the House Committee on the 
Budget plan. Only the House Committee on the Budget plan remembers that 
it is the family's money to keep, not the Government's money to take. 
That is why only the House Committee on the Budget taxpayers' budget 
deserves our support.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley] for yielding this time to me, and I thank the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] for placing an order in the Committee on 
the Budget placing in order the Black Caucus/Progressive Caucus budget, 
which I think is the only real alternative that we are going to be 
hearing today and is the budget that speaks to the needs of ordinary 
working Americans.
  When we discuss the budget situation in America today, it seems to me 
to be imperative to ask how did we get where we are today, how did we 
end up with a $5 trillion national debt? Is it because we are spending 
too much on health care so that all Americans have health care? I do 
not think so. Is it because the Federal Government is spending too much 
on education so that all American families could send their kids to 
college? Is that the reason we have the deficit? Is it because we are 
spending too much on affordable housing so that we have no homelessness 
in America, so that people are not paying 40, 50, 60 percent of their 
income in rent; is that why we have a $5 trillion debt? I do not think 
so.
  Most economists understand that the reason we are in the deficit 
crisis we are today is that during the 1980's three things happened. 
First, we gave huge tax breaks to the richest people in America and to 
the largest corporations. Everybody knows that. What the Republican 
budget does today is it says, ``Guess what? Let us give more tax breaks 
to the richest people in America and the largest corporations. That 
makes a lot of sense.''
  Second of all, during the 1980's, everybody knows this, this country 
spent huge amounts of money on the military, tremendous increases in 
defense spending. What the Republican budget says is let us spend more 
money today now that the cold war is over; let us spend more money, $13 
billion more, on defense than the President wants. Let us build more B-
2 bombers that the Pentagon does not need. Let us go into that absurd 
star wars program, that is really where we have to go.
  Does that make sense? I do not think so.
  And the third reason that we had, we created the deficit situation 
today, is the tremendous increase in medical spending, health care 
spending. During the 1980's all health care spending went up, including 
Medicare. But the question that we have to ask is why is it that the 
United States of America, today we spend far more per capita on health 
care than any other industrialized nation on Earth? Is it because all 
of our people have health insurance? Is that the reason why? I do not 
think so. Forty million Americans have no health insurance, millions 
more have inadequate health insurance.
  So let us get to the root of the problem. What the Progressive Caucus 
and the Black Caucus say is, yes, let us move toward a balanced budget 
in 6 years, but let us not do it on the backs of the middle class, the 
working class and the low-income people in this country, and we are 
presenting a real alternative, and we hope to have the support of the 
Members in this body.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I support a balanced budget. I voted for a 
balanced budget. But I rise in strong opposition to the Republican 
budget and the tremendous harm it would do on American families.
  This Republican budget is simply a redistribution of wealth. Some, 
mainly the upper income, will get a tax cut, but for the family earning 
$28,000 or less a year this budget would actually raise their taxes by 
cutting the earned income tax credit.
  But there is another provision in this budget that would hurt 
America's middle-class families. This budget, like the last Republican 
budget, would mandate a doubling of flood insurance premiums, costing 
American families around the country $1 billion. According to the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, the average flood insurance 
premium of Houston's 25th Congressional District, which I represent, 
would double from $400 to almost $800 under the Republican budget. 
Homeowners along coastlines, rivers and bayous would see monthly 
mortgage payments increase in order to pay these higher premiums.
  This is another example of the Republican proposals to redistribute 
income away from the middle-class families by doubling their insurance 
premiums and raising their taxes. We can balance the budget fairly; we 
can do so by rejecting this plan. Pass the coalition plan.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the rule allows for the 
President's budget to be considered along with some of the other 
options, and I think the contrast is clear between the President's 
budget and that of the Republican leadership. Again, the President's 
budget does achieve a balanced budget; it reaches a balance in 2002 
that is certified by the Congressional Budget Office in the right way.
  The President's budget also provides a moderate tax cut targeted to 
the middle class. The difference between the President's budget and the 
Republican leadership budget is that the President's budget preserves 
priorities that are important to the American people, priorities like 
Medicare and Medicaid, like education, particularly higher education, 
and also protecting the environment. The Republican budget is the same 
thing that we had last year. It hurts the average American because it 
goes against these areas that the average American is so concerned 
about.
  When we talk about Medicare, we are talking about a $167 billion cut 
in Medicare in the Republican leadership budget that will force 
hospitals to close, that would make seniors have to pay more money out 
of pocket and will also move them into HMO's, into managed care 
systems.
  On the other hand, the President's budget achieves the requirement of 
keeping Medicare solvent in the same way as the Republican budget, but 
it does not make these radical changes to Medicare that will hurt the 
average senior citizen.
  The same could be said about education. The President's budget 
retains the direct student loan program, retains Goals 2000, retains 
the National Service Corporation, the AmeriCorps, an option which 
basically has allowed a lot of college students now to find another way 
to pay for their higher education costs. The Republican budget would 
either cut back or eliminate each of those programs.
  And finally, on the environment, again the President's budget 
provides

[[Page H5195]]

sufficient funding for environmental protection. The Republican 
leadership budget goes far toward cutting back on environmental 
protection, about a 15-percent cut in enforcement, the environmental 
cop on the beat. I have said over and over again on the floor, ``If you 
can't enforce our environmental laws, then what's the use of having 
good environmental laws?'' The same is true about the Superfund Program 
and others.
  The bottom line is the President's budget preserves the American 
people's priorities, the Republican budget does not.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the rule before 
us; it provides for consideration of the budget resolution for fiscal 
year 1997 in the traditional manner, whereby only comprehensive 
substitutes to the committee-reported resolution are in order. Under 
this rule, three such alternatives may be offered, so Members will have 
the choice of four different plans to guide the fiscal policy of our 
Nation over the next several years.
  In the view of this gentleman, the coalition plan to be offered by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Orton] is the best alternative among the four. But any of the 
three plans that will be offered by Members from this side of the aisle 
are a better choice than the Republican budget resolution that was 
reported by the Budget Committee.
  In Congress and within the administration, there is now a consensus 
that we need to achieve a balanced budget over the next few years, 
which has been reached largely as a result of the Republican majority's 
strong efforts on this issue. However, many of us believe that there 
are far more fair and equitable ways to balance the budget than the 
Republican plan provides for.
  Like the budget plan the Republican majority produced last year, this 
year's resolution would set the stage for a huge transfer of resources 
from poor- and middle-income Americans, and from children and the 
elderly, to more affluent Americans. It is a plan that hurts those who 
need the most help from Government, and helps those who need it the 
least.
  The Republican plan would do that by cutting Medicare and Medicaid 
substantially; by cutting the earned income tax credit, which helps 
low-income working families stay off welfare; by providing a child tax 
credit for families with incomes of up to $110,000 a year but denying 
it to those that are most in need of help with the expense of raising 
children; by cutting dozens of educational and social service programs 
that keep moderate income families from sinking into poverty and give 
them opportunities in life that would otherwise be denied to them; and 
by providing for contingent tax cuts that would primarily benefit the 
most affluent Americans.
  The Republican plan would also cut domestic discretionary spending 
much too deeply. Under this plan, we would spend about 25 percent less, 
in real terms, on domestic discretionary programs than we are spending 
this year--after we have already made dramatic cuts in this area. Not 
only are these cuts unwise; they are also unrealistic. There are 
growing pressures on both sides of the aisle to spend more in this 
area. For example, the House recently voted to take transportation 
programs off budget, so we could spend more on transportation; and the 
debate on the immigration bill showed that there is a very strong 
support for substantially spending more on immigration control.
  In addition, virtually every one of us supports spending more in 
other areas of law enforcement; we have more or less reached a 
consensus that we're not going to gut environmental protection programs 
or sell off our national parks; and, despite programs that have been 
singled out in this resolution for termination, there is broad support 
for continuing the Federal Government's role in a whole range of 
activities--from building dams, to providing weather information, to 
funding scientific research and development.
  These are programs that are strongly supported by the American people 
because they protect our Nation's high standard of living. And, as our 
population grows--it is growing by about 2\1/2\ million a year--the 
demands for more infrastructure, and more services, from all levels of 
government will only increase. Under these conditions, it is extremely 
unlikely that Congress will be able to sustain the reductions in 
domestic discretionary spending over the next several years that are 
envisioned in the Republican budget resolution. And even if Congress is 
able to sustain them, it would not be in the best interest of our 
Nation for us to do so.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, if our paramount budget objective is to balance 
the budget, it makes no sense to make that goal harder to reach by 
reducing revenues. It is only because the Republican majority continues 
to insist on a tax cut--one that could be as much as $175 billion over 
the next 6 years--that it is necessary to make devastating spending 
cuts in order to balance the budget.
  The reason that the coalition budget is a much better alternative is 
that it omits tax cuts entirely, making it possible to achieve a 
balanced budget by 2002 without cutting valuable and popular programs 
nearly so deeply as the Republican plan. It also spreads the burden of 
deficit reduction more broadly and equitably than the Republican plan. 
And, the coalition plan offers the best possibility of any of the 
alternatives of keeping the budget balanced in the years beyond 2002.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the coalition budget plan, and 
to oppose the Republican plan.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule allows the Republicans to hide a $20 billion 
tax increase on almost 7 million hard-working American families who 
have chosen work over welfare.
  The majority's attack on the earned income tax credit raises taxes on 
3.3 million low-income families, parents with children, who have chosen 
work over welfare. Low-income working people pay more even after taking 
account of the much ballyhooed $500 per child tax credit.
  The Republican attack on the EITC will also raise taxes on 3.5 
million low income families without children, the poorest of working 
Americans who have chosen work over welfare.
  These are not Democratic statistics. These are facts from the 
bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.
  The Rules Committee rejected my amendment that would have forced out 
into the open this plan by the Republicans to raise taxes on almost 7 
million low income families who have chosen work over welfare.
  Defeat the previous question. Say ``no'' to tax increases on poor 
people to pay for tax breaks for the rich.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce], a very, very valuable member 
of the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for 
this budget resolution which we will consider under the terms of this 
fair and balanced rule and to commend the hard work of the Committee on 
the Budget led by my colleague from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. Mr. Speaker, it 
is difficult to change the culture of deficit spending in Washington, 
but once again we are about to try.
  Mr. Speaker, when I am home in my district, I talk with people from 
all different walks of life who are frustrated by higher taxes and by 
government's ever-increasing presence in their lives, but despite the 
enormous growth of government most Americans feel that public schools 
were better, our communities were safer and our Government was more 
responsive 30 years ago than they are today.
  Has this growth in spending and Government programs kept America on 
the right track? I think the answer is, sadly, no. While we are ready 
to shrink government and return decisions back to our communities, the 
President's budget plan does just the opposite. It expands Government, 
shifts financial burden to future generations, and I am amazed that the 
same President who came to this Chamber in January and declared that 
the era of big government is over has sent us a budget that continues 
the Washington knows best approach to dealing with America's 
priorities.
  Under our budget plan the era of big government will come to a close 
as ``Washington knows best'' gives way to greater State and local 
flexibility and as hard-working families begin working for themselves 
and not working to pay the high taxes that have fueled more Federal 
spending, that require higher taxes, that fuel more Federal spending, 
that require higher taxes, that fuel more Federal spending. It goes on, 
and on, and on.

[[Page H5196]]

                              {time}  1030

  It is a vicious spiral. It is an upward spiral. Mr. Speaker, with all 
that, I am very hopeful that as we continue to move toward a balanced 
budget, we will also focus on reforming the budget process itself to 
make it less complicated, more accountable, and more understandable to 
the average citizen.
  Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity, a great opportunity, to restore 
America's stake in limited, effective government by adopting this 
resolution today. It is the right plan to replace Government dependency 
with self-reliance and individual initiative. Anything less, anything 
less will deprive our children of their potential and the safe 
prosperous future that they deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and 
``yes'' on the resolution of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this year's Republican budget will hurt average 
Americans just as much as the one they proposed last year. Please, do 
not be fooled. The budget which Republicans bring to the House floor 
this week contains the same harsh policy, the deep cuts that hurt 
seniors and children and families.
  Last year the American public said to President Clinton, 60 percent 
of them said please veto this budget, as he did. The issue is not one 
of balanced budgets. The President has introduced a balanced budget, 
the Republicans have introduced a balanced budget. The question is who 
gets hurt in these budgets.
  In the Republican budget, once again we are looking at hard-working, 
middle-class families who are going to pay the price in this budget, 
and not the special interests, not the wealthiest of Americans, 
because, Mr. Speaker, as we will see in this Republican budget, the tax 
breaks for wealthy Americans add up to $176 billion and maybe even a 
little bit more.
  Is it not ironic and clearly not a coincidence that the cut in 
Medicare is $167 billion? The money that they cut from Medicare does 
not go into making Medicare a more sound and solvent system, it goes to 
pay for those tax breaks. Let us not let them get away with it this 
time like we did the last time.
  In addition, with regard to Medicare, what they would do is to 
restructure it. They will allow medical savings accounts, which the 
American Academy of Actuaries, no liberal group by any stretch of the 
imagination, says for those people who are in traditional insurance 
plans, they will see a 61-percent hike in their insurance premiums. 
They now will take those restrictions back that we have had all these 
years, which say that doctors and hospitals cannot charge seniors in 
addition to what Medicare pays for. Do not be fooled. Do not allow this 
budget to go through.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Philadelphia, PA [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is about 100 miles west of Philadelphia where I 
reside, but that is all right. That is close. I still root for the 
Phillies.
  Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution that is before us today does 
contain language that would preserve the funding for NIH. That is very 
important to every Member of the Congress and, really, to every citizen 
in our country because of the progressive programs already established, 
which need continuous funding within the NIH to provide remedies and 
cures and new ways of treating the ill and to save lives. That alone 
merits favorable consideration of the budget resolution that is before 
us.
  We have had extensive contact with operatives of the NIH over the 
years, and we continuously are thrilled by the advances made by our 
scientific community. Most recently, in a products liability bill which 
was, unfortunately, vetoed by the President, we had in it a 
biomaterials portion of it that would have continued the steady supply 
of vital supplies to biomedical research types of new medical devices 
that save lives and improve health.
  In these kinds of projects, every single American has an investment. 
We want to commend the content of the concurrent budget resolution.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule 
which will make in order two amendments: One by the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Orton] and the other by the gentlelady from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  The Orton amendment would make any tax cuts dependent upon the 
Congressional Budget Office certifying that the total budget would in 
fact be balanced by 2002. We should not be promising tax cuts until we 
are sure that the budget is balanced.
  The Meek amendment would eliminate the earned income tax credit 
reductions that take $20 billion from the working poor and provide 
offsets by denying tax breaks to the rich. Vote ``no'' on the previous 
question.
  I include the text of the amendment and accompanying documents for 
the Record at this point in the debate.
  The material referred to is as follows:

 Previous Question Amendment Text: H. Res. 435 for Consideration of H. 
              Con. Res. 178, Budget Resolution for FY 1997

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``Sec.  . Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, at the conclusion of consideration of the 
     concurrent resolution for amendment, it shall be in order to 
     consider, without intervention of any point of order, an 
     amendment to be offered by Representative Orton, or his 
     designee and an amendment to be offered by Representative 
     Meek, or her designee. The amendments are printed in section  
     of this resolution.
       Sec.  . The text of the amendments are as follows:


        amendment to h. con. res.  offered by mr. orton of utah

       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC. 15. BUDGET SURPLUS ALLOWANCE.

       (a) CBO Certification of Legislative Submissions.--
       (1) Submission of legislation.-- Upon the submission of 
     legislative recommendations pursuant to section 4 and prior 
     to the submission of a conference report on legislation 
     reported pursuant to section 4, the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget of the Senate and of the House of 
     Representatives (as the case may be) shall submit such 
     recommendations to the Congressional Budget Office.
       (2) Basis of estimates.--For the purposes of preparing an 
     estimate pursuant to this subsection, the Congressional 
     Budget Office shall include the budgetary impact of all 
     legislation enacted to date, use the economic and technical 
     assumptions underlying this resolution, and assume compliance 
     with the total discretionary spending levels assumed in this 
     resolution unless superseded by law.
       (3) Estimate of legislation.--The Congressional Budget 
     Office shall provide an estimate to the chairman of the 
     Budget Committee of the Senate and of the House of 
     Representatives (as the case may be) and certify whether the 
     legislative recommendations would balance the total budget by 
     fiscal year 2002.
       (4) Certification.--If the Congressional Budget Office 
     certifies that such legislative recommendations would balance 
     the total budget by fiscal year 2002, the chairman shall 
     submit such certification in his respective House.
       (b) Procedure in the House.--
       (1) Adjustments.--For the purposes of points of order under 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget, the appropriate budgetary 
     allocations and aggregates shall be revised to be consistent 
     with the instructions set forth in section 4(d)(12)(B) for 
     legislation that reduces revenues by providing tax relief.
       (2) Revised aggregates.--Upon the reporting of legislation 
     pursuant to section 4 and again upon the submission of a 
     conference report on such legislation, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House shall submit 
     appropriately revised budgetary allocations and aggregates.
       (3) Effect of revised allocations and aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates submitted under paragraph (2) 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Contingencies.--This section shall not apply unless the 
     reconciliation legislation--
       (1) complies with the sum of the reconciliation directives 
     for the period of fiscal years 1997 through 2002 provided in 
     section 4; and
       (2) would balance the total budget for fiscal year 2002 and 
     the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2005.
       (d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section, the 
     term ``balance the total budget'' means total outlays are 
     less than or equal to total revenues for a fiscal year or a 
     period of fiscal years.
       In section 2(1)(A), increase the recommended level of 
     Federal revenues by $15,031,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, by

[[Page H5197]]

     $17,817,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, by $21,488,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1999, by $21,291,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, by 
     $21,114,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and by $14,466,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2002.
       In section 2(1)(B), reduce the amounts by which the 
     aggregate levels of Federal revenues should be changed by 
     $15,031,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, by $17,817,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1998, by $21,488,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, by 
     $21,291,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, by $21,114,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2001, and by $14,466,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2002.
       In section 2(4), reduce the amounts of the deficits by 
     $15,031,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, by $17,817,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1998, by $21,488,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, by 
     $21,291,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, by $21,114,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2001, and by $14,466,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2002.


     Amendment to H. Con. Res.    Offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida 
  [Elimination of Cuts in Earned Income Tax Credit, except Errors and 
                                 Fraud)

       In section 2(1)(A), increase the recommended level of 
     Federal revenues by $1.7 billion for fiscal year 1997, by 
     $1.8 billion for fiscal year 1998, by $1.8 billion for fiscal 
     year 1999, by $1.8 billion for fiscal year 2000, by $1.9 
     billion for fiscal year 2001, and by $2 billion for fiscal 
     year 2002.
       In section 2(1)(B), reduce the amounts by which the 
     aggregate levels of Federal revenues should be changed by 
     $1.7 billion for fiscal year 1997, by $1.8 billion for fiscal 
     year 1998, by $1.8 billion for fiscal year 1999, by $1.8 
     billion for fiscal year 2000, by $1.9 billion for fiscal year 
     2001, and by $2 billion for fiscal year 2002.
       In section 2(2), increase the levels of total new budget 
     authority by $1.7 billion for fiscal year 1997, by $1.8 
     billion for fiscal year 1998, by $1.8 billion for fiscal year 
     1999, by $1.8 billion for fiscal year 2000, by $1.9 billion 
     for fiscal year 2001, and by $2 billion for fiscal year 2002.
       In section 2(3), increase the levels of total budget 
     outlays by $1.7 billion for fiscal year 1997, by $1.8 billion 
     for fiscal year 1998, by $1.8 billion for fiscal year 1999, 
     by $1.8 billion for fiscal year 2000, by $1.9 billion for 
     fiscal year 2001, and by $2 billion for fiscal year 2002.
       In section 3(13) (relating to income security, functional 
     category 600), increase the levels of new budget authority by 
     $1.7 billion for fiscal year 1997, by $1.8 billion for fiscal 
     year 1998, by $1.8 billion for fiscal year 1999, by $1.9 
     billion for fiscal year 2000, by $1.9 billion for fiscal year 
     2001, and by $2 billion for fiscal year 2002.
       In section 3(13) (relating to income security, functional 
     category 600), increase the levels of outlays by $1.7 billion 
     for fiscal year 1997, by $1.8 billion for fiscal year 1998, 
     by $1.8 billion for fiscal year 1999, by $1.8 billion for 
     fiscal year 2000, by $1.9 billion for fiscal year 2001, and 
     by $2 billion for fiscal year 2002.
       In section 4(d)(12)(A), increase outlays for fiscal year 
     1997 by $1.7 billion increase outlays for fiscal year 2002 by 
     2 billion, and increase outlays for fiscal years 1997 through 
     2002 by $11 billion.
       In section 4(d)(12)(B), increase revenues for fiscal year 
     1997 by $1.7 billion, increase revenues for fiscal year 2002 
     by $2 billion and increase revenues for fiscal years 1997 
     through 2002 by $11 billion.
                                                                    ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describe the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House on sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who has asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution--[and] has no substantive legislative 
     or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what 
     they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership 
     Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House 
     of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the 
     Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own 
     manual:
       ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule 
     because the majority Member controlling the time will not 
     yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same 
     result may be achieved by voting down the previous question 
     on the rule--When the motion for the previous question is 
     defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led 
     the opposition to ordering the previous question. That 
     Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an 
     amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
       ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on 
     a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       The vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
     substantive policy implications. It is one for the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
sum up.
  Mr. Speaker, first let me just say I keep hearing on that side of the 
aisle tax breaks for the very, very rich. Mr. Speaker, that just 
bothers me. Evidently, tax breaks for the rich, the Democrats think 
that anybody with a job is rich, because a $500 tax credit for middle-
class Americans, they are not rich people. They may be rich because 
they have families, but they are not rich moneywise.
  A capital gains tax cut. Mr. Speaker, I represent people up and down 
the Hudson Valley who have worked all their lives. They may have worked 
for Sears Roebuck, and Sears Roebuck does not pay great wages, but they 
have nice stock plans. Over a period of 25 years someone working, a man 
and woman both working for Sears, have accumulated so much stock, and 
that is their life's savings. That is their retirement. Now the Federal 
Government wants to take away a third of it that they have worked all 
their lives for? So a capital gains tax cut, is that for the very, very 
rich? I do not think so.
  A repeal of the Social Security increase tax that President Clinton 
put on in 1993 on Social Security earnings, is that for the rich? 
Removal of some of the tax penalties on Social Security, on the 
earnings tax, is that for the very rich?
  Mr. Speaker, an adoption tax credit? Today it costs $15,000 or 
$20,000, we just went through this debate the other day on the floor, 
for young working Americans to be able to adopt a child, and we given 
them a tax credit. Is that for the very rich, for the very, very rich, 
that they like to use that kind of connotation on?
  A gas tax repeal, is that going to help the very, very rich? I know 
in the Hudson Valley where I live and over in Connecticut where the 
Speaker pro tempore lives, people drive in my district about 100 miles 
a day to work. Is repealing that Clinton gas tax, is that for the very, 
very rich? I do not think so. We ought to stop all this rhetoric.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are going to attempt to defeat the 
previous question in a few minutes; but Mr. Speaker, this rule that we 
have been debating on the floor here makes in order four alternatives: 
One on this side of the aisle, a Republican alternative, and three 
other alternatives by President Clinton, by the Democrat Coalition, and 
by the Black Caucus, so it is three to one. How fair can you be? We 
have bent over backward to be fair.
  Mr. Speaker, they are going to try to defeat the previous question so 
they can amend these various alternatives. I am going to tell the 
Members something, I made an announcement on this floor about a week or 
so ago that the Committee on Rules would entertain any group that 
wanted to bring to us an alternative. The only qualification was that 
it had to be balanced. Even the Black Caucus, who does not like to cut 
spending, came up with a balanced budget. We have made in order all of 
those. Anyone who came to us, we made them in order.
  Should we Republicans be allowed to amend the Black Caucus budget or 
any of those others and water it down with what they want to do? No. 
They ought to have an up-or-down vote on their

[[Page H5198]]

proposal. That is exactly what this rule calls for. So in fairness, I 
want everybody to come over here. I want Members to defeat this 
ridiculous attempt to defeat the previous question. I want Members to 
vote for the previous question and then vote for this very fair rule. 
Let us get on with the debate on this very responsible Republican 
budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is 
on ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 196, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 175]

                               YEAS--227

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Hayes
     Kennedy (RI)
     Millender-McDonald
     Molinari
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Roberts
     Souder
     Talent
     Williams

                              {time}  1100

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Paxon for, with Mr. Williams against.

  Messrs. MURTHA, WYNN, SKELTON, MORAN, and HALL of Texas changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. PETRI changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is 
on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 435 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 178.

                              {time}  1101


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 178) establishing the congressional 
budget for the U.S. Government for fiscal year 1997 and setting forth 
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 
and 2002, with Mr. Camp in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, May 
15, 1996, all time for general debate pursuant to the order of the 
House of Tuesday, May 14, 1996, had expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 435, the concurrent resolution is 
considered read for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of House Concurrent Resolution 178 is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 178

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1997.

       The Congress determines and declares that the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997 is hereby 
     established and that the appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,085,363,000,000.

[[Page H5199]]

       Fiscal year 1998: $1,130,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,176,236,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,229,666,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,288,998,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,358,219,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: -$15,031,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: -$17,817,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: -$21,488,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: -$21,291,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$21,114,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$14,466,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,311,284,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,357,208,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,386,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,428,397,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,450,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,497,756,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,306,921,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,350,905,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,379,428,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,413,490,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,428,809,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,463,504,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $221,558,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $220,479,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $203,192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $183,824,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $139,811,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $105,285,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,434,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,697,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,938,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,159,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,332,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,464,900,000,000.
       (6) Direct loan obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $41,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $39,179,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $42,287,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $43,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $44,359,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $45,532,000,000.
       (7) Primary loan guarantee commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $266,271,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $264,761,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $261,793,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $261,676,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $262,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $262,131,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee commitments 
     for fiscal years 1997 through 2002 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,183,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,846,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $268,958,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $263,618,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $271,677,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,049,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $274,377,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,841,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $187,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $277,121,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,025,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $185,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $280,101,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,122,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $183,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,732,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,963,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,333,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $18,110,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,551,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,484,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,342,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $18,262,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,576,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,467,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,358,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $18,311,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,089,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,025,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,346,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $18,311,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,890,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,584,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,395,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $18,409,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,281,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,387,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $18,409,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,537,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,697,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,428,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,494,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,313,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,224,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,111,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,934,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,943,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,602,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,673,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,380,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,729,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,033,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,441,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,078,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,039,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,034,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,327,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,045,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,697,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $815,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,036,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,782,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $740,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,430,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $231,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,031,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,322,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $37,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,902,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,654,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $41,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,713,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,409,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $38,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,399,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,950,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $38,000,000.

[[Page H5200]]

       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,994,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,205,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $38,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,860,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,910,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $38,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,840,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,238,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $7,794,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $5,870,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,750,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,855,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,346,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,367,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,483,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,743,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,586,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,714,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,843,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,736,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,652,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,497,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,730,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,595,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,641,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,964,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,181,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,570,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,709,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,838,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,319,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,856,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $197,340,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,464,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,752,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,787,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $196,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,476,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,043,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,763,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $196,253,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,448,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,320,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,759,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $195,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,268,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,283,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,745,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $195,375,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,598,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,218,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,740,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $194,875,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,737,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,007,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,541,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,635,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,961,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,111,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,103,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,236,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,531,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,526,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,045,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,042,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,672,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,149,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,231,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,133,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,605,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,640,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,257,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,133,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,559,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,820,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,287,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,171,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,595,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,040,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,365,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,171,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,243,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,655,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,404,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,153,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,161,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,430,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,202,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,965,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,504,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,219,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $15,469,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,416,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,112,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $19,040,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $14,760,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,046,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,817,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $21,781,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $13,854,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,696,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,209,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $22,884,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $14,589,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,704,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $23,978,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $15,319,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,092,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,335,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $25,127,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $16,085,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $129,918,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $130,276,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $187,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $137,726,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $138,064,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $94,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $144,995,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $145,168,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $152,961,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $152,890,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $161,114,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $160,789,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $167,926,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $167,476,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1997:

[[Page H5201]]

       (A) New budget authority, $193,165,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $191,481,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $207,183,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $205,458,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $217,250,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $214,978,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $229,309,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $227,560,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $241,641,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $239,907,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,121,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $252,720,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $232,612,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $240,107,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $241,254,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $244,185,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $244,842,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $251,716,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $262,510,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $263,060,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $262,260,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,271,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,213,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,812,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,543,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,476,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,213,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,219,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,922,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,979,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,662,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,775,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,458,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,607,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,290,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,117,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,654,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $935,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $26,362,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,458,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,321,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $962,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,925,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,063,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $987,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,713,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,427,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,021,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $24,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,002,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,882,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,189,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $24,298,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,713,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,912,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,194,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $23,668,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,125,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,930,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,302,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,162,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,186,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,241,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,235,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,944,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,746,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,704,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,740,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,372,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,747,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,314,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,640,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,592,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,928,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,987,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,364,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,549,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,454,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,321,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,653,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,653,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,947,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $288,947,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $292,607,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $292,607,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $294,004,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $294,004,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $298,041,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $298,041,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $302,443,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $302,443,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.

[[Page H5202]]

       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,671,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,032,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,934,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$833,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,025,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$183,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,038,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$271,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,026,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,770,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,182,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,139,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$45,574,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$45,574,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $7,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$35,574,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$35,574,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,350,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$34,762,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$34,762,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,540,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,322,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,322,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$40,586,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$40,586,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Submissions.--
       (1) Welfare and medicaid reform.--Not later than May 24, 
     1996, the House committees named in subsection (b) shall 
     submit their recommendations to provide direct spending for 
     welfare and medicaid reform to the House Committee on the 
     Budget. After receiving those recommendations, the House 
     Committee on the Budget shall report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations 
     without any substantive revision.
       (2) Medicare preservation.--Not later than June 14, 1996, 
     the House committees named in subsection (c) shall submit 
     their recommendations to provide direct spending for medicare 
     preservation to the House Committee on the Budget. After 
     receiving those recommendations, the House Committee on the 
     Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill 
     carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive 
     revision.
       (3) Tax relief and miscellaneous direct spending reforms.--
     Not later than July 12, 1996, the House committees named in 
     subsection (d) shall submit their recommendations to provide 
     direct spending, deficit reduction, and revenues to the House 
     Committee on the Budget. After receiving those 
     recommendations, the House Committee on the Budget shall 
     report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all 
     such recommendations without any substantive revision.
       (4) Contingent instruction.--In addition to any bill 
     described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3), if the chairman of 
     the House Committee on the Budget submits a letter to the 
     Speaker which sets forth an additional submission date for an 
     omnibus reconciliation bill carrying out all instructions 
     under subsections (b), (c), and (d) and that letter is 
     printed in the Congressional Record, then the House 
     committees named in those subsections shall promptly submit 
     (or resubmit) recommendations to carry out those subsections 
     to the House Committee on the Budget. After receiving those 
     recommendations, the House Committee on the Budget shall 
     report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all 
     such recommendations without any substantive revision.
       (b) Instructions for Welfare and Medicaid Reform.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending for welfare reform 
     such that the total level of direct spending for that 
     committee does not exceed: $35,604,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1997, $36,597,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
     2002, and $216,199,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 
     through 2002.
       (2) Committee on commerce.--The House Committee on Commerce 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending for medicaid reform such that the 
     total level of direct spending for that committee does not 
     exceed: $324,314,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, 
     $476,428,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $2,392,181,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 
     2002.
       (3) Committee on economic and educational opportunities.--
     The House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending for welfare reform such that the 
     total level of direct spending for that committee does not 
     exceed: $15,812,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, 
     $19,677,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $105,343,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 
     2002.
       (4) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending for welfare reform 
     such that the total level of direct spending for that 
     committee does not exceed: $382,631,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1997, $563,077,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
     2002, and $2,810,370,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 
     through 2002.
       (c) Instructions for Medicare Preservation.--
       (1) Committee on commerce.--The House Committee on Commerce 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending for medicare preservation such that 
     the total level of direct spending for that committee does 
     not exceed: $317,514,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, 
     $425,828,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $2,234,080,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 
     2002.
       (2) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending for medicare 
     preservation such that the total level of direct spending for 
     that committee does not exceed: $375,831,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1997, $512,477,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, and $2,652,269,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1997 through 2002.
       (d) Instructions for Tax Relief and Miscellaneous Direct 
     Spending Reforms.--
       (1) Committee on banking and financial services.--(A) The 
     House Committee on Banking and Financial Services shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending such that the total level of direct spending 
     for that committee does not exceed: -$12,249,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1997, -$6,116,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and -$42,310,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1997 through 2002.
       (B) The House Committee on Banking and Financial Services 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     would reduce the deficit by: $0 in fiscal year 1997, 
     $115,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and $305,000,000 in fiscal 
     years 1997 through 2002.
       (2) Committee on commerce.--The House Committee on Commerce 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending such that the total level of direct 
     spending for that committee does not exceed: $316,013,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $419,609,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 2002, and $2,213,093,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (3) Committee on economic and educational opportunities.--
     The House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending such that the total level of direct 
     spending for that committee does not exceed: $14,968,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $18,818,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 2002, and $101,044,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (4) Committee on government reform and oversight.--(A) The 
     House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending such that the total level of direct spending 
     for that committee does not exceed: $65,130,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1997, $82,548,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $442,000,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1997 through 2002.
       (B) The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     would reduce the deficit by: $255,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1997, $575,000,000 for fiscal years 2002, and $2,886,000,000 
     in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (5) Committee on international relations.--The House 
     Committee on International Relations shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     such that the total level of direct spending for that 
     committee does not exceed: $13,025,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1997, $10,311,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
     2002, and $67,953,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 
     through 2002.
       (6) Committee on the judiciary.--The House Committee on the 
     Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the

[[Page H5203]]

     total level of direct spending for that committee does not 
     exceed: $2,784,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, 
     $4,586,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $24,982,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (7) Committee on national security.--The House Committee on 
     National Security shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total 
     level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed: 
     $39,787,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, 
     $49,551,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $270,749,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 
     2002.
       (8) Committee on resources.--The House Committee on 
     Resources shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total 
     level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed: 
     $2,132,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, 
     $2,057,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $11,739,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (9) Committee on science.--The House Committee on Science 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending such that the total level of direct 
     spending for that committee does not exceed: $40,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1997, $46,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $242,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1997 through 2002.
       (10) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The 
     House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending such that the total level of direct spending 
     for that committee does not exceed: $18,254,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1997, $17,890,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $106,903,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1997 through 2002.
       (11) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The House Committee 
     on Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total 
     level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed: 
     $21,375,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, 
     $22,217,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $130,468,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 
     2002.
       (12) Committee on ways and means.--(A) The House Committee 
     on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total 
     level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed: 
     $373,764,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, 
     $509,912,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $2,638,286,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 
     2002.
       (B) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction such that the total 
     level of revenues for that committee is not less than: 
     $1,050,476,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 1997, 
     $1,319,852,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $7,047,865,000,000 in revenues in fiscal years 1997 through 
     2002.
       (e) Definition.--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.

     SEC. 5. SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

       (a) Budgetary Treatment.--For purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, amounts realized from sales of assets 
     shall be scored with respect to the level of budget 
     authority, outlays, or revenues.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``sale of an asset'' shall have the same meaning as under 
     section 250(c)(21) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (c) Treatment of Loan Assets.--For purposes of this 
     section, the sale of loan assets or the prepayment of a loan 
     shall be governed by the terms of the Federal Credit Reform 
     Act of 1990.

     SEC. 6. CREDIT REFORM AND DIRECT STUDENT LOANS.

       For the purposes of any concurrent resolution on the budget 
     and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the cost of a 
     direct loan under the Federal direct student loan program 
     shall be the net present value, at the time when the direct 
     loan is disbursed, of the following cash flows for the 
     estimated life of the loan--
       (1) loan disbursements;
       (2) repayments of principal;
       (3) payments of interest and other payments by or to the 
     Government over the life of the loan after adjusting for 
     estimated defaults, prepayments, fees, penalties, and other 
     recoveries; and
       (4) direct expenses, including--
       (A) activities related to credit extension, loan 
     origination, loan servicing, management of contractors, and 
     payments to contractors, other government entities, and 
     program participants;
       (B) collection of delinquent loans; and
       (C) writeoff and closeout of loans.

     SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON BASELINES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that:
       (1) Baselines are projections of future spending if 
     existing policies remain unchanged.
       (2) Under baseline assumptions, spending automatically 
     rises with inflation even if such increases are not mandated 
     under existing law.
       (3) Baseline budgeting is inherently biased against 
     policies that would reduce the projected growth in spending 
     because such policies are depicted as spending reductions 
     from an increasing baseline.
       (4) The baseline concept has encouraged Congress to 
     abdicate its constitutional obligation to control the public 
     purse for those programs which are automatically funded.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     baseline budgeting should be replaced with a budgetary model 
     that requires justification of aggregate funding levels and 
     maximizes congressional accountability for Federal spending.

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that:
       (1) The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 exempted from the 
     discretionary spending limits and the Pay-As-You-Go 
     requirements for entitlement and tax legislation funding 
     requirements that are designated by Congress and the 
     President as an emergency.
       (2) Congress and the President have increasingly misused 
     the emergency designation by--
       (A) designating as emergencies funding requirements that 
     are predictable and do not pose a threat to life, property, 
     or national security,
       (B) designating emergencies with the sole purpose of 
     circumventing statutory and congressional spending 
     limitations and
       (C) adding to emergency legislation controversial items 
     that would not otherwise withstand public scrutiny.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that in 
     order to balance the Federal budget Congress should consider 
     alternative approaches to budgeting for emergencies, 
     including codifying the definition of an emergency, 
     establishing contingency funds to pay for emergencies, and 
     fully offsetting the costs of emergencies with rescissions of 
     spending authority that would have been obligated but for the 
     rescission.

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON LOAN SALES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that:
       (1) The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on 
     Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government have stated 
     that ``more consideration should be given to the sale of 
     nonperforming loans held not only by HUD, but by all Federal 
     agencies that provide credit programs'' and directed the 
     Office of Management and Budget to direct Federal agencies to 
     evaluate the value of their credit programs and develop a 
     plan for the privatization of such credit programs.
       (2) The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, 
     Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies has 
     directed that the Small Business Administration should study 
     and report to Congress on the feasibility of private 
     servicing of SBA loan activities.
       (3) The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies previously directed the Farmers Home Administration 
     to ``explore the potential savings that might occur from 
     contract centralized servicing.''
       (4) The Committee on Agriculture of the House has 
     consistently urged the Secretary of Agriculture to explore 
     contracting out loan servicing operations.
       (5) The General Accounting Office has found that ``Allowing 
     the public and private sectors to compete for the centralized 
     servicing (of loans) could mean reaping the benefits of the 
     competitive marketplace - greater efficiency, increased focus 
     on customer needs, increased innovation, and improved 
     morale.''
       (6) The House Committee on Small Business has recommended 
     ``that 40 percent of the loan servicing portfolio (for 
     Disaster Loans) be privatized.''
       (7) The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 1997 proposes to 
     review options for improving the quality of loan portfolio 
     management including contracting to the private sector.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the appropriate committees of the House and the Senate should 
     report legislation authorizing the sale of such loan assets 
     as they deem appropriate in order to contribute to Government 
     downsizing, administrative cost savings, and improved 
     services to borrowers.

     SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CHANGES IN MEDICAID.

       It is the sense of Congress that any legislation changing 
     the medicaid program pursuant to this resolution should--
       (1) guarantee coverage for low-income children, pregnant 
     women, the elderly, and the disabled as described in the 
     National Governors' Association February 6, 1996, policy on 
     reforming medicaid, which was endorsed unanimously by our 
     Nation's governors;
       (2) maintain the medicaid program as a matching program 
     while providing a fairer and more equitable formula for 
     calculating the matching rate;
       (3) reject any illusory financing schemes;
       (4) continue Federal minimum standards for nursing homes;
       (5) continue Federal rules that prevent wives or husbands 
     from being required to impoverish themselves in order to 
     obtain and keep medicaid benefits for their spouse requiring 
     nursing home care; and
       (6) provide coverage of medicare premiums and cost-sharing 
     payments for low-income seniors consistent with the unanimous 
     National Governors' Association medicaid policy.

     SEC. 11. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND FEDERAL 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) domestic violence is the leading cause of physical 
     injury to women; the Department of Justice estimates that 
     over one million violent crimes against women are committed 
     by intimate partners annually;

[[Page H5204]]

       (2) domestic violence dramatically affects the victim's 
     ability to participate in the workforce; a University of 
     Minnesota survey reported that one-quarter of battered women 
     surveyed had lost a job partly because of being abused and 
     that over half of these women had been harassed by their 
     abuser at work;
       (3) domestic violence is often intensified as women seek to 
     gain economic independence through attending school or 
     training programs; batterers have been reported to prevent 
     women from attending these programs or sabotage their efforts 
     at self-improvement;
       (4) nationwide surveys of service providers prepared by the 
     Taylor Institute of Chicago, document, for the first time, 
     the interrelationship between domestic violence and welfare 
     by showing that between 50 percent and 80 percent of AFDC 
     recipients are current or past victims of domestic violence;
       (5) over half of the women surveyed stayed with their 
     batterers because they lacked the resources to support 
     themselves and their children; the surveys also found that 
     the availability of economic support is a critical factor in 
     poor women's ability to leave abusive situations that 
     threaten them and their children; and
       (6) proposals to restructure the welfare programs may 
     impact the availability of the economic support and the 
     safety net necessary to enable poor women to flee abuse 
     without risking homelessness and starvation for their 
     families.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) no welfare reform provision shall be enacted by 
     Congress unless and until Congress considers whether such 
     welfare reform provisions will exacerbate violence against 
     women and their children, further endanger women's lives, 
     make it more difficult for women to escape domestic violence, 
     or further punish women victimized by violence; and
       (2) any welfare reform measure enacted by Congress shall 
     require that any welfare-to-work, education, or job placement 
     programs implemented by the States will address the impact of 
     domestic violence on welfare recipients.

     SEC. 12. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON IMPACT OF LEGISLATION ON 
                   CHILDREN.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     Congress should not adopt or enact any legislation that will 
     increase the number of children who are hungry, homeless, 
     poor, or medically uninsured.
       (b) Legislative Accountability for Impact on Children.--In 
     the event legislation enacted to comply with this resolution 
     results in an increase in the number of hungry, homeless, 
     poor, or medically uninsured by the end of fiscal year 1997, 
     Congress shall revisit the provisions of such legislation 
     which caused such increase and shall, as soon as practicable 
     thereafter, adopt legislation which would halt any 
     continuation of such increase.

     SEC. 13. SENSE OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON DEBT REPAYMENT.

       It is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
       (1) Congress has a basic moral and ethical responsibility 
     to future generations to repay the Federal debt;
       (2) Congress should enact a plan that balances the budget, 
     and then also develops a regimen for paying off the Federal 
     debt;
       (3) after the budget is balanced, a surplus should be 
     created which can be used to begin paying off the debt; and
       (4) such a plan should be formulated and implemented so 
     that this generation can save future generations from the 
     crushing burdens of the Federal debt.

     SEC. 14. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON COMMITMENT TO A BALANCED BUDGET 
                   BY FISCAL YEAR 2002.

       It is the sense of Congress that the President and Congress 
     should continue to adhere to the statutory commitment made by 
     both parties on November 20, 1995, to enact legislation to 
     achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002 as 
     estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendments are in order except those designated in 
section 2 of the resolution, which shall be considered only in the 
order designated, may be offered only by the Member designated, or a 
designee, except that if no Member offers the amendment designated in 
paragraph (3) of section 2, Then that amendment shall be considered as 
pending at that point, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 
1 hour, Equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
  The adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute the 
conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment.
  At the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
amendment, there will be a final period of general debate, which shall 
not exceed 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
  It is now in order to consider the amendment designated in paragraph 
(1) of section 2 of House Resolution 435.


  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 made in order under the rule.
  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 1997.

       The Congress determines and declares that the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997 is hereby 
     established and that the appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,140,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,216,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,777,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,345,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,407,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,483,500,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $40,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $67,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $78,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $93,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $96,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $109,700,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,338,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,400,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,448,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,508,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,548,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,618,600,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,325,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,391,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,436,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,483,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,525,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,589,200,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $184,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $175,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $159,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $138,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $117,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $105,700,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,417,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,651,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,864,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,058,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,212,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,344,300,000,000.
       (6) Direct loan obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $41,432,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $39,420,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $42,470,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $43,895,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $44,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $46,718,000,000.
       (7) Primary loan guarantee commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $267,340,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $266,819,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $266,088,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $267,079,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $267,982,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $269,051,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee commitments 
     for fiscal years 1996 through 2002 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $240,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $237,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $233,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $235,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $227,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $228,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:

[[Page H5205]]

       (A) New budget authority, $223,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $220,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $219,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $216,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $219,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $216,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $200,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,342,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $18,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,417,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $18,628,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,518,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $19,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,618,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $19,406,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,739,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $19,858,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,891,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $20,431,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,033,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,050,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,078,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,109,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,141,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,179,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $27,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $41,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $41,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $41,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $44,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $44,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $7,810,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $5,994,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,387,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,765,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,808,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,836,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,825,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,909,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,708,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,983,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,706,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $7,060,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,910,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $198,096,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $198,218,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,954,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $198,427,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,015,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $198,723,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,600,00,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,072,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $198,876,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,134,000,000.

[[Page H5206]]

       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $199,111,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $17,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $17,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $18,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,230,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,187,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,257,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,229,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,287,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,315,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,365,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,369,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,404,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,448,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,430,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,496,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,219,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $15,469,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $69,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $14,760,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $21,781,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $13,854,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $22,884,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $14,589,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $23,978,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $15,319,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $25,127,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $16,085,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $140,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $140,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $187,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $154,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $153,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $94,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $168,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $167,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $183,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $182,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $198,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $198,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $215,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $214,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $199,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $198,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $218,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $217,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $236,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $259,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $258,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $780,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $307,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $305,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $236,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $244,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $253,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $255,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $261,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $281,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $283,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $287,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $305,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $302,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.

[[Page H5207]]

       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $935,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $26,362,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $982,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,925,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $987,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,021,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $24,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,189,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $24,298,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,194,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $23,668,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $281,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $285,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $287,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $287,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $286,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $289,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $289,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $293,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $293,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$43,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$43,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $7,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$33,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$33,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $8,838,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $8,838,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$31,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$32,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$32,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$33,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$33,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Not later than June 21, 1996, the House committee named 
     in subsection (b) shall report its recommendations to the 
     House.
       (b) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to 
     increase revenues by $40,500,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, by 
     $377,000,000,000 in fiscal years 1997 through 2001, and by 
     $486,600,000,000 in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND FEDERAL 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) domestic violence is the leading cause of physical 
     injury to women; the Department of Justice estimates that 
     over one million violent crimes against women are committed 
     by intimate partners annually;
       (2) domestic violence dramatically affects the victim's 
     ability to participate in the workforce; a University of 
     Minnesota survey

[[Page H5208]]

     reported that one-quarter of battered women surveyed had lost 
     a job partly because of being abused and that over half of 
     these women had been harassed by their abuser at work;
       (3) domestic violence is often intensified as women seek to 
     gain economic independence through attending school or 
     training programs; batterers have been reported to prevent 
     women from attending these programs or sabotage their efforts 
     at self-improvement;
       (4) nationwide surveys of service providers prepared by the 
     Taylor Institute of Chicago, document, for the first time, 
     the interrelationship between domestic violence and welfare 
     by showing that between 50 percent and 80 percent of AFDC 
     recipients are current or past victims of domestic violence;
       (5) over half of the women surveyed stayed with their 
     batterers because they lacked the resources to support 
     themselves and their children; the surveys also found that 
     the availability of economic support is a critical factor in 
     poor women's ability to leave abusive situations that 
     threaten them and their children; and
       (6) proposals to restructure the welfare programs may 
     impact the availability of the economic support and the 
     safety net necessary to enable poor women to flee abuse 
     without risking homelessness and starvation for their 
     families.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) no welfare reform provision shall be enacted by 
     Congress unless and until Congress considers whether such 
     welfare reform provisions will exacerbate violence against 
     women and their children, further endanger women's lives, 
     make it more difficult for women to escape domestic violence, 
     or further punish women victimized by violence; and
       (2) any welfare reform measure enacted by Congress shall 
     require that any welfare-to-work, education, or job placement 
     programs implemented by the States will address the impact of 
     domestic violence on welfare recipients.

     SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON IMPACT OF LEGISLATION ON 
                   CHILDREN.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     Congress should not adopt or enact any legislation that will 
     increase the number of children who are hungry, homeless, 
     poor, or medically uninsured.
       (b) Legislative Accountability for Impact on Children.--In 
     the event legislation enacted to comply with this resolution 
     results in an increase in the number of hungry, homeless, 
     poor, or medically uninsured by the end of fiscal year 1997, 
     Congress shall revisit the provisions of such legislation 
     which caused such increase and shall, as soon as practicable 
     thereafter, adopt legislation which would halt any 
     continuation of such increase.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Payne] and a Member opposed, each will control 30 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] 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 distinguished colleague from New York, Major Owens, 
and our friends in the Progressive Caucus, in offering a budget plan to 
renew America by reordering our national priorities.
  It has been the tradition of the Congressional Black Caucus each year 
to offer an alternative budget which embodies our vision for America. I 
am pleased that this year, our good friends from the Progressive Caucus 
have joined in this effort and I want to acknowledge the contributions 
of Bernie Sanders, chairman of the Progressive Caucus and Peter 
DeFazio, who heads the Budget Task Force.
  After many months of hard work, we have produced a plan which is both 
fiscally sound and morally responsible. Yes, we bring about a balanced 
budget by the year 2002. We recognize that our Nation cannot continue 
to carry this heavy burden of debt. During the Reagan-Bush era, we saw 
an unprecedented explosion of the deficit, as it first doubled, then 
tripled, then quadrupled. Fortunately, under President Clinton's 
leadership, the budget deficit has been cut dramatically and as we all 
know, our economy is markedly healthier than it was in 1993 when he 
took office. I am proud to be among those who supported his successful 
deficit reduction plan.

  We in the Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus want to continue to 
build on the President's deficit reduction success. We also want to 
strengthen and rebuild America by investing wisely--in education; job 
training; transportation and infrastructure; health care; and 
protection of programs on which older Americans rely--Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid.
  We reject the path taken by our Republican colleagues over these past 
2 years, a path we believe the American people have also found to be 
dangerous and extreme. What kind of message does Congress send when it 
gives the Pentagon $13 billion more than it asked for next year, while 
at the same time proposing to cut Medicare for our seniors by $168 
billion, eliminating Goals 2000, direct student loans, and State 
incentive grants? It is our contention that funneling resources away 
from sound investments like education, employment training, vocational 
skills, and scientific research, in order to purchase costly and 
unnecessary weapons will make our Nation weaker, not stronger. We need 
our students to be the best and the brightest as they carry America's 
legacy forward into the next millenium, meeting all the challenges of a 
dramatically changing global marketplace.

  During this past Congress, we were ultimately successful in saving 
items in the budget which make a difference in the lives of millions of 
Americans--programs like the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
so that older people can pay their heating bills in the coldest months 
of the winter, and the Summer Youth Employment Program to give young 
people the chance to become productive wage earners.
  Our caring majority budget continues these important domestic 
investments.
  We also recognize America's role as a champion of democracy 
worldwide. In the area of international affairs, we provide support for 
emerging democracies in Eastern Europe and other nations in this post-
cold-war-era. We maintain the current level of foreign assistance to 
Africa and support foreign aid grants to Egypt and Israel. We encourage 
efforts to reach a fair and just peace in places like Northern Ireland. 
In addition, in keeping with America's tradition of lending a helping 
hand to those in need, we provide humanitarian assistance through the 
Public Law 480 food programs.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have just a brief question to the leader 
of the opposition of this bill. The gentleman that is opposing this 
bill is my good friend from Connecticut, a moderate Republican. When he 
takes to the well, will he kindly explain to all of his friends on this 
side how he ended up being designated the person to lead the opposition 
to one of the finest budgets that I thought I remembered he used to 
compliment?
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will 
conclude by saying I urge my colleagues in the House to support a 
budget plan that will truly set us on a bold new course. We know that 
the policies of the 1980's brought us wasteful military spending and 
costly tax breaks for the affluent, while saddling our Nation with 
massive debt. Let us reject those worn out ideas and invest in 
America's people.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Owens], chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus Budget 
Task Force, who worked tirelessly on this last year and this year, and 
I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Nussle].
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Let me start by suggesting that what we have here today is a real 
opportunity. I think what the Black Caucus has put together is probably 
the only real alternative that will be on the floor today. It balances 
the budget. It is a real budget, with real priorities. It is just using 
real numbers. What you have been able to put together is a real 
balanced budget.

[[Page H5209]]

  There is no quarrel on this side I am aware of with the compliment 
that in fact you have done fantastic work in coming forth with that 
priority. I think it is maybe a way of trying to answer this 
gentleman's question about why we are in opposition is just a matter of 
priorities. Certainly that is what this debate needs to be about.
  Just to set the tone, and hopefully it will work this way, hopefully 
you are not going to come out and say Medicare cuts. We do not cut 
Medicare. We can talk about reductions, we can talk about reductions in 
growth, we can talk about saving, we can talk about lots of things like 
that. But please do not come out with that, because we think we can 
sincerely have a debate over your budget and our budget without using 
the kind of rhetoric.

                              {time}  1115

  So I start with a very sincere compliment that I think is shared by 
my side of the aisle with regard to the budget that you presented.
  Let me also suggest this. It is different than the so-called Blue Dog 
budget, in that the Blue Dogs really just endorsed the status quo, and, 
basically, it is a reendorsement of the 1993 tax increase.
  The Clinton budget does not use real numbers. The deficits go up in 
the first couple of years and it does not get to balance by 2002. What 
my Democrat colleagues have been able to put together, I say sincerely, 
is a great effort and I compliment them on it.
  Now, where do we differ? Where we differ, quite honestly, is the 
comment I tried to talk a little bit about yesterday, and that is when 
the woman came up to me after my town meeting and said:

       You know, you have it all wrong out there in Washington. It 
     is not more government. It is not more government programs. 
     We have tried that. We have tried growing the government. We 
     have tried more government programs.

  She was about 90 years old, and what she told me was when she was a 
little girl in her neighborhood, that is where they solved problems. 
Now, Norman Rockwell is not around anymore. There is no way it can work 
exactly like that. But unless we establish a partnership between the 
Federal Government, the State government, the local governments and, 
more importantly, families, individuals and communities to solve these 
problems, I do not think we are going to get there.

  We spent $5.3 trillion on the War on Poverty since the 1960's, and I 
do not think there is anybody here that is suggesting we won that war. 
We have not even made a dent in that war in many respects.
  The second thing I would just say is, I met a gentleman in Waterloo, 
IA, who happens to be a black American, who in his neighborhood has 
established, we have all heard of Neighborhood Watch, well, this is the 
ultimate of Neighorhood Watch. He has gone into his community, 
neighborhood and community, and organized neighbors to solve poverty, 
drugs, crime.
  This guy is walking around late at night in his community with a gang 
of adults and parents, and what they are doing is they are saying,

       We are not going to wait for the Federal Government. We are 
     not going to wait for the State government. We are not going 
     to wait for Congress to pass a bill or get its act together 
     or debate the budget. We are going to clean up our community 
     today. We are going to solve local problems today.

  What the Republicans want to do is give him the resources. We do not 
want to just hire more bureaucrats to get that job done. We do not want 
to just establish more status quo programs.
  I say respectfully, while my colleagues' budget proposal balances, 
what we are concerned about is that it really continues much of this 
perpetuation of big government and more programs and more bureaucracy. 
So we have a difference of opinion. I know that is where my colleagues 
are coming from. Where we are coming from is that that has been tried, 
and we want to get it back to the local level. That is the difference 
between the two plans, in my estimation.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] and the chairman of 
the House Progressive Caucus, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], 
for their support and development of this caring majority budget that 
we are presenting here today.
  I also want to thank all the members of the CBC and the Progressive 
Caucus and their staff for their help in completing this very 
worthwhile project. Particularly, I want to thank members of my staff, 
Kenya Reid and Jacqui Ellis, for the Herculean efforts they put forth 
to produce this budget.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Oregon, Congressman Peter 
DeFazio, and his staff for their valuable assistance.
  The 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 produce a murder of Medicaid. It does 
not reduce EITC or wipe out the summer youth employment programs. The 
budget is again balanced by eliminating corporate welfare and closing 
corporate tax loopholes.
  The Republican budget, on the other hand, continues in its extremism. 
The Republican budget is really not about money in the overall 
analysis. The Republican budget is about a destructive plan to destroy 
the New Deal programs and the great society programs. It wants to 
destroy safety net programs. Why else would it want to have a $13 
billion increase for the defense budget at the same time it proposes to 
pare down government, streamline government, and to bring an end to Big 
Government?
  By continuing to insist that the Medicaid entitlement be eliminated, 
the Republican budget poses a clear and present threat to the health 
and life of millions of Americans. By abandoning health care to the 
States, the Republican budget opens the door to decentralized genocide. 
Instead of going forward into universal health care, we will be leaving 
the children and the elderly to die for lack of vital health care.
  As an alternative to this mean and extreme Republican budget, our 
caring majority budget of the Congressional Black Caucus and the 
Progressive Caucus is a budget of compassion which would promote the 
general welfare while ensuring fairness and justice for all.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Radanovich].
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time. I am pleased to be here, and I want to congratulate the other 
side of the aisle for submitting a budget that really expresses concern 
for the care of the poor and the needy and for the less fortunate in 
this country. I applaud them for their compassion, their good will, and 
I would like to say that we share their concern and their compassion 
for the care of the poor and needy and also for those less fortunate.
  We share their concern in wanting to provide more opportunity for 
more Americans in this country, but I want to point out a couple of 
things. One, referring to this chart right here, if this chair was 
America, which I believe it is, say this chair represents America, only 
a fool wants to sit in a chair like this, simply because Government is 
way too big. This is a result of the Great Society. The chair is ready 
to tip over.
  The Government is the Great Society in the chair and it is way too 
large. At the same time, look at our religious institutions, look at 
our business institutions, look how we have decimated the family unit 
over the last 30 years. This is a result of the big government approach 
to solving problems in this country. This is the fruit of 30 to 40 
years of the Great Society, where Government steps in, identifies a 
problem, tries to solve it with a Government solution.

  Let me say, too, that we all care about how to take care and create 
more opportunity in this country. The question is how do we do it. No. 
1, reducing the ranks of the poor and needy; No. 2, creating more 
opportunity for every American.
  This is a tired old system. Today a child born into America has a 
very little chance of having a stable family, No. 1. No. 2, Government 
is overregulating and overtaxing so that he or she has no opportunity 
to go out and create. and No. 3, we have a system or a country today 
where religions have been devalued in this country.

[[Page H5210]]

  And look what they have to deal with; a value-neutral Federal 
Government that hands out dollars and does not provide for any 
stability or security in this country. I am sorry, but this is the kind 
of budget that we are considering now that is being offered.
  What the Republican budget seeks to do is this: It seeks to equalize 
the legs in the chair. Government is reduced. Everybody knows that the 
people on this side of the aisle are trying to reduce Government, but I 
will tell my friends why.
  It is too free up the other institutions in this country. It is to 
free them up so that they have more influence on the individual lives 
of every American, so that a child born into America today is born into 
strong families; is also born into a business environment that provides 
opportunity, not only so that that person can either get a job but that 
they can go out and are trained to create a job; that they are born 
into a country that has more significance, where more value is placed 
on the religious institutions in this country; and that they are born 
into a country where there is less Government interference in their 
life.
  Now, this is the Republican budget that we are considering, and I 
would request my colleagues to join the Republicans so that we can 
produce a budget that cares for the poor and needy, that meets the 
needs of the less fortunate, but also provides more opportunity for 
every American.
  I would ask that we reject this amended budget that was brought in 
and support the Republican budget and the Republican efforts to make 
America a better country for everybody.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, did the chart of the gentleman from 
California include the leg that added $13 billion on to defense? That 
is the chart we are looking for. That is the leg that is out of order 
here.
  Where is the gentleman from California? He is not here.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New York, Mr. 
Owens, and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, and say that it 
has been a pleasure for the Progressive Caucus to work with the Black 
Caucus in developing the real alternative budget.
  Mr. Chairman, yes, we should move this country toward a balanced 
budget, but we should not be balancing the budget on the backs of the 
weakest and most vulnerable people in this country. To my mind, it 
makes no sense to give huge tax breaks to the rich when we are living 
in a time where the rich are getting much richer and everybody else is 
getting poorer.
  One of the reasons we have a major deficit crisis today is that 
during the 1970's and 1980's we already gave huge breaks to the rich. 
The wealthiest 1 percent of the population now owns more wealth than 
the bottom 90 percent. They do not need more tax breaks. Corporate 
profits are soaring while workers' wages are in decline. We do not have 
to give large corporations more tax breaks.
  Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the vast majority of the people in 
this country do not believe, as the Republican leadership does, that we 
should force the elderly to pay double what they are paying today in 
Medicare premiums in 7 years and then spend $13 billion more on the 
military at a time when the cold war is over.
  Why do we make elderly people earning $8,000 a year from Social 
Security double their Medicare premiums so we can build B-2 bombers and 
star wars programs that the Pentagon does not need?
  Mr. Chairman, it is immoral and it is wrong to throw millions of 
young people off of Medicaid. These are the children of America. We 
should not be throwing them off of Medicaid because of disastrous cuts 
in Medicaid in order to give tax breaks to the rich, in order to 
increase military spending.
  If we are sincere about moving toward a balanced budget in a fair 
way, there are ways to do it, and that is what the Black Caucus and the 
Progressive Caucus budget does. We say no more corporate welfare for 
large corporations and wealthy people. Let us end the tax breaks and 
the subsidies that the large corporations are receiving. That is the 
way we can move forward a balanced budget.
  We say that now that the cold war is over, let us increase funding 
for education, let us protect the environment. We do not need to be 
spending tens of billions of dollars more on military spending.
  And, most importantly, what we are saying is that as America becomes 
more and more divided, with the rich owning a larger and larger 
percentage of the national wealth, we do not need to give tax breaks to 
the rich and then cut back on so many other programs that working 
people and the middle class need.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to just correct a 
few points that were made by my colleague.
  First, we have no increase in copayment in our Medicare, no increase 
in the deductible, and we keep the premium at 25 percent. There is no 
increase in premiums. We only increase the premium for the wealthiest 
in our country who make over $100,000. They may pay more in Medicare 
part B.
  Second, there are no tax cuts for the wealthy. What we have as a tax 
cut is a $500 tax credit for families making less than $100,000. 
Families making less than $100,000 in our bill will get $500 per child, 
regardless of wealth, under $100,000.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Stearns].

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me the 
time.
  Let me refresh the memory of my colleagues. Who said the era of big 
government is over? I think we all know President Clinton said that. 
Who also said the rising tide lifts all boats? Many Democrat Presidents 
have said that.
  Let me give information from the Labor Department, February 20, 1996: 
It released its employment cost index showing the smallest gain in 
wages and benefits since the Government began keeping statistics in 
1982. Surely we need tax cuts. We have had since 1981, 19 tax increases 
in this country. Surely the Republican budget can have a tax cut. Bob 
Michel was on the floor, the former leader of our party, and he used to 
say son of a buck, we need some kind of tax cut for the American 
people. We can do better. Middle-class families work hard. They deserve 
tax relief. And frankly, my friends, and I credit the folks on the 
other side for their budget, but there are no tax reductions there.
  After 19 tax increases it is time we had these tax cuts, and I am 
glad to say the Republican budget has that. We also want to see changes 
in welfare. Now we have a different approach with welfare, but we 
believe again that we need to improve it. You keep the status quo.
  So the Republicans' budget is not extreme. It is reliable, reasonable 
and, most importantly, the Republican budget is honest. It uses honest 
numbers. And we have tax reductions for American families. We can do 
better. We can help Americans earn more, keep more so they can do more, 
and that is why when President Clinton said the era of big government 
is over and many Democrat Presidents also said rising tides lift all 
boats, these Democrats understood that you can do that best by tax 
reductions for the middle class.
  I have to say to my colleagues on that side of the aisle, your budget 
does not have any tax relief for these American families. The Labor 
Department statistics shows the smallest gain in wages and benefits 
since the Government began keeping these statistics in 1982. So surely, 
as Bob Michel used to say, son of a buck, we have to give some tax 
relief for American families.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the floor manager for his 
generosity.
  Can one of the Members on the Republican side, including the 
gentleman

[[Page H5211]]

from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], my good friend, ever get off the rhetoric 
and start talking about what is in this great bill? The tax breaks are 
for the wealthy. There is a $13 billion increase in the military. Let 
us not say that Medicare or health care premiums are not going up. Let 
us talk specific. We have only got an hour for debate.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Rangel].
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that hits the poor 
communities most in this country is lack of access to health care. I 
know how sensitive my Republican colleagues are in talking about 
cutting the health care budget, so let me put it this way in language 
that they like to hear. That is that 75 percent of the savings, 75 
percent of reducing the rate of increase is coming from health care. 
Under this particular budget that you have, any old person that goes 
into a hospital or goes to a doctor, they will know what Medicare 
charges, but no longer will they know what the doctor is going to 
charge.
  Under this, if you push it off to the States, there is no guarantee. 
So it is just like having a car with full insurance, and you go in and 
the insurance company says, we are going to pay everything we promised, 
and Medicare will under the Republican bill. But what they do not pay 
is what the doctor can charge.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it ought to be a shame on all of those that 
have such confidence in the Governors that will turn our older folks 
loose to be subjected to whatever the hospitals and whatever doctors 
want to charge them beyond Medicare.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to talk real 
specifics and the truth about our budget.
  Under Medicare, our budget goes from $196 to $284 billion. That is a 
45-percent increase in spending in our program in Medicare. We have the 
same kind of increase in Medicaid. It goes from $95 to $140 billion. 
Only in this city when you spend so much more do people call it a cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Sanford].
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, Rick Towne, who runs a small auto supply 
and parts store in Charleston, SC, came by my office yesterday. His 
belief was that this budget was about creating, not destroying. In 
fact, he talked about how is it that we get the economy growing again 
so that middle class, hard-working families are not hurt the way they 
are today?
  His belief was a fairly simple two-part formula. He said first, you 
got to get government out of my pocket; and, second, you got to get 
government out of my way. I think that this budget reflects that. There 
is a saying back home farmers use, you can only squeeze so much blood 
out of a turnip that talks about taxes, and I think we all know the 
detrimental effect of taxes on economic growth.
  So instead, I would like to focus on the second part of his formula, 
which was getting government out of his way. My mom used to say that 
too much of a good thing is actually a bad thing. Similarly, Ben 
Franklin urged moderation in all things. Well, there was a recent joint 
economic report that said if government spends too much money, it 
actually begins to hurt the economy, actually begins to be a drag on 
the economy. Above the point at about 17\1/2\ percent of the size of 
our economy, from that point forward, we are now spending about 22 
percent.
  From that point forward, it is a drag on the economy such that for 
every $100 of spending cut, we get about $138 of economic benefit for 
the Rick Townes of the world working in an auto parts store back in 
Charleston, SC.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Black Caucus-
progressive caucus budget. Someone said earlier today this debate is 
about priorities, and that is absolutely true. Our budget is balanced 
over 6 years, but we have different priorities. I think we have the 
priorities of the American people.
  The Republicans want to talk about your future, but they do not want 
to spend money on education. If you look at function 500 in our budget, 
what you will find is that we are trying to create an opportunity 
society. We spend money for education infrastructure. That means 
repairing and building new schools. We spend money on family learning 
centers, so that the average citizen can get on the information highway 
in his public library.
  We spend $2 billion more on summer jobs so that young people will 
have opportunities to work for a living rather than engage in a life of 
crime. We spend money on Head Start so that every child, black, white, 
brown, or yellow, will have a chance to get a fair start in life.
  We believe that this budget reflects the priorities of the American 
dream. It is a balanced budget. It solves the deficit problem, but it 
reflects true American values. I support this budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Connecticut for yielding me time. I want to begin by commending the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], our colleague, and the Committee on 
the Budget for the magnificent job they have done in keeping us headed 
down the road toward balancing the budget over the period leading to 
2002.
  The budget of course is the place from which the appropriators start 
to allocate funds, to choose priorities. And let me emphasize that the 
process is a process that we have engaged in since we took control of 
the Congress last year of reviewing everything that every department, 
every agency, and every program in government does to evaluate it and 
to choose priorities and to choose what works well for people so that 
the money is properly spent.
  The press, unfortunately, has focused, I believe, over the last year 
and a half, exclusively on what has been cut and eliminated, just the 
way our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do. But I think 
people should understand that Republicans have protected and enhanced 
good programs that work well for people.
  In our own subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, the one 
that funds the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education, we raised Pell grants, that is, the money that needy 
students need to go to college and get a higher education, to the 
highest level in history with the largest increase in 1 year in 
history.
  We protected the programs like TRIO and college work study and SEOG's 
that help needy students, as well. We provided an increase for Job 
Corps, which addressed the most at-risk youth in our society to give 
them an opportunity to get a job and to get ahead. We provided an 
increase for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the public 
health programs of this country, where needy Americans go to receive 
health care, some of them their only place to receive it, where we 
address the problems of children, the problems of infectious diseases, 
all the problems of public health.
  We gave a very substantial increase of 5.7 percent to the National 
Institutes of Health, which engage in biomedical research all across 
our country.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that the Speaker of the House gave his 
very, very strong support to that kind of increase for biomedical 
research funding that leads to cures for diseases and preventing of 
diseases throughout our society and indeed throughout the world. We 
protected funding for AIDS, both on the research side and the health 
care side, and we actually increased it in the final product.

  We protected funding for the administration of the Social Security 
Administration so that they could do a better job of helping the 
American people. In a time of working to balance the budget, which is 
our job here, to take responsibility for the bottom line, we also have 
to choose priorities. I believe this Congress in the last year and a 
half has done that job very, very well. It has provided very strong 
support for

[[Page H5212]]

the programs that work for people, and it has only cut those that 
really do not do the job or waste the taxpayers money.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend our budget chairman and my friend, John 
Kasich, for his commitment to following the path we forged last year in 
bringing our budget into balance by the year 2002. Without question, 
the deficit problem has reached crisis stage, and I believe that 
overall, Mr. Kasich's number is a realistic one which will impose the 
painful but not unbearable fiscal restraint we need if we are ever to 
regain a measure of control over our economic destiny.
  However, there are some aspects of this proposal that I don't agree 
with, although it is far preferable to the administration's budget.
  For my part, I would prefer that we not cut taxes by $122 million 
until the budget is in balance. This tax cut will make it that much 
more difficult to balance the budget and simply comes at the wrong 
time. While I agree that some carefully targeted tax relief such as 
reductions in capital gains are warranted, I would prefer a smaller 
overall impact on our deficit.
  I believe that biomedical research must be one of Congress' highest 
priorities in allocating scarce Federal funding and I am glad that the 
budget committee moved away from the unwise reductions proposed in this 
area last year. Federally supported biomedical research creates high-
skill jobs, helps retain our country's worldwide leadership in 
biomedical research, and supports the biotechnology industry which 
generates economic growth and a positive balance of trade for our 
country.
  Research provides great hope for effectively treating, curing, and 
eventually preventing disease and thereby saving our country billions 
of dollars in annual health care costs. The development of the polio 
vaccine alone--one of thousands of discoveries supported by National 
Institutes of Health [NIH] funding--in terms of health care savings, 
has more than paid for our country's five decades of investment in 
Federal biomedical research.
  Defense spending, I would also note, could share a little more in the 
burden of reducing our Federal deficit. While clearly the President's 
defense budget proposal was dangerously low, and I am glad this budget 
restores troop readiness, the procurement budget increase of over $6 
billion is difficult to justify.
  In addition, America's ability to influence the world and provide 
necessary leadership is at its zenith, and further cutting foreign 
assistance at this stage is the wrong answer. We have already reduced 
foreign assistance by one-third over the last 5 years. Further 
reductions in this area, which is less than 1 percent of our total 
budget, will undermine our leadership for American values of democracy, 
human rights, and free market economies at the exact time when their 
advancement is most possible.
  And I also want to note that the cuts assumed for energy efficiency 
initiatives are unwise and should not be adopted. These initiatives 
make our economy more productive and competitive overseas, while saving 
jobs and resources. This type of activity--which is proenvironment and 
proeconomic growth--is what we should be supporting, not discouraging.
  Finally, I support the downsizing and eliminating of departments, 
agencies, and programs that will assist the Government in becoming more 
efficient and productive. However, we should not simply do this for the 
sake of symbolism. There must be real savings and efficiencies 
generated in this process.
  While I have these differences and some others, with the resolution's 
details, I think that John Kasich and the Budget Committee deserve 
credit for having the courage to keep us on track to getting our 
economic house in order. The President, frankly, has not put forward 
courageous proposals that recognize the primacy of balancing the 
budget. This House has, and I salute this effort.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  You know, when I look at the Republican budget and then at the budget 
that the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive 
Caucus have done, I feel that this country is fortunate to have a 
really caring majority vision for America that is presented by this 
budget by these two groups. Under this Congressional Black Caucus/
Progressive Caucus proposal the budget would be balanced in 6 years. 
There would be reductions in military spending and cuts in corporate 
welfare, Medicare and Medicaid recipients would be protected and, yes, 
the middle class will get a tax cut after deficit reduction was 
achieved.
  Now, the majority of Americans believe that the power and bulk of our 
great country should be shared among all the people. That is one of the 
foundations of the principles on which our country was built. It has 
already been said that corporate CEO's earn 200 times what their 
workers make. The stock market continues to soar, profits are 
unbelievably high. Almost all of the new economic growth in our country 
is already going to the wealthy and the Republican budget wants to give 
them more.
  You know, what I find as a hypocrisy is that the Republicans are 
always talking about family friendly, and yet when it comes to 
families, they want to cut education. They want to cut housing. They 
want to cut medical care for senior citizens. What kind of family 
friendly is that? I mean, this is beyond all kinds of belief. The 
radical budget prepared by the Gingrich-Armey Republicans demonstrates 
only one thing to America--that they don't care about the poor, about 
educating children, about providing medical care for homeless families.
  Last year, that same troupe gave us the balance the budget on the 
backs of the neediest Americans and Working Families Act, that I said 
on this floor then was an absolutely wrongheaded and unconscionable 
approach and one that the overwhelming majority of American people, 
including my constituents, found fault with. That mean-spirited budget 
of the Republicans and their use of the bully pulpit left us with 
multiple shutdowns of the Federal Government and proved my words. They 
said play with my budget or I'll leave the playing field. They stopped 
the game. They didn't care.
  This year, all over again, the Republicans are doing it again to the 
American people. They don't care about what the American people want, 
they just want their way. But I urge them to take a good look at this 
alternative proposal because it has great merit and to put aside 
partisan politics and to vote for it. In fact, I urge all of my 
colleagues to vote for the Congressional Black Caucus/Progressive 
Caucus budget proposal.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding me the time.
  This is an exciting time to be debating the budget. This is my fourth 
year on the Committee on the Budget. I remember back in 1993, where we 
first had the budget, where the President had the largest tax increase 
in history, we talked about budget deficits of $200 billion a year as 
far as we knew. Now the debate has changed. Even last year the 
President's budget, when he presented it last February, had $200 
billion deficits as far as we could see. But today the debate is about 
balancing the budget. It is not whether we are going to balance it. It 
is how to balance it. So at least the debate has shifted.
  Now the problem is we have two major differences with our colleagues 
from the other side. One is using real numbers, and the other is 
shifting power and money and influence out of Washington. Because we 
believe we need to have real numbers that we begin on a glide path to a 
balanced budget over 6 years and we also believe we need to shift power 
and influence out of Washington.
  Now, I have to give credit to the Black Caucus budget because it has 
real numbers. It has a big tax increase and big cuts in defense 
spending. It is unrealistic in today's environment. So that is not a 
realistic option, and it does keep power and influence in Washington. 
That is what we need to get out of.
  When I go home to my district in Florida, people are frustrated by 
all the power in Washington. Whether there it is the fact that health 
care, Medicare is a great program, we need Medicare, but there is one 
size fits all.
  Why should not people have some choices? Welfare, what works in 
Sarasota, FL, is not the same that will work in New York City or in San 
Francisco. Let us have some choices. That is the fundamental difference 
between the two proposals on the Democratic side. Keep power and 
influence in Washington. We want to shift it back to the State and 
local counties and to individuals.

[[Page H5213]]

                              {time}  1145

  Another important thing is we have to remember why are we balancing 
the budget. We are balancing the budget for our children's future. It 
is obscene, it is obscene, these deficits we are running every year on 
this debt. To think that we have over a $19,000 debt for every man, 
woman and child in the United States is wrong, and what we are doing is 
helping for the jobs and the economy and growth in this country.
  That is why we are fighting for this budget, to shift power and 
influence out of Washington and to protect our children's future.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  (Mr. FOGLIETTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the budget proposed 
by the Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus.
  Over the past 14 months, our Nation has been involved in a 
significant debate over the role of government. What should government 
do? I go by the principle that government must do for people what 
people cannot do for themselves. Not only to the point of subsistence, 
but to the point of human dignity. They are the teachings of Pope John 
XXIII in mater majeste.
  I support the Black Caucus budget because it does the best job of 
meeting the mandate of that principle. As the founding chairman of the 
Congressional Urban Caucus, I say to you that it also would do the best 
job of keeping our cities alive--while the majority budget would do so 
many things to hurt urban America.
  First, and perhaps most importantly, the Black Caucus budget makes 
the proper investment to help people do the most for themselves. It 
increases spending on education and training, so that our Nation will 
be able to compete in the next century and so that people will be able 
to get good jobs at good wages.
  It increases investments in job creation and urban empowerment 
through community development block grants and the Economic Development 
Administration. It would maintain our commitment to mass transit--while 
the majority budget would drive us toward gridlock in the year 2000. 
These are the kind of tools which we need to get to genuine welfare 
reform.
  Second, it maintains the safety net. Health care for the poor and the 
elderly would be maintained and indeed strengthened by credible 
spending and sending savings back into the system--instead of sending 
this money on a big, fat tax cut for the wealthiest people in America.
  Third, it would make a strong investment in one of the best examples 
of the role of government--protection against crime and providing for a 
common defense. It would spend $21 billion more to put more police on 
our streets and prevent crime.
  Further, our caucus budget would pay for these important investments 
by supporting defense spending at safe and reliable levels--instead of 
taking us on the buying spree that the majority proposes--spending much 
more than the experts in the Pentagon have requested.
  The Black Caucus budget proves that we can get to a balanced budget--
as does the President's budget--without cutting the safety net to 
shreds and without sacrificing the principle our Government must do for 
people what they cannot do for themselves, alone.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Black Caucus budget, as an effort 
toward rational, responsible, and compassionate budget cutting.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, May 8 was a high day. I do 
not know how many people recognized it. It was tax freedom day. It was 
the last day that Americans, the average American, worked to pay their 
taxes. Ever since January 1, all Americans worked through May 8 to pay 
their taxes. But one could not breathe a sigh of relief on May 9 
thinking that they could then work for themself to buy a car or pay for 
their home or put their children through school because they still had 
about 9 weeks to go to pay for the cost of unfunded Federal mandates.
  Government-free day last year was on July 9. We will see what it is 
this year.
  Clearly, clearly, with Americans spending 52 percent of their time 
working to pay for the cost of government, we have got to reverse that 
trend and turn it around. The budget under discussion here moves us in 
the wrong direction. People will be working more than 52 percent of 
their time to pay for the cost of government. Americans are demanding 
that we turn that trend around and move back toward sanity where they 
work inconspicuously less than 52 percent of their time to support 
government.
  Please reject this Black Caucus budget and vote for a budget that 
moves us in the right direction.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], from the Progressive Caucus Task Force.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time to me. I thank those speakers earlier in the well who said that 
this was an honest alternative and they said it was about the 
difference in priorities. Indeed it is.
  Let us talk about something that neither the Republicans on that side 
of the aisle, nor the sponsors of the other alternatives that will be 
offered today, want to discuss. Today in America, 73 percent of the 
foreign corporations doing business in our country pay no Federal 
income tax, none, zero; profitable, huge, multinational corporations. 
The U.S. Tax Code is full of credits and giveaways that actually 
encourage our firms to move overseas and move their jobs overseas. And 
guess what? The Republicans are saying that the middle-income taxpayers 
should carry the burden; they should subsidize the foreign mining 
corporations for removing billions of dollars of gold from our public 
lands in the West without paying 1 cent in royalties to the Federal 
Treasury. I am talking about the billions of dollars that the Federal 
Government gives to profitable corporations in the forms of subsidies, 
tax loopholes, outright gifts. And none of the other budgets on the 
floor today touch those giveaways.

  Darn right, we increase taxes. We are going to ask these corporate 
freeloaders to pay their fair share. Why do the other budgets not 
address this issue? Because both political parties are addicted to the 
corporate cash that fuels their campaigns. It is like the emperor's new 
clothes. Nobody will admit that the king is stark naked, and nobody 
around here will tell the truth to the American people about how 
thoroughly our political system has been bought and sold.
  There are two distinct paths to the balanced budget. On the one side 
we have the Republican budget and its pale shadows, the President's 
budget and its pale shadows, the President's budget and the Coalition 
budget. All of those budgets operate from the premise that military 
spending and corporate welfare are sacred cows that cannot be touched. 
The arithmetic is simple. If my colleagues will not cut the cold war 
military budget and they do not want to upset their corporate campaign 
contributors, they have no choice. So they have to cut Medicare, and 
they have to cut other vital social programs.
  The Republicans actually want to make the matter far worse because 
they want to increase military spending and give their wealthy friends 
a hefty tax cut. As a result, they make deep cuts in Medicare, 
education, the environment, and other programs the American people 
strongly support.
  We in the Progressive and Black Caucuses are offering the only 
genuine alternative to business as usual. We demand that foreign 
corporations doing business here get out of the wagon, as a famous 
gentleman on the other side of the aisle likes to say, and start 
pulling with the rest of us. We close loopholes and encourage job 
exports to the Far East and Mexico. We make foreign mining companies 
pay their fair share for valuable minerals they mine on our public 
lands.
  We have the guts to take on the biggest pork barrel in the Federal 
budget, the bloated spending at the Pentagon across the river. We 
protect Medicare without forcing hospitals out of business or making 
seniors pay more for their care. We increase Federal investment in 
education.
  Mr. Chairman, let's talk about something that none of the sponsors of 
any of the other

[[Page H5214]]

budgets on the floor of this House want to discuss.
  Today in America 73 percent of the foreign corporations doing 
business on our shores pay no Federal income tax. None.
  The U.S. Tax Code is full of credits and giveaways that actually 
encourage U.S. firms to move jobs overseas.
  Middle-income taxpayers are being asked to subsidize foreign mining 
corporations who are removing billions of dollars worth of gold from 
our public lands without paying one cent in royalties to the U.S. 
Treasury.
  I am talking about the billions and billions of dollars that the 
Federal Government gives to profitable corporations in the form of 
subsidies, tax loopholes and outright gifts and none of the other 
budgets on the floor today touch those giveaways.
  Why? Because both political parties are addicted to the corporate 
cash that fuels their campaigns. It is like the emperor' new clothes: 
Nobody will admit the king is stark naked, and nobody around here will 
tell the truth to the American people about how thoroughly our 
political system has been bought and sold.
  There are two distinct paths to a balanced budget.
  On one side we have the Republican budget and its pale shadows, the 
President's budget, and the coalition budget.
  All of those budgets operate from the premise that military spending 
and corporate welfare are sacred cows that cannot be touched.
  The arithmetic is very simple. If they will not cut the cold war 
military budget and do not want to upset corporate campaign 
contributors, there is no choice but to make deep cuts in Medicare and 
other vital social programs.
  The Republicans actually make the matter far worse because they want 
to increase military spending and give their wealthy friends a hefty 
tax cut. As a result, they make deep cuts in Medicare, education, the 
environment, and other programs that the American people strongly 
support.
  We in the Progressive and Black Caucuses are offering the only 
genuine alternative to business-as-usual. We demand that foreign 
corporations doing business here get out of the wagon and start pulling 
with the rest of us. We close loopholes that encourage job exports to 
the Far East and Mexico. We made foreign mining companies pay their 
share for the valuable minerals they mine on our public lands. And we 
have the guts to take on the biggest pork barrel in the Federal budget, 
the Pentagon's bloated bank account.
  We protect Medicare without forcing hospitals out of business or 
making seniors pay more for their care. We increase Federal investment 
in education and job training to make American workers more 
competitive. We take care of veterans and we fully fund the war on 
crime.
  We can afford to do these things because we're willing to challenge 
the powers-that-be, the new class of corporate robber barons whose 
campaign contributions and private favors have so badly corrupted this 
nation's political system.
  This budget is a collaboration between the Black Caucus and the 
Progressive Caucus. Though I disagree with my colleagues in the Black 
Caucus who seek small increases in foreign aid, I believe we need to 
cut overseas assistance. This budget illustrates our priorities as well 
as any collaboration can.
  Our budget is the only proposal on the floor today that challenges 
the conventional wisdom in Washington, DC, and puts the interests of 
American working people first. I urge the House to adopt it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to just point out 
to my colleague that on Medicare we increase it from 196 today, in 
billions, to $284 billion. That is Medicare. That is a 45-percent 
increase in the spending on Medicare. And on Medicaid we increase it 
from $95 billion to $140 billion. At the same time, we give seniors 
choice without increasing their copayment, their deductible or their 
premium.
  Mr. Chairman, we also have a tax cut in our budget only for those who 
make less than $100,000; a $500 tax credit for children. That is the 
only tax cut we have in our budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Herger].
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, in 1993 President Clinton took money and 
power away from the American people and our children and gave it to the 
Washington bureaucracy. President Clinton gave us our highest tax 
increase in our Nation's history, raising taxes on the American family 
to its highest level in history.
  Mr. Chairman, the Clinton tax bill included increased taxes on 
gasoline, increased taxes on family incomes, increased taxes on married 
couples, increased taxes on Social Security benefits, increased taxes 
on small business owners and increased taxes on property that parents 
leave their children. Today the average family pays more in taxes than 
it pays on food, clothing, and housing combined.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget, on the other hand, lowers taxes 
by a net $121 billion and cuts Government in Washington so that the 
citizens of this great Nation can earn more and can keep more of what 
they earn and, therefore, be able to take better care of their 
families.
  Mr. Chairman, America needs the Republican budget before us today, a 
budget that shifts money and power and influence out of Washington and 
gives it back to the people. This is a historic debate about the role 
and the scope of Government in our lives, a debate of whether 
Washington will continue to tax more, spend more and regulate more or 
whether we will finally begin to reduce the size and scope and power of 
Washington.
  Support the Republican budget.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Ms. Brown].
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
budget presented by the Congressional Black and Progressive Caucuses.
  Unlike the Republican budget, which steals from the needy in order to 
pad the pockets of the wealthy, this budget is fair. It achieves a 
balance in 6 years through shared sacrifices. And it does so without 
bankrupting the poor and the working people of this country.
  This budget also retains two of the most important aspects of the 
Federal Government. They are Medicare and Housing, perhaps the most 
essential services our Government can offer its citizens.
  By protecting our Medicare and Medicaid recipients we can do our best 
to assure health care for the poor, the old, the veterans and children 
of this country.
  In my State alone there are more than 3 million senior citizens. They 
make up more than 20 percent of the population. The least we can do for 
these people is guarantee them a bed in a nursing home, and medical 
attention when they need it.
  Another area that the caucuses' budget protects is housing. Public 
housing is often the last safety net that poor people have before 
becoming homeless.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible budget that champions the values 
of this country.
  ``To whom God has given much, much is expected.''
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham] who risked his life in Vietnam for our 
defense through 300 missions and was shot down on the 300th mission.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the Black 
Caucus for at least producing a balanced budget unlike the President's 
budget. But I think that Colin Powell would enlighten the Congressional 
Black Caucus on what the needs for national security are within this 
country. Our committee, Republicans and Democrats, by a vote 49 to 2, 
49 to 2 Republicans and Democrats, came together and said that after 
the cold war these are the needs of our Nation, and it was supported by 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Shalikashvili in a memo to the 
Presidents. When the Democrats' task is studied, the Bottom-Up Review 
of what we would need after the military drawdown to fight two 
conflicts at the same time, a level was stationed. A $50 billion cut 
according to Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and then-candidate Clinton 
would put us into a hollow force. The President cut defense $177 
billion, and then with what was left put in nondefense spending. We 
spend billions of dollars in Haiti, which is military operations. There 
is another $2 billion just in administrative costs, as the one in 
Haiti. Take a look at Somalia and all the other expansions. Operation 
Tempo has increased 150 percent over Vietnam. The Air Force has not 
bought a single airplane in 3 years, gentleman. The AV-8's; we are 
losing

[[Page H5215]]

them, almost a third of them, the new ones with the upgrades.
  We safety our pilots by over 50 percent. We pay for those safety 
fixes; the F-14's, the fixes because we are crashing F-14's.
  The COLA. The President said that he was going to have a middle-class 
tax cut in 1993 and increase middle-class tax, and then he cut COLA of 
the military, some of these kids on food stamps. We recognized an 
increase for the families, the COLA.
  We provide for national security in this country, well trained, well 
equipped, and allow our families in the military to have a fairly good 
life above at least a food stamp level. So I would challenge my 
colleagues in the Black Caucus to listen to what the real national 
security needs are of this country.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise today in support of 
the CBC/Progressive Caucus budget. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have a 
budget on the floor that is courageous enough to say: It is time for 
America's corporate welfare kings and bloated military to share in the 
burdens of balancing the budget. Going after such sacred cows makes 
sense not only because it is fair, but because it was President 
Reagan's corporate tax giveaways and military spending that put us in 
this deficit hole in the first place.
  Mr. Chairman, our budget is the only budget that tackles the issue of 
corporate tax entitlement spending. Our budget is the only budget that 
says, it's time for the Pentagon and military contractors to go on a 
diet, too.
  Just like everyone else.
  The CBC/Progressive Caucus budget reaches balance by the year 2002 
without cutting Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment in 
order to pay for tax breaks. Our tax breaks come after the budget is 
balanced. That is the responsible thing to do.
  As this chart here demonstrates, the share of the national tax burden 
paid by corporations has declined steadily since the 1950's, while 
average Americans have continued to carry about the same share of the 
national tax burden. if Wall Street paid in taxes what corporations 
used to pay the budget would be balanced in 1 year, not 6.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when corporate profits are going through the 
roof, the stock Market is breaking new records and CEO salaries are 
making sports heroes blush, it is time that corporate America paid its 
fair share to balance the budget--just like everyone else.
  Moreover, instead of giving the Pentagon $270 billion a year, let's 
ask them to make due with $220 billion a year. And why not, especially 
when we spend more than all of our potential enemies combined.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to demonstrate this fact with this chart. 
Here are all our potential enemies and what they spend on the military. 
And this is what we spend and then some.
  Mr. Chairman, Ronald Reagan and George Bush gave us this deficit with 
their tax cuts for the wealthy and pork for the Pentagon. It is time to 
say: No longer are we going to pay McDonald's and M&M's to advertise 
overseas. No longer should we pay to build golf courses at military 
bases.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this budget which 
protects middle class families in this changing economy. Our seniors, 
students, and poor should not be asked to carry the entire burden of 
balancing the budget. Everyone must pull the wagon, including Wall 
Street and defense contractors.
  Support the American middle class and support the CBC/Progressive 
Caucus budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, our objective in our budget is to get our financial 
house in order and balance our Federal budget to save our trust funds 
for future generations, and to transform our caretaking social and 
corporate welfare state into what I would call a caring opportunity 
society.
  That really gets at the thrust of why I am here today. As a moderate 
Republican, I have seen what we have done for the last 30 years. We 
have been caretakers instead of being caring. We are able to go back to 
our districts and say I did this for you and I did that for you, but 
the bottom line is we have been a caretaker instead of caring.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a budget for the 
United States of America, for it is not the Congressional Black Caucus' 
budget, it is a budget offered by the Congressional Black Caucus on 
behalf of those constituents that we represent, who know all too well 
that the biggest deficit that we have in this country is not the trade 
deficit or the budget deficit, but the human capital deficit; the fact 
that we want to see future Colin Powells have an opportunity to get an 
education, to be able to grow up in decent neighborhoods and have 
affordable housing.
  This is a budget that we would recommend to our colleagues to truly 
consider in light of the need to not only have a budget that is 
fiscally balanced, but that is morally correct and that is focused on 
this Nation's needs to develop future generations.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the leadership of the 
Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus for offering this 
alternative here on the floor. I would hope that my colleagues would be 
able to see past their partisan and perhaps parochial concerns and see 
the needs of an entire Nation, striving to create a more perfect union.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an opportunity for us to put behind us 
generations of neglect for many families in our country. I hope that we 
support this bill.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the gentleman from New 
York allowing me to participate.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican budget and in 
support of the strong point that we need a balanced budget. Any of the 
three substitutes offered by the Democrats indeed is better, including 
the bipartisan coalition budget. But the Black Caucus budget is, 
indeed, about our priorities of human beings. I am pleased to be an 
advocate for a balanced budget that balances our priorities as a 
nation, and we respect people and respect the honor of having an 
opportunity to serve people.
  As we balance the budget, we should not prefer one group over 
another. I ask the Republicans, do they really want to be known as the 
party whose policies support he wealthy at the expense of working 
Americans or those who are less fortunate? All three of the substitute 
budgets make clear that these programs and policies are more important 
to the average American citizen than the Republican budget. All three 
substitutes do a better job of protecting education, protecting the 
environment, protecting Medicare and Medicaid, and making sure those 
priorities that make America strong indeed are provided for.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], to talk positively about our 
budget.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, again today we have a graphic example of two differing 
philosophies: one philosophy which places its trust in an ever-
expanding, ever more powerful Federal bureaucracy, a philosophy that 
somehow confuses the notion of compassion and commitment.
  On the other hand, our new majority offers a budget that offers true 
compassion, for it faces up to the fact that if we do nothing to change 
our ways, and if by some miracle, the legislative equivalent of chewing 
gum and baling wire, this Republic endures and somehow averts the 
fiscal crisis that awaits it, children born today will pay in excess of 
$185,000 in interest on the national debt. Nothing could be more 
immoral. Nothing could be more egregious.
  So as we move to solve the problems, let us have the courage to 
acknowledge that in contrast to the budget offered here, all answers do 
not emanate from Washington, DC. All answers do not confuse compassion 
and commitment.

[[Page H5216]]

The most compassionate thing we can do for this generation of seniors, 
for generations yet unborn, is to adopt a sensible, rational budget 
that at long last has Washington live within its limits and the 
American people truly compassionately live within their means.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, with all respect to my 
friend, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], I think he is still 
giving his campaign speech from 2 years ago. Every budget that is 
coming to this floor will balance the Federal budget, so this is not 
about whether we balance the Federal budget or not. We have already 
passed that point.
  The question is what kind of priorities we set while we balance the 
Federal budget. Do we continue to build up a military that is already 
spending 100 times, 100 times more than any other country in the world? 
And do we do that at the expense of ordinary, average working people 
who need health care, who need education, who need the environment 
protected, who need the services that we provide to the elderly?
  Mr. Chairman, anybody ought to understand that this is not about 
whether we balance the budget or not. It is about the priorities we set 
while we engage in that process. Mr. Chairman, I hope my friend will 
understand that that debate is over.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and against 
the amendment. Basically the amendment or the substitute calls for very 
steep cuts in defense.
  Mr. Chairman, I am one of the GOP freshmen that voted against the 
defense authorization. I have voted against our defense bills, because 
I thought that some of the funding was misdirected and could be a 
little lower. However, I think that the substitute here goes way too 
far in cutting defense. I am very concerned about what I think could 
happen in Russia in the elections that are coming up.
  I would refer my colleagues to an article that is in a journal that 
some may or may not read: The American Spectator. It is called, 
``Zyuganov, the Terrible.'' It is about the Russian who is leading in 
the polls now. He is the head of the Communist Party. Statements from 
his writings are very, very worrisome in terms of a very anti-West 
program, and very anti-Zionist remarks by this person who is leading 
the Russian polls now for their elections which are coming up.
  I am very fearful that we may end up facing some significant 
increased defense expenditures. For that reason, I think that the 
priorities are misdirected in the substitute, and I would urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I need to say to this country 
that the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus' budget 
is the best budget for all the people of America. If we watch that 
budget, we will see that they are going to have the older people of 
this country sustaining and keeping the Medicare Program where it is 
now, without cutting it and making it a regressive kind of cut. They 
are also protecting the Medicaid recipients in this country.
  They also look to help the lower working class people of all this 
country. It does not mean only black people or minorities, it means 
everybody. When we work to help the lower people who are at the lower-
paying jobs, then we are helping this country.
  So what the Republicans have done, on one side they want to help the 
rich, but they want to keep the poor down. The Black Caucus' budget and 
the Progressive Caucus' budget combined help that segment of America. I 
ask Members to please vote yes on this resolution by the Black Caucus.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday in my remarks on the floor, I talked about 
the budget proposals that were before us. I said that I thought there 
was a difference in the direction of these proposals. I said the budget 
debate ought to be about the direction of this country, it ought to be 
about our different philosophies. In the various proposals we see here 
today we can see those differences clearly delineated.
  The President, in his State of the Union Address, told us three times 
that the era of big government was over. Yet, the budget proposal that 
he has made and the other alternatives that we have before us from the 
Democratic side of the aisle do not reflect that the era of big 
government is over.

                              {time}  1215

  I want to focus on the issue of entitlement changes, because this is 
where we know we have to make changes if we are ever really going to 
balance the budget, if we are ever really going to change the direction 
of government. Many of our entitlement programs are not working the way 
they should. They are not delivering health care, they are not 
delivering services to people in poverty the way they should. We need 
to make changes to that and we think we can make those changes by 
giving their management back to the States, back to local governments.
  Yet the alternative budget provisions and the Clinton budget make 
none of these changes. No fundamental changes are being made to 
entitlement programs. That is why we need to adopt the Republican 
budget proposal.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has the 
right to close.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, we come to the last moments of this 
debate. I have stated on numerous occasions that the most significant 
thing that any of us do is to adopt a national budget for this country, 
because our budget speaks to our values, our principles, and our 
priorities.
  Are there specific individual items in this budget or any other 
budget that some of us may disagree with? If we applied that test, we 
would vote against all the budgets, because there is no perfect budget 
out here.
  But what is important, Mr. Chairman, is that we rise above the 
minutia, because those matters can be worked out. This is a starting 
point. What each of us in these Chambers must do is embrace that budget 
that in a general way speaks to our vision about the hopes and the 
dreams, the aspirations and the needs of the American people and vote 
for whichever budget we believe best does that.
  Which budget in its military budget speaks to the realities of the 
post-cold-war world and attempts to reverse the extraordinary 
expenditures that characterized the cold war? I believe the budget 
before us does that and reverses that trend.
  Which budget embraces a vision that reverses the trend toward big tax 
breaks and corporate giveaways? I believe this budget does that.
  Which budget, Mr. Chairman, speaks to the realities of the pain and 
human misery and tragedy that is the reality of urban and suburban and 
rural America throughout this country, with young children dying in the 
streets of America, impoverished people, frightened senior citizens, 
unemployed human beings, undereducated people, and an environment that 
often is being raped and plundered rather than preserved in a fragile 
way for our children and our children's children?
  Each of us must look at each one of these budgets to ascertain which 
one of them, not some specific item, ``I can't vote for your budget 
because it has this.'' Those matters can be worked out.
  We must lift ourselves to a larger vision, a larger vision about 
where this country ought to go as we travel to the 21st century. I 
believe the budget before us does that. It reverses the wrong trends 
and with compassion and dignity and vision and forthright thought 
speaks to the reality of the pain and the human misery and the needs of 
our

[[Page H5217]]

people, whether they are senior citizens, whether they are middle-class 
human beings, whether they are farmers in rural America or whether they 
are young children trapped in the mire of the violence of urban 
America. This budget, it seems to me, does that.
  I ask all of my colleagues, who can find many specific details that 
would allow them to bail out of any one of these budgets, to move 
beyond minutia, to grab hold of a much larger vision and a larger idea. 
I am proud to stand in support of the budget that is before us. I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  As a moderate Republican who has voted for a number of budgets that 
have taken care of people, I have seen the result of our work. The 
result of our work in some cases is 12-year-olds having babies, it is 
14-year-olds selling drugs, it is 15-year-olds who cannot read their 
own diplomas, it is 24-year-olds who have never had a job, it is 30-
year-old grandparents. We have a caretaking society, and it has become 
a caretaking society because of what we have done in the Federal 
Government.
  When I was elected from the State government to the Federal 
government, I thought the Federal Government could do it better. It 
cannot do it better because what it does is, it adds up all the people 
in a room, adds up their entire shoe size, divides the number of people 
by the shoe size, and say, ``Here is 8\1/2\, wear it. If your shoe size 
is 10, I'm sorry. Here is 8\1/2\, wear it.'' We have a society that is 
going in the wrong direction.
  Our budget changes that. We increase the student loans, we increase 
Medicare, we increase Medicaid, we increase welfare payments. But 
ultimately what we are trying to do, as a columnist said, in the final 
analysis, it is not what we do for our children but what we have taught 
them to do for themselves that will make them successful human beings.
  We are looking to transform our caretaking social and corporate 
welfare state into a caring opportunity society, a carying opportunity 
society where we teach people how to grow the seeds so they can do it 
for themselves. So I compliment my colleagues on the other side. There 
is compassion in that budget, but it is headed in the wrong direction.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Sabo 
substitute to the budget resolution. Although it is much more appealing 
than the Republican proposal, it certainly isn't the best substitute we 
had the opportunity to consider today.
  The Congressional Black Caucus-Progressive Caucus budget offered a 6-
year balanced budget that proposed to increase investments in 
education, job training, infrastructure and at the same time protected 
Medicare and Medicaid. To pay for these investments the substitute 
proposed to modestly reduce the defense budget and closed tax loopholes 
that create corporate welfare. It made investing in the working class, 
the middle class, the poor, our children a priority. The CBC-
Progressive Caucus budget proved that we can invest in education, job 
training, infrastructure, while protecting health security and still 
achieve a balanced budget.
  The CBC-Progressive Caucus budget also provided sufficient military 
funding to keep national defense strong while eliminating large amounts 
of waste through a thorough analysis and projection for future world 
security and peacekeeping needs. But the Sabo substitute still spends 
$251 billion more than CBC-Progressive budget over 6 years. In fact, 
the Sabo military provision is virtually indistinguishable from the 
Republican defense budget. The $251 billion the CBC saves allows us to 
invest more in education, job training, transportation, and health 
care. Without the savings, we will not have the resources to make the 
necessary human investments, even as we move toward a balanced budget.
  In the CBC-Progressive budget substitute, we proposed to invest more 
than $80 billion over 6 years in education and job training--to assure 
that we have the most advanced and competitive work force in the 21st 
century. We protected large job-creating programs like transportation 
and public works--investments that not only create work but also 
improve our Nation's standard of living by improving our 
infrastructure. We protected Medicare and Medicaid, assuring its 
effectiveness for our Nation's elderly population. Until we get real 
health care reform, spending on Medicare and Medicaid cannot be 
compromised. We just can't afford the cuts that the Republican budget 
leaders are prescribing.
   Mr. Chairman, this budget debate is about priorities. I believe the 
CBC-Progressive Caucus defense budget fairly reflects our Nation's 
security needs, while offering this country the peace dividend it has 
earned. Without the savings realized by a more efficient Defense 
Department, we are not able to make the kinds of investments that will 
truly help working people in America.
  Americans have rejected the extreme ideas of the Republican majority. 
Democrats have the responsibility to represent the middle class, the 
working class, the poor, the elderly, and our children. The CBC-
Progressive Caucus budget emphasized a commitment to these priorities 
and deserves our support.
  But yet how do we account for the fact that the CBC-Progressive 
budget garnered only 63 votes and the Blue-Dog Democrats were able to 
manage twice as many votes? I urged my Democratic colleagues to vote 
for the CBC-Progressive budget so we could in turn vote for the 
President's budget--but they refused. What kind of message does this 
send to 40 million people who are represented by members of the Black 
and Hispanic caucuses, that endorsed the CBC-Progressive budget? I ask 
our esteemed leader, Mr. Gephardt, to share with me the serious 
dichotomy that honestly reveals at bottom that most of the Democrats 
have very little vision of how we would discharge the most important 
responsibility as legislators, if we were in power. We're run over now, 
and unless things change, we will be run over when we win on November 
5, 1996. I have asked Mr. Gephardt to meet with me on this subject at 
his earliest convenience.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus alternative 
budget.
  When President Reagan, in 1981, challenged anyone who did not accept 
his program to come up with an alternative that offered a greater 
chance of balancing the budget, the Congressional Black Causus sent him 
their answer in a month.
  With that first budget they set the tone for fiscally sound, 
economically fair, and realistically feasible budgetary options for 
this country in its attempts to recover from serious economic deficits 
and high inflation.
  The Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus have joined to 
offer an alternative budget for fiscal year 1997 that does not engage 
in the economic cannibalism of our Nation's poor, elderly, or children.
  This budget opposes all attempts by the ``elite conservative 
minority'' of the Republican Party to reduce the value of Social 
Security. This budget would ensure that current coverage for Medicaid 
and Medicare is not cut or further compromised.
  This budget would maintain current services, where the Republican 
budget would have $240 billion in Medicaid cuts.
  To encourage commerce through the creation of small and women and 
minority owned businesses this budget would add another $300 million 
for each fiscal year. They would freeze Neighborhood Reinvestment 
Corporation moneys at fiscal year 1996 levels rather than allow it to 
decrease in funding.
  This budget would oppose any attempts to erode the value of Social 
Security, including any extension of the age for eligibility.
  They would balance the budget with a fair application of revenue 
increases through the elimination of loopholes for multinational and 
foreign controlled corporations, reform taxation of income of 
multinational corporations and capital gains reform just to mention a 
few. Their recommended changes would result in a total of additional 
revenue of $486.7 billion.
  The American people need and want a reasoned and balanced plan for 
addressing this country's serious deficit problems, and this budget is 
that plan.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 63, 
noes 362, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 176]

                                AYES--63

     Becerra
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Brown (FL)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Engel
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gibbons
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Lewis (GA)
     Markey
     Martinez
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Moakley
     Nadler

[[Page H5218]]


     Oberstar
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Rangel
     Rush
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--362

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bevill
     Burton
     Chenoweth
     Hayes
     Molinari
     Paxon
     Talent
     Towns

                              {time}  1241

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Towns for, with Mr. Paxon against.

  Messrs. EWING, CHRYSLER, and RADANOVICH, and Mrs. MINK of Hawaii 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  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 the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute designated in paragraph 2 of section 2 of House 
Resolution 435.


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

  Mr. ORTON. 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. 
     Orton.
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1997.

       The Congress determines and declares that the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997 is hereby 
     established and that the appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,107,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,165,720,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,214,661,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,269,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,330,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,392,543,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $7,157,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $17,170,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $16,303,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $17,838,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $19,192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $18,645,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,316,223,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,364,054,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,405,593,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,448,718,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,480,821,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,529,237,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,313,391,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,352,476,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,388,058,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,428,498,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,453,221,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,501,530,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $205,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $186,756,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $173,397,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $158,861,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $122,929,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $108,987,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,417,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,651,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,864,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,058,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,212,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,344,300,000,000.
       (6) Direct loan obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $41,432,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $39,420,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $42,470,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $43,895,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $45,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $46,718,000,000.
       (7) Primary loan guarantee commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $267,340,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $266,819,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $266,088,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $267,079,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $267,982,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $269,051,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee commitments 
     for fiscal years 1996 through 2002 for each major functional 
     category are:
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $259,235,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $262,484,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $263,733,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $259,351,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:

[[Page H5219]]

       (A) New budget authority, $267,996,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $261,560,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $273,082,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,858,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $272,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,703,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $272,372,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $269,364,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $200,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,008,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,342,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $18,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,682,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,566,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,417,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $18,628,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,838,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,552,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,518,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $19,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,749,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,461,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,618,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $19,406,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,879,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,669,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,739,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $19,858,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,124,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,727,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,891,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $20,431,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,840,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,894,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,841,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,852,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,843,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,776,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,844,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,822,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,845,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,844,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,846,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,845,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,728,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,080,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,033,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,654,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,695,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,050,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,220,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,180,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,078,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,167,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,035,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,109,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,337,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,179,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,141,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,065,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,816,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,174,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,359,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,969,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $37,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,131,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,846,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $41,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,277,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,921,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $41,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,150,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,630,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $41,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,032,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,253,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $44,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,089,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $44,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,617,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,778,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $7,810,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $5,994,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,663,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,677,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,387,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,765,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,481,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,529,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,808,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,836,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,933,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,026,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,825,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,909,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,889,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,081,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,708,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,983,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,646,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,816,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,706,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $7,060,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,928,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $826,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,910,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $198,096,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,381,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $198,218,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,622,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,713,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,954,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $198,427,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,421,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,686,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,015,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $198,723,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,984,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,198,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,072,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $198,876,000,000.

[[Page H5220]]

       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,325,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,837,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,134,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $199,111,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,944,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,307,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,651,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,616,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,544,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,014,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,240,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,526,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $17,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,854,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,788,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $17,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,582,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,440,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $18,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,733,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,409,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,231,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,181,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,268,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,024,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,257,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,229,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,464,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,287,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,315,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,621,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,163,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,365,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,369,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,610,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,671,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,404,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,448,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,149,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,430,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,496,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,099,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,302,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,219,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $15,469,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,914,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,764,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $19,040,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $14,760,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,631,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,520,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $21,781,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $13,854,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,675,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $22,884,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $14,589,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,496,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,975,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $23,978,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $15,319,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,089,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,302,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $25,127,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $16,085,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $130,271,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $129,859,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $187,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $137,102,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $136,870,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $94,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $146,449,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $146,486,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $155,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $155,232,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $163,952,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $163,535,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $174,717,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $174,167,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $191,735,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $190,051,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $205,671,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $203,946,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $219,739,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $217,467,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $233,083,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $231,334,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $249,351,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $247,617,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $266,091,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $263,690,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $231,135,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $238,848,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $243,312,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $247,097,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $252,613,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,017,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $266,923,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,708,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $273,393,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $273,190,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,716,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $286,757,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,813,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,001,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,477,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,664,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,220,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,369,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,980,000,000.

[[Page H5221]]

       (B) Outlays, $13,129,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,776,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,925,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,608,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,757,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,074,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,570,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $935,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $26,362,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,910,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,387,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $962,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,925,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,420,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,603,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $987,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,548,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,235,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,021,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $24,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,803,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,655,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,189,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $24,298,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,005,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,268,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,194,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $23,668,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,127,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,930,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,302,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,162,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,186,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,241,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,235,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,944,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,119,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,461,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,143,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,085,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,655,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,362,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,661,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,522,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,311,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,299,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,149,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,346,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,086,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,046,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,147,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,104,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,011,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $281,971,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $287,083,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $286,933,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $289,332,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $289,032,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $289,637,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $289,162,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $292,873,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $292,190,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $297,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,252,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (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.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$8,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$8,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$9,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$9,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$9,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$43,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$43,258,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $7,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$34,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$34,878,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,350,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$33,685,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$33,685,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$35,974,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$35,974,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37,759,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$37,759,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$39,435,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$39,435,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Not later than June 21, 1996, the House committees 
     named in subsection (b) shall submit their recommendations to 
     the House Committee on the Budget. After receiving those 
     recommendations, the House Committee on the Budget shall 
     report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all 
     such recommendations without any substantive revision.
       (b)(1) The House Committee on Agriculture shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce outlays, as follows: 
     $2,082,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, 
     $15,117,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997

[[Page H5222]]

     through 2001, and $18,852,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1997 through 2002.
       (2) The House Committee on Banking and Financial Services 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending sufficient to reduce outlays, as 
     follows: $367,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, 
     $2,428,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2001, 
     and $3,026,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 
     2002.
       (3) The House Committee on Commerce shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     sufficient to reduce outlays, as follows: $10,717,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1997, $158,844,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1997 through 2001, and $226,598,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (4) The House Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to 
     reduce outlays, as follows: $220,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1997, $2,454,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1997 through 2001, and $3,198,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1997 through 2002.
       (5) The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending sufficient to reduce outlays, as 
     follows: $2,600,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, 
     $40,278,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2001, 
     and $50,900,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 
     2002.
       (6) The House Committee on the Judiciary shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce outlays, as follows: $0 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1997,
     $357,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2001, 
     and $476,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 
     2002.
       (7) The House Committee on National Security shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce outlays, as follows: 
     $84,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $493,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2001, and $649,000,000 
     in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (8) The House Committee on Resources shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     sufficient to reduce outlays, as follows: $74,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1997, $308,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1997 through 2001, and $332,000,000 in outlays 
     in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (9) The House Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to 
     reduce outlays, as follows: $19,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 1997, $810,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 
     through 2001, and $885,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1997 through 2002.
       (10) The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce outlays, as follows: 
     $117,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $2,378,000,000 
     in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2001, and 
     $3,232,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (11) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the deficit, as follows: by $14,766,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1997, by $172,990,000,000 in fiscal years 1997 through 2001, 
     and by $231,595,000,000 in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (c) Definition.--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.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND FEDERAL 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) domestic violence is the leading cause of physical 
     injury to women; the Department of Justice estimates that 
     over one million violent crimes against women are committed 
     by intimate partners annually;
       (2) domestic violence dramatically affects the victim's 
     ability to participate in the workforce; a University of 
     Minnesota survey reported that one-quarter of battered women 
     surveyed had lost a job partly because of being abused and 
     that over half of these women had been harassed by their 
     abuser at work;
       (3) domestic violence is often intensified as women seek to 
     gain economic independence through attending school or 
     training programs; batterers have been reported to prevent 
     women from attending these programs or sabotage their efforts 
     at self-improvement;
       (4) nationwide surveys of service providers prepared by the 
     Taylor Institute of Chicago, document, for the first time, 
     the interrelationship between domestic violence and welfare 
     by showing that between 50 percent and 80 percent of AFDC 
     recipients are current or past victims of domestic violence;
       (5) over half of the women surveyed stayed with their 
     batterers because they lacked the resources to support 
     themselves and their children; the surveys also found that 
     the availability of economic support is a critical factor in 
     poor women's ability to leave abusive situations that 
     threaten them and their children; and
       (6) proposals to restructure the welfare programs may 
     impact the availability of the economic support and the 
     safety net necessary to enable poor women to flee abuse 
     without risking homelessness and starvation for their 
     families.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) no welfare reform provision shall be enacted by 
     Congress unless and until Congress considers whether such 
     welfare reform provisions will exacerbate violence against 
     women and their children, further endanger women's lives, 
     make it more difficult for women to escape domestic violence, 
     or further punish women victimized by violence; and
       (2) any welfare reform measure enacted by Congress shall 
     require that any welfare-to-work, education, or job placement 
     programs implemented by the States will address the impact of 
     domestic violence on welfare recipients.

     SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON IMPACT OF LEGISLATION ON 
                   CHILDREN.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     Congress should not adopt or enact any legislation that will 
     increase the number of children who are hungry, homeless, 
     poor, or medically uninsured.
       (b) Legislative Accountability for Impact on Children.--In 
     the event legislation enacted to comply with this resolution 
     results in an increase in the number of hungry, homeless, 
     poor, or medically uninsured by the end of fiscal year 1997, 
     Congress shall revisit the provisions of such legislation 
     which caused such increase and shall, as soon as practicable 
     thereafter, adopt legislation which would halt any 
     continuation of such increase.

     SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING TAX CUTS.

       It is the sense of Congress that changes in tax laws which 
     promote job creation, economic growth, and increased savings 
     and investment should be enacted and be offset by changes 
     which close tax loopholes and eliminate corporate welfare.

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE DEBT.

       It is the sense of Congress that eliminating the deficit by 
     producing a balanced budget is only the first step toward the 
     ultimate goal of reducing and eventually eliminating the 
     public debt.

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING TRUST FUND SURPLUSES.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (2) all recent-year Federal budgets, as well as both fiscal 
     year 1996 budget resolutions reported out by the Committees 
     on the Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate, 
     have masked the magnitude of annual deficits by counting 
     various trust fund surpluses; and
       (2) upon reaching a balance in the Federal budget, the 
     Government should move toward balance without consideration 
     of trust fund surpluses.

     SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BALANCED BUDGET 
                   ENFORCEMENT.

       It is the sense of Congress that, in order to ensure that a 
     balanced budget is achieved by fiscal year 2002 and that the 
     budget remains in balance thereafter, title XIV of H.R. 2530 
     establishing strict budget enforcement mechanisms should be 
     enacted. Such language would--
       (1) require the Federal Government to reach a balanced 
     Federal budget by fiscal year 2002 and remain in balance 
     thereafter;
       (2) establish procedures for developing honest, accurate, 
     and accepted budget estimates;
       (3) require that the President propose annual budgets that 
     would achieve a balanced Federal budget by fiscal year 2002 
     and for each year thereafter, using accurate assumptions;
       (4) require the Committees on the Budget of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate to report budget resolutions 
     that achieve a balanced Federal budget by fiscal year 2002 
     and for each year thereafter, using accurate assumptions; and
       (5) require Congress and the President to take action if 
     the deficit targets in this resolution are not met.

     SEC. 11. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING MEDICARE REFORM.

       It is the sense of Congress that any legislation reforming 
     medicare should reflect the policies and distribution of 
     savings contained in H.R. 2530. Specifically, that 
     legislation should--
       (1) reform policies for medicare risk contracting to expand 
     the choice of private options available to all medicare 
     beneficiaries, including individuals in rural areas;
       (2) contain regulatory reforms to facilitate the creation 
     of provider-sponsored networks;
       (3) contain reasonable reductions in the growth of payments 
     to providers that do not threaten the availability or quality 
     of care;
       (4) require higher income medicare beneficiaries to pay a 
     greater portion of medicare premiums without establishing a 
     new bureaucracy for the collection of premiums;
       (5) expand coverage of preventive benefits under medicare;
       (6) provide a demonstration project for Medical Savings 
     Accounts for medicare beneficiaries; and
       (7) prohibit managed care plans from charging medicare 
     beneficiaries additional premiums beyond the part B premium.

     SEC. 12. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING MEDICAID REFORM.

       It is the sense of Congress that any legislation changing 
     the medicaid program pursuant to this resolution should--
       (1) continue guaranteed coverage for low-income children, 
     pregnant women, the elderly, and the disabled;
       (2) continue the guarantee of an adequate benefits package 
     for all medicaid beneficiaries;
       (3) provide States with greater flexibility in the delivery 
     of services and administration of the program;

[[Page H5223]]

       (4) contain a financing mechanism in which the Federal 
     Government fully shares in changes in program costs resulting 
     from changes in caseload;
       (5) require States to maintain current levels of financial 
     effort to preserve the current joint Federal-State 
     partnership in meeting the costs of this program;
       (6) continue current restrictions on the use of provider 
     taxes and donations and other illusory State financing 
     schemes;
       (7) continue Federal minimum standards for nursing homes;
       (8) continue Federal rules that prevent wives or husbands 
     from being required to impoverish themselves in order to 
     obtain and keep medicaid benefits for their spouse requiring 
     nursing home care; and
       (9) continue coverage of medicaid premiums and cost sharing 
     for low-income seniors.

     SEC. 13. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING WELFARE REFORM.

       It is the sense of Congress that any legislation reforming 
     welfare programs pursuant to this resolution should--
       (1) impose tough work requirements on able-bodied 
     recipients;
       (2) provide sufficient resources for job training, child 
     care, and other programs necessary to help welfare recipients 
     make the transition from welfare to work;
       (3) require States to maintain levels of financial support 
     sufficient to operate an effective program;
       (4) contain effective counter-cyclical mechanisms to assist 
     States facing economic downturns or increases in population;
       (5) include provisions holding States accountable for the 
     use of Federal funds and the effectiveness of State programs;
       (6) contain strong child support provisions; and
       (7) maintain the integrity of the food stamp program as a 
     national safety net.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Orton] and a Member opposed each will control 30 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment. The gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] will be coming shortly, and he will be opposed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Orton].
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, last night after general debate on the budget, I was 
talking with one of my constituents who after watching several hours of 
debate was totally confused over what the argument was all about. While 
the budget and alternatives may be clear to those of us here in this 
Chamber, the people have a hard time following us.
  Therefore, as simply as I can, I will now outline the principal 
differences between the various budgets we are considering.
  All of the budgets offered would achieved balance in 2002. The 
differences are in the details of how much is cut each year, how much 
is spent or cut from each program, and how the programs are changed to 
achieve these savings.
  Last year, at the beginning of the budget debate, the President's 
budget and the Republican's budget were $600 billion different between 
now and 2002. The coalition budget was a centrist budget, with numbers 
between the President's and Republican's, designed to bridge the gap 
between the two and facilitate an agreement which the President could 
sign into law.
  Since that time, in an effort to resolve their differences, both the 
President and the Republicans have changed their proposals 
significantly toward one another. In fact, their numbers on spending 
have collapsed to virtually mirror the coalition budget. Today, the 
difference between the President and the coalition is only 0.6 percent 
and between the Republicans and the coalition is only 0.9 percent in an 
$11 trillion budget over the next six years.
  Being so close, then why isn't there agreement? The answer is found 
in the policy decisions--how you change each program to achieve the 
savings. Here again, the coalition budget has set forth proposed policy 
changes designed to bridge the gap with real commonsense solutions. In 
a moment, my colleagues will outline those solutions in welfare, 
Medicaid, Medicare, and other areas.
  There is another major difference between the coalition budget and 
the others under consideration. That is how quickly the deficit is 
reduced and how much additional Government borrowing is necessary.
  The coalition budget borrows $137 billion less than the Republicans 
and $200 billion less than the President over the next six years.
  How is that done? The coalition budget cuts spending first. Both the 
Republicans and the President backload their spending cuts. What is 
backloading? That means that most of the spending cuts come in the last 
years of the budget. In fact 80 percent in the last 3 years. And they 
don't bring the deficit down below $100 billion until the next 
century--when some future Congress and President will have to make the 
tough choices of spending cuts. According to CBO the Republican 
deficits will go up $4 billion next year and then drop to only $1 
billion below today's level in 2 years. That is a net increase in the 
deficit of $3 billion 2 years from now, leaving almost all of the tough 
decisions to the next Congress.
  We have also heard a lot about tax cuts. The coalition budget does 
not include tax cuts, not because we oppose tax cuts, but rather we 
believe we should cut spending and achieve a balanced budget first. 
Next we should reform our tax system for fairness and simplicity. To 
try to combine both balancing the budget and tax cuts will guarantee 
neither and probably prevent either. In an effort to guarantee both, 
last year the budget contained the provision ``Tax Reduction Contingent 
on Balanced Budget'', but this year they refuse to include even those 
guarantees. Why? Because they promise tax cuts which the Joint Tax 
Committee says will cost $216 billion, but only provide numbers in the 
budget for $122 billion. That is not ``truth in budgeting''. The 
Republican plan is apparently to being a tax cut package first, an 
obvious benefit in an election year, and then separately try to change 
entitlements. This is the same approach used in the 1980's when 
deficits quadrupled the debt to over $4 trillion.
  I urge my colleagues to support the coalition budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Connecticut, 
and I listened with interest to my colleague from Utah. I share the 
lament of one of his constituents, who, if I understand my friend 
correctly, said the argument seemed to be escaping the American people, 
by and large. We get caught up in too many arcane terms with reference 
to the budget.
  So we will attempt to both respond to my colleague from Utah and to 
his constituent; and, indeed, Mr. Chairman, to the American people. I 
think there is simply this fundamental difference. It may be a matter 
of degrees on the liberal side of the aisle, but essentially what our 
friends in the coalition are saying is this: ``We can change the way we 
spend money, but let us maintain control here in Washington, and let us 
maintain control,'' they say, ``with the vast Federal bureaucracy.''
  Indeed, they use the same mechanisms of the past. Even in trying to 
have numbers meet in the middle, they have a philosophy which is more 
of the same: more taxing, more spending.
  The budget offered by my friends who call themselves Blue Dog would 
raise taxes $211 billion. The budget offered by the coalition would 
raise spending $74 billion. And of great concern to the seniors in the 
Sixth District of Arizona and nationwide, the coalition budget would 
give seniors $51 billion less over 6 years.
  The remedy is the same. It is regretable. Our colleagues who call 
themselves the Blue Dogs seek more of the green stuff from home. They 
want more of our money in taxes; they want more spending; and they want 
control here in Washington.
  Our budget saves our children's future, empowers people to be self-
reliant, and shifts the money, power, and influence out of the hands of 
the Washington bureaucrats and back home to Main Street, to local 
government, to solve problems.
  With that in mind, I urge my colleagues to reject the budget of the 
Blue Dogs and stay with the new vision for the future.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Payne].
  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Utah 
for yielding me the time.

[[Page H5224]]

  I want to quickly respond to my colleague from Arizona and say there 
are no tax increases in the coalition budget, and that we save or we 
have $140 billion more in deficit reduction than the Republican budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to that Republican budget and in 
strong support of the coalition substitute. The coalition substitute 
balances the budget in 6 years in an honest, straightforward manner, no 
detours, no gimmicks, and without any unnecessary tax cuts.
  The coalition's budget balances our fiscal responsibility with our 
social responsibility, and the balance is perhaps best illustrated by 
our Medicare policy. The coalition budget ensures Medicare solvency for 
the same number of years as the Republican plan, yet without harsh 
Republican policies. Our Medicare plan is fair to seniors, does not 
allow managed care companies or doctors to extra bill them, and it only 
increases premiums for those with the highest incomes. It provides over 
$2 billion for preventive benefits for cancer screening and diabetes 
testing, an investment that will make sense and will save both lives 
and money.
  Our Medicare plan is also fair to providers. It is supported by 
numerous health care providers as the most equitable and reasonable way 
to save the trust fund. Let me read from a letter I received this 
morning from the American Hospital Association:

       Dear Representative Payne: The American Hospital 
     Association, representing 5,000 hospitals, health systems and 
     other providers, believes the Coalition's budget alternative 
     is the best choice available to Congress for balancing the 
     Federal budget. We applaud your efforts and urge the Congress 
     to adopt your fiscal year 1997 budget plan.
       The Coalition alternative is compatible with the Medicare 
     and Medicaid budget principles that the American Hospital 
     Association has consistently supported.
       We appreciate the thoughtful approach the Coalition has 
     taken to deficit reduction, particularly as it pertains to 
     Medicare and Medicaid.
       Signed, Rick Pollack, executive vice president.

  Mr. Chairman, seniors and providers of health care support our budget 
as the most equitable and most responsible, and I urge my colleagues to 
support the coalition Medicare plan and the coalition substitute 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the letter from the American Hospital 
Association for the Record:

                                American Hospital Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 1996.
     Hon. L.F. Payne,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Payne: The American Hospital 
     Association (AHA), representing 5,000 hospitals, health 
     systems, and other providers of care, believes the 
     Coalition's budget alternative is the best choice available 
     to the Congress for balancing the federal budget. We applaud 
     your efforts and urge the Congress to adopt your fiscal year 
     1997 budget plan.
       The Coalition alternative is compatible with the Medicare 
     and Medicaid budget principles that the American Hospital 
     Association has consistently supported, including:
       Assuring access to care for vulnerable populations--the 
     Coalition preserves the Medicaid program as an entitlement 
     and guarantees reasonable payment to providers for the care 
     they deliver to Medicaid patients.
       Giving hospitals the tools they need to compete in the 
     future health care system--the Coalition alternative contains 
     provider-sponsored organization (PSO) language that creates 
     real options for Medicare patients.
       Providing for shared responsibility among all stakeholders 
     in the Medicare program.
       Creating an independent citizens' commission to help 
     Congress make the tough choices for Medicare's next 30 years.
       Not cutting Medicare and Medicaid too fast or too deep--the 
     Coalition's reductions to these two critical programs, while 
     still deeper than we might prefer, are more balanced than 
     those in the Republican or Administration plans.
       We appreciate the thoughtful approach the Coalition has 
     taken to deficit reduction, particularly as it applies to 
     Medicare and Medicaid.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Rick Pollack,
                                         Executive Vice President.

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  (Mr. NEUMANN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, this issue of whether or not we should 
pass the blue dog budget is really a very, very simple matter. When put 
into perspective, under the blue dog budget the American people would 
pay $211 billion more in taxes as compared to the Republican plan that 
we are going to be voting on later on today.
  Second, the people in Washington, DC, will spend $74 billion more 
over the next 6 years than under the Republican plan that we will be 
voting on later on today.
  So it both taxes the American people more and it spends more, and our 
people in Wisconsin do not want to pay more taxes and they do not think 
the people in Washington, DC, need to spend more.
  But that is not the biggest problem with the blue dog budget. The 
biggest problem is its impact on the Social Security benefits paid to 
our senior citizens. And to all of the senior citizens listening here 
today, I would like to caution them about some Washington jargon that 
should be a red flag. It is called the CPI adjustment.
  Whenever anyone hears this Washington language, they need to know 
that what they are really talking about is reducing the amount of money 
that is available to be paid to our senior citizens in the future.
  Let me make this very, very simple. If the blue dog budget passes 
today, and the CPI, that is the cost of living adjustment, would be 3 
percent, under the blue dog plan it would be reduced to 2.5 percent. So 
instead of going up by 3 percent, an individual's Social Security 
payments would only go up by 2.5 percent instead.
  Folks, this needs to be very, very clear; that under the blue dog 
budget Social Security benefits are impacted. To me, this is a very 
simple matter. The blue dog budget taxes more, it spends more, and it 
reduces the amount of money compared to current law that would be paid 
to our senior citizens from where we are today.
  Clearly, this is a budget we should be voting against for those three 
reasons: It taxes more, spends more, and reduces the benefits to our 
senior citizens.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Arkansas [Mrs. Blanch Lambert Lincoln].
  (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, today, I come and rise in strong support 
of the blue dog coalition budget, and I oppose the other budgets being 
offered. I do that as a mother expecting two youngsters soon, and I am 
especially proud of the coalition's work on a fair balanced budget 
proposal.
  One of the biggest selling points, and it is very clear to everyone, 
is that the coalition budget has less debt burden placed on our 
children, my children, everyone's children, in the future. The 
Republican budget will run up $137 billion more in debt, which our 
children will have to pay; or the $200 billion in the President's 
budget.
  Regardless of what this extra debt is used for, tax cuts, spending, 
whatever, it will mean higher interest payments and, therefore, less 
money for our children. Anyone knows that less money down on a house 
means a larger payment; more interest that is not even deductible.
  The coalition alternative balances the budget while being more 
responsible. The prime example is Medicaid. We maintain guaranteed 
coverage for those who need it, including disabled children. We allow 
Medicaid dollars to follow demand, keeping costs down by focusing our 
dollars on individuals and their needs. We guarantee adequate benefit 
packages to recipients.
  Our guarantees of coverage and benefits will be enforceable through 
the Federal Government. The Republican proposal contains enforcement 
loopholes. We still give the States the flexibility that they need to 
create the savings. We retain Federal nursing home standards to protect 
our elderly citizens, which the Republican plan does not. We do all of 
this while still slowing the rate of growth in Medicaid, creating a 
total savings of $70 billion over 6 years in Medicaid.
  That is what the coalition budget is all about, balancing budget 
using common sense and fair approaches while doing all that we can to 
ease the burden on future Americans by taking responsibility for 
spending now.
  If we are concerned about the future for our children, which my 
colleagues over here claim they are, no one can argue that ours is the 
only budget that leaves the least amount of debt to our children, all 
of our children.

[[Page H5225]]

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Lazio], the chairman of the committee that is reforming 
housing.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment but also to congratulate my colleagues who have put forward 
this amendment in an effort to try to find a constructive solution.
  Let me say, ladies and gentleman, that we do not go the whole route 
with this alternative. In 1950, ladies and gentlemen, a family of four 
making an inflation-adjusted $50,000 in current dollars paid about 4 
percent of their income in Federal taxes. Guess what it is now: 6, 8, 
9, 10, 12, 15, 18? If Members guessed any of those, they would be 
wrong. Twenty-six percent in the last 40 years; a 6-fold increase in 
the Federal tax burden.
  Is there any wonder why moms cannot spend more time with their 
children after school to go over homework or dads have to work overtime 
just to meet that Federal burden?
  The Republican budget meets this challenge. It begins to say that 
Americans who earn more will be able to keep more so they can do more. 
They can make their own decisions. They can help their families. They 
can have more time to spend going over homework and going to clubs and 
organizations with their children.
  In 1993 this body passed the largest tax increase in the history of 
our Nation. Now we are going down another path, a path where Americans 
can keep more of what they earn and help their families.
  Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve board, said in 
testimony before us that families can look forward to their children 
doing better than they, and that is the American dream.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the ranking member and former chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I congratulate the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton], the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], and other Members of the coalition for the 
budget that they present. If our goal is to balance the budget by 2002, 
this is the alternative that might actually do it.
  Mr. Chairman, we need a little humility when we project 6 years into 
the future. Many things can change. But if there is any plan that can 
actually work, it is the Orton proposal. It is tough, it is realistic, 
but it is also fair to people.
  It means less interest costs for the Federal Government. It is the 
one plan that might actually result in happening what we talk about; 
that a young family buying a new home might actually have lower 
mortgage payments because of lower interest rate costs.
  It is a good proposal, it is fair, it is workable, it is the one that 
can achieve our goals. I, in the strongest way I can, urge people to 
vote for this good alternative, and I congratulate the gentleman from 
Utah.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman].
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friends, the blue 
dogs on this side of the aisle, for bringing forth this budget today. I 
think it is a great improvement over the budget we are going to see 
next, which is the President's budget. I think the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] is going to bring it to the floor.
  I say that because the President's budget does not even balance over 
the 6-year period based on CBO numbers, unless you add some late year 
gimmicks the last 2 years on some contingencies. So I commend them for 
having a product that does get to balance. I have a few problems with 
it as I look at it.
  No. 1, in the entitlement area, which is where most of our spending 
increases are now, they do not get at the real problems, in my view, in 
Medicaid. I think there could be an unfunded mandate in Medicaid 
because there is a lack of flexibility, as compared with the Republican 
approach.
  With regard to Medicare, you cannot tell how long the part A trust 
fund remains solvent based on this approach. It looks like we have a 
shift from the part A trust fund to the taxpayer-paid part B trust 
fund.
  Finally, and this is the fundamental point, it has higher taxes and 
higher spending than the Republican plan which gets to balance in the 
same time period. So why vote for something that does not have the 
attributes of the Republican plan in terms of entitlement reform, 
fundamental reforms and has higher taxes and higher spending and gets 
there at the same time?
  I guess my view is, why not the best? We have a plan that has lower 
taxes and less spending that gets us to balance. That is what we need 
to do.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues in the House 
to vote for the coalition budget. Let me suggest three reasons why they 
should.
  First, there is no question that the coalition budget reduces the 
Federal deficit greater than any of the other proposals before us. Just 
compare the facts. After 3 years under the Republican budget, the 
deficit will be reduced by just $35 billion, from $150 billion to $115 
billion. Then they would have us believe that Congress is going to jump 
off a cliff in the next 3 years and eliminate that $115 billion 
deficit.
  Compare that to the coalition budget which reduces the deficit during 
the first 3 years by almost one half, down from $150 billion to $80 
billion.
  The true measure as to whether we are serious about deficit reduction 
is what we do up front. The coalition budget does the best job of 
keeping us on a glide path to really get the budget deficit over with. 
Over the next 6 years the Republican committee budget will increase the 
national debt by $140 billion more than the coalition budget. The 
American people want us to end the flood of red ink. The coalition 
budget is the serious proposal to get that done.
  The CBO, OMB, and outside interest groups all agree that this is the 
best approach, if reducing the deficit is our top domestic priority.
  The second reason I urge my colleagues to support this approach is 
that this approach protects the priorities that are important to the 
American people. It protects priorities in education, environment, and 
health care. It protects student loans and provides $45 billion more 
for education and training programs to help prepare American children 
and workers for the economic challenges of the future.
  The third reason is that the coalition budget can pass. Democrats and 
Republicans can come together on the coalition budget and we can really 
get the job done. If we want to accomplish a balanced budget by the 
year 2002, this is the way to go. We can come together as Democrats and 
Republicans, and I urge my colleagues to support the coalition budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me. Very briefly, if the Democrats or the coalition or 
the blue dogs had presented this budget 2 years ago, I suspect most 
everybody on this side of the aisle would have voted for it.
  The reason I suggest we should not vote for this blue dog budget is 
because it would replace an even better budget passed by the Budget 
Committee. Here is why I think the Republican budget is better. The 
Democrat proposal has higher taxes. It has increased spending and that 
means returning to a tax and spending philosophy.
  We had a tax increase in 1993. All of this side of the aisle voted 
for the tax increase. That tax increase, according to the Heritage 
Foundation, cost Americans 1.2 million additional private sector jobs 
and $208 billion in economic output. The Democrat coalition budget 
continues all of the 1993 tax increases.
  We have such huge budget problems. I compliment the coalition Members 
for looking at Social Security. That could be the next catastrophe to 
hit

[[Page H5226]]

this country. We need to start dealing with it. I say we have got to 
have a tax change policy that encourages job expansion for more and 
better jobs to assist our effort to solve these budget problems.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time 
to me. I thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] for his leadership 
on the coalition on putting this budget together.
  We in the coalition have struggled for this entire Congress and we 
had the luxury, quite frankly, of being called sometimes a minority 
within a minority, to put forth a public policy document free of as 
much partisan politics as is possible in this city of Washington, DC.
  You will hear a lot of rhetoric. I will not get into it. The 
Republicans say this raises taxes, this does not, welfare is better or 
worse in our plan or yours. But my colleagues, there is one good reason 
why about 40 major newspapers and the Concord Coalition, which is a 
bipartisan group dedicated to the balancing of this Nation's budget, 
has endorsed the coalition plan. They have no ax to grind. They take it 
seriously. I really know of nobody who has credibility on this issue 
more in our country than the Concord Coalition. They say the blue dog 
budget is the way to go.
  Why? No. 1, we stop borrowing money quicker. We do not keep going 
into debt as both the Republican and the White House budgets do. That 
is uncontroverted.
  No. 2, we have in our plan an enforcement mechanism, the only one on 
the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, I was here for part of Gramm-Rudman 2. We had Gramm-
Rudman 1. We had the budget summit of 1990, all well-intentioned by 
good-meaning people to try to get something done, and what happened? We 
had a big announcement that things were going to get better and because 
of lack of enforcement, it did not happen.
  We put an enforcement mechanism in our budget. We are not interested 
in going out here and having a press conference and making an 
announcement that the budget is going to be balanced in 6 years unless 
it actually happens. We try to do it.
  Please support our plan.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], my colleague on the Committee on the Budget.
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to restore a comment that was 
made earlier by my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith]. 
I think if this were the budget that were proposed 2 years ago, we 
would all be up here enthusiastically endorsing it. But that was 2 
years ago today, we think there is a better alternative that is 
available.
  The chief difference between this alternative budget proposed by the 
conservative Democrat coalition and the Republican budget comes in the 
area of tax relief for American citizens. The coalition talks about how 
we are going to achieve greater deficit reduction. They say their 
deficit reduction numbers are bigger. The Concord Coalition endorses 
it. That is true. It does make a faster reduction in the deficit at 
least initially.
  Mr. Chairman, what the coalition budget does not do is give necessary 
relief to American taxpayers. American taxpayers are paying too much in 
taxes today. Whereas a few years ago, a generation ago, Americans were 
sending 4, 5 percent of their income to Washington, today they are 
sending over 20 percent. When you add in local and State taxes, for a 
one-income family, 36 percent of their income goes to taxes, 39 percent 
for a two-income family. It is too much.
  We need to stimulate the economy. We need to stimulate growth by 
putting some money back in people's pockets. That is the difference 
between these two budget proposals.
  We believe we can achieve a balanced budget. We get to a balanced 
budget at the same time as the coalition budget. We believe we can 
achieve a balanced budget. We can do it while giving at the same time 
some tax relief to American citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, there is another difference. If you look at this 
proposal over the very long run, even longer than our budget horizon 
goes, you do not get the fundamental changes that you must make to 
entitlement programs in order to have longstanding, long lasting, 
budget deficit reduction.
  That is one of the big differences here. We have got to change 
programs. We have got to make changes to entitlements if we are ever 
going to really see a balanced budget. For those two reasons, tax 
relief for American citizens and fundamental changes to entitlement 
programs, the Republican budget proposal should be supported.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
  (Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
coalition budget.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, a number of Members have used this chart. 
Our plan will help Americans earn more, keep more, so they can do more. 
That has been the rhetoric. Let me suggest to my friends that this 
rhetoric was copyrighted in 1981. It was called supply-side economics. 
It was copyrighted at a time when we had $945 billion in debt that 
confronted the American public. Twelve years later, when not a nickel 
was spent in America that Ronald Reagan and George Bush did not 
approve, not a nickel, we had an additional $4 trillion in debt.
  I suggest that the Republican budget is an easy budget to vote for. 
You get the candy without a promise of medicine later on. Politicians 
and people like to do that. Do it easy. It is tough to say we are going 
to constrain entitlements. I understand that. There has been some 
demagoguery, very frankly, on this side of the aisle where Social 
Security is being cut, although Medicare, we are slowing the growth, 
give me a break. How dumb do we think the American public is?
  Mr. Chairman, we need to have courage. We need to be honest. We need 
to trust the people. I am not going to vote for the President's budget 
because I think, like the Republican budget, it makes early promises 
and early ease for long-term greater pain. That is what we did in 1981. 
And we did it together. Let us together be honest with the American 
public. The coalition budget is not perfect. No budget will be perfect 
because it is a consensus. We work together.
  But the coalition budget is honest in that it says we have a problem. 
We have a deficit that is too high, that is slowing growth, undermining 
America's ability to grow and to earn more. Let us confront the tough 
questions first and then reap the benefits later. Vote for the 
coalition budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to correct my 
colleague.
  On Medicaid, we are increasing spending from $95 billion to $140 
billion. My colleague may call that a cut but it is not. It is an 
increase in spending. We increased Medicare from $196 billion to $284 
billion. We are increasing Medicare.
  My colleague took a chart and then proceeded to mislead, in my 
judgment, the facts. Medicare is growing from $196 to $284 billion. 
That is not a cut. It is a 45-percent increase in spending. Medicaid is 
going from $95 billion to $104 billion. The student loan program is 
going from $24 billion to $36 billion. We do have a cut, $500 tax cut 
for children for families making under $100,000. We pay for that tax 
cut. It is not like 1981, like my colleague would try to imply. We pay 
for it. We set aside the money by making further reductions in the 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, this coalition budget spends more, It raises more money 
in revenue. It goes after senior citizens by going and paying them less 
in their Social Security benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Parker].

[[Page H5227]]

  (Mr. PARKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays], for yielding this time to me, and I want to 
join my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith], in saying 
that if 2 years ago the Blue Dog Coalition budget had been offered, it 
would have passed in a tremendous vote of confidence with the Democrats 
in charge, and I will tell my colleagues the Democrats could very well 
still be in charge of this House if they had followed the advice of the 
Blue Dog Coalition.
  But I will also tell my colleagues that there is a lot of rhetoric on 
both sides. People are made up of 99-percent water, so I think it is 
kind of a natural phenomenon that people, they act like water, they 
follow the course of least resistance, and that is what we are doing in 
a lot of ways around this place.
  I am really struck though by the fact that everybody says we have got 
a choice between the President's budget, the Blue Dog budget, the Black 
Coalition budget and the Republican budget as though one of those plans 
is going to be all and end all.
  Now, my personal belief is the Republican plan takes the first big 
step, but anyone in this Chamber, anyone in this country, who believes 
that the Republican plan, as draconian as all the Democrats are saying 
that it is, if my colleagues think that that is going to be the 
panacea, they are wrong. The Republican plan is just the first step.
  If we are going to get this budget in balance, if we are going to 
control the spending of our Government and create an economy where our 
children and grandchildren can prosper, the only way it can be done is 
to take very severe steps. The Republican plan is not a severe measure 
in any way, shape or form. Everybody in this Chamber had better start 
looking at this from an adult perspective and quit playing politics. We 
are talking about the future of our Nation.
  The Republican plan takes just the first steps. There are more 
drastic steps that are going to have to be taken, and I am more than 
willing to take those steps because I think that the payoff that we 
will have as a Nation, it will be more than worth it.
  We need to quit playing politics. We need to vote for the Republican 
plan.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown].
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the conservative coalition budget alternative. Of all the budget 
alternatives the House will consider this year, this is by far the most 
favorable in its treatment of research and development.
  I make this point not just because I happen to be an advocate of 
science and technology. The more important issue is that this budget 
alternative directly and clearly recognizes that investing in R&D will 
stimulate economic growth. That is, it treats R&D as an integral part 
of their overall plan to eliminate the deficit, create jobs, and 
increase productivity.
  I will take a moment to contrast this with the Republican view and 
the Republican treatment of R&D in House Concurrent Resolution 178. 
That view is pervasive throughout the report accompanying that 
resolution. R&D, they say, is just another form of corporate welfare, 
it is just another expenditure that needs to be cut, the Federal 
Government no longer needs to spend as much money on R&D, they say. For 
that reason, the Republican budget resolution cuts civilian R&D by 25 
percent over the next 6 years.
  The coalition budget restores this funding and targets it on some 
very critical needs:
  It maintains a healthy and stable space program and provides NASA the 
funding it will need to carry out its critical programs.
  It increases funding for basic research in agencies such as NSF, real 
increases, not some distorted arithmetic such as in the Republican 
resolution.
  It provides funding for critical energy programs in solar and 
renewable research, fossil energy research, and energy conservation. 
The coalition budget recognizes that these are critical to our energy 
security and a sustainable future and are not just product 
improvements, as the Republican budget calls them.
  Finally, it provides much needed funding for various environmental 
research programs that will be critical in basing any future 
regulations on actual risk data.
  Mr. Chairman, the conservative coalition budget makes many good 
decisions. It holds defense spending to what is actually needed, it 
avoids a misguided tax cut, and it puts us on the road to a healthier 
and more productive economic future. Investments in research and 
development are a major part of this equation.
  I do have concerns with the CPI cuts. I will work to see that a final 
budget package finds another way to reach balance and to promote a 
healthy, growing economy without the kind of CPI cuts contained in the 
coalition budget.
  But, overall, the coalition budget does make many wise choices. I 
will vote for it today and ask my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to apologize to 
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. He was right on one and wrong 
on another. We are paying for our taxes; I disagreed with him there. 
But he did make the point that we were allowing Medicare and Medicaid 
to grow, and I misunderstood his comments, and I apologize to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the coalition budget in one decent 
respect in which we must all agree at one point or another, and that is 
the increased funding for the health component of Government spending.
  As a stalwart supporter of the National Institutes of Health, I 
consider the work that they do in trying to prevent disease and to cure 
disease alone merits the full attention of the Congress of the United 
States because everything that they do is for the individual betterment 
of the American citizen, and so I commend the coalition on that score, 
and I hope to be able to convince the Republican Members when we get 
farther down the budget process that the balancing act that we 
eventually have to do will take some cognizance of the coalition health 
funding than is now the case in the budget resolution preferred by the 
Republicans.
  On the other hand, I want to say, in summary, of the gentleman from 
Maryland, I promise now that I will never say that the Democrats are 
interested in cutting Social Security if they will consider promising 
from this floor that they will never say the Republicans are interested 
in cutting Medicare. If we can make that kind of deal, we have gone a 
long way in trying to be commonsensical to the American people who, as 
the gentleman from Maryland says, are not stupid.
  We are not cutting Medicare, they are not cutting Social Security. I 
wish from the President down that the Democratic side of the government 
will acknowledge that the Republicans at long last are not cutting 
Medicare.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, in Indiana we are known for our hard work 
and our common sense. This coalition budget represents hard work 
because it is not a pie-in-the-sky budget, it cuts spending in 
Washington first, and it also is known for its common sense because we 
do not cut a dime from student loans, we do not cut a nickel from hot 
lunches for poor children in Indiana or Tennessee, and we do not cut a 
penny from Head Start programs, one of the best investments we make.
  Now, if the Republican budget stays with a $13 billion increase in 
defense, as that bill passed yesterday, we are going to see B-2 bombers 
and a host of other things that are going to require cuts in education 
that are not going to reflect common sense.
  People in Indiana and across the country want and deserve a balanced 
budget. This coalition budget does it fairly and with common sense, not 
a

[[Page H5228]]

pie-in-the-sky budget, but reflects the grass roots, hard work of the 
Midwest and other States in the Union.
  I strongly support a vote for this budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to what the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer] said about the Republican budget cutting school 
lunches and student loans. That just simply is not true.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman for a few seconds here. Go ahead.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman, first of 
all we have just been working for the last 1\1/2\ years, and the 
gentleman from Arizona will not deny that Head Start was cut under 
their first budget, student loans were cut under their first budget----
  Mr. KOLBE. No, Mr. Chairman, that is simply not true.
  Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, student loans are not being cut. 
First of all, Pell grant will go up, the total dollar volume of student 
loans will go up under the Republican budget. The only thing that we 
are talking about cutting is cutting the very wasteful, bureaucratic 
direct student loan program. We are going to reduce some of the money 
that goes in subsidies to bankers. But we are not cutting the number of 
student loans or the amount of student loans. Let us make that very 
clear.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from the State of New Jersey [Mr. Franks].
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity to open 
this discussion yesterday, and I reflected on the fact that budget 
proposals are indeed a reflection of our values and our priorities, and 
in one important respect there is something fundamentally dangerous 
about the budget resolution that is before us today. It seeks to impose 
legislatively an arbitrary so-called correction of the Consumer Price 
Index.
  Now there is a body of economists who believe that the CPI currently 
overstates the impact of inflation, and I think most of us would agree 
that something should be done about it.
  But what the blue dog budget seeks to do would not only, if adopted, 
reduce Social Security checks next year, but it would set the movement 
to try to responsibly reform the CPI back for years. We should only be 
tinkering with this measure of inflation after a technically competent 
group can arrive at some scientific measures of the most popular 
recognition of how we can more accurately assess the impact of 
inflation. To rely on a budget fix, not of a hundred million or a 
billion or $10 billion, but in excess of $50 billion with the CPI plug 
when we do not have the final analysis having been completed by either 
BLS or by the Senate Finance Committee's commission.
  We can wait and know that we have got the scientific efficacy, the 
legitimacy, to make this change. To arbitrarily make it in the form of 
legislation will, in my judgment, set back the cause of responsibly 
reforming the CPI.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond 
with regard to the CPI.
  Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole last September, in talking about the 
CPI, endorsing the reduction in the CPI, said, quote, ``It can only 
happen if we join hands. I think we ought to do it in a bipartisan way 
without taking political shots.'' Now that is a quote from the 
Washington Times, September 27.
  Also I would remind my colleagues that 11 Republican Senators have 
also proposed a CPI increase twice as high as that proposed in the blue 
dog budget.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] 
for yielding this time to me.
  I am pleased once again to join in supporting the bipartisan 
coalition balanced budget proposal. In contrast to both the Gingrich 
and the President's budget proposals, cuts in this budget are balanced 
in each year and achieve a zero deficit without resorting to 
unsustainable program cuts in the outyears and an ill-timed tax cut 
paid for with borrowed money.
  The coalition proposal is a honest compromise between the other two 
major proposals, and it contains policy recommendations that strengthen 
and preserve Medicare and Medicaid as well as critical investments in 
education, technology, and the environment.
  I support tax cuts including a capital gains tax cut, but they should 
be enacted and paid for in the context of overall tax reform when we 
can also simplify the tax system.
  If we are serious about deficit reduction, let us put spending cuts 
first. Let us put a plan on the table that asks the 104th Congress to 
make the same kind of hard decisions that we will ask of the 105th and 
106th Congresses.
  Vote for the coalition budget.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Louisiana [Mr. McCrery], a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to commend the authors of the coalition 
budget. It is an excellent budget. It is not the best budget on the 
floor today, but it is an excellent budget. If anyone doubts the 
positive impact on the budget process that the new Republican majority 
has had, they need only look at the offerings on the floor of the House 
of Representatives today and compare them with the offerings of just 3 
years ago. There is a marked distinction, a marked distinction in favor 
of future generations of Americans; in favor of dealing honestly with 
our Nation's fiscal problems.
  I want to commend those who have brought honest budgets to the floor 
today. I also know, however, that some of these same authors of the 
coalition budget just 3 years ago voted against a tax increase. They 
voted against President Clinton's tax increase. Yet, they stand on the 
floor today, just 3 years later, and say, ``Oh, well, we were against 
them then, but today we think they are okay.'' That is essentially what 
they are saying when they refuse to give back to the American people 
any portion of President Clinton's tax increase of 1993.
  The Republican budget gets back for the people less than half of the 
tax increase that was passed by one vote in this House 3 years ago. I 
do not think that is too much. I would like to do more. I would like to 
give more of that money that we took from the American people in 1993 
back to them, but at least we get a good start in the Republican 
budget.
  The coalition budget, as good as it is, taxes more and spends more. 
That is the key difference between their budget and the Republican 
budget. Please vote no on this coalition budget. Support the Republican 
budget.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the coalition 
budget, the fairest, most realistic, most achievable, and most 
responsible of the balanced budget plans before us.
  This plan meets the goals of both the President and the Republican 
leadership by balancing the budget within 6 years using the 
conservative economic assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office. 
But most importantly, this is a plan that is good for our economy and 
good for the American people because it preserves vital investments 
such as health care, medical and scientific research, education, and 
environmental protection.
  The coalition budget is superior to the other plans before us in many 
ways.
  First, it includes $137 billion more in deficit reduction than the 
Republican plan, leaving less debt to burden our economy and future 
generations. And it achieves more deficit reduction faster than the 
backloaded Republican plan, making it more likely that future

[[Page H5229]]

Congresses will stick to this plan and actually balance the budget.
  Second, the coalition budget extends the solvency of the Medicare 
trust fund without taking away senior citizens' choice of doctors, as 
the Republican plan would do. The coalition budget ensures adequate 
funding for medical education by providing dedicated funding from 
managed health care plans for this important purpose.
  Third, the coalition budget continues the guarantee of health care 
coverage for all current Medicaid beneficiaries and protects families 
from the devastating cost of long-term care.
  The coalition budget also sets the right investment priorities. It 
provides $45 billion more for education programs such as student loans, 
elementary and secondary education, Head Start, and job training. It 
provides $8.7 billion more for medical research at the National 
Institutes of Health and other agencies. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the 
coalition budget is the only budget proposal which achieves a balanced 
budget without shifting the tax burden. The Republican budget would 
increase taxes for families earning $28,000 or less and double flood 
insurance premiums for homeowners.
  Mr. Chairman, the coalition budget offers the best opportunity to put 
aside partisan politics and pass a commonsense balanced budget that is 
fair to the American people and good for our economy. I urge my 
colleagues to pass this budget, and I urge the President and the 
Republican leadership to come to agreement on a plan such as this.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Royce].
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, the reason we are fighting for a balanced 
budget is that it will allow young working families to save more of the 
money that they earn. It will boost the economy. It will increase their 
wages. The problem with the Clinton budget is that it taxes more and it 
spends more. And the problem with the Clinton budget is that it simply 
does not balance. It increases the deficit next year, and even more the 
year after that. That means more money out of the taxpayers' pockets.
  Our GOP budget ends three decades of reckless deficit spending and 
stops forcing our children to pay our bills. Currently, the Federal 
Government taxes and spends on programs that in many cases simply are 
not effective, and that is why we provide tax relief. That is why we 
reform welfare. That is why we are shifting power and money and 
influence out of Washington and giving it back to the people whose 
taxes it was paid with.
  For example, in this budget we terminate the Department of Energy and 
the Department of Commerce, chronically mismanaged agencies. We 
eliminate or privatize 130 wasteful or unnecessary Federal programs, 
saving more than $34 billion over 6 years. The Republican budget cuts 
corporate welfare, it implements the FAIR Act, taking us away from a 
command-control Federal farm program, and leading us back toward a more 
purely based market-based farm system.
  Last, Mr. Chairman, President Clinton's budget plan avoids making the 
hard choices. Of all the spending cuts he recommends, 64 percent take 
place in the last 2 years, after he is out of office. As has been 
pointed out, that is like trying to lose 50 pounds over 50 weeks and 
waiting until the last week to lose 49 pounds. It simply will not 
happen.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, we are in the strange position of all 
agreeing that we wish to balance the budget in 7 years, but then 
quibbling over some of the details, and also over the design. I think 
it is important to put in bold relief the difference between the 
coalition plan and the Republican plan and the President's plan.
  I think that perhaps nothing speaks more eloquently to this than the 
comments of the last speaker. That is, how much are we actually making 
in terms of sacrifices and cuts in these early years, when we are 
serving in Congress and we are answerable for our actions?
  I submit that both under the President's plan and under the 
Republican plan, we are being asked to postpone the tough decisions 
until later, when we are perhaps not even in office. It is not 
responsible, I submit, to take this attitude, but instead, we should 
ask that realistic cuts and sacrifices be made now, in 1996, 1997, 
1998. Under the Republican plan, approximately $90 billion of deficit 
reduction has to occur in the last 2 years.
  It is unrealistic to think this will happen. We all agree that we 
ought to be cutting taxes, but tragically, when we attempt to cut 
taxes, we borrow money to finance that cut. The Republican plan has 
$137 billion less deficit reduction than the coalition plan, as a 
result. I urge support for the coalition plan.

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds, 
just to point out to the gentleman that, of course, the administration 
and most of the Members of the majority were supporting a President's 
budget that would have spent $7 billion in 1996 more than what the 
Democrats spent in 1995.
  So in other words, the Democrats in the House essentially supported, 
not all but the greatest number of them, supported the President's 
proposal to increase Washington spending by $7 billion, discretionary 
spending by $7 billion over 1995 and 1996. We advocated making a 
reduction of somewhere over $23 billion, from 1995 and 1996. We ended 
up with $23 billion worth of savings in Washington spending, the single 
greatest amount of savings in at least the last 50 years.
  So to argue that our budget is backloaded is kind or absurd, because 
we have been able to force the greatest amount of savings in over 50 
years. We accomplished that just the opposite of what the 
administration wanted to do. We did not backload. We got in there in 
the very first year, I would say to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Sisisky], and we made the most significant downsizing of Washington 
spending and Washington bureaucracy since World War II.
  So let us not argue about who is doing the backloading. We are not 
doing any backloading. We are doing a lot of heavy lifting, and I want 
to compliment the House. There were only 32 votes against it, so we are 
in the midst of a real change in this city.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank my 
colleague, the gentleman from Utah, for yielding time to me, and for 
the good work he has done on the coalition budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to point out that the 
Republican budget that we are dealing with today is the same one that 
was tried as blackmail to force this President to sign priorities he 
disagreed with, and the American people disagreed with. It took two 
shutdowns of this Government to bring the Republican Members of 
Congress to their senses, so we could proceed with last year's budget.
  This budget, again, is a repeat. The poor, the sick, the elderly, our 
students, the environment, all, once again, face drastic cuts. The 
elderly and the disabled will no longer be guaranteed a minimum of 
medical care should they be unable to afford it because Medicaid would 
be block granted. Rural hospitals and rural medicine would suffer 
because of the Office of Rural Health is eliminated, on top of many new 
reductions in the Department of Agriculture's programs, that go well 
beyond the most recently passed farm bill.
  There is no question that the coalition budget is a much better way 
of balancing the budget. There are no cuts in education or student 
loans. Medicare and Medicaid growth is controlled, as it must be, but 
not ruthlessly slashed. The coalition budget not only balances by the 
year 2002, it creates a surplus. It starts doling out whatever medicine 
we must take now, gradually reducing the deficit over the 7-year 
period, rather than plusing up spending, as the Republican budget does, 
in a way that makes it questionable as to whether we will ever get to 
the other end of this road we must travel.
  There is no question that the honest and up front approach has been 
taken by the coalition. It should serve as a basis for agreement, no 
only in this Congress, before we end our deliberations, but I would 
hope in the next Congress, when a new majority takes control. Again, I 
want to thank those

[[Page H5230]]

who have worked so hard and showed courage in breaking new ground, 
particularly on the issue of cost-of-living adjustments.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah for 
yielding time to me, and I also want to commend him on his work. I rise 
not as a member of the Blue Dogs, but I rise as a Member who thinks 
that the proposal that is authorized by the coalition indeed is a 
strong proposal, and in fact is the strongest one we have.
  I also rise as one who thinks all three alternatives really are 
better than the Republican party's, because they, indeed, balance the 
priorities of this Nation. So I am pleased to say I am an advocate and 
supporter of a balanced budget, but I am even more pleased to say I am 
supporting a balanced budget that makes tough choices and shared 
sacrifices across the board, and it does it not at the expense of the 
poor or the expense of the working American.
  Again, all three substitute budgets make clear the programs and 
policies do support the average American citizen. The coalition budget 
protects and preserves these fundamental values that make America 
strong. At the same time, it does not increase the tax burden, as, 
indeed, the Republican party does, and it does it at the expense of the 
poor, and the working Americans, when they say cuts, which, indeed, has 
been the motto for the Republican Party.
  I think the coalition budget also has taken a strong position in 
saying all of us must make sacrifices, those who are senior citizens as 
well as the rest of America, but it does it in the most appropriate 
way. There are those who would like to demagog those taking this 
courageous step. I think they need to be complimented.
  Yes; I would emphasize, all three substitutes are better than the 
Republican party's. I urge my colleague to reject the Republican 
party's alternative and vote strongly for the resolution that the 
coalition has put before us.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about 
welfare spending. Welfare spending is so huge it is tough to 
comprehend. One way to put it, though, is this.
  On average the cost of the welfare system amounted to $3,300 for each 
household that paid Federal income tax in the year 1993. That means the 
first $3,300 of taxes from that household went into the welfare system 
black hole. I am sorry, but that is a lot of money for a Federal 
bureaucracy that has simply failed every American.
  Mr. Chairman, some studies show that for every dollar that is spent 
in the current welfare system, 70 cents of that dollar is wasted on the 
Federal Government bureaucracy. That is not compassion, I would argue. 
The money in our Federal welfare system needs to go to those folks who 
really need it, not a bureaucrat inside the beltway.
  Let us talk a moment about compassion, because many of the liberal 
Members seem to have a distorted sense of what that term means when it 
comes to our Nation's failed welfare policies. More taxes do not equal 
more compassion.
  Is it compassionate to continue with the status quo that for the last 
three generations has only served to strip women and children of their 
dignity? I do not think so. Is it compassionate to prolong a system 
that encourages destructive behavior and greater illegitimacy plus 
little incentive to go to work? I do not think so. Is it compassionate 
to maintain a system that traps so many children in such a poor 
environment that it exposes them to higher rates of domestic abuse, 
higher rates of violent crime, and inadequate educational 
opportunities, so that some children never during the course of their 
lifetime have within their family a role model who holds a job? I do 
not think so.
  Republicans say no. In fact, our current welfare system is anything 
but compassionate in reality. It is destructive. Most Americans on 
welfare want to go to work, but as long as the Government offers them a 
better deal to stay dependent and makes it tougher to move off welfare, 
many of them will stay on welfare. That is not compassionate.
  Our proposal will bypass this outdated bureaucracy at the Federal 
level and it will funnel money more directly to the people who so 
desperately need it. Our proposal will shift the Government's current 
destructive incentives to incentives that promote marriage and work. 
And our proposal will remove the Federal Government as a surrogate 
parent and enable people to take personal responsibility for their 
lives.
  Republicans want to help people break the cycle of poverty that holds 
down families and children of America. That is compassion. I encourage 
my colleagues to vote down the blue dog budget and to vote for the 
Republican budget that funds $6 million in child care, that goes after 
deadbeat parents, and that sends our welfare tax dollars back to the 
States and to the people who need it.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit].
  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the coalition budget, 
I ask all my colleagues to vote for it, and I commend the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Orton] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] for 
the work they have done.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, let me just thank my friend from 
Utah for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, could the gentlewoman from Washington tell us what she 
means about the liberals, the so-called liberals having a distorted 
sense of compassion? Maybe being from Georgia, I do not quite really 
understand what ``distortion'' means.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes to simply say 
that to try to combine both balancing the budget and tax cuts will 
guarantee neither and probably prevent either. In an effort to 
guarantee both, last year the budget contained the provision called 
``Tax Reduction Contingent on Balanced Budget,'' but this year they 
even refuse to include those guarantees. Why? Because they promise tax 
cuts which the Joint Committee says will cost almost $216 billion but 
only provide numbers in the budget for $122 billion. That is not truth-
in-budgeting. The Republican plan is apparently to bring a tax cut 
package first, an obvious benefit in an election year, and then 
separately try to change entitlements. This is the same approach used 
in the 1980's when deficits quadrupled the debt to over $4 trillion.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the coalition plan 
which is the only plan which does not borrow money. I would just point 
out that the $122 billion of tax cuts is borrowed money. We are going 
to borrow money from future generations to pay it back to today's 
generation in a tax cut that people say they would rather use the money 
to balance the budget.
  I urge my colleagues to support the coalition budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the coalition 
budget, and think it would be helpful if all of us lowered the tones of 
our voices and stuck a little bit more to the facts before us.
  The coalition budget differs from the majority budget in that we do 
not borrow $137 billion in order to grant all of us who need it a tax 
cut. The chart to my right shows the difference. The orange and the 
yellow lines are the difference between the majority's views of what 
the deficit ought to look like in 2002, the White House opinion of what 
it ought to be, and what the coalition believes that it ought to be.
  I for one accept, and I believe I speak for every single Member that 
supports the coalition budget on both sides of

[[Page H5231]]

the aisle, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] that said 
we should stop talking about cutting, in this case the accusation from 
a few of the extremists on this side of the aisle that said we are 
cutting Social Security. We ought not to be saying that because that is 
not true, and we know it, and the two freshman Members that made that 
statement know better.
  Now the end of that. I commend my colleagues on this side for saying 
that and helping set the record straight. No one is proposing cutting 
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. But what we are talking about 
doing, and there are differences of opinion, and members of the 
coalition, myself in particular, have major differences with the 
majority and how they choose to adjust Medicare and Medicaid. But we 
are getting very close on welfare reform, and the beautiful speech we 
heard a moment ago, we are there, folks, we are there. Why we keep 
talking about that, I do not know.
  But I have to say, and I will be happy to yield at any time to anyone 
on this side that challenges anything that I am saying in the few 
seconds I have got remaining, because representing a rural area, I 
object strenuously to cutting 56 percent of the remaining discretionary 
spending for agriculture in rural America. That is not the farm 
program. We took care of that. Fifty-six percent.
  The gentleman and the party now that suggest that we ought to 
eliminate 100 percent of the research on fossil fuels, at a time we are 
complaining about the price of gasoline, I say makes no sense 
whatsoever. So I differ with your policies in that regard, and let us 
debate those policies on the floor. But let us quit making accusations. 
There is bipartisan support for education, there is bipartisan support 
for meaningful health care.
  What we suggest in the coalition budget is that we ought to be honest 
going into it and say if we are going to be for it, speak for it, we 
ought to budget for it, not come on the floor of the House and make 
some of the speeches that we have heard here today. That is not 
helpful.
  But I want to say, in fairness and in closing, I appreciate the tenor 
of most of the debate that has come from this side today. It is 
helpful. And I appreciate my colleagues on our side for supporting this 
budget, and I urge its passage. It could be the most positive step 
forward for this Congress in dealing with the very real problems that 
both sides say that we need to address.
  Ms. FURSE. I rise today during consideration of House Concurrent 
Resolution 178 to support of the coalition balanced budget plan. As 
someone who strongly supports balancing the budget, there are aspects 
to each proposal with which I disagree. After evaluating each approach, 
I support the coalition budget because it is fiscally conservative and 
socially responsible. It is a common sense approach that both Democrats 
and Republicans can support.
  We need a balanced budget plan that emphasizes security in our 
communities and families. I believe the Republican balanced budget plan 
of last year was rightly rejected by the public and deserved the 
President's veto. Simply put, it is wrong to ask seniors and students 
to pay more while giving the Pentagon a $70 billion boost.
  I believe the Black Caucus budget has the best priorities, because it 
cuts wasteful Pentagon spending by over $250 billion. Moreover, the 
Black Caucus budget makes education and our communities a priority. 
Unfortunately, it goes beyond simply cutting corporate welfare and 
dramatically increases taxes.
  The coalition balanced budget is a common sense budget. It balances 
the budget through tough spending cuts, without raising taxes, but 
maintains our priorities. There are no education cuts in the coalition 
plan. It reforms Medicaid, but does not eliminate health care 
guarantees for children and pregnant women. It makes important changes 
in the welfare system, but does not punish children for the actions of 
their parents. It also emphasizes community health and other 
protections.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, it is plain wrong to make seniors and students 
pay more to hand out tax cuts for the rich. We should make balancing 
the budget our number one priority--that is what the coalition budget 
does. This is the second year in a row that I have supported the 
coalition balanced budget plan, and hope we can pass it before the end 
of the year.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, no matter how you address the 
issue, the coalition budget is far and away, more beneficial and less 
extreme than the bombastic Republican budget. This Republican budget 
continues the policies of wanton destruction of this Nation's 
environment, human capital, and technological infrastructure.
  May I remind my colleagues that absolutely none of the deficit 
reduction attempts being attempted would have been possible without the 
previous efforts of both Presidents Bush and Clinton. Regardless of 
what my Republican colleagues will tell you, getting toward a balanced 
budget is neither a new or distinctly Republican idea--it is an 
American idea. However, it is an idea which must be achieved through 
thoughtful and careful policies designed to make the taxpayers' money 
work harder without destroying the social and technological progress 
that this Nation has built, and the coalition budget does this.
  As an example, the members of the Science Committee soundly rejected 
last year, the privatization of the Department of Energy's National 
Laboratories. We did so because Republicans and Democrats alike 
understood how important these precious national resources are. Mr. 
Kasich and his Republican colleagues obviously do not, since they would 
carelessly sell off these irreplaceable technological jewels to the 
highest bidder. It is clear that they were thinking no farther ahead 
than November 2, and their desire for a political trophy.
  Mr. Chairman, I would venture to say that those proposing the 
coalition budget are even more serious about deficit reduction than the 
Republican proposal. The coalition budget cuts the deficit without tax 
cuts. The coalition budget cuts the deficit while spending more on 
education, economic development, and scientific research. They can do 
this because this budget postpones tax cuts until after the budget has 
been balanced.
  The world is not the simplistic place that Republicans in this House 
would have us believe. It is a pool of economic sharks. In the globally 
competitive environment that American businesses and their employees 
are in today, the only way to survive and prosper is through investing 
in the things which drive the engine of economic growth: education, 
research and development, training and economic development. In our 
collective haste toward a zero deficit, let us not eat our children's 
seed-corn. Let us not leave them with a deficiency of educated workers, 
a paucity of new technology and an abundance of sick elderly and low-
income citizens.
  Cutting the deficit is not painless, but the coalition budget is far 
more reasonable and far more careful about how it applies this pain. 
The coalition budget is far more concerned about changing, but keeping 
viable, this country's safety net of Medicare, Medicaid and welfare.
  Those supporting the Republican budget speak frequently of saving the 
future for our children and our children's children, but what future 
will they have living in a polluted environment? Throughout their 
tenure as the majority, the Republicans have fought an unyielding war 
against the environment. A leopard cannot change its spots and 
regardless of how many zoos the Speaker visits and how many nature 
walks Republican freshmen take, their record and their budget speak for 
themselves. It is only due to the cries and raised voices of anger 
against the Republican antienvironment agenda that they seemed to have 
changed their colors, but we know that the special interests are giving 
heavily in this campaign season and eventually we will see those 
environment-destroying policies surface yet again.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for this coalition budget and keep intact 
our children's true future, the one of continued technological 
advancement, economic leadership, environmental stewardship and a 
balanced Federal budget.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the budget 
resolution introduced by the coalition to balance the budget by the 
year 2002, and salute my coalition colleagues for presenting a 
responsible, viable plan that meets the needs of our Nation today and 
our collective future.
  I oppose provisions of the Republican budget that assume dramatic and 
detrimental changes in Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and the earned 
income tax credit--all in the name of increased defense spending and 
tax breaks which we cannot afford. Block grants, medical savings 
accounts, higher Medicare premiums, increasing taxes on the working 
poor, eliminating guaranteed healthcare for children, women, and 
seniors, and denying benefits to legal immigrants are not solutions to 
our country's financial crisis.
  This proposal maintains basic human services at adequate levels. The 
coalition budget does not eliminate bilingual education programs or the 
direct lending program for student loans. Nor does it privatize the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I believe the Republican cuts to 
these programs would harm children, our future, and I oppose them.
  Further, the Republican budget does not adequately protect our 
natural resources and

[[Page H5232]]

the environment, reducing funding for these programs by 10 percent. The 
Department of Energy and its key research programs on alternative 
fuels, clean coal technology, and renewable energy would be eliminated. 
The coalition proposal freezes funding for natural resources and the 
environment at levels that are adequate to maintain the progress we 
have made in cleaning up our air, water, and land.
  Under the Republican budget, the important work of the National 
Institutes of Health would be endangered. Just recently, scientists 
have found the gene that causes breast cancer, and they are hopeful 
that this information will help them develop a cure for the disease. 
Now is not the time to decrease funds for this type of research. The 
coalition budget includes an additional $8.7 billion for this and other 
health research functions.
  Budgets always lack something. Neither includes a targeted capital 
gains tax cut, which I believe is critical to sustaining and increasing 
the level of economic growth we have enjoyed in this country. The 
Republican budget pays lipservice to capital gains by indicating that 
such a tax cut may be possible, but only if offsets can be found in the 
Tax Code. However, their budget resolution does not assume a capital 
gains tax cut. And it is clear that under the Republican proposal, 
there is not enough left over from savings over the 6 years to pay for 
such a tax cut.
  There is a need to permanently extend the research and development 
tax credit. Our country's leadership in high technology will wither if 
we do not reward our companies for investment in research and 
development of new products. These provisions, coupled with the 
Republicans proposal to eliminate the Department of Commerce, will 
sound a death-knell for our country's preeminence in the high 
technology arena.
  The coalition's budget is the most viable approach to deficit 
reduction, toward a balanced budget by 2002, with some tough medicine, 
and a recognition that we can retain investments in our people, and not 
abandon our principles to do so.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the coalition budget.
  The coalition budget is a fair and steady approach toward a balanced 
budget in 2002.
  It adds $137 billion less than the Republican plan to the debt 
because it does not delay the majority of the spending cuts to the last 
2 years.
  The resolutions before us today are just numbers, but attached to 
these numbers are fundamental policy assumptions.
  While it is encouraging to see the Republicans abandon some of the 
extreme cuts in last year's budget and bring their numbers closer to 
the coalition's budget, they retain many of the same dangerous and 
radical policy assumptions.
  The Republicans offer $168 billion in Medicare savings, while the 
coalition plan offers $146 billion in savings.
  The differences, however, are more than the $21 billion would 
suggest.
  The coalition budget achieves greater savings from means-testing the 
Medicare part B premium for upper income beneficiaries by using 
existing methods to collect the premiums. The Republican proposal 
assumes essentially the same provider cuts that were contained in the 
reconciliation bill that was vetoed last year.
  Both proposals provide Medicare beneficiaries with increased choice 
of private options. The coalition budget, however, protects seniors in 
rural and other under-served areas and protects seniors from managed 
care plans charging beneficiaries additional amounts beyond the part B 
premium.
  It also appropriately limits the radical medical savings account 
proposal to a demonstration program.
  The $2 billion difference between the Republican $72 billion cut and 
the coalition's $70 billion cut from Medicaid masks the fact that the 
Republican plan permits States to cut their Medicaid funding by an 
additional $178 billion, seriously undermining our commitment to the 
poor, the disabled, and the elderly.
  We can cut Medicaid growth without eliminating the guaranteed 
coverage to the poor, the disabled, and the elderly, and the coalition 
budget does.
  We can balance the budget without eliminating the Departments of 
Commerce and Energy; and the coalition budget does so.
  We can save $42 billion from welfare programs while at the same time 
meet the Governors' request for providing adequate funding child care 
so that the parents can return to work.
  We can reduce fraud in the earned income tax credit without imposing 
a tax increase of $20 billion on the working poor.
  Mr. Speaker for the those and a host of other reasons I urge my 
colleagues to reject the Republican budget and support the coalition 
budget.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A record vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 130, 
noes 295, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 177]

                               AYES--130

     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Cramer
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Furse
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennelly
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Leach
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Towns
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--295

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)

[[Page H5233]]


     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Ehlers
     Ford
     Hayes
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Paxon
     Talent

                              {time}  1415

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Miller of California for, with Mr. Paxon against.

  Messrs. EVERETT, MOAKLEY, HORN, and SERRANO, and Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MATSUI changed his 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.

                              {time}  1415

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendment designated 
in paragraph 3 of section 2 of House Resolution 435.


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

  Mr. SABO. 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. 
     Sabo:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1997.

       The Congress determines and declares that the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997 is hereby 
     established and that the appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,092,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,146,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,195,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,244,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,309,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,389,900,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: -$7,929,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: -$2,150,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: -$2,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: -$7,219,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$1,721,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $16,024,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,325,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,374,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,413,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,454,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,496,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,528,300,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,321,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,375,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,408,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,447,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,466,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,498,400,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $228,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $229,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $212,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $202,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $156,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $108,500,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,441,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,713,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,964,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,204,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,395,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,542,900,000,000.
       (6) Direct loan obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $45,451,000,000.
       (7) Primary loan guarantee commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $172,005,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee commitments 
     for fiscal years 1996 through 2002 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $254,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $260,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $229,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $263,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $263,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $279,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $266,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $287,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $278,200,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,067,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $18,624,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,300,000,00.
       (B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,600,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,620,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,100,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $36,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,600,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,100,000,000.

[[Page H5234]]

       (C) New direct loan obligations, $7,605,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $8,150,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,536,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $97,707,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $415,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $571,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,300,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,952,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,885,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,300,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $21,770,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $19,114,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,400,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $136,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $140,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $144,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $144,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $151,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $151,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $158,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $159,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $164,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $163,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $176,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $174,600,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $193,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $191,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $209,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $207,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $222,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $220,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $236,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $234,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $252,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $250,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $272,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $269,900,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $231,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $239,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $244,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $247,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $271,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $280,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $292,900,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,800,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,344,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $24,548,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,800,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,000,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.

[[Page H5235]]

       (B) Outlays, $15,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,000,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $289,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $289,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $293,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $293,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $301,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $301,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $307,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $307,500,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $106,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$12,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$16,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,800,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$43,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$43,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$35,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$35,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$35,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$35,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$41,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$62,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$62,200,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Not later than June 21, 1996, the House committees 
     named in subsection (b) shall submit their recommendations to 
     the House Committee on the Budget. After receiving those 
     recommendations, the House Committee on the Budget shall 
     report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all 
     such recommendations without any substantive revision.
       (b)(1) The House Committee on Agriculture shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce outlays, as follows: 
     $2,062,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, 
     $14,816,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2001, 
     and $18,457,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 
     2002.
       (2) The House Committee on Banking and Financial Services 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending sufficient to reduce outlays, as 
     follows: $3,346,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, 
     $2,755,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2001, 
     and $3,143,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 
     2002.
       (3) The House Committee on Commerce shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     sufficient to reduce outlays, as follows: $5,717,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1997, $128,862,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1997 through 2001, and $207,698,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (4) The House Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to 
     reduce outlays, as follows: $633,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1997, $4,923,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1997 through 2001, and $6,040,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1997 through 2002.
       (5) The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending sufficient to reduce outlays, as 
     follows: $840,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, 
     $7,236,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2001, 
     and $9,086,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 
     2002.
       (6) The House Committee on the Judiciary shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: 
     $51,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, and reduce 
     outlays by $84,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 
     through 2001, and $147,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1997 through 2002.
       (7) The House Committee on National Security shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce outlays, as follows: 
     $79,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $472,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2001, and $1,753,000,000 
     in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (8) The House Committee on Resources shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     sufficient to reduce outlays, as follows: $112,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1997, $372,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1997 through 2001, and $391,000,000 in outlays 
     in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (9) The House Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to 
     reduce outlays, as follows: $42,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 1997, $255,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 
     through 2001, and $363,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1997 through 2002.
       (10) The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce outlays, as follows: 
     $148,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $3,870,000,000 
     in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2001, and 
     $5,284,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (11) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to 
     increase the deficit, as follows: by $1,024,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1997, and decrease the deficit by $64,619,000,000 in 
     fiscal years 1997 through 2001, and by $117,820,000,000 in 
     fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (c) Definition.--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.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Sabo] and the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass] will each control 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, one is always faced with choice, and alternatives are 
never as perfect as one would like them. I was a strong supporter of 
the coalition budget, which was just, I think unfortunately, defeated 
on the House floor. That was my preference as the best way to achieve a 
balanced budget. Now I offer another alternative, the budget as 
presented by the President of the United States.
  As an alternative to the Republican proposal, it is clearly far 
superior for a number of reasons. It does balance in 6 years, as scored 
by CBO; but, more important, it makes very fundamental reforms in how 
we run numerous governmental programs but is still fair to 
beneficiaries.
  It does make fundamental changes in Medicare but does it in a fashion 
that does not do long-term damage to the program like those proposed by 
the Republican majority. It makes fundamental change in reform of 
Medicaid in a way to save money for both the Federal and State and 
local governments, but it still continues to assure adequate health 
care for the vulnerable, elderly, disabled, and children in our 
society.
  It has fiscal restraints as it relates to discretionary spending, but 
still provides the opportunity to invest in education and training, 
research and development, and investing in the basic infrastructure of 
this country.
  It reforms welfare in a fashion that is tough on work, not tough on 
kids.
  So, Mr. Chairman, at this point, I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote for 
the President's budget as an alternative that is clearly superior for 
the American public and for the future of our economy to the proposal 
of the Republican majority.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I would hope that Members would look very carefully at what they have 
in the budget that is before them now; that is the President's budget. 
Because the fact is that this is, indeed, a UFO budget.
  Our friend, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, has said on 
a number of occasions that when they took a poll some time back they 
found that among young people more of them believed in UFO's than 
believed they would ever collect Social Security and Medicare because 
they thought the whole process was breaking down.
  Obviously, the administration took that poll to heart and designed a 
budget around the UFO philosophy, because

[[Page H5236]]

what they have here is a budget that has unidentified spending cuts in 
it, that has a family tax increase in it, and it has ominously higher 
deficits in 1997 and 1998.
  Now, think about this for a moment. They come to us today with a 
budget that, first of all, suggests that it is in balance while at the 
end of the process, in the year 2002, they have huge, tens of billions 
of dollars of money they do not identify in terms of spending cuts.

  The gentleman from Minnesota just told us that they will protect 
education and research and training. How do we know? There are massive 
spending cuts that are not identified in this budget. It is not real.
  There is a tax increase in here. If we take the CBO estimates and we 
take them out to the year 2002, what we find is it takes $16 billion of 
unspecified taxes in order to balance the budget. That is $16 billion 
of a middle class tax increase.
  So the American families are now being treated to the specter of 
people saying they are going to cut spending but, in the meantime, what 
are they doing? They are raising taxes.
  And, finally, Mr. Chairman, if we believe they are going to balance 
the budget, how do we get along with this idea that in the President's 
budget the deficits go up in 1997 and 1998? That is true. Now, he 
claims what he is doing is having us on a downward slope toward a 
balanced budget. But, instead, in 1997 and 1998, where do the deficits 
go? The deficits go up, not down.
  If we were the American people sitting out there, would we believe 
that the deficits can go up and still balance the budget? I do not 
think so.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the President says he wants a balanced budget, but in 
reality he has not produced one. He says he wants to lower the deficit 
year after year, and as we just heard, he does not do that either. And 
the President has said that he wants to save Medicare, at least on 
occasion, and end welfare as we know it, and that does not happen.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the President's budget 
is a budget of assumptions, it is a budget of hunches, it is a budget 
of nonspecifics, it is a budget based on if's; what if this happens, 
what if that happens.
  The Republican budget is a concrete budget that returns power, 
influence and money back to the people of this country. It is a budget 
that gives a reasonable tax cut to working Americans, and this is in 
contrast to the President's budget that does none of this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Shadegg].
  (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, there is a stark contrast between the 
Republican budget and the President's budget on one issue. On the issue 
of tax cuts there is a clear and flagrant difference.
  The Republicans give real, meaningful tax cuts. The President gives 
essentially no tax cuts and, indeed, in the last year of his budget he 
raises taxes by $14 billion just to bring, by smoke and mirrors, his 
budget into balance at the last minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I make no apology for arguing for tax cuts. We 
Republicans trust Americans to spend their money more wisely than we 
do. But let us talk about that issue. We are here concerned about the 
deficit and the debt.
  The truth is we have an anemic economy growing at 2 percent a year. 
Historically our economy has grown over the last 30 years at 3.6 
percent. Now it is growing at only 2 percent. If we could enact the tax 
cuts that President Clinton vetoed, we could unleash this economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a budget 
that stops the situation where Americans pay more in food and clothing 
than they do in taxes.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
   Mr. Chairman, I will not vote for the President's budget, but I will 
tell my colleagues one thing: This President has brought the budget 
deficit down. This President, contrary to Mr. Bush, contrary to Mr. 
Reagan, who in 1981 said, ``If you will only adopt my tax cut, things 
are going to be rosy.'' They were rosy, all right, all red. All red. 
All deficits.
  I voted for the coalition budget because I thought it was real. The 
Republican budget is not real. The President, this President, has 
already brought the budget deficit down 3 years in the running, the 
first time that has been done since Harry Truman. It will be a 4th year 
by my Republican colleagues' figures and our figures, which will be the 
first time in this century that the budget deficit has come down 4 
years running.
  President Clinton did it because he had the courage to put forth an 
economic program in 1993 that was real. It was not easy, but it was 
real, and none on the Republican side voted for it, so they cannot take 
credit for bringing the deficit down. All they can take credit for is 
putting it up $4 trillion.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
   Mr. Chairman, in 1981 we had similar supply-side economics as the 
majority is projecting today. In 1981 we were told that by 1984 the 
budget would be in balance. Instead, we had a deficit of $175 billion.
  When we were told we should cut taxes and something good would happen 
to the deficit, instead it exploded. Spending exploded under the Reagan 
program and the deficit went to $175 billion, under the same theory 
that the majority leadership has today.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Hefner].
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I have heard many times here today and on 
television in the last few days that the President raised taxes, the 
biggest taxes raised in history. That is not true, but we will not 
debate that at this time.
  Every Member in this body had more people getting a tax cut under the 
President's 1993 package than had an increase. In the 8th District of 
North Carolina, 1,100 people had a tax increase and 54,000 people had a 
tax cut because of the EITC, the Earned Income Tax Credit, which the 
majority is going to do away with in this budget. They are going to 
practically do away with that. If a taxpayer makes $20,000 a year and 
does not have any children, they will not get any tax relief. So much 
for the middle income folks.
  Let me tell Members this. Here is what we have done, and I am 
speaking about ``we'' because we are all Americans. Since President 
Clinton has been President, we have created 8 million new jobs. People 
say the President created those jobs, but they were created in the 
United States of America. We have lowered interest rates and produced 
the lowest combined rate of unemployment since 1968.
  I was at a reception last night for a group of people that are not 
Democratic supporters, and one of the gentlemen was in the furniture 
business. I said, ``How has business been in the past 3\1/2\ years?'' 
He said, ``It has been the best it has ever been since I have been in 
business.'' And this is a family business. ``I have made more money in 
the last 3\1/2\ years than I have ever made in business.''
  Now, the same people that are coming here today to tell us how great 
this Republican package is and how bad the 1993 package was, let me 
just read some of the statements that were being made when we were 
considering the President's package back in 1993.

                              {time}  1430

  In 1993, the Speaker of the House said: The tax increase will kill 
jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off 
of work and on to unemployment and will actually increase the deficit.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. What, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. HEFNER. That was the Speaker of the House, distinguished 
Representative Newt Gingrich. The President, the chairman of the Budget 
Committee in the other body, said April fool, America. This Clinton 
budget plan will not create jobs, will not grow the economy, and will 
not reduce the deficit. These are not my words. It was said in the 
Dallas Morning News.
  Our distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget, who is a

[[Page H5237]]

very dear friend of mine, made these statements: We are going to find 
out whether we have higher deficits. We are going to find out whether 
we have a slower economy. We are going to find out what is going to 
happen to interest rates, and it is our opinion that this budget is a 
killer.
  He goes on to say the Democrats have a job-killer program. It is like 
a snake bite. The venom is going to be injected into the body of this 
economy in our judgment, and it is going to spread throughout the body 
and is going to begin to kill the jobs that Americans now have.
  And it goes on and on. I could give other names: Dick Armey, Connie 
Mack, Congressman Dornan, Wally Herger, Joel Hefley, Charles Grassley, 
Jim Bunning, John Chafee, Joseph Knollenberg, Jim Ramstad, and it goes 
on and on and on.
  Mr. SABO. If the gentleman would continue to yield, has the deficit 
not gone down?
  Mr. HEFNER. Yes.
  We have created 8 million new jobs. The deficit is down. They have 
continued to go down for 3 years, on the 4th year of a downward trend 
on the deficit. It will go down even more this year than it would if we 
pass this Republican so-called family friendly budget that is going to 
help the middle class.
  This budget was a sham when it was projected a few months ago. It is 
a sham today and I do not blame Bob Dole from disengaging from this 
process that the Republicans are putting forward.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds only to say that the 
reason the deficit went down is that the President of the United States 
and the Democrats in Congress enacted the largest tax increase in 
American history.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Kolbe].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to two of the points made by the 
previous speaker. First of all, he said that not only was the earned 
income tax credit being cut. We have heard that one before. He said it 
was practically being dismantled.
  Now, I know the gentleman from North Carolina has been around 
Washington a lot longer than I have. Maybe that is part of the problem 
here. This is how much has been spent in the last 6 years on the earned 
income tax credit. This is how much, $109 billion; $155 billion would 
be spent in the next 6 years.
  Mr. Chairman, that is dismantling the EITC? I do not think so. But 
only in Washington-speak, only those people that have been around here 
all the time and only think of everything when it doubles every year 
think that we are actually cutting or dismantling the earned income tax 
credit.
  On the second point, as far as the deficit is concerned, I would 
point out that President Bush, the Congressional Budget Office under a 
Democratic Congress, a Democratic administration, proposed in a 
Republican administration, said that the deficit was going to go down 
each of the succeeding years after 1992. The President's budget 
starting in 1993 showed deficits that stretched into infinity.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick].
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, our budget shows our trust in the American 
people to make their own decisions. We want to let them control their 
money and design programs that will solve the problems at home. I know 
firsthand that the local people can be trusted to do this. You know, 
when I was Mayor, we did not hold our hand out to the Federal 
Government. We simply went ahead, worked together to move people off of 
the Federal dependency and into self-sufficiency.
  We got a lot of ideas for others to follow, like a public housing 
venture that literally moves people out of public housing and into home 
ownership. We have a housing partnership that last year built 119 
homes, sold those homes, and 65 of those homes were sold to people who 
had previously been in public housing.
  We started a homeless shelter with private community support that in 
the last 2 years has put over 500 men back into the workplace. We have 
coordinated job training program that actually does help young people, 
not only with training but puts them into their first job. We are 
turning lives around one at a time and it works. It works because we 
work together to help people achieve self-sufficiency and because we 
can tailor the program to fit the need.
  Our budget allows communities all over America to use their ingenuity 
and help to do their own programs to solve their own problems, and it 
works so much better than a bureaucrat in Washington, DC, trying to 
tell them how to do it.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I have been here for 20 years, and I have 
seen a lot of budgets. Each year that I vote on budgets, I have not 
found one yet that I can agree with 100 percent. But this time, and 
basically that is why I voted for the coalition budget, because there 
was only one item in there that I disagreed with. Now I am faced, like 
every Member of this House is faced, with a prospect that if we do not 
pass the President's budget, which I do not agree with on certain 
things, all I have got left is this monstrosity that the majority has 
presented to us that will ruin rural America.
  I have no choice. I do not think anybody in this House has any 
choice. The only alternative I have is the President's budget, and it 
is a whole lot better than what I see coming from them. What does it 
do? Well, it protects and provides funds for education, which is big 
for my district and the United States of America. It provides for 
medicare. It does not make those reductions that they make in medicare 
and medicaid, which will devastate my rural hospitals.
  I am from a rural district. yes, this is going to mean closings. My 
hospital association says it means closing within 5 years of some of my 
rural hospitals. What does that do? I guess they can go out and find 
the money and provide for the hospitals. Sorry, folks, it is not going 
to work that way. The President's budget provides for environment, 
rural development, and it is balanced. yes, in the same period of time, 
it is a balanced budget.
  Although I do not believe we should do tax cuts until we have a 
balanced budget, and I firmly believe that, that is one of the areas I 
disagree with the President's budget, but I can vote on that as a later 
issue.
  So I am asking the Members of this House, if they do not want to take 
the radical approach, you know, I heard two Members of that opposite 
party last month when I was talking federalism with them, said the 
Federal Government should do two things: Defend our shores and deliver 
the mail. They were not so sure about delivering the mail. Think about 
that. That is radical, just defend our shores and do nothing else.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Graham].
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  If there is a young person who, for whatever reason, missed school 
today and is sitting, listening to this debate, let me tell them why I 
think their country is in such debt and why I think the President's 
budget does not help a whole lot. The deficit is about $150 billion. 
There is a thing called the national debt that, as I speak, is 
$5,098,866,418,898. It is worth $19,250 for every man, woman, child in 
America.
  The reason that we got a $5 trillion debt is because entitlement 
spending in this country has gone through the roof, and both parties 
are sitting here yelling at each other about who caused the problem. In 
my opinion, both parties have let the entitlements grow to the point 
that they are 50 percent of the budget. When we add the interest 
element to the equation, 67 percent of the Federal budget is on auto 
pilot. If you want us to balance the budget, please make us change the 
reason Medicare has grown 2,200 percent since 1980. If you want to free 
America up, balance the budget and help people, please change welfare 
so the average person does not stay on it 10 years. If you want us to 
do something about education in your State, please make us

[[Page H5238]]

change Medicaid so it does not grow at 19 percent a year and takes 
money away from the State to run its education program just to get 
health care dollars.
  President Clinton's budget has no entitlement reforms. It does not 
address why we are in debt. It does not change any of the reasons that 
led to every man, woman, and child owing $19,000 today. If you want us 
to change America, let us give choices and get government back home.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We are still talking here today about the need to balance the budget, 
to reduce the burden on future generations. That is important, and I 
certainly concur with that belief. But I think it is very important too 
that we protect future generations and ensure that a good quality of 
life is going to be available to our grandchildren as was available to 
us.
  The Republican budget resolution does not adhere to this principle. 
The amendment before us now, which incorporates President Clinton's 6-
year balanced budget plan, will continue to invest in our children. It 
will provide quality, affordable health care to our senior citizens and 
the disabled, provide tax incentives targeted to the middle class and 
stimulate further economic growth and development.
  The choice before us is simple: We either invest now in critical 
programs aimed at improving the quality and standard of living in the 
United States, programs like education, community development, 
biomedical research, national assistance, public safety, small business 
development, trade promotion, clean air and clean water, and so forth. 
Or we can refuse to meet the basic responsibilities of the Federal 
Government and turn our backs on the most vulnerable, the senior 
citizen, the children, the disabled, and the poor.
  I support investing in the future, and I will support the Sabo 
amendment. I urge my colleagues too, as well. I hope you would 
carefully review this proposal because many of the policy assumptions 
that were included in the budget have always enjoyed bipartisan 
support. The budget, as I stated before, it balanced. It includes real 
middle-class tax cuts without adding to the deficit or without using 
Medicare cuts to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
  It includes a proposal to give premium subsidies to individuals who 
lose their health insurance when they lose their jobs. It also assumes 
real increases in biomedical research, maintains a strong commitment to 
civilian research and development, increases our investment again in 
our children in education. It also calls for the restoration of tax 
fairness by targeting tax relief to the real middle class, and the 
amendment assumes the deduction for qualifying. This is most important. 
The deduction of $5,000 a year to educate and training expenses in 
1996, 1997, and 1998 and in 1999 raises it to $10,000.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  At times I am asked, ``What's the hardest part of being a 
Congressman?'' I could easily talk about the grueling schedule or the 
complexity of legislation or the fact that we live in glass houses--or 
maybe the answer for many of us has to do with how hard it is to be 
missing in action from our families so much of the time.
  But one of the toughest things I grapple with on days like today is 
determining when something is good enough to support as ``moving the 
mark forward'' and when it just doesn't quite pass muster.
  I refuse to be part of the mentality so prevalent these days that 
claims compromise is a dirty word. Working things out, finding a middle 
ground--that's part of the life blood of a Democratic legislative body.
  But I also know the danger of wink-and-nod acquiescence to inferior 
agreements crafted too much for political expediency and not enough in 
honest confrontation of difficult problems--problems like the deficit.
  I sincerely praise both the President and the Republicans for 
promoting specific and legitimate balanced budgets this year. I am 
proud as a Democrat to note that, with one exception, this is the first 
time since the last Democratic President that, the House has voted on a 
Presidential budget scored as being in balance by the Congressional 
Budget Office.
  Just as the majority has moved toward the coalition budget by 
moderating many of their savings, the President has moved toward the 
coalition budget by tackling some of the tough choices necessary to 
reach balance. While more movement from both sides is necessary, the 
fact that each has come toward the coalition's numbers in the center 
gives me some hope we still can seal a balanced budget agreement.
  But in the final analysis today, I think both the President's and the 
majority's budgets have done too much winking and nodding when it comes 
to deficit reduction. Republicans want too much to raid my grandson's 
pockets to pay for today's tax cuts. Having lived through the failed 
promises of the 1980's tax cuts, I won't walk down that path again.
  Likewise, the President wants to dip into my grandson's pockets to 
pay for grandpa's Social Security and Medicare. Having watched the 
uncontrolled ballooning of those programs in the early 1990's, I won't 
follow that path either.
  President Clinton, and Chairman Kasich both deserve recognition for 
heightening the debate on balancing the budget. But both proposals fall 
short when measured on the deficit reduction yardstick. I will oppose 
both, having just supported the only obvious compromise and the plan 
most dedicated to deficit reduction, the coalition budget. Our 
substitute postponed tax cuts until the budget is balanced, provided a 
steady deficit reduction glide path, and has less total debt than any 
of the other options before us. It also avoided unlikely off-triggers 
on taxes and other questionable budget devises found in both of the 
other budgets.
  Americans are asking for bipartisanship, for honesty, integrity, and 
responsibility, and for constructive solutions. It's time to respond to 
those demands.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns.]
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague. Let me give an analogy on this 
debate. Let us say you are overweight by 100 pounds. You are trying to 
lose weight over a 7-year period. Would you take a plan where in the 
first 2 years you gain 100 pounds and then in the next 2 years you try 
to lose it, then in the final year you really make an effort to reduce 
that 100 pounds? Of course not, it will not work.
  This same principle is applying to the Clinton budget. The 
President's budget is such that the largest spending reductions are in 
the 7th year. Also under the President's budget, deficits go up in the 
early years. We certainly do not need that, either.
  How many of this floor remember what the President said in 1993 about 
his tax increase? He said, ``You might think I raised your taxes too 
much. Well, it might surprise you to know that I think I raised your 
taxes too much too.'' And in fact his tax increase was the largest of 
the 19 increases we have had on this floor since 1981.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Chairman, I ask, ``Isn't it time that after 15 years we should 
have one single tax cut?'' We should not have to wait another 17 years.
  Also, my colleagues, Prof. Thomas Hopkins of the University of 
Rochester indicated that the annual cost of Federal regulation has 
risen since 1981 over the equivalent of $6,000 for every single 
American while the party of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has 
been in control for the last 40 years.
  Come on, Mr. President. It is time for a new direction. Even the 
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, came on this House floor and said 
he is not going to vote for the Clinton budget, so why should Mr. Sabo?
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I say to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], because it is so much better than 
the Republican alternative.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, why does not the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer] and many of the gentleman's other colleagues come on the 
House floor and say they do not support the Clinton budget?
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I cannot respond for other people. I can only 
say

[[Page H5239]]

the President's record on deficit reduction, on rational discipline of 
the Government is so much superior to previous Republican 
administrations. His proposal today is so far superior to the majority 
proposal that it is a simple and easy vote for me to vote ``yes'' 
despite the fact I would have preferred some other alternative.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North 
California [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I might have an answer.
  Might be the reason the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is not 
going to vote for it might be the reason that 20-some of the 
Republicans voted for the coalition budget because they think it is so 
much better than the Republican budget.
  I say about the Republican budget it is like the one we had many 
years ago. This budget is like an ugly child. We have to tie a pork 
chop around its neck to get the dogs to play with it.
  So this is a terrible budget.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds only to say that the 
members of their party will flee from their budget like scalded dogs.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Stump].
  (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Clinton budget and 
in support of the House Republican budget proposal.
  I also want to express my appreciation to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio, John Kasich, the distinguished chairman of the 
Budget Committee.
  He and his staff worked closely with the committee on Veterans' 
Affairs on the Republican budget, and it shows in the favorable 
provisions for veterans.
  The President's plan would balance the budget on the backs of our 
Nation's veterans, drastically cutting VA medical care spending.
  The House Republican budget plan provides $100 million more next year 
and $5 billion more over the next 6 years than the Clinton plan for 
veterans' medical care spending.
  The President's plan takes more cuts out of veterans programs for 
deficit reduction but still falls short of balancing the budget, 
denying all veterans the economic advantages of a balanced Federal 
budget.
  Our plan balances the budget while providing nearly $230 million for 
increases to veterans' earned benefit programs, which are not in the 
President's budget.
  In the words of President Clinton's Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 
Jesse Brown, and I quote, ``The President's budget would devastate 
VA.''
  In a letter dated May 14, 1996, to Secretary Brown, the national 
commanders of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American 
Veterans, AMVETS, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America stated and I 
quote:

       Our Nation's sick and disabled veterans deserve a viable 
     health care system devoted to them and their special health 
     care needs. . . . President Clinton's seven year balanced 
     budget proposal does not provide the funding necessary to 
     meet these needs.

  I urge my colleagues to join the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs and 
the major veterans service organizations in denouncing the Clinton 
budget proposals for veterans by voting ``no'' and defeating the 
Presidents' plan.
  For over a year, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jesse Brown has 
bashed Republicans in Congress with a barrage of fraudulent and 
deceptive attacks about the Republican budget's impact on veterans' 
programs.
  Secretary Brown has misled veterans to believe that the Republican 
budget would impose a means test on service-connected benefits, tax 
veterans' benefits, remove disabled veterans from compensation rolls, 
and cut compensation for other disabled veterans. The Balanced Budget 
Act contained none of those proposals, and Secretary Brown knows it did 
not. He has also widely claimed that he would be forced to close 
numerous VA hospitals because of the budget.
  With the apparent approval of the President and clear knowledge of 
the facts, Secretary Brown continues spreading misinformation. He goes 
so far as to suggest in battlefield metaphor that ``veterans are under 
attack by hostile forces within this nation. Those forces are Members 
of Congress. * * * We must stay alert because we have hypocrites in the 
land.''
  Yes, there are hypocrites in Washington. They are creating a pattern 
of deception, purposely telling half-truths to scare veterans for 
political advantage. But, they are not the Republican Members of 
Congress.
  Let's take a look at the pattern of deception. In the 1994 budget, 
President Clinton's Office of Management and Budget planned to cut 
27,000 VA employees as part of the Clinton administration's heralded 
reinventing Government effort to reduce the Federal work force by 
252,000 positions by the year 2000. Congress, at that time controlled 
by the Democrats, blocked the proposal and worked out a compromise 
limiting the VA cuts to 10,051 employees. In the 1995 budget, President 
Clinton proposed the first installment of these VA personnel 
reductions. Secretary Brown presented it to Congress and defended the 
President's budget, which included cutting VA medical care staffing by 
3,400. Congress refused to accept the budget, allocating $100 million 
more than Secretary Brown had requested for VA medical care. Despite 
this increase, VA eliminated 3,436 medical care positions and closed 
2,300 hospital beds. Clearly, these medical staff reductions and bed 
closures were not budget driven. They were part of an overall plan to 
move VA's health care system in line with private sector models, 
emphasizing outpatient and primary care.
  For 1996, after prolonged budget debates, Congress increased VA 
medical care spending by $400 million above the prior year. Secretary 
Brown shrieked for months that veterans would suffer due to lost 
hospital beds and medical staff cuts. He forecast catastrophe and 
called Congress mean spirited wherever he traveled. Throughout the 
year, Republican leaders assured veterans that medical care funding 
would remain sufficient to provide well managed, quality care.
  In recent testimony before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
Secretary Brown stated that his dire predictions did not happen because 
of increased efficiencies and consolidations of service. He did not 
explain why his predictions failed to reflect VA's already planned 
efficiencies and consolidations. This raises the question of whether he 
was out of the loop or just scaring veterans for political purposes.
  Testimony of the Under Secretary of Health, Dr. Kenneth Kizer, 
confirmed the previous reductions of work force and hospital beds did 
not result from budget cuts but were part of VA's initial efforts to 
reform the way it provides care. Dr. Kizer said, ``We are fundamentally 
reengineering and reinventing the health care system so that it goes 
from a hospital based system to an ambulatory care-based system that is 
rooted in primary care.'' He added, that VA would ``continue to 
emphasize improved and increased accessibility and quality of VA health 
care.''
  Having admitted that his dire predictions did not come true, one 
might expect Secretary Brown to cool his rhetoric, correct the record, 
and reassure veterans that quality health care delivery is being 
maintained.
  But on a recent trip to Colorado, Secretary Brown blamed Congress 
again for cuts, implying that staffing reductions are purely budget 
driven and are having a negative impact on the delivery of care.
  The Secretary has a responsibility to tell veterans the truth about 
what is really going on within VA health care and the President's 
budget.
  Secretary Brown should tell veterans that the President's budget 
requests a further medical care work force reduction of 5,000 in 1997. 
He should also tell veterans that he has sought and received authority 
from the President to reduce VA's medical work force by 10,000 persons 
over the next 2 years. And, he should tell veterans that these 
additional proposed reductions are a continuation of VA's 
reorganization efforts, can be achieved without negatively impacting 
health care delivery, and are not simply budget driven reductions.
  When on the road, at taxpayer expense, the Secretary says nothing 
about President Clinton's budget for VA health care in future years. He 
should be honest with veterans and tell them that the President's 
budget takes VA medical care from a high of $17 billion in fiscal year 
1997 down to a low of $13 billion in fiscal year 2000 without one word 
of explanation about how this would be accomplished. When asked about 
this at a hearing, Secretary Brown told the obvious truth saying, ``The 
President's outyear numbers would devastate VA.''
  As a self-proclaimed advocate for veterans, Secretary Brown should 
have the courage to tell the truth--to tell veterans and their families 
that the House Republican budget is better for veterans than the 
President's budget. The House budget proposes to spend nearly $100 
million more on VA health care in 1997 than President Clinton, and $5.1 
billion more on VA health care than the President over the next 6 
years. Additionally, the House budget requires less in savings from 
veterans' programs to balance the budget and provides for nearly

[[Page H5240]]

$230 million in benefit improvements that are not contained in the 
Clinton budget plan. Those are the facts.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the President's 
budget. I agree with the Secretary of the VA that the President's 
budget will, in fact, be devastating to the VA. The President slashes 
VA medical care spending by $4 billion while at the same time raiding 
$18 million from the National Cemetery Service at the same time as more 
veterans, in fact, are dying. It bothers me tremendously.
  One point I would like to make is, I have to ask where is the 
President's commitment? I ask that because the President, first he said 
he would balance the budget in 5 years, then he said we can do it in 7 
years, then he said I think we can do it in 9 years, then he said I 
think we will balance the budget in 10 years, then he said I think we 
can reach it in 8 years, then he said somewhere between 7 and 9, and 
today he sent to the floor a budget for 6 years.
  Where is the commitment? This is a President that opposed the 
balanced budget amendment. Bill Clinton has the commitment of a 
Kamikaze pilot on his 37th mission.
  Where is your commitment, Mr. President?


                      ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would caution Members their remarks should be 
addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I want to only say it is the President's program that reduced the 
Federal deficit by more than 50 percent over all the ``no'' votes of 
the Republican, now majority, when they were in the minority. It is the 
President's program that has brought record growth of over 8\1/2\ 
million new jobs since 1993. The President does not have to listen to 
lectures from people who voted ``no'' on real deficit reduction in 
1993. He has not just talked about it, he has done it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Olver]
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the President's budget is not perfect, but 
the President's budget does prove that we can balance the budget in 6 
years without extreme cuts in health care and education and housing and 
law enforcement and environmental protection. But while those extreme 
proposals get most of the attention, I would like to point out to other 
areas of the extremist Republican budget that have at least as many bad 
implications for our future, and those areas are scientific research 
and development and our public transportation.
  The Committee on the Budget plan cuts civilian science by $l5 billion 
over 6 years. It phases research and solar and renewable energy way 
down and wipes out energy conservation and research in fossil energy 
efficiencies. It eliminates technology partnerships with businesses, 
including advanced technology development and manufacturing extension.
  Now, these are the very investments that create high-paying jobs to 
grow our economy while protecting our environment and quality of life.
  Now, public transportation gets people to jobs and to their medical 
appointments while conserving energy and protecting the environment. 
Completely missing the interconnection between public transportation 
and our energy and environmental security needs, the Republican budget 
slashes support for transportation systems that are used in every urban 
community, large and small, all over America.

  What kind of future will those policies leave us? Well, a bleak 
future at best.
  So we should reject the Committee on the Budget's renewal of 
extremist proposals and adopt instead the President's budget as a far 
better investment in our future, and I urge all my colleagues to 
support the President's sensible priorities.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I find the use of the term 
``extremist'' in reference to the Republican budget rather ironic when 
looking at the section dealing with veterans' health care spending. The 
veterans in this country want a balanced budget. They know what it is 
to sacrifice for our country, and they want a balanced budget, but they 
want a balanced budget that is fair, in which we do not attempt to 
balance the budget of this country on the backs of our Nation's 
veterans. The President's budget seeks to balance the budget on their 
backs at their expense.
  That is why the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs rightly said that the 
President's budget would be devastating to the veterans' health care 
spending in this country, and that is why the national commanders of 
four of our major veteran service organizations wrote the Secretary of 
Veterans' Affairs this week saying that in fact there was not adequate 
funding for a viable health care system in the President's budget and 
urging that it not be supported and saying that they would oppose it 
and all other budgets that fail to provide for our veterans.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] earlier called the 
President's budget the UFO budget. I rather like that and think that is 
rather accurate. But if we look at the veteran section, we can call it 
the big dipper budget because in the next 4 years in the area of VA 
medical spending there is a 20-percent cut in veteran spending for 
health care in the President's budget. That is devastating. It would 
reduce from $17 to $13 billion over the next 4 years. It is over a 20-
percent cut in medical care. We cannot tolerate that.
  The President's budget would spend $5 billion less on veterans' 
medical care over the next 6 years than the Republican House budget. 
The House budget even next year spends $100 million more on VA health 
care than does the President.
  There is nothing extreme about that, but there is fairness to our 
Nation's veterans.
  Again I say, Mr. Chairman the veterans of this country want a 
balanced budget, but they want a balanced budget that is fair. They do 
not want, as this chart indicates, a 20-percent cut in medical care 
spending with no explanation of how those cuts will be achieved, simply 
putting them at the expense of our Nation's veterans. That is not 
right, it is not fair. The President's budget fails the fairness test 
for our Nation's veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why we need to oppose this Clinton budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Veterans funding is the gentleman's top priority. He should have 
voted for the coalition budget because that budget had less cuts in 
veterans' care than the majority proposal. But, in reality, what will 
govern the funds available for VA funding in the next several years is 
a total level of discretionary funding. That is what is going to give 
appropriations the flexibility for funding VA. Cuts in discretionary 
funding are much deeper, much more severe, than those projected in the 
President's budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Lowey].
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order that the 
House may receive a message.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe) assumed the chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will receive a message.

                          ____________________