[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 92 (Thursday, June 20, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1123-E1124]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            CUTTING SPENDING

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 19, 1996

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, June 19, 1996, into the Congressional Record.

                            Cutting Spending

       Despite much of the political rhetoric in Washington, 
     Congress and the President have made significant progress on 
     reducing the federal budget deficit. For the first time since 
     President Truman, the deficit has been reduced for years in a 
     row. In fact, the projected 1996 deficit ($140 billion) is 
     less than half of the 1992 deficit ($290 billion). Compared 
     to the size of the economy, the U.S. deficit is now lower 
     than that of any other major industrialized nation. However, 
     much more must be done. The challenge facing Congress is to 
     maintain this discipline and stay the course until the 
     deficit is erased. In past months, Congress has taken a 
     number of positive actions.


                             1996 Spending

       With my strong support, Congress recently passed the last 
     of the yearly appropriations bills which fund basic 
     government operations. Overall, these bills cut spending $23 
     billion blow 1995 levels--about 5 percent. I voted to 
     eliminate more than 200 wasteful programs, including the 
     Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, the 
     modular helium reactor program, a congressional warehouse and 
     parking lot, and many more.


                             Line-item Veto

       With my support, Congress passed a line-item veto, and the 
     President signed it into law. Under this provision, the 
     President can object to any specific project or program and 
     return it to Congress. Without a two-thirds vote in both the 
     House and Senate, the program would be eliminated. This is an 
     important step in efforts to block wasteful spending and 
     ``pork-barrel'' projects. I am disappointed that the 
     congressional leadership delayed this provision until 1997 by 
     defeating an effort to make it effective immediately. If this 
     had passed, even more could be saved from spending bills this 
     year.


                       Balanced Budget Amendment

       For the first time in history, the House last year approved 
     a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The version 
     that passed the House would require a \3/5\ vote of

[[Page E1124]]

     both the House and the Senate to pass an unbalanced budget or 
     to raise the debt limit. It would allow certain exemptions in 
     time of war or national security threat. I voted for this 
     amendment, and am disappointed that it failed in the Senate.


                         Downsizing Government

       With my support, Congress voted in 1994 to cut more than 
     270,000 federal positions by 1999. We are significantly ahead 
     of schedule, with more than 160,000 positions eliminated, 
     leaving the federal workforce smaller now than at any time 
     since the mid-1960s. We should continue this course, focusing 
     particularly on top-heavy bureaucracies that have the bulk of 
     their employees in Washington, D.C. It has been my personal 
     practice each year to reduce administrative spending for 
     government programs and agencies to lessen the opportunity 
     for waste. During the appropriations process for fiscal year 
     1996, I supported many amendments to reduce overhead in 
     certain government agencies and programs.


                    Reforming Government Purchasing

       Too often we hear about outrageous government purchases of 
     $600 toilet seats or $100 screwdrivers. Centralized 
     management is often inefficient. Last year, with my support, 
     Congress passed legislation to streamline the wasteful 
     government procurement process. The new law reduces paperwork 
     burdens, streamlines acquisition procedures, and cuts 
     government purchasing costs. It encourages federal employees 
     to act like private businesses and purchase certain supplies 
     at a local office supply store if it saves money. It also 
     expands the bidding process to make it more competitive and 
     efficient.


                        six-year balanced budget

       I voted for a plan to balance the budget in six years. This 
     conservative ``Coalition'' budget asks all Americans to do 
     their fair share with equitably distributed savings. This 
     plan would cut spending by more than $700 billion. It reforms 
     welfare, protects Social Security, preserves Medicare and 
     Medicaid for the future, maintains investments in education 
     and job training, and cuts corporate subsidies. The Coalition 
     budget would reduce the deficit by $9 billion in 1997, $25 
     billion in 1998, and continue on a glidepath to a balanced 
     budget in 2002.
       Unfortunately, the House defeated this budget and passed a 
     version that would increase the deficit in 1997 and 1998. 
     This is the plan that was supported by House Speaker Newt 
     Gingrich. I voted against increasing the deficit. The main 
     difference between this plan and the Coalition budget is that 
     the Speaker's plan borrows an additional $150 billion to 
     expand certain tax breaks. As a result, the national debt 
     would be billions of dollars higher in 2002 than under the 
     Coalition budget. The Coalition budget demonstrates that it 
     is possible to make tough budget choices while reflecting the 
     values American cherish: responsibility, honesty, fairness, 
     and the promise that the future will be better for our 
     children. The problem with the budget supported by Speaker 
     Gingrich is that increasing the national debt would leave 
     even more of a burden on our children.
       It is correct that both the Speaker's plan and the 
     Coalition plan balance the budget on paper, but the Speaker's 
     plan postpones 82% of the deficit reduction until after the 
     1998 elections. In fact, the President's separate plan makes 
     a similar mistake. History shows that such an approach is a 
     recipe for failure. Time and time again Congress has passed 
     ``deficit reduction'' plans that postpone serious spending 
     cuts for several years. My position is that we should use the 
     Coalition approach and pay our bills now, and not just 
     promise to pay them later. We should continue reducing the 
     deficit, year by year, in a disciplined, methodical manner.
       Unless significant changes are made, the final budget plan 
     is expected to be vetoed by the President. Although the 
     differences between the sides are significant, I think the 
     American people want Congress and the President to continue 
     negotiating to reach agreement on the budget. It is the 
     responsibility of leaders in both parties to put aside 
     partisan differences for the common good of the nation.
       Over the past year, both the President and the 
     congressional leadership have moved towards the Coalition 
     budget. There is still time to unite the American people 
     behind a tough, honest, and fair balanced budget that 
     reflects basic American values and invests in our future. It 
     would be a tragedy if the progress that has been made since 
     1992 is reversed with a budget that increases the deficit in 
     1997 and 1998. I will continue to urge all of my colleagues 
     to seek a final agreement.

                          ____________________