[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 20, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2960-H3065]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1998

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 152 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 84.

[[Page H2961]]

                              {time}  1610


                     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 consideration of the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 84) establishing the Congressional budget for 
the U.S. Government for the fiscal year 1998 and setting forth 
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 
2002, with Mr. Boehner in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is 
considered read the first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the congressional budget and 
shall not exceed 5 hours and 20 minutes, including 1 hour on the 
subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and controlled 
by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt], and 20 minutes controlled by the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, there is 20 minutes that has been allocated 
to my portion of this general debate. Is it correct to understand that 
it will be 20 minutes at the end of the general debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will consult with the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge], and the chairman of the committee to determine 
at what point that debate would occur.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, when will we have such consultation?
  The CHAIRMAN. As soon as the gentleman and the chairman of the 
committee can approach the Chair and have that discussion.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that, out of the 
time allocated to me, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] be 
yielded 25 minutes and that he be allowed to control that time; that 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] on behalf of the Joint 
Economic Committee be yielded 10 minutes and that he be allowed to 
control that time; that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] be 
yielded 20 minutes and that he be allowed to control that time; that 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] be yielded 30 minutes and 
that she be allowed to control that time; and finally, that I would 
reserve the remaining 35 minutes to myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a moment that many of us have been waiting for 
for a long time. The fact is, several years ago I suggested that the 
time would arrive when Republicans and Democrats could come together; 
that we could, in fact, put the good of the country and the good of our 
children ahead of our own basic desires, to pass a bill that would 
balance the budget, would give tax relief to the American people, would 
strengthen the American family, and would be a giant first step towards 
solving many of the problems that have confounded us for many years.
  The President came to this Chamber about at the beginning of the year 
and he declared the era of big Government at an end. The Republicans 
and the Democrats have worked together, and frankly, that rhetoric now 
is going to be underlaid by a budget program that in fact does declare 
the end to the era of big Government.
  This agreement is predicated and founded on very conservative 
economics, predicting a 2.1-percent growth in this economy, the economy 
growing far in excess of 5 percent. For those that did not know this, 
it may come as a surprise for some, but we really believe that a 2.1-
percent growth rate over the life of this document, which means at some 
point the economy will grow faster and at other points in time the 
economy will grow slower, is an excellent conclusion to draw. And in 
fact, a 2.1 percent growth rate that underlies this agreement is far 
more conservative than all the blue chip economic estimates that we 
have heard across this country.
  Second, in the area of savings, over the course of the next decade 
under this agreement, in the programs of entitlements that have eroded 
our ability to control our wage growth, in order to give us faster wage 
growth, our inability to be able to give our children a chance, it is 
not the end-all, but boy, is it a giant first step, with $600 billion 
in entitlement savings over the course of the next decade, including 
extending the life of Medicare for up to 10 years and being able to 
accomplish what the Republicans set out to accomplish in 1995.
  It is not just about numbers. There in fact are structural reforms to 
this Medicare Program, including prospective payments for skilled 
nursing facilities and home health care, the fastest growing items in 
the Medicare budget; the creation of physician networks, so physicians 
can compete with the insurance companies to offer people more 
opportunity, more choice, more benefits; the fact that we are going to 
have an adjustment in the reimbursements to the managed care operations 
by letting rural America have more incentives to offer more choice to 
people in rural America; the fact that we moved the home health care 
and made sure that part of those costs were going to be included in the 
premium, and phased in over a period of time. As Members will see, 
there are structural changes in this Medicare Program.
  Are there going to be more changes needed in the future? There is no 
question that as the baby boomers begin to retire we have a huge 
challenge. That is precisely why I authored a provision that calls for 
the creation of a baby boomer study program to figure out how to deal 
with the major problems of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.
  There will be a big challenge, but let us not let that challenge take 
away from what we have been able to accomplish in this agreement today. 
Make no mistake about it, never before in the history of the U.S. 
Congress have we saved more money in entitlements than in this 
agreement.
  In the area of the programs that run the Government of the United 
States, some people say we have not saved enough. As far as I am 
concerned, when it comes to the taxpayers' money we always have to be 
working at saving more. But let me just put it in perspective.
  Nondefense discretionary, the programs that operate the government of 
the United States, will grow over the next 5 years at an average of 
one-half percent a year. Do Members get that? They will grow at one-
half percent a year. Over the last 10 years they have grown at 10 
percent. So to take the growth in those programs from 10 percent over 
the last 10 years to a half a percent over the next 5 years is a very, 
very significant accomplishment.
  Will we come back at some point and try to do more to defang the 
Government, to defang those parts of the Government that have harassed 
people? Not suggesting that all of it does, but in those areas where 
Government has put a burden on the shoulders of the people as they have 
tried to heal their communities and heal their families, of course that 
should be our role, to set the people free in this country. So what we 
have in this budget is good fiscal restraint, $600 billion in 
entitlement savings and only one-half percent a year growth in the 
programs that run the Government.
  Coupled with that, of course, is the first balanced budget in over 30 
years, which will result in the year 2002 in only the second balanced 
budget over the course of the last 40 years. Also included in this 
document, and we should all be aware of this, is something that many 
people said could not be done. That is to give the people power by 
letting them keep more of what they earn. Included in this document is 
$135 billion in tax cuts over 5 years, and at least $350 billion in tax 
cuts over the next 10 years.
  That will be enough. It will be enough to give the American people 
something we have been promising for many years now. It will give them 
a capital gains tax cut, so that in America we will reward risk-taking, 
and we will give the American people the tools with which to compete 
and win in the international job market.
  Let me just suggest to the Members that to improve the reasons to 
risk take and the incentives to risk take,

[[Page H2962]]

and to give people a reason to invest in America, will mean that the 
infrastructure of America will be able to accommodate faster economic 
growth without inflation.
  There are many other things we need to do to improve the 
infrastructure of America so our country can grow faster and reward 
more people from one end of this country to the other, but we believe 
that the capital gains tax cut is one of those elements, coupled with a 
balanced budget, that results in lower interest rates and more 
investment and more productivity and more wealth for every single 
American.
  Included in here is the family tax credit, because we believe the 
best Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the United States 
is the American family. Is it not going to be great, I say to the 
gentleman from Tennessee, when this Sunday he goes to church and he 
sees a man and his wife leave the church with three young kids, and 
they get into that old Chevrolet and you can actually see the car kind 
of go down and up as they get in, and maybe on the back of the bumper 
is an old Billy Graham bumper sticker left over from a rally 3 years 
ago, and he knows in his soul that under a child tax credit the 
American family is going to have more, some money for their college, 
some money for new clothes, some money to help the family.

  Of course, there will be estate relief in here, too, so when you die 
and you have worked a lifetime to build something, to pass it on to 
your family, the Government is not going to take it all away. Let me 
just suggest, whether it is a small business or the family farm, we do 
not want the people to not just have death but death and taxes to the 
max. We do not solve the whole problem of the estate, this overtaxation 
of estates in this, but we are making a good first step.
  The President got one of his priorities in the area of education. Let 
me just suggest, for those mothers and fathers who have had to take 
that second job to help their kid get a college education, this program 
has some help for them. They need help.
  But let me ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to start 
aggressively asking the higher education officials in this country why 
their costs are racing out of control. Let me ask the moms and dads and 
the students to start asking the same question. But in the meantime, we 
are going to help.
  What do we get here at the end of the day? First, the first balanced 
budget in over 30 years; real tax relief that we think will improve the 
lives of America's workers; real tax relief that we believe will 
improve the lives of the American family; real tax relief that will 
give a reward to people for working hard for a lifetime; help for 
people to realize the American dream through education; and at the same 
time, the most significant savings in entitlements in the history of 
this country, and controlling the growth to a half a percent a year of 
those programs that run the Federal Government, and a giant first step 
toward moving into the next century by stabilizing the fiscal policies 
of the United States of America.
  It has been a long road. It has been very difficult. I want to 
compliment the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Martin Sabo], maybe the 
most forgotten man today in the Chamber, but not by me, because Martin 
worked hard in 1995, in 1993, and in 1994 and in 1995 and in 1996; a 
total class gentleman. Over the course of the last 2 years we have 
worked closely together to try to figure out how we could narrow most 
of our differences.
  It is a tremendous pleasure to have worked with the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. John Spratt]. He has had a very difficult time 
trying to make sure that he could keep his caucus together and listen 
to his leader who at times he had to represent, and other parts of the 
caucus who he had to represent. Hats off to John Spratt; and to John 
Hilley, my great friend down at the White House, to Franklin Raines and 
Gene Sperling, it was the best, to be able to put aside the partisan 
bickering and reach an agreement; and to the President, to the 
President who did not have to really do this. He decided that he wanted 
to move forward and reach agreement. He sent his trusted aide, Erskine 
Bowles, to the Hill. With Pete Dominici and the gentleman from Georgia. 
[Mr. Newt Gingrich] and Trent Lott and this big team, we were able to 
put it together.
  No one should think for a second that this is the end of the game. 
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is just the beginning, but a very great 
beginning and a very big step toward providing a more prosperous, 
toward providing a more confident, toward providing a more secure 
America, and convincing the American people that when we put the 
politics aside and we listen to them and their calls for so many years 
for this body to get control of the spending of this country and to 
return some of their power, when we listen to them, at the end of the 
day Republicans and Democrats came together to reach agreement on 
something that I believe the American people will look at and say, for 
once you have done well. For once you have put the politics aside and 
you have agreed to work together and serve America.
  Let us support this great budget resolution today.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly this afternoon to state 
that I will not vote for this budget, but before giving Members the 
reasons for that, I want to commend the Members on both sides of the 
aisle. I especially want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina, 
[Mr. John Spratt], and I want to commend the President for working so 
hard to bring about this agreement, which is an important achievement 
for our country. Having done this in 1990 and again in 1993, I know how 
hard it is.

                              {time}  1630

  I know how many compromises have to be made and how many decisions 
have to be made to make something like this come together. But at the 
end of it, it is a decision on this budget that each of us must make 
for what is best for our constituents, the 500,000 people that each of 
us represents and what in our hearts and minds is best for them and 
best for the country.
  I would like to start with a little history of why we are where we 
are. This all started, in my view, back in 1981. Congress then, in a 
bipartisan way, made a decision on a budget that had certain increases 
in spending and tax cuts, which many of us said at the time would 
create large deficits out in the future. The prediction was that there 
would be deficits of $100 and $200 and $300 billion. And unfortunately 
those predictions came true. It has taken us 17 years from that basic 
decision in 1981 to get on the threshold of being able to balance the 
budget.
  In 1990, we entered into a bipartisan budget agreement, much like has 
been done now, and at the time we raised taxes and we cut spending in a 
bipartisan way, and we made a big step, about a $500 billion deficit 
reduction. We did that again in 1993; I might add, at that time, with 
all Democratic votes, not one vote from the other side of the aisle. At 
the time many Republican leaders said they believed that budget we 
passed in 1993 would wreck the economy and would cause higher 
unemployment and higher deficits.
  I want to point out that because of the interaction of what we do on 
the deficit and what it does with the economy, that indeed those 
forecasts were wrong, that even with tax increases and spending cuts, 
we have had a remarkable economic performance in the last 4 or 5 years.
  In fact, in 1993, the prediction was the deficit for this year would 
be $300 billion. A year ago the prediction was the deficit would be 
$169 billion. In January of this year, we thought the deficit for this 
year would be $124 billion. Just last week CBO said it is down to $67 
billion.
  There is an interaction, there is an inextricable link between the 
deficit and what we do and how we get rid of the deficit and what 
happens in the economy. And I believe that the investments we made in 
education and in capital investment and in health care that we made in 
the deficit reduction act of 1993 were an integral part of helping the 
private sector economy grow over the last 5 years so that we have had 
real economic growth and

[[Page H2963]]

more revenue coming into the government.
  So the question then and now is not whether to do this, it is how we 
do it. It is how we do it. What are the myriad of decisions, what are 
the texture of the decisions we put together to try to get the budget 
into order.
  In my view, this budget agreement is a budget of many deficits: a 
deficit of principle, a deficit of fairness, a deficit of tax justice, 
and worst of all, a deficit of dollars.
  First, I think it is unfair. I think that when we have done these 
budgets, we have always tried to have shared sacrifice. We have said to 
the American people in the highest sense of patriotism that everybody 
has to sacrifice in order to get the budget straightened out. That is 
what we did in 1990. That is what we did in 1993. That is not what this 
budget does.
  Recently I was going door to door in my district. I met a young 
couple who had just bought a house. They were happy because the wife 
had just gotten pregnant and they were expecting this new family. I 
asked them what their concerns were. They said their concern was that 
between them they have 5 jobs, 5 jobs. That is kind of the way the 
economy is working for ordinary Americans today. In order to make ends 
meet, people have to work more jobs and more hours.
  And the woman said to me, ``You know, our concern is that when the 
baby comes, I would like to stay home and raise the child for 2 or 3 
years, but with 5 jobs, I have got to quit two of those jobs to do it. 
And if we do that, we cannot make our house payment.''
  That is reality 1997.
  On another door-to-door trip in my district I met a woman who was on 
Social Security and Medicare. She said, ``You know, I do not want to be 
a whiner, and I do not want to complain, but I only get $450 a month. 
And I have got to buy a lot of prescription drugs to stay going. I just 
want you to know, I cannot pay my water bill now, and I do not have hot 
water. And if I have cuts along the way in Medicare or Social Security, 
I may lose the apartment I am staying in''. That is reality 1997.
  This budget could have done better by either of those people I have 
talked about. We could have done more in this budget on Head Start, on 
after school programs for that family I am talking about. We could have 
done better for that senior citizen so she could get by better. But in 
this budget there is structured a tax cut. And if I am reading the 
agreement between the parties correctly, that tax cut will necessarily 
result in the top 1 percent of taxpayers in this country getting a tax 
reduction of about $6,000. And when I talk about the top 1 percent, I 
am talking about folks making an average of $650,000 a year.
  Is it shared sacrifice to say to them, you get a huge tax cut every 
year, $6,000, but the young family who is trying to make ends meet, we 
cannot help them enough? We cannot give them a larger tax cut. We 
cannot give them the kind of help that they need getting through their 
life every day.
  It is not fair. I wish it were fairer.
  Second, I think it fails to invest in the future. What do I mean by 
that?
  We are in a tough global competition. We have got our work cut out 
for us. We have to really be good. I agree, we need tax cuts, but they 
ought to go to the people who need them, desperately need them. And 
they ought to go to the people who are working hard every day to 
compete in that global economy. But we also need investments in this 
budget. Let me just name three to take examples.
  First, education. Everybody knows we have got to have better educated 
people to compete in the global economy, to get productivity increases, 
to get growth increases. Early on in the budget talks we talked about 
repairing school buildings and putting money into the structures in 
which our children learn. That was thrown out of the budget. We did not 
have enough money to do that.
  We talked endlessly in this Chamber about Head Start, about investing 
in the smallest, youngest children. We talked about Head Start zero to 
three. We just had a conference in the White House where we find that 
late mental research proves that the more you can do with young, young, 
young children, the better the result will be. But this budget does not 
fully fund Head Start and does not even make a beginning on Head Start 
zero to three.
  Let us talk about children's health, a very good part of this budget, 
$15 billion, to try to get half the children who do not have health 
care to have health care. But in the very same budget there is about an 
equal cut in Medicaid in what is called disproportionate share, a fancy 
name for trying to give money to hospitals that have a disproportionate 
share of poverty folks coming there to get help. Guess which hospitals 
get the lion's share of disproportionate share? The children's 
hospitals.

  We give with one hand; we take away with another. It is not good 
enough.
  Third, investment in the capital investments. We hear about capital 
gains. What about capital structures? Billions of dollars come into 
this budget every year from the gasoline tax to the Federal highway 
trust fund and every year we spend moneys for these needed structures, 
but we never spend what comes in. And this budget does not either.
  In my district of St. Louis, our city fathers and mothers got 
together and said, what does this region need? They came up with $20 
billion worth of needs in St. Louis for capital investment alone. They 
have no idea where it is going to come from. We can do better in 
investing in our future.
  Third, this budget does not come into balance. I believe with all my 
heart that the people who worked on it want it to come into balance. 
And I hope it does, but let me say something. If we have exploding tax 
cuts that are put into law and they are not met with spending cuts that 
will be designed to reach them, then the numbers are not going to work.
  Remember 1981 and what happened. The last thing we need to do is to 
advertise this as a deficit reduction plan that will reduce the deficit 
and then we do not get there. The coalition members wanted to go to the 
floor this afternoon and have an amendment that had an enforcement 
process that said, if the numbers do not work for any reason, because 
the economy does not work or something else, that we will start cutting 
across the board both spending programs and tax programs in order to 
see that we really get the balance that we want and that we have 
advertised. That is not going to be allowed to even be voted on.
  In conclusion, I do not believe this budget is fair. I do not believe 
it invests properly in the future of our country and our economy and 
our people. I do not believe the numbers will work, and I do not think 
there is a system in place to make sure that they do.
  Let me say this final word. This is a decision and it is a hard 
decision that all of us have to make. For me, as I cast this vote, I 
have one thing in my mind and one thing only, and that is the people 
that I represent in the third District of Missouri. I have in my mind 
that young family who is working hard, real hard every day and wants to 
make ends meet and wants to have a future. I have in my mind that 
senior citizen who wants to stay out of the nursing home and stay in 
her home and live the life of independence that she wants. I have in 
mind the children, the children who are the future and the strength and 
the greatest resource of this country.
  Each of us in our own way, as we go through this debate and vote 
tonight, has to ask ourselves, what is the right thing for my 
constituents and for my country? Nothing else is asked. That is the 
question we have to answer.
  This is not politics. This is not some election. This is about the 
future of the country and what in our conscience, our heart and our 
mind is the best and right thing to do. I will vote against this 
budget. I think we can do better.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I do want to commend the minority leader on his speech and would like 
to say to him that I can respect a vision of government that is 
entirely different than mine and entirely different than the majority 
in the House. But he should know that in the addendum, point 9 in the 
reconciliation process, if it is determined that the target of a 
balanced budget cannot be achieved, all parties to the agreement commit 
to seek additional savings necessary to achieve balance.
  Furthermore, of course, we believe that the tax cuts in fact will 
provide us

[[Page H2964]]

with higher economic growth but, beyond that, having an economic plan 
underlaid by a 2.1 percent growth rate over the course of this 
agreement is about as conservative an estimate as we can find among any 
of the groups.
  I would not only challenge the gentleman's vision of what builds 
America, which is not more government spending and more government 
programs, but in addition, though, severely challenge the fact that 
somehow we have exploding deficits that will not allow us or exploding 
tax cuts that will not allow us to get in balance. That is simply not 
true and will not occur.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of this committee 
and also the ranking minority member from the other side of the aisle, 
this is great work. It is great for the future of this country. I would 
agree with the comments of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] 
that this is really about the future of America. We just have a very 
different vision of who it is that can best spend money in this 
country, we here in Washington or the people themselves.
  I have a presentation but I want to start talking about a family in 
my district. It is a middle income family. It is a family with three 
kids. They are about to start college. It is a family whose parents 
both get up and go to work every single day of the week.

                              {time}  1645

  I talked to this family about this budget plan, too, and, frankly, 
they did not understand billions and trillions very well, and they did 
not understand CBO and OMB and all that stuff, but what they did 
understand is how this budget plan was going to impact them directly 
out in Janesville, WI. Because this middle income family that gets up 
every morning to go to work understood perfectly well what it meant 
when we said for every child that is still at home they will receive a 
$500 credit. They understood perfectly well on their $40,000-a-year 
income what $1,000 meant coming into their house.
  Not only that, they understood, when they talked about their oldest 
son going off to college, they understood what a $1,500 tax credit 
meant to them for a total of, maybe we will not get all $2,500 to them, 
but over $2,000 coming back to this family. That is what it means to 
the hard-working families, the middle income families who get up every 
morning to go to work.
  And it does have a real impact on them. I guess the difference of 
opinion here is who it is who can best spend the money, the family out 
in Janesville keeping the money in their own house, or the people in 
Washington investing it in the future. My opinion is those families out 
in Janesville, WI can do a pretty good job of taking care of their own 
money.
  I do have a presentation I want to give, because I strongly support 
this agreement. This agreement balances the budget for the first time 
in a generation. We have our families who pay $500 every month to do 
nothing but to pay the interest on the Federal debt, and certainly it 
is time we allow those families to keep more of their own money.
  It does balance. Starting with 1998 forward, the deficit goes down 
every year. It restores Medicaid for at least a decade and probably 
longer as the tax cuts take effect and the economy booms.
  The tax cuts. Letting the American people keep more of their own 
money. It is in here, $500 per child. We are looking at a reduction of 
capital gains tax, reforming the death tax, and a college tax tuition 
credit of some sort.
  There is no congressionally mandated CPI adjustment. That is to say 
to our senior citizens, there is nothing in this plan that would adjust 
their cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security next year. It has 
been taken out. It was talked about briefly but is not in the plan. It 
was taken out. We heard the seniors and we heard their concerns.
  The plan also includes in the language, at the end of it, a sense of 
Congress that would allow us to not only balance the budget by 2002 but 
also pay off the Federal debt between now and the year 2023, so that we 
can pass this Nation on to our children debt free.
  Think of that dream in America: a Nation that we pass on to our 
children not burdened with debt but debt free. So instead of paying 
$500 a month in interest into Washington to do nothing but pay the 
interest on the debt, families can keep that $500 a month and do as 
they see fit with the money.
  As we pay off the Federal debt, another very important thing happens: 
The money that has been taken out of the Social Security trust fund is 
put back. And that is very, very significant as we look at the solvency 
of the Social Security system.
  To understand how good this budget is, I think we have to look at 
where we have come from. I brought a chart from way back in 1991, when 
I first started running for office. This chart shows the Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings plan of 1985, and it shows the green line here is their plan 
to get to a balanced budget. The red line shows what actually happened, 
and we can notice they never got to a balanced budget. They never even 
hit their targets.
  In 1987 they revised Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and, again, the green line 
shows their plan to get to a balanced budget, and the red line shows 
what actually happened. They never hit their targets, period.
  What is happening out here since 1995? This is somewhat staggering. 
When I went back to put this together I was somewhat shocked to see 
what was actually happening out here since 1995. The picture is so 
different than 1985 and 1987 that we almost have to see it to 
understand how real this thing is.
  In 1995, we promised the American people that we would have deficits, 
as in the red columns on here, $154 billion in 1996. The blue on this 
thing, the blue columns, those are what is actually happening. And we 
can notice we not only hit our projection, but we are ahead of 
schedule.
  Think how far we have come since 1985 and 1987. We not only hit the 
target, we are ahead of schedule in 1996. We are over $100 billion 
ahead of schedule in 1997. And each year, under this plan, we stay 
ahead of that promise to the American people that we made in 1995. Our 
promise is being fulfilled.
  The reason that this is happening is because we are curtailing the 
growth of spending in this great Nation we live in. Spending that was 
going up rapidly, as we see in the red column, is not going up as fast 
anymore. It is still going up faster than I would like to see but not 
as fast as it was. Nondefense discretionary spending was going up.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. And, Mr. Chairman, I will give the gentleman a little 
more time to put that chart back up there.
  Let us take a look at what the fiscal year 1996 to 2002 plan is.
  Mr. NEUMANN. It was going up by 5.2 percent a year in the 7 years 
before we got here. Under this plan, and the first 2 years since 1995, 
it is now going up by 3.2 percent.
  Let us put that in inflation-adjusted dollars. It was going up 1.8; 
it is now going up 0.6. The growth of Government has been reduced by 
two-thirds.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
let me just say that under this plan that is currently on the table, 
those increases will drop to 0.5 percent. This will be the lowest 
increase in the programs that run the Government of the United States 
in history.
  Someone has told me, and we are still trying to check these numbers, 
less than half of the growth in spending in nondefense discretionary 
under President Ronald Reagan. So I think it was a significant 
accomplishment to be able to slow it to that degree, and I appreciate 
the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I also think we should talk about 
nondefense discretionary spending. That is the part of the budget we 
have the most control over. That was rising by 6.7 percent annually 
before we took over, in the 7 years before we got here. It is now going 
up less than 1 percent a year. And in inflation-adjusted dollars, it 
was going up by 3.2. It is now actually shrinking by 1.5 percent.
  I will say that again. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the nondefense 
discretionary spending, the part of the budget we have the most control 
over, is actually shrinking.
  I will wrap up my part of this presentation with something that is 
pretty special here. This chart shows what

[[Page H2965]]

would have happened in 1995 if there had been no changes in the law. 
This line shows where the deficit was headed in 1995. This yellow line 
in the chart shows what happened in the first 12 months, how much 
progress was made during the year of 1995.
  Then we put this plan into place, as to what we hoped could happen. 
That is the green line. And I brought a marker with me today, because a 
year ago we produced this chart and we said we were ahead of schedule. 
Notice that our deficit is actually below the green line. And people 
said, yeah, yeah, yeah, that is 1 year.
  I want to conclude my part of this presentation by drawing in where 
we are now in our second year on this plan to reach a balanced budget. 
We are way down here. And we can notice that we are not only ahead of 
schedule for the first year, we are ahead of schedule for the second 
year. And when we pass this plan, we will stay ahead of schedule for 
each and every year from now through the year 2002.
  What that means for our children in this country is that we will have 
a balanced budget, we can start paying down the debt, and our children 
can once again look forward to the opportunity to have a chance at 
living the American dream in this great Nation that we live in.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, for the first time in 15 years, in the 15 
years I have served in this House, we are within reach of a balanced 
budget.
  Last September 30, 1996, when we closed the books on fiscal 1996, the 
deficit stood at $107.8 billion. And now that we have gotten the 
revenues on April 15 from this year's tax payments, CBO and OMB both 
believe that the deficit this year will drop to $70 billion or below--
$70 billion or less. We can finish the job. We can balance the budget. 
But only if we have a plan, for without one the deficit will start 
drifting back upward again.
  We have before us today a hard wrought compromise of a plan. When I 
say hard wrought, I mean it. It was produced through nearly 4 months of 
negotiations. Hard fought negotiations. But throughout they were civil 
and cordial, and I commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. John Kasich] who worked with us in complete cooperation 
and good faith throughout the negotiations to bring it to this end, 
which is a genuine compromise.
  Before turning to that plan, I would like to just pause a minute and 
talk about what brings us to this point. I want to go back to a 
particular date, January 13, 1993, 1 week before George Bush left 
office. He sent us that day his economic report of the President, and 
in it Michael Boskin, his chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, 
predicted that the deficit for that year, fiscal 1993, would be $332 
billion. This was the deficit that President Clinton found on the 
doorstep awaiting him when we arrived at the White House 1 week later.
  On February 17, the President laid on the doorstep of the Congress a 
plan for cutting that deficit roughly by half over the next 5 years. It 
was not a popular plan. It was certainly not a painless plan. It cost 
my party dearly for supporting it. It passed the Congress only by the 
skin of its teeth.
  The critics claimed this budget would cut off the economy at its 
knees. But the financial markets were impressed, so much so that long 
bond rates came down by 100 to 120 basis points. And when the books 
were closed on fiscal 1993, that first fiscal year, the deficit was not 
$332 billion as Boskin predicted, it was $255 billion.
  A year later, the first full year under that budget plan, the deficit 
was $203 billion. At year end 1995, it was down again to $164 billion. 
And as I said, last September it was $107.8 billion.
  The deficit has been cut now for 5 years in a row. That is not smoke 
and mirrors, that is not sleight of hand, that is a matter of record. 
As Yogi Berra liked to say, ``You can look it up.'' The deficit has 
been cut by 65 percent. And at 1.4 percent of our GDP, it is at its 
lowest level since the early 1970's. That is progress by anybody's 
yardstick.
  That is why we are within reach, credibly, of a balanced budget. That 
is why we are here today, to finish a job, because it would be a shame 
not to try. And that is why it is important that we do it right and not 
blow this opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, if it were left to me alone, I would do a budget along 
the lines my good friends, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the Blue Dogs laid out last 
year, for which I voted, which had no net tax cuts at all, none at 
least until we had our goal firmly in grasp. That would not mean no tax 
cuts, just no net tax cuts.
  But this is a divided government, and to do a deal, none of us gets 
to do it alone. We have a choice between gridlock and compromise. And 
what we have before us is just that, it is a compromise. It is not a 
perfect solution. It is the art of the possible. But if we let the 
perfect be the enemy of the good, we will not get anything good done on 
the deficit this year.
  This compromise differs from most compromises by design, by conscious 
design, because what we sought in negotiating it was to let each party 
claim some clear victory. Rather than come out with just gray results, 
compromise to the point that they lost their identity and pleased 
nobody, this package allows the Republicans a clear victory. It allows 
them the chance to do significant tax cuts. It allows Democrats, my 
party, the chance to do initiatives in children's health care, the 
chance to do initiatives in education that we could not do if we tried 
to do it alone.
  That is why I say this budget is balanced in two senses. If the 
economy stays stable, this budget should take us to a balanced budget 
by the year 2002. But in the meantime, this resolution is not so 
fixated on the deficit that it forgets this country has other problems 
too that need to be addressed.
  Hard-working families are worried about how they are going to pay for 
the cost of their children's education. Tuition is soaring. This 
resolution promises more help than anything that has been passed in 
this Congress in the past 25 years.
  There are 10 million children, mostly in working families, who have 
no health insurance. This resolution sets aside $16 billion to come up 
with ways to cover at least half of those children within the next 5 
years.
  To those in my party, my fellow Democrats, who are still summing up 
the pluses and the minuses in this budget resolution, I urge them to 
keep initiatives like these in mind and ask themselves if we could have 
achieved this, if we could have done this if we went it alone as a 
minority, by ourselves. I ask them to look at NDD, nondefense 
discretionary spending. It goes from $548 to $562 billion. We should 
ask ourselves, measured against last year's budget resolution, if we 
could have done this well if we did it alone.
  Look at what we have done with Medicare and preventive care, with 
Medicaid and moderating the reductions. Throughout this budget the 
Democratic stamp is firmly and clearly in place. I do not think we 
could have done this well by going it alone, and that is why I say we 
should support it. That is why this resolution is a good deal for us 
but, more importantly, it is a good deal for this country.
  It is a balanced plan to balance the budget. I say let us finish what 
we started in 1993. Let us adopt this House Concurrent Resolution 84. 
Let us balance the budget by the year 2002, and let us take the credit 
we deserve as Democrats for this accomplishment.

                              {time}  1700

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to clarify for the Members the 
unanimous-consent request from the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] who broke up his time throughout the remainder of the evening.
  The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has 25 minutes 
remaining on his time. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] 
will have 25 minutes. Joint Economic Committee members will have 10 
minutes. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] will have 40 minutes, 
20 minutes under the rule and 20 minutes of additional time as 
requested by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt]. The 
Congressional Black Caucus will have 30 minutes. And then the gentleman

[[Page H2966]]

from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] will have 30 minutes and have the 
right to close on his side of the aisle.
  The Chair would encourage Members controlling time under this consent 
arrangement to use their time in the blocks that have been allocated, 
if at all possible.
  The chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair just explain how much time 
has been consumed? I understand that when the majority leader was 
yielded 5 minutes, he spoke for 13; and that is our process, but he was 
allocated 5 minutes against the time. How much time has been consumed 
by both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has 24 
minutes remaining of the 30 minutes in his block under his unanimous-
consent arrangement. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 2 
hours and 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. That is not all that helpful, Mr. Chairman. Of the total 
amount of time on each side, how much has been allocated?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not understand the gentleman's inquiry.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to know how much time has been 
consumed on both sides. That is the question. I did not ask how much is 
remaining. How much is consumed?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has used 
11 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, how much time have we used on this side?
  The CHAIRMAN. On the other side of the aisle, 19 minutes have been 
consumed.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Parker].
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the bipartisan budget 
agreement before us today. This budget resolution has particular 
significance for me. I am the only Member of this body who has worked 
with the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], from both 
sides of the aisle.
  For 5 years, I served on the Committee on the Budget as the 
Democratic member, struggling to produce such a document. While we 
never succeeded, I think it is appropriate at this time to remember the 
commitment of colleagues, some of whom are no longer in this body, who 
worked for such an agreement.
  Specifically, I want to express appreciation to Tim Penny, whose work 
I believe laid the foundation for the success that our chairman has 
brought to fruition. Also, both Leon Panetta and the gentleman from 
Minnesota, Mr. Martin Sabo, in my opinion, worked to produce the most 
fiscally conservative resolutions possible in their eras. I hope each 
realizes his contribution to this long process.
  My last year as a Democratic member of the committee was spent 
working on the other side of the aisle to demonstrate that 
bipartisanship was possible but, more importantly, necessary to 
success. Unfortunately, it was not viable at the time.
  Now, in my first year as a Republican member of this committee, it is 
with great pleasure that I endorse a truly bipartisan agreement. The 
fiscal year 1998 budget resolution was reported by the Committee on the 
Budget on a 31 to 7 vote. It was supported by 11 Democrats on the 
committee. The ranking member of the committee, who deserves a 
tremendous amount of credit, was a major player in its development. 
This document is bipartisan and it is a culminating moment in my 
service in the House.
  I know that some of my fellow conservatives may be disappointed in 
this agreement. It does not go as far as we would like for it to go in 
reforming the role of government in our lives. But you must realize 
that we have colleagues on the opposite end of the political spectrum 
who are perhaps even more distressed with some of the contents of this 
resolution.
  Some will call this resolution compromise, as if it were something 
foul or distasteful. Others will call this capitulation and will revel 
in debating who recapitulated, the President or the Congress. But I do 
not refer to this budget by either of those terms. To me it is a 
realistic achievement. It is what is doable. It is the product of 
something known as the Democratic process. It is called governing.
  Unless any of us forget, let me remind you that less than 3 years ago 
we did not even debate budget resolutions that reached balance at any 
point in the future. Today, we are debating a budget that reaches 
balance in 2002, provides real savings in entitlement programs, creates 
no new entitlements and provides for a permanent reduction in taxes. We 
are doing this in a bipartisan fashion which greatly enhances the 
chances of making these efforts actual law.
  This debate today is not nearly the final word on the issue. We must 
now move forward in the legislative process. Every committee in this 
body will make a significant contribution on producing at least one, 
hopefully two, reconciliation bills which we will debate later in the 
summer. We must also produce and pass 13 appropriation bills, none of 
which will be easy.
  We will have this and other debates many times over as we proceed. We 
will each see victories and we will each see defeats. That is the 
nature of American-style democracy. It is not particularly pretty to 
watch, but it will work.
  But today what is crucially important to recognize is that for the 
first time in a very long time, we are considering a bipartisan 
balanced budget proposal. This is historical. This is a victory for all 
Americans. More importantly, it is a celebration of our system of 
government and of our future generations.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the former chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Let 
me say a special word of gratitude and thanks to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
for their great job in bringing this compromise budget proposal to us 
today. It is not easy, but it is a job well done and the country is 
well served by your efforts.
  By passing this budget agreement today, we will be entering the final 
stages of a 7-year effort to get this country's fiscal house in order. 
The effort began in 1990 with the budget agreement between President 
Bush and congressional Democrats. It took another giant step forward in 
1993, when President Clinton and congressional Democrats passed the 
largest deficit reduction package in history. And today, by passing 
this budget resolution, we will move toward finishing the job of 
balancing the budget.
  When all is said and done, the record will show that the only people 
to have voted for all three of these budgets will be congressional 
Democrats. And, in fact, most of the people who will have voted for two 
out of three will be congressional Democrats.
  Before the 1993 deficit reduction package was passed, the deficit 
stood at $290 billion. But congressional Democrats acted to change that 
and the country has reaped the benefits ever since. Thanks to that 5-
year plan, the deficit is now expected to fall for a fifth straight 
year to its lowest level since 1979. By the end of 1997, the 1993 plan 
will have cut almost $700 billion in projected deficits. Indeed, 
without that success, we would not be in a position to consider 
balancing the budget by the year 2002.
  The economy has also responded to the 1993 plan by creating more than 
12 million new jobs, raising wages, lowering unemployment, and keeping 
inflation in check. Most of us cannot remember a time when our economy 
was stronger and more likely to provide a better future for our 
citizens. I firmly believe this would not have happened if we had not 
acted to reduce the deficit significantly.
  The budget before us continues the fiscal discipline of the last 7 
years. At the same time, it gives us the opportunity to correct some of 
the excesses of last year's welfare bill. It will help restore fairness 
for legal immigrants who had benefits taken away from them unfairly. It 
will provide the opportunity to restore food stamps for people unable 
to find jobs. This is a good resolution. Let us pass it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page H2967]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent 
Resolution 84, the balanced budget agreement of 1997. When Babe Ruth 
retired in 1935, a lot of folks thought no one would ever break his 
record of 714 home runs. But in 1974, Hank Aaron hit number 715. And a 
lot of folks thought no one would ever break Lou Gehrig's consecutive 
game streak of 2,130 games. But in 1995, Cal Ripken broke that record, 
and he is still going strong.
  A lot of folks were beginning to think that Congress would never 
break its record of deficit spending year after year, and for 27 years 
they were right. But today, we have a chance to break that dismal 
record. Today, we have a chance to end our 27-year losing streak of 
deficit spending.
  This alone is enough reason to merit support for this budget 
agreement. But this agreement does much more than just break the 
deficit streak. It helps preserve Medicare and keep it solvent for the 
next 10 years, it provides tax relief for the American family by 
providing a $500 child tax credit and educational tax credits, it helps 
small businesses and farmers by providing relief from the death tax, 
which causes so many family farms and family businesses to be sold 
instead of being handed down to the next generation, it provides more 
incentives for savings by allowing us to expand the individual 
retirement account, and it will help create jobs by providing much 
needed capital gains tax relief.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle to take advantage of this historical moment, this bipartisan 
agreement, and break this dismal record of deficit spending that 
started in 1969. Vote ``yes'' on this historical document. This is a 
record breaking day for the U.S. Congress.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], the vice chair of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, as a supporter of the 
controversial 1990 Bush budget and a supporter of the budget resolution 
of the equally controversial budget of 1993, I rise tonight to support 
this budget resolution, hoping it has the same end.
  CBO recently announced that, in fact, the deficit for this year would 
be below $70 billion, the lowest in 16 years, a 77-percent reduction in 
deficit since President Clinton became President. This is tremendous 
progress.

                              {time}  1715

  This is tremendous progress. But it would not have happened if it was 
not for the decisions made by those in 1990 and 1993.
  I support this resolution because I want to see the job finished. I 
want to see the budget balanced. But we must say tonight again and 
again, the hard work has just begun. We must draft implementing 
legislation that keeps the promise of a balanced budget in the years 
following 2002. We must insist that the Committee on Ways and Means 
craft a package that provides needed tax relief to American families. 
This will be no easy task. In particular, the tax package needs to be 
crafted in a way that makes it possible to provide the promised tax 
cuts while at the same time actually measuring in the correct way the 
cost of these tax cuts. It would be tragic indeed if after years of 
work the tax cuts were drafted in such a manner that the revenue losses 
drive up the deficit after 2008. I think we should agree in a 
bipartisan fashion that such an outcome is not in the interest of the 
Nation.
  I stand here tonight and the rancor is not the same as it was in 
1990, and it certainly is not the same as it was in 1993. I do not miss 
the rancor, but, Mr. Chairman, I will say I would rather have the 
rancor and the commitment to reduce the deficit. I certainly hope 
tonight that in this budget resolution I am going to vote for, that 
promises are kept, please, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip and a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this resolution, and I 
commend everyone on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in 
putting it together.
  Today we are faced with another historic decision. We can move 
forward by passing this resolution or we can stumble backwards by 
defeating it. This budget resolution accomplishes two very important 
things: First, it balances the budget; second, it cuts taxes for 
working families in America. Together these two priorities comprise the 
cornerstone of the Republican agenda. To characterize this as anything 
less than a victory for commonsense conservatism, I think, is an 
exercise in fantasy. I would remind my colleagues that this is not the 
end of the beginning nor is it the beginning of the end. Instead it is 
the first step in a very long process to preserve and protect the 
future fiscal health of this Nation. Like the 12-step program of 
Alcoholics Anonymous, the first step is the most important step, but 
each step on the way is equally important. We have a long way to go 
until we swear off wasteful Washington spending for good.
  Critics have found much to criticize in this budget. They have picked 
it apart with complaints as diverse as the people who make up this 
country. Some have said that spending is too high. Others have said 
that spending is too low. Some complain that our tax cuts are too 
generous. Others condemn them as inefficient. In a perfect world, if I 
were king, this would be a different budget. I am certain that if the 
minority whip, the gentleman from Michigan, were king, he could 
construct a budget far different from mine. But this is not a monarchy. 
Neither the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] nor I are kings. This 
agreement is the best we can get with the situation that we find 
ourselves in. It cuts taxes, it saves Medicare, it slows spending, and 
it balances the budget.
  In my view this budget resolution is kind of like Tiger Woods and his 
tee shot. It is not too far to the right nor is it too far to the left 
and it takes us a lot further than we previously thought we could go 
before.
  A cynic, Oscar Wilde once said, is a man who knows the price of 
everything and the value of nothing. Cynics who condemn this budget 
miss its true value. For the first time in modern memory, the President 
of one party and a Congress controlled by the other party have agreed 
to balance the budget and to cut taxes in a very specific budget 
resolution. I call that a victory for the American people.
  To those Democrats who support this resolution, let me just simply 
say, welcome to the fight and we greatly appreciate your support. And 
to those few Republicans who may oppose this budget, let me just say, 
do not grasp defeat from the jaws of victory. To those Americans who 
have lost faith in the political process, let me just say, every once 
in a while the process works. This is one of those times.
  Vote for this resolution and together let us move on to the next step 
of balancing the budget and cutting taxes for the American people.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Matsui].
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to commend the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and certainly the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and certainly the President and his staff for 
putting together this agreement. I would call it a historic agreement, 
and it is. If, in fact, it is implemented as it is agreed to, then it 
will be a very good budget because it will carry out the priorities of 
both sides. It will have a modest tax cut and at the same time it will 
provide relief for legal immigrants that was taken away in 1996, it 
will provide new initiatives for children's health care, and certainly 
it will provide more resources for education in the form of Pell grants 
and increases of 25 percent in many of the areas of education.
  On the other hand, I must point out that I thank the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay] for saying that many Democrats will be joining him, 
but for the last 7 years, in 1990, and 1993, it was the Democrats that 
basically carried deficit reduction. In 1990, as my colleagues recall 
when President Bush was President we reduced the deficit by some $600 
billion. In 1993, with President Clinton, we reduced it by some $490 
billion. That is why we are here today with a $67 billion deficit and 
on our way to balance. But I will say I am a little concerned, and I 
want to make one caveat. This is just a piece of paper. It has no force 
of law. The President does not even have to sign it. The

[[Page H2968]]

real test will be the 13 appropriations bills and the reconciliation 
bill and also the reconciliation bills on the tax cut.
  Bear in mind, 1981, when Ronald Reagan said, ``We're going to balance 
the budget, we're going to cut taxes and we're going to increase 
defense.'' He said he was going to balance the budget by 1984. My 
colleagues know that did not happen.
  I just heard some of my friends on the other side of the aisle 
talking about the tax cuts, the capital gains tax cuts, the cuts in the 
estate tax, the child credit of $500, and also the IRA's. If we add all 
those up as introduced in the Contract With America, we are talking 
about 600 billion dollars' worth of tax cuts over the next 10 years. We 
will find ourselves in the same mess we did in the 1980's unless we are 
willing to implement this agreement as it was agreed upon by all the 
parties.
  I reserve the right, I think with my colleagues, that on the 
individual appropriations and individual reconciliation, we certainly 
will be in a position to examine those very closely.
  Mr. SPRATT. 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 thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spratt] for yielding me this time and congratulate the gentleman 
on a job very well done.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget resolution as the next 
step to balancing the Federal budget. Considered in light of the CBO 
deficit projections just 4 years ago, this accomplishment is nothing 
short of miraculous. Four years ago, the deficit was actually $290 
billion. The projection for 1997 that year was that the deficit would 
be $319 billion. But for the courageous action of President Clinton and 
the Members of this House and Senate, the other body, we were able to 
pass a bill that, in fact, brought the deficit in much, much lower than 
that. We have now a controllable deficit thanks to the action that we 
took in 1993.
  I would like to speak for a moment about the tax and revenue portions 
of the agreement. The concern has been raised that we must not repeat 
the mistakes that we made in 1981. I was not a Member of this House in 
1981, but I reviewed the action of that year. The tax cuts proposed by 
President Reagan and approved by the Congress were estimated at that 
time to reduce Federal revenues by $863 billion over 5 years. Let me 
say that again. The tax cut of 1981 totaled $863 billion over 5 years. 
That was with 1981 dollars. The tax cuts provided under the agreement 
embodied in this resolution are limited to $85 billion over 5 years, 
which is less than 10 percent of the size of the 1981 tax cuts. It is a 
far more cautious and responsible tax package than the 1981 
legislation.
  Another key provision of this agreement is the treatment of Medicare. 
The budget resolution we consider today provides for real Medicare 
reform that will lower the cost to our seniors and provide quality care 
for our Nation's seniors. Chief among the improvements is a preventive 
health care package that will help our seniors with their health care 
needs. We also solve other real problems in providing health benefits 
for children. We provide needs for students. This is a good budget 
agreement that puts together ways of improving our economy. I hope my 
colleagues will support the agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget resolution as a next 
important step along the way to balancing the Federal Government's 
books for the first time in a third of a century. I share the view of 
those, including the President, who have said that this budget balances 
the budget while also balancing our priorities and our values.
  The budget we have before us today is truly a bipartisan work 
product. With a Democratic President and a Republican-controlled 
Congress, only a bipartisan budget plan could succeed. Both parties had 
to be willing to work through their strong disagreements and find 
compromise, without abandoning principle. Because they were, we have a 
chance today to take another step forward on the road to a balanced 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, just as today's action by this House will not mark the 
end of the work needed to balance the budget, neither does it mark the 
beginning. The Congressional Budget Office has recently indicated that 
it now estimates the budget deficit for the current fiscal year will be 
less than $70 billion. Considered in the light of CBO deficit 
projections of just 4 years ago, this accomplishment is nothing short 
of miraculous.
  Four years ago, prior to the passage of the 1993 deficit reduction 
act, the Federal budget deficit was $290 billion. At that time, CBO 
projected that the deficit for this year, fiscal year 1997, would be 
$319 billion. By its courageous action in following President Clinton's 
leadership and passing the 1993 legislation, the 103d Congress brought 
uncontrollable deficits down to controllable levels. Without that 
action, we would not today be in a position to finish the job and 
balance the budget.
  After a decade and a half in which the United States was the most 
fiscally irresponsible member of the G-7, today we are again the 
healthiest and most vibrant economy in the world. Our fiscal health is 
also the strongest of our major trading allies.
  Today it is up to us to take the next step by approving this balanced 
budget agreement. As we do so, a few words of caution are in order.
  Passage of this budget resolution will not, of course, balance the 
budget. We must still do the hard work of cutting spending and 
enforcing the terms of the agreement.
  I would like to speak for a moment about the tax and revenue portions 
of this agreement. Some critics of the agreement, concerned about the 
tax cuts, have compared this agreement to the early 1980's. At that 
time, the 97th Congress approved the largest tax cuts in our country's 
history, which created the nightmare deficits that have plagued us 
since.
  The concern has been raised that we must not repeat the mistakes of 
1981. I was not a Member of this House in 1981. But I have reviewed the 
actions of that year. The tax cuts proposed by President Reagan 
approved by Congress that year were estimated at the time to reduce 
Federal revenues by $863 billion over 5 years. Let me say that again. 
The tax cuts of 1981 totaled $863 billion over 5 years. Let me point 
out that figure is in 1981 dollars.

  The tax cuts provided under the agreement embodied in this resolution 
are limited to $85 billion over 5 years, which is less than 10 percent 
of the size of the 1981 tax cuts. It is a far more cautious and 
responsible tax package than the 1981 legislation.
  No aspect of this agreement is more important than constraining the 
size of the tax cuts. We must be especially careful that revenue losses 
associated with the tax cuts do not exceed the tight limits that all 
parties have agreed to. Those of us on the taxwriting committee must 
work to prevent tax cuts from driving the deficit back up after 2002. 
Once we have balanced the budget, we must keep it balanced.
  Another key to this agreement is the treatment of Medicare. Unlike 2 
years ago, when the preservation of health benefits for seniors divided 
the parties, this year we are together on Medicare.
  In the last Congress, so-called Medicare reform was all about 
slashing spending and forcing seniors into managed care plans where 
they would face higher costs and decreased choice. This year, the 
Medicare debate has turned around. The budget resolution that we are 
considering today is real Medicare reform. It makes programmatic 
changes that will lower costs and improve quality of care in the long 
run for our Nation's seniors.
  Chief among these improvements is the addition of new preventive 
benefits in Medicare. On the first day of this session of Congress, I 
joined with my colleagues Chairman Bill Thomas of the Ways and Means 
Health Subcommittee and Chairman Mike Bilirakis of the Commerce Health 
Subcommittee to introduce H.R. 15, the Medicare Preventive Benefits 
Improvement Act. The budget resolution Includes these new benefits: 
Yearly mammographies for women over 50, with the deductible waived; 
colon cancer screening; prostate cancer screening; diabetes self-
management and training services and payment for blood glucose 
monitoring strips; yearly pap smear screening and pelvic exams for 
women of childbearing age or with high risk of developing cervical 
cancer, with the deductible waived.
  These Medicare modernizations will go far toward improving the 
quality of life for our Nation's seniors. And, as prevention becomes 
the norm of care for seniors, the Medicare Program will realize 
substantial savings as well.
  Medicare is also thee source of funding for our Nation's graduate 
medical education system. This budget resolution includes provisions 
that make some improvements to that system. During the budget 
reconciliation process, I plan to build on this commitment to ensure 
that our graduate medical education system remains No. 1 in the world.
  Despite the strengths of this agreement, there are parts of this 
budget resolution that I do not agree with and that I believe take our 
country in the wrong direction.

  I strongly oppose a provision in the budget resolution that calls for 
the repeal of the Boren

[[Page H2969]]

amendment. The Boren amendment is a protection in the Medicaid Program 
that simply states that payment rates for hospitals and nursing 
facilities must be ``reasonable and adequate to meet the costs of 
efficiently and economically operated facilities.'' This provision is a 
vitally important Medicaid component because it helps assure access to 
quality health care for our Nation's poor mothers, children, and 
seniors.
  We created the Boren amendment in 1981 at the request of our Nation's 
Governors who were concerned that they would no longer be able to 
provide quality health care to their nursing home residents and poor 
mothers and children because of the downward spiral of Medicaid 
reimbursements. What was a problem in 1981 would become a problem again 
today if we repeal the Boren amendment. The proposed repeal of the 
Boren amendment creates a problem where none now exists.
  Fortunately, there are other provisions of this agreement that solve 
real problems. The agreement contains important changes in last year's 
welfare reform legislation, easing some of the excesses of that 
initiative. The bill commits us to addressing the health care needs to 
the millions of American children who have no health care coverage. It 
provides the largest increase ever in Pell grants, making postsecondary 
education more affordable for millions of American young people.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1969, the promise of a balanced budget has eluded 
this country. Now, with the adoption of this budget resolution, we have 
the chance to bring that promise closer to reality. Over all, the 
pluses in this package far outweigh the minuses. It will allow us to 
finish the job we began in 1993 and balance the Federal budget, and it 
does so in a way that is consistent with the values and priorities of 
the American people.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to correct an 
impression left by the previous speaker that even though the estimates 
in 1981 were that we would lose revenues, real life happened after 
those estimates. The estimates turned out to be wrong and revenues 
doubled during the 1980's as a result of the economic growth package 
enacted in 1981.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pascrell].
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this great 
budget agreement. I think we have come a long way and it has taken us a 
long time. This budget proposal is real. For the first time in 28 
years, we have the opportunity to pass a truly balanced budget. I hope 
the Members of this House will consider later on this evening the 
Shuster-Oberstar amendment in terms of transportation and investment 
into our infrastructure. I think it is important. This is a balanced 
budget that protects our commitments to working families, the elderly 
and children and one that puts our economy on the right path as we 
enter the next century.
  The interest payment on the debt is currently the third largest 
portion of the Federal budget. That is money that could otherwise be 
invested in education, in job training, and infrastructure, or could 
simply be given back to the taxpayers to spend as they see fit.
  This budget proposal allows for tax credits for our young people and 
allows for expanded Pell grants. It is the right vote tonight, later on 
this evening, that we support this budget agreement. I commend both 
sides for a job well done.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this budget agreement. The agreement 
before us represents at least procedurally the hardest thing this body 
ever tries to do, compromise differences, accept less than what each 
party wants, and tolerate aspects of the agreement each party would not 
include if it were simply a matter of writing its own package.
  Throughout the history of this place, this Chamber is mostly a matter 
of winner-take-all, the party of the majority passes the bills they 
want, and that is the end of it. In times of divided government, that 
often means a Presidential veto and the legislative initiative dies in 
the partisan standoff. Such was the fate of the balanced budget drive 
in the last Congress and it very well could have happened to the 
balanced budget effort this Congress, but the American people deserve 
better and the President and the leaders of Congress, both House and 
Senate, both majority and minority, have worked to give them better. 
This budget agreement accomplishes that difficult task.
  Back where I come from and across the country, Americans wanted the 
parties to work together to iron out the most difficult problems facing 
this country. They wanted a balanced budget. They have to do it as 
individual families. Collectively they wanted to do it on behalf of the 
country. But they also wanted our values reflected. Those values 
include protecting the health care that our seniors depend upon, 
committing to a bright educational opportunity for our young people, 
and the opportunity for people at a midcareer track to go back and get 
the skills training they need to compete in the work force today. It 
also means working and middle-income families find it just a little 
easier to make ends meet.

                              {time}  1730

  Now I believe the agreement before us accomplishes all of this in a 
reasonable but not perfect fashion. Most importantly, it reaches a 
balanced budget and does so in a way that I think fairly reflects those 
values.
  Mr. Chairman, as a 5-year member of the Committee on the Budget, I am 
extremely pleased to say I am supporting this agreement, and I urge my 
colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Sherman].
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the budget agreement. 
It is just that, an agreement, a compromise. As my colleague from North 
Carolina pointed out, it is not what our party would have wanted, but 
it is better than deadlock, division and a Government shutdown a few 
months from now.
  My colleague from California argued that we did a better job in 1981 
and told us that revenues went up. They did only because we had such 
massive inflation as a result of the 1981 tax bill that everything cost 
more and everything involved more dollars. This, I hope, will be a much 
better agreement. That agreement in 1981 caused income taxes to decline 
sharply as a percentage of gross domestic product. This agreement will 
lead us to a balanced budget.
  Just a few years ago we were headed toward a hundred trillion dollar 
deficit. Now, after tough votes in 1993 and the tough votes that we 
will make here today, we will be headed toward a balanced budget, a 
budget that I think will do more to encourage business than any 10 
Republican business incentive programs or tax cuts and a balanced 
budget that will do more to help the poor than any 10 Great Society 
programs, because a balanced budget means a decline in interest rates, 
an increase in business activity, an increase in jobs.
  On the Committee on the Budget my focus has been to focus on the 
environment and our need to buy more environmentally sensitive lands. I 
want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] for working with me 
on an amendment that we adopted last Friday, an amendment that 
clarifies the agreement reached in the White House and indicates that 
we will have $700 million to spend next year on acquiring 
environmentally important lands. I think that it is important when we 
talk about taking care of our children to give them not only a healthy 
economy but to preserve this land for them, and that is an excellent 
aspect of this budget agreement.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, balancing the budget is important for 
this country and for its people, but balancing our national priorities 
and being fair to our citizens is equally important. This budget deal, 
some say, gives us the best opportunity to balance the budget in the 
next 5 years, but who are the winners and who are the losers?
  This budget is indeed good for education, a national priority: $35 
billion of investment in education, $300 in Pell grant increase, the 
largest expansion in Head Start; all of this leads toward our national 
priority.
  But this budget is not fair to poor people. It fails to correct the 
very harsh provisions that allows hundreds of people access to food 
stamps only 3 months out of 3 years.

[[Page H2970]]

  This budget does provide for a few more work slots and makes a feeble 
attempt to provide some assistance to States of 15 percent, but it does 
nothing about shelter caps or nothing about a reasonable value of 
vehicles.
  This budget will help to develop healthy children, and indeed that is 
important. It expands health coverage for 5 million uncovered children 
while again, on the other side, it does not expand health coverage for 
another 5 million children.
  Additionally, it finds that it is additional hardship of those rural 
hospitals because of the disproportionate share.
  This budget is charitable for working families. It gives a $500 child 
tax credit, the welfare-to-work credit and the establishment of 
additional empowerment zones, enterprise communities. It will help 
local economies. But this budget is bad for those who want to work and 
cannot find a job.
  This budget treats some legal immigrants fairly and, Mr. Chairman, 
that is a move in the right direction. It restores the civility and 
health benefits for legal immigrants as well as Medicaid coverage for 
poor legal immigrants' children. But it does not restore food stamps 
for legal immigrants, and when one comes to this country, whether they 
are legal or not, one knows indeed the benefits were not provided.
  Mr. Chairman, we must, those of us who are considering to vote for 
this budget deal, must be honest with ourselves. There are winners and 
losers, and we must be fair to all of our citizens.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Radanovich].
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, today is a historic moment for America. 
We have the opportunity to vote on a budget that will be in balance by 
the year 2002 to begin the process of returning the Federal Government 
to a policy of fiscal responsibility.
  Last week the Committee on the Budget had a chance to look at this 
budget agreement, and I am proud to say that we reported it out of 
committee by a wide bipartisan margin, 31 to 7.
  This budget stands for commonsense values. It means permanent tax 
relief for hard-working families, genuine entitlement reform that 
preserves Medicare, and smaller, less intrusive Washington bureaucracy 
that lives within its means. This is something American families have 
been doing all along. It is about time we reward them for it with a 
balanced budget of our own.
  With this budget American families will receive a much needed break 
from excessive taxes that have reached an unprecedented level of 
unfairness. This means that middle-class Americans like David Witt of 
Fresno, CA, and Kelley Gentry of Three Rivers, CA, both in the great 
Central Valley, will get capital gains tax cuts. Others will receive 
relief from the death tax, which destroys the hope of passing on the 
fruits of one's labor to their children, and they will also receive tax 
relief if they send their child to college. These tax reductions will 
allow workers to keep more of what they earn and gives them the freedom 
to live their lives as they choose, not as Washington dictates.
  Mr. Chairman, we have the chance today to reduce taxes by $135 
billion over 5 years, save Medicare for the next 10 years and provide 
600 to 700 dollars' worth of entitlement savings over a 10-year period.
  I urge my colleagues to support final passage of House Concurrent 
Resolution 84, a Balanced Budget Act that is good for America.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I believe that like the rest of 
the country we do some of our best work when we come together and try 
to look very carefully at what we have in common and how we can work 
together towards the common goal, and such is the strength of the 
budget resolution today that has as its primary emphasis balancing the 
Federal budget. This in my mind is the glue that has put this agreement 
together and the glue that will hold this agreement together, including 
between Democrats and Republicans.
  Let us not forget that the amount of interest that we are paying 
annually on the Federal debt more than exceeds the annual amount of 
income tax paid by every individual living west of the Mississippi in 
the United States, an average of about $3,000 a taxpayer. This is a 
compelling debt we cannot allow our children and grandchildren to 
inherit.
  What further gives this budget resolution integrity is it strikes the 
appropriate balance between preserving our priorities, Medicare, 
Medicaid and, in particular, education while balancing the budget. This 
is a major distinction between the budget of the Congress passed last 
year that the President thankfully vetoed that would have devastated 
States like Florida, where I come from, in terms of the impact of a 
very sudden and massive reduction in Medicaid. The proper balance has 
been struck here.
  And with respect to the tax cuts let me say this: I think one of the 
best tax cuts that we can provide to the public is to reduce the 
incredible deficit that this country faces, to minimize its huge 
interest payment, to enjoy the favorable impact that would tend to have 
on interest rates, and, as we begin this process and as we debate these 
tax cuts, let us be open and honest with the American public as to how 
much these tax cuts are going to cost, where the money is going to come 
from to pay for it, and to make absolutely certain that the tax cuts 
that we do enact here are paid for and do not in any way undermine what 
should be our principal goal, which should be to balance our Federal 
debt.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member on the 
Committee Budget for, one, letting me speak this afternoon; and, two, 
for all the work he has done to make this balance and possible for many 
of us to vote for.
  Mr. Chairman, I voted for this budget resolution in committee, and I 
will vote for it here on the House floor, not because it is perfect, 
but because it takes important strides to invest in our kids, our 
families, and balances at the same time our budget in 5 years.
  But voting for a good budget resolution is just the first step. Next 
we must take steps to implement the promises contained in this budget. 
In particular, I will be watching to make sure that we enact the 
President's education initiatives and that we fully fund WIC.
  The only way we can move this Nation forward is by giving every 
single American access to quality education and training. That is why 
Congress must fund the President's education initiatives and make 
higher education more accessible and more affordable. Americans who are 
educated can get jobs that pay a livable wage. When we make education 
more accessible, we prevent families from going on welfare. We reduce 
crime, and we reduce violence, and we increase respect, respect for our 
health, respect for our environment and respect for each other and our 
differences.
  Scientific research proves what every mother already knows. Babies 
who are born healthy and babies who are nurtured in the early years 
have the best chance of growing into productive adults. That is why 
Congress must fully fund WIC, so that every eligible pregnant woman has 
access to prenatal care and proper nutrition for herself during her 
pregnancy and while she is nursing and for her baby following birth.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be voting for this budget resolution, but I will 
be watching closely to make sure that the promises made to our kids and 
families are within this budget act.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts].
  (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the balanced 
budget agreement of 1997. This is a bipartisan compromise which is 
necessary in this day of divided government which demonstrates an 
ability to govern even with the President of one party and Congress of 
the other. The passage of the balanced budget resolution will be a 
solid first step toward the goals of balancing our budget, providing 
permanent tax relief for American families and reducing the size and 
scope of the Federal Government while improving the fiscal health of 
this Nation.

[[Page H2971]]

  Mr. Chairman, after months of negotiations, the Republican leadership 
and President Clinton have found enough common ground to draft a budget 
which will come to real balance by no later than 2002.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that American families deserve a break, a tax 
break, and this bipartisan plan will give American families the tax 
relief they deserve. This plan will give Americans $135 billion in tax 
relief over the next 5 years, and for the next 10 years the Americans 
will get a tax break of $250 billion. The tax relief package in this 
budget insures that every American wins. It is a permanent win. It is 
not a temporary tax cut. With it we can provide relief for families 
with children with a per child tax credit, the opportunity for people 
to keep their family farms and businesses with death tax relief, 
incentives for job creation and economic growth with capital gains tax 
relief, incentives for savings and investment with IRA expansion, 
relief for families who send their kids to college with the education 
tax credit.
  Mr. Chairman, with our bipartisan plan we save Medicare, we increase 
Medicare spending, provide seniors with better choices. While liberals 
hold onto bureaucracy, we have chosen ways to preserve, protect, and 
strengthen Medicare for the sake of our seniors.
  And finally this budget will decrease the size and scope of our 
Federal Government. In current dollars Washington will spend less over 
the next 5 years in nondefense discretionary spending than it has since 
1969.

                              {time}  1745

  That is the last time Washington balanced its books.
  This bipartisan plan will save the taxpayers $961 billion over the 
next 10 years in spending. Without this agreement, we would be spending 
almost $1 trillion in higher spending; and guess who foots the bill for 
this extra $1 trillion? American families.
  Mr. Chairman, compromise is essential with a divided government. 
There are components of this budget which are not perfect. There are 
even some components which some of us would change, if we could. 
However, the President has veto power. The Republicans have a slim 
majority of 10 seats, and we cannot override a Presidential veto. If we 
send the President the spending reduction and tax relief we did in the 
last Congress, the President would veto again, and the deficit will 
continue to grow indefinitely.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we agree that this is a bipartisan agreement. If my 
colleagues would take a look at this chart, this is what the average 
American family spends on taxes today: $21,883. It is more than what 
they spend on food, shelter, clothing, and transportation combined, and 
this is the level of taxation that families will continue to endure if 
we do not pass this bipartisan plan.
  The American family needs this bipartisan plan. It will mean lower 
taxes, lower interest rates, economic, domestic expansion and a healthy 
economy. Mr. Chairman, for the first time in 40 years we have this 
bipartisan agreement. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan 
balanced budget resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, on balance, this is a good plan. Certainly 
it is much better than this House passed in 1995 and 1996, and 
fortunately the President vetoed those plans. If it works and the 
economy stays strong, it will balance the budget for the first time 
since 1969, which was the year that I was 10 years old.
  Increasing education and environmental funding is what this budget 
does and it is a good thing. It begins to address the national disgrace 
of the 10 million uninsured children in this country, including more 
than 2.5 million in Texas, and it increases access to college by 
increasing Pell grants and making tuition deductible.
  There are some points that I think the committees need to look at. 
With respect to Medicare and Medicaid, the Committee on Ways and Means 
and the Committee on Commerce need to make sure that we have stable 
funding for medical education in the context of the Medicare changes 
that are made, ensuring that low-income seniors are protected from 
premium increases due to the shift of home health care, ensuring that 
there is Medigap protection so that we give seniors a real choice 
between fee-for-service and managed care, and ensuring that the 
disproportionate share that is used by the States continues to have the 
flexibility, so that it covers not just high Medicaid populations, but 
also unreimbursed charity care as well.
  Let me speak with respect to the tax cuts. Many are appealing, and I 
support many of them. However, I do have some real concerns as to how 
they are being paid for.
  A large part of this budget is predicated upon very, very optimistic 
economic assumptions. If we look at the numbers, we assume that 
inflation will be 2-percent less than historical average, that interest 
rates will be 3-percent less than historical average and that 
unemployment will be 1-percent less than recent historical average, 
spectrum sales will bring in more than they have in the past.
  This is a great risk, a risk that we can manage, but I urge my 
colleagues that we need to be cautious as we go forward with this plan, 
not get us back into the trap we saw after the 1981 budget and 1982 and 
1983, where we had resulting deficits from tax reductions and then put 
pressure on mandatory spending such as Medicare and Medicaid.
  In balance, as I said, this is a good deal, I will support it, but it 
will take a lot of work over the next 5 years to ensure that we do in 
fact get in balance.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget resolution as a good 
start toward the first balanced budget since 1969. It is by no means a 
perfect agreement; few are. But it is a bipartisan agreement that sets 
us on a path to balance and, if properly implemented, will help restore 
the confidence of the American people that their elected leaders can 
work together to confront the challenges facing our Nation.
  I am especially pleased that this agreement places such a high 
priority on the education and health of our children. We must expand 
access to college because more and better education is needed to 
succeed in the information age economy. This agreement does include the 
largest increase in education investment in 30 years. It will help low- 
and middle-income families afford college tuition by expanding Pell 
grants and providing tax deductions for college costs.
  This agreement will also help end the national shame that 10 million 
children lack health insurance and access to basic health services such 
as immunizations and regular checkups. My State of Texas leads the 
Nation in the number of uninsured children--2.6 million Texas children 
have lacked health insurance for at least a month over the past 2 
years. This agreement will go a long way toward helping these children 
and their families. These are the right investments to make even as we 
move toward a balanced budget.
  However, this resolution, as we all know, is only a roadmap to a 
balanced budget. Now it will be up to the various authorizing 
committees and the Appropriations Committee to fill in the details, and 
I reserve judgment on the final product until we see those details. I 
want to outline my concerns about this agreement, especially with 
regard to the changes in Medicare and Medicaid and the potential cost 
of the tax cuts that could lead either to new deficits or deep cuts in 
mandatory spending such as Medicare, Medicaid, and education.
  The Medicare changes should be fair to senior citizens and maintain 
our investment in graduate medical education at the Nation's teaching 
hospitals. The Ways and Means and Commerce Committees should consider 
four issues in preparing their reconciliation bills.
  First, we must ensure stable, guaranteed funding for teaching 
hospitals, which are linchpins of our entire health care system. They 
train future physicians and other health care professionals; they 
conduct clinical research that helps keep America first in the world in 
medical research and technological development; and they often bear the 
responsibility of treating patients who lack health insurance and 
cannot find care anywhere else. Through traditional Medicare plans, the 
Federal Government provides a subsidy to these institutions based upon 
the number of traditional Medicare patients they treat. However, as the 
number of Medicare patients enrolled in managed care has grown steadily 
and these patients have been sent to other locations, there has been a 
steady erosion in this Federal subsidy.
  I believe that the Medicare reforms enacted as part of the 
reconciliation bill should address this problem and establish stable, 
mandatory

[[Page H2972]]

funding for graduate medical education. This legislation could include 
the option recommended by the administration's fiscal year 1997 budget, 
which is similar to legislation I have introduced, H.R. 106, to 
establish a trust fund by recapturing a portion of the per capita costs 
paid to Medicare managed care plans. This approach would not increase 
Federal spending; rather it would recapture funds from the current 
Medicare managed care reimbursement formula so that all Medicare plans 
help pay for the cost of graduate medical education.

  The Medicare reforms also need to include sufficient protections for 
senior citizens. We must ensure that senior citizens have a real choice 
of doctors and health plans by reforming Medigap regulations. Seniors 
who transfer into a managed care plan should be guaranteed the right to 
buy Medigap if they decide to return to traditional Medicare. Seniors 
currently lack this right, and this is a tremendous obstacle to real 
choice in Medicare. We must also ensure that, as we move home health 
care from Medicare part A to Medicare part B and phase these costs into 
the premium calculations, we protect low-income seniors from the 
premium increases. This agreement includes $1.5 billion under Medicaid 
to help low-income seniors pay these premiums. That is the minimum that 
should be included in the implementing legislation. The reconciliation 
bill should be clear in authorizing an increase in Specified Low-income 
Medicare Beneficiary [SLMB] coverage.
  This budget agreement also recommends $13.6 billion in net savings 
for the Medicaid Program. Most of these savings would come from 
reducing Medicaid's payments to hospitals serving a disproportionate 
share of Medicaid and low-income families. I will work to ensure that 
these reforms to the Disproportionate Share Hospital [SDH] Program are 
fair and reasonable. Texas has a high number of SDH-eligible facilities 
because it has the highest percentage of uninsured patients in the 
Nation and serves a large number of Medicaid patients as well. Any 
reforms to the DSH Program must protect these patients and those 
facilities which serve them. In particular, we should ensure that 
States retain flexibility to include both Medicaid and non-Medicaid 
charity care in determining DSH eligibility.
  I am also concerned that this agreement meet the goal of balancing 
the budget. It is assumed that the tax cuts will be contained and not 
result in excessive revenue losses in the future. It is also assumed 
that the net tax cuts are being paid for by revenue offsets, spectrum 
sales, and positive economic assumptions of the Congressional Budget 
Office. Should such assumptions change, revenue losses due to tax cuts 
would increase the deficit and create pressure for further cuts in 
mandatory spending such as Medicare and Medicaid. That is why I offered 
an amendment in the Budget Committee to ensure that any excess losses 
from the tax bill be offset not by additional cuts in mandatory 
spending, but rather from the revenue side of the ledger. I believe 
this is within the scope of the original agreement, but unfortunately 
the committee failed to accept this enforcement mechanism.
  We must remember the lesson of the early 1980's when tax cuts did 
explode in cost and resulted in the huge deficits we are still dealing 
with today. I believe there is a possibility that history will repeat 
itself. There are two temptations that we must avoid--the first is to 
use overly optimistic economic assumptions and the second is to 
structure the tax cuts so that they initially appear to be limited in 
cost, but then explode in the out years. There is a very real risk that 
this resolution is making both mistakes. That is not to say we cannot 
manage risk. We can and we should.

  First, let me discuss the economic estimates. Yes, our economy has 
demonstrated remarkable resiliency and strength. But we have not 
repealed the business cycle and a downturn is inevitable. However, the 
economic assumptions in this resolution do not leave much room for the 
inevitable. It assumes $225 billion in new revenue that the 
Congressional Budget Office suddenly found at the last minute. It 
assumes $15 billion from a reduction in the Consumer Price Index that 
may or may not happen. It projects $26 billion in revenues from 
spectrum auctions despite the fact recent auctions have fallen well 
short of expectations. And it forecasts $77 billion in savings from 
stronger economic growth. For example, these estimates are premised on 
unemployment averaging a full percentage point lower than it has since 
1980; a CPI almost 2 percentage points lower than the 15-year average; 
and interest rates on 3-month Treasury bills more than 3 percent lower 
than that average. While a far cry from the rosy scenarios of the early 
1980's, these estimates nevertheless appear somewhat optimistic.
  So on the one hand, there is this temptation to overestimate 
projected revenue during the period of this agreement. On the other 
hand, there is a tremendous temptation to underestimate the revenue 
loss from the tax cuts. This agreement calls for net tax cuts of $85 
billion over 5 years and $250 billion over 10 years. However, the Joint 
Tax Committee estimates that the full cost of all the tax cuts still on 
the table--both the President's tuition tax deductions and the various 
Republican leadership proposals--would be $221 billion over 5 years and 
$560 billion over 10 years. Fitting all these proposals into the 
constraints of this agreement will require very difficult choices. I am 
concerned that some backloading of tax cuts has already crept into this 
budget resolution. The revenue flow from the tax cuts shows a bubble of 
$2 billion more in revenue in 2002. What policy assumptions generate 
this extra revenue, and what will be the consequences later?
  This, is on balance, a good agreement. Like all transactions, there 
are many moving parts which must be worked out. We are benefiting from 
strong and stable economic growth and previous deficit reduction 
measures. Nonetheless, there is a risk that economic conditions will 
change or that revenue loss assumptions will prove incorrect. We should 
manage such risk if we are to make this deal work.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for leading the fight to protect Democratic 
priorities in the deliberations of the Committee on the Budget.
  I intend to vote for the balanced budget resolution today, but the 
final product of our deliberations must reflect the Democrats' families 
first priorities in order to gain my support further down the road. 
Those priorities include significant investment in education, a 
children's health care initiative to provide coverage to as many of the 
10 million uninsured children as possible, and strong environmental 
protection and enforcement.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my fear that the Republican right will highjack 
the budget process as it continues towards reconciliation and the 
details begin to be worked out. The Democrats will not support tax cuts 
that primarily benefit the wealthy at the expense of the average 
American family.
  Concerning the children's health care initiative, the Democratic 
health care task force has worked hard over the last year to develop a 
proposal that will cover the greatest number of uninsured children. Our 
families first plan includes enhanced outreach to those 3 million 
children already eligible, but not enrolled in Medicaid, increase 
Federal help to expand Medicaid, State flexibility which allows 
children to remain eligible for Medicaid for a full year after 
eligibility is determined, and grants to States to assist with 
providing public or private health insurance.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, I believe that this family first 
kids' health initiative can be contained within this balanced budget 
resolution. I know that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
has assumed the specifics of our Democrats' Family First health care 
initiative within his substitute and he calls for spending $32 billion 
for the proposal. I would say, whether it is $32 billion or $16 
billion, as in the Committee on the Budget's proposal, it is important 
to recognize that Democrats will fight to ensure that the sum set aside 
for children's health care truly benefits most, if not all, of the 10 
million uninsured children.
  I feel very strongly that this is the beginning of the process. We 
should support it at this point, but we have to make sure as we move 
along that we contain and we include as many of the 10 million 
uninsured children as possible.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Nussle].
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  I wanted to start by giving credit where credit is due for the reason 
why we are here today. Mr. Chairman, the big shots get to sit in the 
room and negotiate and get everything done, but there is a reason why 
we are here. Here comes one of the big shots now. I congratulate the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget, but the real big shots and the reason why we are here today is 
the American people. They demanded it, they said we want real 
entitlement reform, we want to save Medicare, we want to stop all of 
these increases in taxes, we want to balance

[[Page H2973]]

the budget and we want to do it now, we do not want any phoney 
gimmicks, we do not want a phoney plan, we want our Representatives to 
get in there, work together.
  We know there are differences, we know there are people who are going 
to disagree and find all sorts of reasons to vote against it, but we 
want you to get the job done. So because of the American people, 
because they did not fall asleep at the switch, we are here today, and 
this is what we have:
  We have a budget that balances by the year 2002, and we begin at that 
point to begin paying off the national debt. It provides $250 billion 
in tax relief to small business, to farmers, to families, for job 
creation, for education costs, and getting, starting to get rid of that 
awful death tax. It ensures Medicare solvency for 10 years. My two 
grandmothers, in their 90's, thankfully now do not have to worry as 
much as they had to when the Medicare trust fund report came out just 
last month. It does not touch Social Security benefits, and reduces 
total government spending to 18.9 percent of gross domestic product in 
2002. That is the first time since the first year I started high school 
that Federal spending will be less than 20 percent of gross domestic 
product.
  Now let me tell my colleagues, for those people who are skeptics, why 
this is real and why it is important. For the first time, and part of 
the reason why I ran for Congress was because I was so sick and tired 
of all of these Gramm-Rudmans this and Gramm-Rudmans that, did not know 
who they were; they are gentlemen, of course, but their plans did not 
work, and the reason why their plans did not work is an historical fact 
that has been argued here today many times and I am not going to go 
over it, except to say there are a lot of people who would flunk 
history if they were to take a test here today.
  The point is that the plans were never real. I think the way we base 
our decision on whether a plan is real, the same way we go in and we 
talk to a banker, the banker wants to see progress if one is trying to 
get out of debt. If one is a farmer, that is what they have got to 
prove, or if one is a small businessman.
  So let us look at the progress. In 1996 we said we were going to have 
a deficit of $154 billion. Where were we? $107 billion. That is 
progress. In 1997 we were going to have a deficit of $174 billion. 
Where are we? We are at $67 billion. That is progress. In the 1980's, 
in the 1990's, before all of this came to be, we saw the blue line way 
above the red line. It had never worked. We are finally showing 
progress and we are finally ahead of plan with regard to getting our 
deficit in balance.
  Let me just say that if I was a farmer and I came into a banker with 
this kind of a plan, chances are the banker would say, it is time to 
let you get back out there and keep doing what you are doing. But the 
only way, the only way this stays on track is if the American people do 
not fall asleep. Because this is just a plan. It is just a guidepost. 
We have done some of the work, yes, we are agreeing here today, and I 
think the plan is going to work. But the only way it is going to stay 
on track is if the American people do not fall asleep. I say to the 
American people, keep an eye on this, keep an eye on this, and this 
will get done.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the previous unanimous-consent agreement, the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] is recognized for 25 minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I think those of us who are going to vote for this 
budget resolution, and I am not, are going to have to accept two 
assumptions. One is that we are going to have 10 years of the economy 
going up. Now, I have not heard that they have repealed the law of 
gravity in economics. The fact that this budget is based on 10 years of 
unending going up at $45 billion a year is simply unbelievable.
  Second, we have to believe that the Committee on Ways and Means is 
going to restrain itself in tax giveaways and cutting entitlements.
  Now, in this budget agreement there is about $16 billion cut from a 
program called DISH. That is a disproportionate share. It goes to 
hospitals that take care of people who cannot pay for it. Many of those 
hospitals are children's hospitals.
  I say to my colleagues to ask themselves about their children's 
hospital. They get 40 to 70 percent of their money from this DISH 
money, and when we cut that out of this budget, how can we say to 
ourselves, well, are we not wonderful? We are giving health care to 
another 5 million kids when we are taking the guts out of the budget of 
our local children's hospital.
  Let us talk about the fact that there is no protection against the 
Committee on Ways and Means on the issue of the earned income tax 
credit, on low-income housing tax credits. I called Seattle today 
because I wanted to know what the facts are today. If one is low income 
in this country in Seattle, and it is a good city, there is a 3-year 
waiting list to get in. If one is a senior citizen in the citizen 
program that has 1,300 houses, there are 1,000 names on the list. That 
means everybody who is in senior citizen housing has to die if one is 
going to get into the program if one registered today. How long will 
that take? And we say this is the budget that we can begin giving great 
tax breaks to people when we have enormous problems.
  The minority leader was right. We can do better. None of us, there is 
not anybody on this floor who does not want to balance the budget. It 
is an argument about how it is balanced.
  This is an unfair balancing, and it takes our belief in the tooth 
fairy to believe it.

                              {time}  1800

  Members have to believe that we are not going to do again in 1997 
what we did in 1991. It took us 16 years to get back. If we put in 
exploding tax cuts, and I really think this budget will balance for 
about 20 minutes in 2002, it will be like one of those touch-and-go 
landings with a 747, where they hit the runway and go right back up in 
the air.
  When this comes we are going to have real problems. I urge Members to 
vote against this.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the 
budget resolution that is before us this evening. This is truly a 
historic occasion to be able to vote for our budget, something that 
will go to balance in 5 short years. We have voted for budgets that 
will balance, but this one will actually balance because the President 
will sign the appropriate appropriation bills and reconciliation bills 
that will get us to that point.
  When I first ran for Congress in 1992 I had never been in politics 
before. I ran as a fiscal conservative, one who felt there was fiscal 
irresponsibility here in Washington, who believed we needed to reduce 
the size and scope of the Government, that Government was too big and 
spent too much money. I was fortunate to be able to be on the Committee 
on the Budget in my first term in 1993, and worked with the gentleman 
from Ohio, Mr. John Kasich, a great committee chairman.
  I was proud to be able to participate in that first budget that the 
Republicans developed because it was called ``cut spending first,'' 
because we realized that to balance the budget we cannot just raise 
taxes and talk about it, we have to control spending. That is exactly 
what the budget that Republicans proposed in 1993 did.
  The budget that was passed by the Democratic Party, without a 
Republican vote, raised taxes and increased spending. But after the 
1994 election things changed around here. The rhetoric changed 
dramatically, because now everyone is for a balanced budget. Even my 
colleague who just spoke a few minutes earlier said, ``I am for a 
balanced budget.''
  Now we have a chance to do a real balanced budget. In the last 
session of Congress we made some great strides forward. We reformed 
welfare, and for the first time we ended an entitlement. We started to 
get control of discretionary spending. That is very important to get to 
a balanced budget. But the most important thing that this budget does 
that we did not do last time is start controlling entitlement spending. 
This budget will have $600 billion in savings on entitlements over the 
next 10 years.
  Let me talk about one entitlement specifically. That is Medicare. 
Medicare is a very, very important program to me. My congressional 
district in

[[Page H2974]]

Florida has more senior citizens than any other congressional district, 
so it is important to the seniors in my district. But it is the biggest 
jobs program in my district, taking care of the health care of senior 
citizens for the working people in my district. I have an 87-year-old 
mother who is on Medicare, so it is personally important.
  We need to do something about Medicare, because we all know it is 
going bankrupt. In 4 short years it is going to be bankrupt. This is 
stated by the trustees, and there is no dispute about the fact that 
Medicare is bankrupt in the year 2001, so we need to do something about 
it. We need to do it in a bipartisan fashion. Fortunately, that is the 
positive thing about this bill today, it is bipartisan, and we are 
going to be able to address the Medicare situation.
  I have to congratulate the President on this. The President has come 
forward. After the Democrats and the President demagogued Republicans 
on their Medicare proposal last year, they are coming forward to 
accept, in effect, the same proposal that we had last year. What did we 
do last year?
  Mr. Chairman, last year what we proposed was to increase spending 
every year, just slow the rate of growth in spending. What is happening 
with the spending in Medicare, it is going to be from $5,480 to $6,911 
per person on Medicare over the next 5 years. That is the same number 
almost that we were at last time and it was vetoed.
  So I commend the President for saying we are going to save Medicare 
and agreeing to this proposal that raises the spending at the same 
approximate rate that was proposed last year. I am excited about 
getting to a balanced budget and saving Medicare at the same time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Weygand].
  (Mr. WEYGAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking Member, the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], who I think did an excellent job in 
trying to bring to this Congress and to the people of America a 
balanced budget that reflected truly well-intended views. 
Unfortunately, I think this budget is very much like that TV program, 
``Rich Man, Poor Man.'' It gives to the rich, takes away from the 
working poor families of America.
  I represent Rhode Island, a very modest-income State. We represent 
working families, children, senior citizens, and small businesses. They 
are not helped by this budget. They are in fact hurt by this budget. 
Average Americans are being ignored. Let me tell the Members, that is 
what we should be working toward is improving the life, the quality of 
life, of average Americans.
  If we take a look at this budget, it is totally void of providing 
monies for early childhood development, an issue that everyone says if 
we are going to change our educational system we must address. We do 
not. We do not support small businesses in this budget; we in fact 
provide a number of enhancements for big businesses. We do not protect 
our senior citizens. In fact, we add more costs to their Medicare. We 
add price and pain to part B. For our senior citizens, we make sure 
that they are going to pay more money in part B of their Medicare than 
ever before.
  Mr. Chairman, just on the line a little while ago on the Internet 
there was a poll that was just finished and conducted. It asked, do you 
believe more in the balanced budget deal or in Santa Claus? Thirty-two 
percent of the people believed in the budget deal as being balanced, 
and 52 percent believe in Santa Claus.
  I can tell the Members, I know Santa Claus told me that he lives 
right in Rhode Island, and he does not believe in this budget deal. 
This deal in fact is bad for average Americans, average families, 
average citizens, average children, average seniors. I implore our 
colleagues to vote against this. We can do better. We must do better.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my 
friend, the gentleman from Washington State, for yielding me this time. 
I am pleased to be able to be able to follow my colleague, the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Weygand], in his approach to this 
budget resolution and how unfair this budget resolution really is.
  Mr. Chairman, everyone should just stop for a moment and think about 
how we arrived at this budget resolution. Remember, there was a 
breakdown because we did not agree on the Consumer Price Index, because 
it was going to affect working families and it was going to gouge the 
cost of living adjustment for our senior citizens? Remember when we 
were talking about even severer cuts to Medicare, and emasculating 
programs of veterans' benefits, all the while because we knew the 
majority party had to preserve their big tax cuts for the rich?
  Then, miraculously, $250 billion found. It was on the front page of 
the Washington Post. Remember, oh, my God, all of our problems are 
solved. Capitol Hill negotiators see a quick resolution to the budget 
impasse, and $45 billion a year in estimated revenues have now been 
disclosed by the Congressional Budget Office as new revenues. Thank 
God. Just in time.
  What the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Weygand] was talking about, 
what the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] 
was talking about, what the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] 
is talking about, is that when the train crashes, guess who is going to 
get hurt? It is going to be the veterans, it is going to be the senior 
citizens, it is going to be the immigrants.
  Members can tell us all they want how this budget is fair, how it 
restores money to legal immigrants, how it helps early education, but 
we know this is blue smoke and mirrors. Because when it comes down to 
making the cuts that need to be made, and that CBO estimate that the 
majority party has cooked up with added revenues does not come true, 
guess who it is not going to come true for? The people who are going to 
get hurt are the people that always get hurt. That is the poor working 
people that I represent in my State and that all of my colleagues 
represent around this country.
  Reject this budget resolution. It is not fair to the American people.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hobson].
  (Mr. HOBSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, in a town famous for saying one thing and 
doing another, Congress is finally doing what it promised. The balanced 
budget amendment that Congress reached with the President delivers on 
the promises that we have made to the American people. The resolution 
puts that agreement into action. It balances the budget, saves 
Medicare, lets American families keep more of what they earn, and 
reforms entitlement programs. Certainly that is different than previous 
Congresses have done under previous controls.
  Under the balanced budget resolution deficits will be a thing of the 
past, and like every American family and American business, the 
Government will live within its means for the first time since 1969.
  If the budget resolution did nothing else but eliminate the deficit, 
it would still be a huge victory for the American people. But frankly, 
it does more. The balanced budget resolution saves Medicare from 
bankruptcy and gives seniors new health care choices. By changing the 
Medicare structure, it will protect its solvency for another decade 
while expanding benefits to cover mammography, diabetes self-
management, immunizations, and special cancer screening.
  If this resolution just balanced the budget and saved Medicare, yes, 
that would be historic, but it goes even further than that. Over the 
next 10 years this budget will reduce tax burdens on American families 
by $250 billion, including reductions in capital gains, death taxes, a 
tax credit for families with children, an expanded IRA to encourage 
savings for retirement, and tax relief to help families send their 
children to college.
  To help make sure that the tax burden stays lower, we are going to 
change the entitlement programs that have put the real pressure on our 
budget year after year. Let us think about it: a balanced budget, a 
sound Medicare

[[Page H2975]]

program, tax relief for families, entitlement reform, and I frankly am 
very proud of this budget resolution. I am proud of the people in the 
House and Senate who helped forge it.
  Special thanks go to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the 
gentleman from Ohio Mr. John Kasich, and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from South Carolina Mr. John Spratt, for helping move this 
bill through committee, and the committee staff under Rick May deserves 
our thanks for all their hard work over the years, and especially this 
year.
  We are doing something real and permanent here with this budget 
resolution. We are being responsible and we are heading off a fiscal 
crisis before it happens. This commonsense approach helped win strong 
bipartisan support for the budget in committee, where it passed 31 to 
7.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the resolution, get involved in 
the process of enacting it into law. As an indication of the support 
the budget is already winning back home, I am submitting for the Record 
an editorial from my hometown paper that praises the bipartisan spirit 
in which the budget agreement was reached. Let us move on. Let us move 
on for the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the editorial previously 
referred to.
  The editorial referred to is as follows:

           [From the Springfield, OH, News-Sun, May 12, 1997]

                    Budget a Result of Serious Work

       Considering the bad blood between the Clinton White House 
     and congressional Republicans, their agreement to balance the 
     federal budget in 2002 is extremely gratifying. The work 
     negotiators from both sides put into this accord is precisely 
     the serious, public-spirited give-and-take Americans expect 
     of their national leadership.
       On many substantive questions, negotiators kept their 
     partisan instincts in check. They reached surprisingly easy 
     compromises to curb domestic spending, to achieve Medicare 
     savings at modest cost to beneficiaries and to check Social 
     Security cost-of-living increases. They also restored 
     benefits to legal immigrants--benefits which should never 
     have been taken away.
       But what got this budget deal moving was the dynamism of an 
     economy now whirring along at a phenomenal 5.6 percent annual 
     growth rate and producing bulging tax revenues for Uncle Sam.
       In fact, budget negotiators were told at the last minute 
     the Treasury was likely to take in $200 billion to $225 
     billion more than previously expected over the next five 
     years. And this good news came during the same week that the 
     Treasury announced it would be able to make a $65 billion 
     payment against America's $5 trillion national debt, the 
     first such payoff in 16 years.
       The budget deal does have its flaws--such as the increase 
     in defense spending--but the major disappointment is the $135 
     billion in tax reductions. With the next few budgets still 
     projected to be in the red, it is not time to start rewarding 
     taxpayers for their sacrifices.
       Only one of these tax breaks can be defended as wise social 
     policy: Clinton's tuition tax credits. No public investment 
     is so vital to maintain this country's edge in technology and 
     the world economy as educating Americans, both our youth and 
     adults, for tomorrow's jobs.
       How much better for all of America it would have been if 
     the billions of dollars in tax relief had been added instead 
     to that $65 billion payoff on the national debt.

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio, like the chairman, have both 
said that they are restructuring Medicare. The chairman said in the 
committee, ``The ultimate answer is moving toward a voucher program.'' 
Senior citizens, beware of what they have in mind for you.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
  (Mr. KANJORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I do not take the floor very often, but 
I wanted to get these 2 minutes. I have listened to the minority 
leader, and I have thought about this proposal over the last several 
weeks as the negotiations unfolded.
  I have to say that one of the prior Members who spoke on the 
Republican side talked about the reason he came to Congress. It was to 
straighten out the fiscal responsibility of the United States. That is 
the reason I came here, and I think probably the reason most of us came 
here.
  When I came to Congress in the 1980's the Congress was suffering from 
delusion: magicians, smoke and mirrors. We were saying that you could 
raise defense spending and you could balance the budget at the same 
time, after you cut taxes. That was 1981.
  We went through 1981 to 1986, and finally Bill Bradley in the Senate 
and Dan Rostenkowski in the House put together a tax bill that went to 
real supply and demand, instead of tax credits for tax credits' sake. 
In 1986 we took away false choices. We went to a closer economic 
picture.
  Then in 1991 some of us sweat blood here on two or three occasions 
after we had a special summit over there in Virginia. We stopped and 
forced the President of the United States to reverse his speech 
promises of ``read my lips, no new taxes.'' He adopted taxes, we passed 
it, and we started a trend to contain deficits in the United States.
  In 1993, William Jefferson Clinton began his service as President and 
had the guts to increase taxes and to deal with necessities in the 
administration, while all my friends on the Republican side said that 
the sky had now fallen. It was no longer illusion. It was that we on 
our side were suffering from delusion.
  Now we come to 1997, and truly know what delusion is. We found that 
$225 billion in the attic that the majority party in 1996, in 1995, 
closed this Government down twice not to accept those figures of OMB, 
but did accept them in the wee hours of the night to arrive at this 
agreement.
  The American people should not be fooled by illusion or delusion. The 
American people ought to sit back tonight and listen to these great 
speeches. If all of this is true, I ask why in 1993 not one of our 
friends on the other side put their seat on the line to raise taxes and 
to cut the deficit that has put us in the economic picture.
  Let me tell the Members what they have to believe. After 74 months of 
economic prosperity, the second longest in the history of the United 
States, the longest being 106 months, we have only 32 months possibly 
to go to be the longest recovery period in the history of the United 
States. That means in 2\1/2\ years this budget agreement will fail 
miserably as a result of the recession that will occur. Vote ``no'' on 
this agreement.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, just to point out 
to the gentleman the reason why Republicans did not support the 1993 
agreement. It contained tax increases and very little spending cuts. 
The reason why we have seen continued growth in the reduction of the 
deficit in the last 2 years has been because we have made only spending 
cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire 
[Mr. Bass].
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this great budget plan. 
I had the opportunity a few minutes ago to listen to the distinguished 
minority leader express his opposition to this plan. In the course of 
his discussion, he exhorted us to look out for the future of our 
children and to think about our children. And that, Mr. Chairman, is 
exactly why we need to adopt this plan, because this plan will get us 
on track to balancing the budget and reducing the debt that we are 
passing onto our children and our grandchildren.
  I came here 3 years ago to change the culture of Washington. As a new 
member of the Committee on the Budget, I was greeted with an 
administration plan, a 5-year plan that contained $150 billion deficits 
for all 5 years.
  If we add up the deficits for all of the 5 years of the plan we have 
before us tonight, it does not equal the deficit that we had in one 
fiscal year in 1992. Indeed we have before us a plan that will reduce 
overall spending by over almost a trillion dollars over the next 
decade, save Medicare, which we have been talking about now for 2 
years, save this program for the next generation and implement 
permanent tax relief for working families and small business people, 
the folks I represent in the Second Congressional District.
  What appeared to be all but hopeless just a few years ago is now 
within our grasp, thanks to the undaunted efforts of the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], our chairman, and others who have been here longer 
than myself. We faced $250 billion tax increases and deficits in excess 
of $300 billion a year,

[[Page H2976]]

and now we are well on the way to solving that problem.
  Not only will the plan we have today restore fiscal discipline for 
our Federal budget but it will do so using conservative economic 
principles: 2.1 percent rate of growth each year by the Congressional 
Budget Office is a tenth of a percent lower than the forecast of our 
budget plan a year ago.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget plan is the type of plan that all 
responsible Members of this body should support. It puts us on a track 
to a balanced budget by the year 2002. That is why I came to Washington 
in 1994.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have rarely heard Members 
lavish on themselves more undeserved credit.
  The budget deficit has gone from $292 billion a year in 1992 to $67 
billion. That is a reduction of about $225 billion in 5 years. Those 
were the 5 terrible years.
  Now, over the next 5 years, we are going to go from 67 billion to 
zero. And Members who have denigrated a reduction from $292 to $67 
billion in 5 years are endangering their own chest bones by beating 
them so hard in praise of getting it down that last $67 billion over 5 
years.
  How are they doing this small part of the job? By making America less 
fair. If Members vote for this budget, they vote to say an old woman or 
an old man, an 80-year-old living on $12,000 or $13,000 a year will 
contribute to deficit reduction by getting a reduction in his or her 
Social Security through the Consumer Price Index from what otherwise 
would be the case, but do not worry because while your Social Security 
Consumer Price Index will go down, your Medicare will go up. So maybe 
that is some kind of equality. If you are making $13,000 a year, the 
CPI will be reduced and the Medicare will go up.
  We began, in 1993, to bring some fairness to the Tax Code. This 
reverses it. We are being told we must give a degree of tax relief and 
some of the tax relief is, it seems to me, relevant for people who need 
to send their kids to school. But a lot of it will go on capital gains 
to wealthier people.
  Why must we give the wealthy tax relief when we are going to be 
cutting lower income fuel assistance from what the law now requires, 
cutting community development block grants, cutting things that help 
people coping with economic difficulty? To stimulate the economy. But 
it is an economy which the Federal Reserve has acted as if it was 
already too stimulated.
  We have got significant economic growth and, unlike growth during the 
Reagan years, we have seen growth while the deficit was going down.
  Finally, we continue the pattern of being very generous to western 
Europe and Japan. This military budget will include for 5 years, it is 
locked in, if we believe this budget, a level of subsidy to Western 
European and Japanese allies that will be paid for by severe caps on 
important domestic programs. We will probably, under this budget, not 
be able to continue the funds we have sent to local communities so they 
can pay to keep the cops on the street. We gave them money for 3 years 
to keep cops on the street. They may not get Federal money to keep 
those cops on the street, but do not worry, we will lavish some more 
money on Eastern Europe. And those Americans who were afraid that 
Belgium might be invaded can take comfort in this budget because we 
have continued the practice of protecting Belgium and the Netherlands 
from their nonexistent enemies.
  But if you live in an American city and you are worried about police 
not being there when you need them, this budget goes in the opposite 
direction.
  To summarize, and I thank the gentleman for his continued leadership 
here, to summarize, we got the budget deficit from $292 to $67 billion. 
We should get it the rest of the way. But let us not accept the 
argument that we need to reverse a trend towards fairness, that we need 
to say, if you are making $12,000 or $13,000 a year and you are 
elderly, that your Medicare will go up while your CPI will go down.
  And finally, let me talk about one of the silliest things in this 
agreement. If you are a legal immigrant and you are 82-years-old, we 
cut you off last year. The Republicans are very proud of that bill that 
cut people off. They have finally admitted they made a mistake. So what 
do they say in this bill? If you are 82-years-old and disabled, we will 
restore your money. But if you are 82-years-old and able-bodied, we 
will not.
  Do the Republicans contemplate and the others who support this deal, 
because we are not restoring the money, as I understand it, for elderly 
legal immigrants, only for disabled legal immigrants, do we really 
contemplate a flood of legal immigrants in their 70's and 80's joining 
the work force?
  This budget removes fairness to the extent that we have had it and 
cloaks itself inaccurately in an argument that you need to do it to 
reduce the deficit, when it will do less deficit reduction over the 
next 5 years than we have done over the past 5 years.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds, to point out that 
while some are contemplating a legislative change in the CPI, there is 
no change in the CPI in this budget.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this does not legislate a 
cut in the CPI, but it assumes one. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has 
been under a lot of pressure, and this budget assumes that the CPI will 
be downgraded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics so that elderly people 
will get less of a cost of living as a result of what they assume the 
CPI will have happen to them.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  This budget does not make any legislative change in the CPI. The 
Bureau of Labor Statistics is totally independent.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Hoekstra].
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  In listening to the dialog, this budget does not do everything that 
we would like it to do, but it is an important next step in the 
process. It moves us forward. It moves us towards fiscal responsibility 
and it does so in a very positive framework.
  It keeps us moving not towards balance, I do not think we will ever 
have a balanced budget. What it does is it moves us to surplus. We will 
actually have a surplus, hopefully, before the year 2002 but probably 
no later than the year 2002. It begins reform of entitlements. It slows 
the growth of Federal spending. Yes, it does return some tax dollars 
back to the American taxpayers.
  That is a solid framework for which this Congress can be proud, and 
it is a bipartisan step forward. We now need to build on this 
agreement. In the next 45 days, we need to pass the legislation that 
puts in place the actual entitlement reforms, and we need to put in 
place the legislation that actually reduces the tax burden on the 
American taxpayers.
  I think in another way this agreement is a very positive agreement, 
because now for a period of time there will no longer be a debate about 
the size of the Washington bureaucracy and the size of Washington 
government. We now can do and go back and perform a very important 
congressional responsibility, which is oversight.
  We have talked about public housing. I am not sure that pouring more 
money into the same public housing framework is the best way to spend 
our dollars. We can probably get more bang for our dollar.
  I wanted to talk a little bit about the work that we have been doing 
in education. There are some that are saying, and this agreement allows 
for more spending on education, but before we put more money into the 
current education framework, Congress needs to step back and say, what 
are we getting for the current dollars that we are spending? How does 
Washington define education? Washington defines education in a 
framework like this. It is a fairly complicated chart because the 
education system in Washington is fairly complex.
  We have the red boxes signifying the number of different Federal 
agencies that are involved in education. We have over 40 different 
agencies that are concerned about education in America. They operate 
over 7,820 different programs, and they spend over $100 billion

[[Page H2977]]

per year to educate and train people in America. Rather than pouring 
more money in this, in debating whether it should get bigger or 
smaller, we have now agreed on what the education spending will be for 
the next few years.
  We can now step back and say, is this the best way to educate our 
children, to train America's workers. Let us step back, let us take a 
look at what is working and let us reform the education process in a 
bipartisan way. We need to do the same thing with improving the work 
force climate in America. How do we increase our international 
competitiveness? How do we improve the quality of life for America's 
working people?
  How do we ensure that they are the highest quality, the best trained 
and the most productive so that they are the highest paid workers in 
America? That is now what this budget framework will allow us to do, to 
step back from arguing about the size of government to take a look at 
increasing its effectiveness and efficiency.
  Let us use this budget agreement to move forward. We agree with the 
President on education. The President said in March 27, 1996, we cannot 
ask the American people to spend more on education until we do a better 
job with the money we have got now.
  Let us have that debate now that we have put the debate about the 
size of government behind us for a period of time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
budget resolution. Although Democratic negotiators have succeeded in 
improving this budget over some previous proposals, I believe it is 
still bad policy for the Nation. The centerpiece of this budget is that 
in order to pay for tax cuts, the lion's share of which will go to the 
very wealthiest of Americans, we will constrain government spending on 
the things government should and must be doing.
  This budget calls for a 10-percent real reduction in nondefense 
discretionary spending. We will be investing less in housing. We have a 
zero budget for new affordable housing units. Zero. And apparently, 
according to this, we should have a zero budget for affordable housing 
units, for new affordable housing units for the next 10 years.
  We should cut spending in education, infrastructure, health care, 
Medicare by $115 billion, and on and on, all in the interest of a tax 
cut, mostly for the very wealthiest people in our country.
  When President Clinton ran for election in 1992, he said we had to 
deal with four deficits. He said we had to get the budget deficit under 
control. And we have gotten it under control, reducing it from almost 
$300 to $67 billion.
  He said we have to get the infrastructure investment deficit under 
control. We are investing in public infrastructure at the rate of one-
twelfth of our competitors in Germany and Europe and Japan. And this 
does not do that. And if we do not solve that problem, we will not have 
a competitive economy.
  We have to invest in research and development. We have cut research 
and development investment in the private and public sector. If we want 
to have a competitive economy in products we can sell abroad and at 
home a dozen years from now, we had better deal with that deficit.
  And we have to invest in human capital so we have an educated work 
force and so our people are healthy and educated and can hold down 
decent jobs.
  But in the name of balancing the budget and giving a tax cut to the 
wealthiest people in our country, we are abandoning these goals. And we 
have no assurance that the permanent tax cuts enacted with this 
proposal will not explode after 2002 or 2008.
  In 2008 there will be $400 and $500 billion a year in less revenue 
just at the time that the baby boom is retiring, and we are told we are 
going to need huge amounts of extra money for Social Security and for 
Medicare. Sure, the Republicans have assured us this will not happen. 
But Ronald Reagan assured us that the 1981 tax cut would not lead to 
the biggest deficits in history and, of course, they did.
  What this budget really says to America is for the next 10 years we 
are going to abandon investment in our Nation and in our people and, 
instead, we will devote our valuable resources to pay for unnecessary 
tax cuts skewed to the richest in our country.
  Government, Mr. Chairman, should be guided by policy and not 
symbolism and shortsightedness. We should not constrain investment in 
our future. And I hope, I hope, we have the courage, the intelligence 
and the farsightedness to vote against this resolution.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, would you tell us how much time we have 
left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] has 7\3/
4\ minutes remaining under his unanimous-consent agreement.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. And the other side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 1 hour, 
37 minutes, and 30 seconds.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 45 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for leading this effort to say no to this budget.
  With the greatest respect for all those who have worked so hard to 
bring this budget to the floor, on balance I think the appropriate vote 
for me, representing my constituents, is no.
  I frankly can understand why my Republican colleagues would support a 
budget that gives a tax break to the highest end individuals while 
putting the burden of this budget on the less fortunate in our country. 
I am concerned why it is appealing to my Democratic colleagues. 
However, I respect their decision .
  I do not think either vote is a good or bad vote on this. I do think, 
though, that we should make a statement about who wins and who losses 
in this budget bill.
  First, let me say that I believe we are here today because of actions 
taken on two previous occasions by this Congress. One was in 1993, when 
the Democrats and only the Democrats voted to support President 
Clinton's bill that year for deficit reduction and balancing the 
budget. That took us down a path of deficit reduction, stimulated our 
economy, and took us down a path toward success, and that puts us in 
position to have a balanced budget in the very near future.
  We do not have a balanced budget now, though, because of a vote that 
was taken many years ago, in 1981, the Reagan tax cut bill. Because of 
that tax cut bill, which produced huge deficits and increased our 
national debt enormously, we have to pay so much of our national budget 
for service on that debt. In fact, absent the service on that debt, the 
interest that we have to pay on our national debt, we would have a 
Federal budget and a Federal Government that would be operating in 
surplus, Mr. Chairman. In surplus.
  In think it is a real tribute to the Clinton administration that ever 
since the President has been in office he has had an operating surplus, 
except for the interest on the debt, which came to us courtesy of the 
Reagan tax bill of 1981.
  So, Mr. Chairman, in my remaining seconds I wish to say I oppose this 
budget because I believe that a budget should be a statement of our 
national values. I do not see that here.
  I see, when we talk about providing health care for poor children in 
America, that we are paying for it out of Medicaid, cuts in Medicaid, 
and yet, and yet, without any pain, this package will give a tax break 
to the wealthiest people in our country without any cost to them.
  So I see the losers being the usual, the people who need more 
opportunity in our society, and the winners being the usual, the 
wealthiest people in our society with the loudest and the largest 
voices to impact the actions of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to yield back the balance of my time because of 
the small amount of time given to the ``no'' side, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' and I again thank the gentleman for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.

[[Page H2978]]

  Today marks a singular turning point in how the U.S. Congress carries 
out the will of the American people. For too many years our Government 
has failed to heed the word of those who sent us here. For too many 
years taxes went up, spending went up, and the size and power of 
Government went up. It seemed that the bigger Washington got, the 
further removed Congress became from the wishes and needs of the people 
it served.
  Since I came to Congress in 1971, 11 major tax increases have been 
enacted into law. That is almost one major tax hike for every 2 years 
that I have been here. Some were even agreed to by Republican 
Presidents. Until recently, it seemed that the answer to every problem 
was to raise someone's taxes. We would not have been wrong if we said 
that until now the Congress never met a tax it did not hike. That is 
why this agreement marks an important turning point. For the first time 
in 16 years the American people will get a tax cut.
  And I have listened to previous speakers here today. They cannot get 
away from the wornout rhetoric that they used before to adjust it to 
changing conditions. They have not even seen the tax bill, but already 
it will be tax relief only for the very, very rich. That is certainly 
not true and that will not be what is part of this tax bill. But they 
will keep saying it because it is locked into their mind. They do not 
know anything else.
  This budget agreement may not be the best, it may not be the end-all, 
but it shows that we can balance the budget without raising taxes. It 
makes clear that Washington should tax less so that the American people 
can do more. It reaffirms our central premise that the hopes and dreams 
of a free people are handled best at home and in America's communities, 
not left to an externally expanding Federal Government located many, 
many miles away.
  For some, today's agreement may seem to open the way to big 
government with a balanced budget. I pray we do not come to that. For 
balancing the budget is not just a matter of accounting, it is about 
the role that we expect the central government to play in our lives. It 
is about downsizing the power and the scope of the Federal Government 
and upsizing the power, the responsibilities, and the opportunities of 
individual Americans, free to achieve the fruits of their labor in the 
world's freest and most successful Nation.
  That is why I will never, ever yield in my desire to reduce taxes on 
the American people, even after this agreement is completed. The secret 
of American success always has been and always will be our willingness 
to invest unparalleled trust and freedom in the hands of our voters. By 
letting them keep more of the money they make, they in turn will do 
more, do more for themselves, do more for the needy and more for the 
fibers of the individual communities that bind us together as one great 
Nation. By letting businesses grow, make money and succeed, we empower 
capitalism to be a force for good in this world, a force that has made 
our citizens the freest and richest people on Earth.
  We are the economic envy of the world and we should be proud of that. 
It is these ideas that make us great. It is these ideas that separate 
us from the redistributionist societies that mean well always but fail 
always.
  It is these principles that drive the upward mobility, that has 
proudly been the hallmark of American life. It is these principles that 
let individual Americans express their compassion and their willingness 
to help their fellow countrymen in need rather than ask a government to 
do it for them.
  We all know that Washington's big government solutions exploded the 
deficit and failed to live up to the noble and high minded expectations 
that were previously set. Governments can do some things well, and we 
must put the appropriate powers of the Federal Government to good use, 
but Washington governs best when it has governed wisely, and it has 
governed wisely when it lives within its means.
  That is what makes today's agreement a turning point and that is why 
I am for it. This agreement does not do everything and much work 
remains ahead. I would have liked to cut spending more. I would have 
liked to lower taxes more. But this agreement marks a departure from 
the old Washington ways and ushers in a new way, a new way based on 
lower taxes, less spending, and more freedom.
  Mr. Chairman, I have every confidence that today's agreement will 
come to be seen as a crucial turning point in America's experiment with 
democracy. It will usher in an era of balanced budgets, less spending, 
and increased responsibilities and opportunities for the American 
people, and it will bring about a total overhaul of our unfair, 
complicated Tax Code, which will follow.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of the Members to vote for this budget 
agreement. Let us get started. Watch us go.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this budget deal is based on a series of 
assumptions that would make a house of cards look like a sturdy 
fortress. In their economic assumptions, my colleagues, they project 
that this year's economy will grow at a rate of 2.1 percent. 
Unfortunately, the first quarter was 3.9 percent and the second quarter 
was 5.6 percent. So we will have to have negative growth for the last 
two quarters in order for this particular projection to be accurate.
  In fact, what has happened with the Republicans is that they have 
grown so cautious since they were so wrong in 1993, that is projecting 
that that deficit reduction was going to be a failure, that since the 
deficit has gone from $300 down to $60 billion, in other words, from 
the end zone all the way to the other 20-yard line, there is only 20 
yards left to go. Now they check in at $65 billion left to go in 
balancing the budget.
  My own personal belief is that if we did nothing, the budget would 
balance itself over the next year. It has gone down steadily for 5 
years. It will continue to go down steadily. The economy is roaring.
  But what the Republicans do is, instead of taking this 5.6-percent 
growth that is in the economy, the sigh of relief that Alan Greenspan 
and the Fed is not going to increase interest rates, they translate it 
into a slowdown of the economy: 2.1 to 2.2 percent over the next 5 
years they project. Even this year. That is just wrong.
  As a consequence of that, they are forced to ask for deep cuts in 
programs that should not be touched, and tax breaks that, in fact, are 
going to fuel economic growth and perhaps cause the Fed to increase 
interest rates to slow down the economy that could be fueled by their 
tax policies.

                              {time}  1845

  Moreover, what they have in here is something which is called a chain 
weights measure correction, meaning that they believe that the economy 
is going to go much slower under this chain weights analysis. It 
reminds me a lot of Marley's ghost that was forced to bear the chain 
weights dragged around throughout the entire story of Scrooge. Here the 
chain weights must be borne by those that will have to have their 
programs cut even as we cut taxes for the wealthiest in our society.
  Other assumptions in this which are crazy, that the spectrum auctions 
will bring in $26 billion over the next 5 years. A fantasy, ladies and 
gentlemen. Perhaps we should tie this assumption to the ability to give 
capital gains tax breaks, if they are so confident about it. We will 
link the two provisions together. Usually the budgeters know the price 
of everything and the value of nothing. In this budget, the budget 
folks know neither price nor value of the airwaves or this budget 
proposal.

                     Spectrum Issues in the Budget


                               Background

       The Budget Resolution contains assumptions that $26.3 
     Billion can be raised over five years through various 
     auctions of frequency spectrum.
       Here is the breakdown of where the $$$ comes from:

                        [In billions of dollars]

Auction of returned ``analog'' TV broadcast spectrum...............$5.4
Auction of spectrum currently allocated to channels 60-69...........2.5
Auction of ``vanity'' toll free 888 numbers.........................0.7
Broaden & Extend FCC auction authority.............................15.7
Spectrum Flexibility fees...........................................2.0

       There are multiple problems with what the ``budgeteers'' 
     have concocted.
       First, the recent FCC decision on Digital TV sets a target 
     date for the return of the analog TV spectrum in 2006. The 
     budget proposal would take this target date and make

[[Page H2979]]

     it a mandated return date for the purposes of auctioning the 
     returned spectrum. TV stations, however, that are not within 
     the top 30 markets have up to 5 years to build out their 
     digital TV facilities. Consumers in such markets, therefore, 
     may only have 3 years to purchase new sets or digital 
     converter boxes before their old ones become obsolete and 
     these stations go dark.
       Second, the proposal to ``broaden and extend'' the FCC 
     auction authority ($15.7 Billion) requires the Commission to 
     sell an additional 120 Megahertz (20 of which will come from 
     NTIA). It is unclear where the rest will come from. The 
     Commission had an extremely difficult time identifying 25 MHz 
     to auction as mandated in last year's Appropriations Act. 
     When they finally did, it raised only $13 million instead of 
     the $1.8 Billion it was expected to.
       Third, the proposal to auction 888 toll free vanity numbers 
     ($700 million) runs into a number (no pun intended) of 
     problems. First, does American Express, user of ``1-800-The-
     Card'', have a right to first refusal for ``1-888-The-Card'' 
     in order to limit customer confusion? What do citizens of 
     Canada do who use our same numbering system--pay the American 
     FCC for use of a telephone number in Toronto?
       It is clear that the budget wonks are trying to balance the 
     budget by creating money out of thin air.
       Telecommunications issues should be looked at through the 
     prism of telecommunications policy, not budget policy. I used 
     to say that the budgeteers are people who knew the price of 
     everything and the value of nothing. But since this proposal 
     won't raise the money that they score it to raise, my opinion 
     now is that the budget folks don't know either the price or 
     the value of what they plan to sell.
       These spectrum issues are anti-consumer: the broadcast 
     industry will not be ready in each and every market, in all 
     states, in rural hamlets, to turn off their TV signals 
     because consumers will not have made the switch to the new 
     equipment.

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, while there are many 
important policy matters addressed in the budget agreement before us 
today, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the 
provisions concerning natural resources, native Americans and the 
environment.
  I am encouraged that the resolution includes several vital functions 
of the Department of the Interior in the category of protected domestic 
discretionary priorities. Specifically, the National Park Service, 
operations of national park system, land acquisition, and State 
assistance, Everglades restoration, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and 
tribal priority allocations are funded at levels proposed in the 
President's fiscal year 1998 budget.
  In addition, I am pleased that the resolution provides for $143 
million in fiscal year 1998 to implement the California Bay-Delta 
Environmental Enhancement Act and $700 million for priority Federal 
land acquisitions, such as the Headwaters Redwoods Forest in California 
and the New World Mine Property bordering Yellowstone National Park.
  These are highly justifiable and appropriate uses of public funds. In 
fact, these priorities adopted in the budget agreement were also 
identified in the budget views and estimates of Resource Committee 
Democrats.
  Let me briefly address the priority items.
  Of critical importance to California is the commitment to provide 
$143 million in funds requested by the President for the California 
Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration initiative. Federal financial support 
for bay-delta restoration was authorized by Congress in 1996. By voter 
initiative, California has set aside nearly $1 billion for bay-delta 
water restoration programs, guaranteeing that the State will pay its 
fair share of the costs. There is widespread, bipartisan support for 
the bay-delta ecosystem restoration effort and it deserves full support 
from Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, if there was any doubt whatsoever about the importance 
of our national parks, the public outcry and harm to local economies 
during the Government shutdown last Congress made it clear that 
national parks are among this country's most value assets. 
Unfortunately, while we in Congress have created a system of national 
parks on par with any in the world, we have not been very good stewards 
of that public trust.
  The Park Service would be the first to admit that the June 1997 
edition of Consumer Reports is right on target: Visitor facilities in 
many national parks are in terrible shape and getting worse. There is 
an estimated $5.6 billion backlog in maintenance and repair needs.
  Although the budget agreement incorporates the President's request 
for a 6-percent increase in fiscal year 1998 park funding, more needs 
to be done. Congress should continue to seek sources of funding, from 
park fees, concessions reform, and other initiatives, in order to deal 
with the repair and maintenance backlog and to continue to provide for 
the use and enjoyment of these vital national assets.
  Mr. Chairman, we also have a special trust responsibility for 
American Indians and the budget resolution seeks to meet that 
responsibility by including the Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal 
priority allocations as protected domestic discretionary priorities.
  The $1.73 billion requested for BIA programs in the President's 
fiscal year 1998 budget is equal to the amount appropriated in fiscal 
year 1995. But considering that the funding for Indian programs has 
been cut significantly by Congress in each of the last 2 fiscal years, 
the budget agreement at least stops the backsliding. The needs for 
these funds are great: Economic, medical, educational, and social  
conditions on most Indian reservations are bleak. Of the 1.8 million 
native Americans in the U.S., 603,000 live below the poverty line and 
unemployment exceeds 40 percent.

  Mr. Chairman, no other area more visibly demonstrates the progress in 
this budget agreement than does the funding provided for land 
acquisition for conservation purposes. The budget provides funding at 
the levels requested by the President in fiscal year 1998 for land and 
water conservation fund acquisition and the Everglades restoration 
initiative. Moreover, the resolution makes an additional $700 million 
available over the President's request, for priority land acquisition. 
This is in stark contrast to the budget resolution adopted last 
Congress which eliminated all funds for land acquisition. Land and 
water fund appropriations for the last 2 fiscal years which have fallen 
below fiscal year 1995 levels, despite efforts by myself and 
Representative Farr in offering amendments to restore funding.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act dedicates revenues from the 
leasing of offshore oil and gas resources to a trust for the permanent 
protection of conservation lands. The act intends that these funds are 
to be used to purchase lands from willing sellers as additions to 
national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests, and Bureau 
of Land Management Lands. The annual income to the land and water trust 
fund has been steady at $900 million, resulting in an unexpected 
balance in the trust of over $12 billion in fiscal year 1998.
  The price of not using the land and water conservation fund for its 
intended purposes is paid by increasing threats and in diminishing 
opportunities to protect and enhance our parks, refuges, forests, and 
public lands. Using the land and water conservation trust for deficit 
reduction, rather than for its intended acquisition purposes, is not 
only committing a fraud on the American people, it is short-sighted 
because it will increase the long-run costs to the taxpayers for 
protecting the environment and providing recreational opportunities.
  Let me cite one example to illustrate the point: The City of New York 
is faced with the choice of spending $600 million to protect its 
watershed by purchasing forested land in the Catskills which is 
threatened by development or alternatively spending $4 billion on a 
water treatment system to provide clean drinking water.
  In large part because of the difficulty in getting Congress to 
appropriate land and water conservation funds, the administration has 
resorted to proposing exchanges of Federal assets in an attempt to 
acquire the Headwaters Forest in California and the New World Mine 
outside Yellowstone Park.
  But the $700 million provided in the budget agreement for 
acquisitions provides much better alternative to asset swaps which 
raise environmental and complicated valuation problems. This is an 
important step forward in using the assets of land and water 
conservation fund as the act intends.
  I commend Chairman Kasich, Ranking Member Spratt and others involved 
in the budget negotiations for their leadership on these critical 
issues.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota, Mr. Gil Gutknecht.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, in his immortal poem, ``The People, Yes,'' Carl 
Sandberg said essentially, ``The will of the people will prevail.'' For 
many years, and I remember when I was in the State legislature, we 
would send petitions to the Congress asking them to balance the budget. 
Finally, we are reaching a point where it is within our grasp, and I 
think it is a historic and important night.
  I was interested, in listening to this debate, some of our more 
liberal friends on this side continue to talk about winners and losers. 
But I am intrigued because there was a President from Massachusetts a 
few years ago, and he said that a rising tide lifts all boats. That is 
what this budget is about. It is not about winners and losers. It is 
about everybody winning.

[[Page H2980]]

 Under a balanced budget, we will see lower interest rates, we will see 
stronger economic growth. It is about rising tides for all boats.
  We talked about projections earlier, and the CBO was wrong. Frankly, 
they have been wrong more often than they have been right. But the most 
important thing is, we are ahead of our goal, we are under budget, we 
are moving in the right direction, and the American people are happy 
about it. Why? Because they are the biggest winners. The American 
people understand that. They understand who the winners are; they are, 
because the size and scope of the Federal Government is going to 
shrink.
  I do not know why some of my colleagues on the right, and I have got 
some more friends over here who say, well, they do not know if they can 
support it because it does not do enough. Well, ladies and gentlemen, 
it does a lot. Maybe it is not perfect. This is not a perfect solution. 
I know some of my colleagues think we should not do this or we should 
not do that. But this is a compromise, and that is what makes this 
place work. That is the other reason the American people are happy, 
because for the first time in a long time we have the Congress and the 
President working together to balance the budget, to give them 
permanent tax relief.
  And they understand this, and our chairman talked about that earlier, 
that family with three kids that is going to church and they have got 
the Billy Graham bumper sticker on the back of their car, they are 
going to be better off under this, and they can figure that out. That 
family that has got two kids in college or one in college and one about 
ready to go to college, they are big winners under this.
  Real entitlement reform. Anyone who has studied the budget for the 
last 5 years understands that you cannot balance the Federal budget 
unless you get control of entitlements like welfare and Medicare and 
Medicaid. With the passage of this budget, we are well down that road.
  Finally and most importantly, and I think this is a generational 
equity budget, we save Medicare from bankruptcy for at least 10 years.
  So, is this budget perfect? No. Is it a giant step in the right 
direction? Absolutely yes. And the big winners are the American people, 
American families, but most importantly, American children. Because we 
begin to lay the foundations in this budget of not only balancing the 
budget, in my opinion, before the year 2002, but absolutely beginning 
to pay down the national debt as we go into the next generation.
  The real winners are the American people, because Government spending 
as a percentage of the gross domestic product drops from 22\1/2\ 
percent to 18.9 percent. What does that mean? It means there is going 
to be more money in the private economy, it means a stronger economy, 
it means a rising tide.
  If the American people continue to apply pressure to this Congress, 
we will stay the course, we will balance the budget, we will allow 
families to keep more of their money, and most important, we will lay 
the foundations for actually paying off the national debt.
  No, this is not the end of the great debate about balancing the 
budget. It is, however, a historic and very important beginning.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I went to Wheaton College, where Billy Graham went to 
school, so I am glad that having a Billy Graham bumper strip on my car 
is going to get me tax relief. It sounds like that is what is being 
promised out here, that all those folks who go to the Billy Graham 
revivals will get a tax cut.
  What about the rest of the folks? As I look at the two proposals we 
have on the table, and the reason we keep talking about tax cuts is 
because all we know that is what the Republicans put on the table last 
year and what Senator Roth, the Member of the other body, put on this 
year, and three-quarters of the money that comes in tax breaks in both 
those proposals went to people making more than $100,000. I am glad 
that all those people going to Billy Graham's revivals are making 
$100,000 or more, because if they are not, they are not going to get 
anything out of this tax break.
  The estate taxes. Now, we are all going to die. That is pretty sure. 
Taxes and death we know. And when you die, if you are in the 1.6 
percent at the very top of the economy, you are going to take advantage 
of that little old tax break. Nobody else is. That estate tax business 
is simply for the people at the very top of the economy.
  Now, we could have crafted a very careful use of the estate tax, if 
it is family farms you want to keep together or small businesses. But 
nobody will talk specifics. What this budget agreement does is say, buy 
a pig in a poke, send this tax break over to the Committee on Ways and 
Means and trust Chairman Archer and the members to do a very skilled, 
very careful, very fiscally conservative proposal.
  Now, if you believe that, go back and look and see what happened in 
1981 and 1986. They got in a bidding war. It was us. It was not 
Republicans, it was Democrats. I was not here, but I know who did it. 
There is no clean side here. It is not good or bad on either side of 
the aisle. But the fact was, the committee ran away. And it will happen 
again, you watch.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the previous unanimous-consent 
agreement, the Joint Economic Committee on the Democrat side will 
control the next 10 minutes of time.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] will control that 10 
minutes.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Stark] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, when President Clinton took office, the deficit was out 
of control and the economy was reeling. In 1993, we took bold steps to 
restore fiscal responsibility by cutting the deficit from $290 billion 
to less than $100 billion today, and from close to 5 percent of the GDP 
to just 1\1/2\ percent. As a result, unemployment is at a 24-year low 
and inflation has stayed below 3 percent a year.
  Economic growth has been expanding. Today, the Federal Reserve 
appears to have voted in support of this budget by not raising interest 
rates. This is a good beginning based on a strong economy. As we fill 
in the details, we must make sure that this budget invests in education 
according to the President's plan, expands child health care, protects 
Medicare and Medicaid, and provides tax relief for all working 
Americans.
  I am especially pleased that this budget includes my bipartisan bill 
to allow for annual mammograms for women over 65 in Medicare. Who would 
have thought in 1992 that today we would be on a trend toward a 
balanced budget in 2002? This is about raising living standards for 
American workers. This is a victory for President Clinton, a victory 
for bipartisanship, and, most importantly, a victory for the American 
people.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and to congratulate the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget for completing their work in a timely fashion 
and doing it with a minimum amount of rancor and a lot of hard work. 
They are to be congratulated for achieving balance.
  But I would like to suggest that balancing a budget is not an end to 
itself, as is being suggested by so many speakers tonight. There is too 
much left undone. While we can celebrate the economy, it is very 
difficult to celebrate when literally hundreds of millions of Americans 
are not going to participate. They just do not have a boat to get on as 
the tide rises.
  The key question before us tonight is, Does this budget represent our 
priorities? Does it contribute to raising the standard of living for 
American workers and their families? Does it educate our children and 
train them to participate in all this wondrous economic success that is 
planned for the years ahead? Does it maintain our technological lead 
over our competitors? And, most of all, who will benefit from these tax 
cuts?
  The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is wrong. These tax 
cuts go to the richest American families in our country, and he knows 
it, and I am sure that most of the people hearing this debate know it. 
That may not be bad if you are rich, but it does not do much for you if 
you are below

[[Page H2981]]

$40,000 a year in income and trying to support a family.
  I cannot support this budget resolution because of the priorities it 
funds and those that it fails to fund. It calls for over $5 billion a 
year in manned space flight, for instance, yet it leaves 5 million 
children without health insurance. That is not a choice I can make. It 
ignores the health needs of asthmatic children who are not covered. It 
ignores the health needs of children with hearing loss. Those 5 million 
children do not get health care. And you are turning your back on them 
as you gaze at some missile in space which may or may not be as 
important to you. You have to make that decision when you vote.
  This budget wastes half a billion dollars a year on star wars and 
lets our NATO allies off the hook for true burden sharing. This money 
could be spent to provide day care. It could be spent to help working 
families in need of long-term care assistance for their seniors, in 
need of job training, community resources to cut crime, and it is not.
  It is a great budget resolution for those who favor increasing 
defense spending and tax cuts for the wealthy while ignoring working 
families and their children, while ignoring middle and low-income 
seniors and the less fortunate members of our society.

                              {time}  1900

  Without the star wars spending that is in this budget, we would have 
the resources to fund health coverage for all our children. Is that a 
decision my colleagues want to make? If you want to fund star wars and 
cut 5 million kids out of health insurance, vote for the budget, my 
Republican friends. You will get your wish.
  Without the tax cuts, we would have the ability to extend the life of 
Medicare 4 or 5 years more. Do you need those tax cuts or would you 
like to extend Medicare for a longer time?
  There are a lot of things this budget does not do. We know from 
listening to our Republican friends that it gives huge tax cuts to the 
rich and somehow strangles Government services, not for the rich but 
for the middle- and low-income families.
  They are gloating over the fact that they cut the President's 
proposal to increase welfare benefits in half. The rich do not care 
about that. They got their tax cut. The people who are sleeping under 
bridges, let them stay there.
  They rejected the President's entitlement for school construction. 
Let the schools fall down, that with the earthquake problems put your 
children at risk. They do not care about the children, they care about 
tax cuts for the rich.
  They rejected the President's program for intervention in health 
insurance for workers. They really do not care about that.
  They cut food stamp spending in half again, a life support system for 
the low-income families on whom the Republicans have turned their back 
in favor of tax cuts for the very rich.
  They say that it makes the President face up to the realities, by 
cutting another $35 billion out of Medicare. Are they not proud? They 
cut back expansions on Medicare benefits to help those with family 
members with Alzheimer's. It cuts back on helping stop the outrageous 
overcharge on outpatient copayments by many of the greedy hospitals in 
this country. They are proud of it. They are bragging about it. Because 
they need the money to give the tax cuts to the rich.
  They rejected the President's program to fund Superfund to help clean 
up the environment. Why? Because if you are rich enough, you can clean 
up your own backyard and you do not have to rely on Superfund. Energy 
conservation, the weatherization program is gone. The rich can afford 
to insulate their houses. National Endowment for the Arts, National 
Endowment for the Humanities. I know that they can buy their box at the 
opera if you are a rich Republican and they rather think that somehow 
the arts and humanities are for left-leaning liberals. They are smart. 
They know how to make money. They may not be able to spell or 
understand art and history and they do not care if their children do, 
so they want to cut out the Endowment for the Arts and Humanities.
  WIC program for women, infants, and children. That has been denied 
its preservation. What do they care about helping poor women and 
children get decent nutrition? Student financial assistance has been 
denied its survival. The National Institute of Health has been denied 
its survival. The Center for Disease Control, substance abuse and 
mental health services, the administration drug treatment, all of them, 
denied their protection.
  Here is one. The Bureau of Reclamation, California Bay Delta area, 
where we come from, help the rich farmers in central California who 
farm cotton with billion-dollar subsidies for free water from the 
Federal Government but do not clean up the Bay Delta. Cut out OSHA. Who 
cares if the workers who work for the rich are protected as long as the 
rich get their tax cuts? The National Science Foundation, the 
Commission on Civil Rights, mass transit, all go by the boards under 
the rubric of saying, we will be a better country if the rich get a big 
tax cut and the poor fend for themselves as best they can and we, by 
the way, will have balanced the budget. They balanced it on the backs 
of the poor, on the backs of children who do not have health insurance. 
They have ignored over 40 million Americans who do not have health 
insurance. Not one word has come out of the Republican camp about what 
are we going to do to provide health insurance for 40 million Americans 
who do not have it? I have not heard a peep. They do not care. I 
suppose they do not understand that if an adult does not have health 
insurance, they do not get medical care.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the budget unless you want to help the 
rich and continue to turn your back on the poor and needy in our 
country.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
  Mr. GANSKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reject the class warfare comments of my colleague 
from California.
  Mr. Chairman, I hate to splash cold water on this budget because I 
know how hard the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman, and 
others have worked for it. Mr. Chairman, I just want my colleagues to 
think about this. Let us imagine that I owe $80 billion on this Visa 
credit card and I pay for that by transferring the $80 billion to this 
Mastercard. Do I still owe $80 billion, Mr. Chairman? The answer, of 
course, is yes.
  My point of this is that in this budget agreement, we are 
transferring $80 billion from part A of Medicare home health care to 
part B. That is very creative accounting.
  Let me explain it in just a little different way, Mr. Chairman. Let 
us assume that we have part A represented by this cup and we have home 
health care by this ball. The table represents the Federal budget. I am 
going to put home health care in part A. Now because it is growing so 
fast, what I am going to do is I am going to take the ball and I am 
going to put it into part B. Mr. Chairman, are they still not on the 
Federal budget table? What this does is it just transfers $80 billion 
into the general account. That is smoke and mirrors, that is creative 
budgeting, that is a shell game, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to search their hearts and their 
computers. When President Clinton first proposed this budget, many of 
my colleagues criticized the home health care switch as a gimmick. I 
urge them to remember their comments and vote against this shell game.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, to point out that 
the insurance fund is losing approximately $12 billion this year, a $35 
million daily loss. Next year if we do not save the trust fund, it will 
lose $55 million each day; the year after that, $78 million and $103 
million each day the year after that. In 2001, when the fund will go 
totally bankrupt, the trust fund will lose $133.9 billion each day.
  Our plan saves the trust fund to the year 2007. Instead of having a 
debt of $612 billion, there will still be $75 billion in the fund. It 
is true that one service, home health care, is taken out of the part A 
trust fund and put into part B. But it is not smoke and mirrors because 
the taxpayers will be paying 75 percent of the cost and the premium 
holders 25 percent of the cost.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 20 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire [Mr. Sununu].

[[Page H2982]]

  Mr. SUNUNU. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this resolution, not for 
any Washington Beltway reasons, not for reasons of scoring or even 
specific numbers or whether it does or it does not change a particular 
accounting measure, but for two very fundamental reasons. First, 
because it enables us to meet some broad commitments that many of us in 
this House made to our constituents during our election cycle. Second, 
because of the fundamental difference it is going to make in moving 
power away from Washington and back into the pocketbooks of American 
people in cities and towns all across this country.
  Like many who were elected to this Chamber, I campaigned on the 
themes of balancing our Federal budget by the year 2000, providing 
substantive and meaningful tax relief to working families, and 
preserving and protecting Medicare.
  Only 3 years ago, many people, our own President included, thought 
that balancing the budget in this way by the year 2002 was simply 
impossible. He said maybe we could do it in 10 years and then maybe 9 
years. It was looked at as a radical concept. But the American people 
stood by us as we said time and again, we can do it, we do have the 
discipline and we do have the will to balance our budget by the year 
2002 in a meaningful way.
  With this budget proposal, we have the opportunity to meet that 
commitment on balancing the budget, meet that commitment on tax relief, 
and on preserving and protecting Medicare.
  I see three fundamental areas where this is going to make a 
difference to the pocketbook and to the livelihood of working families 
that I want to take a moment to emphasize. First with the tax relief 
measure, a $500-per-child tax credit. That makes a difference to every 
working man and woman in this country that has a young dependent child. 
Certainly the educational tax support is going to put more money back 
in the pocketbook of a typical working family.
  The second area that this is going to make a big difference for 
American families is in the economic growth and the job opportunities 
that will be created as we reduce the tax burden on capital gains or on 
estate tax, create that working opportunity, create incentives for 
savings and investment, and the following economic growth.
  It is not a tax cut for any wealthy individual. When we cut the tax 
burden on a small business or a family business, we help everyone that 
works for that business across the board, and when 60 percent of 
American people work for a small business we are doing them a favor, 
not just today but for the rest of their lives, and for their children 
as well.
  Finally, by balancing the budget, we reduce interest cost, 1 to 2 
percent, across the board. For everyone that has a home mortgage or a 
student loan or an automobile loan, we are talking about $100 or $500. 
In the case of a home mortgage, an average-price home, $20,000 to 
$30,000 over the life of that mortgage. That is money in their pocket, 
enabling them to invest it in a way that they see fit, to improve their 
standard of living, save for their children's education and make a 
difference for their families. Meeting our commitments and making a 
difference by taking power away from Washington, meeting our 
commitments that we have made as individuals, and by taking money and 
with it power away from Washington and putting it back in local cities 
and towns across America, we make Washington less important, we make 
the individual more important. That is where this country needs to go.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, and 
ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to allocate that time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that the Joint Economic 
Committee looks at spending, taxing, and regulatory policy as well as 
the policy of the Federal Reserve and determines its effect on the 
economy.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, may I just ask a point of parliamentary 
inquiry?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I am not clear at this point on whether we 
will alternate time with the other side of the aisle or whether this is 
a straight half hour. I do not care one way or the other. I would just 
like a clarification.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. We will continue 
to alternate.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would like to compliment the negotiators both 
from the House and from the administration for arriving at a bipartisan 
agreement that will bring the budget into balance by the year 2002. I 
think it is extremely important for the American taxpayer and I think 
it is equally important for the continued economic expansion that we 
have seen since the second quarter of 1991, making it an extremely long 
and productive period of time for the American worker, due in no small 
part to what has gone on here in this House and in the other House as 
well as in the administration for the last decade or more.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to put this in perspective, however, in 
that the current business cycle expansion is entering, as I said, this 
long period of time, entering actually its seventh year. The upswing 
got under way in the second quarter of 1991 and has brought sustained 
economic and employment growth throughout that period of time. In the 
last two quarters, the rate of growth has picked up, pushing the 
unemployment rate down to 4.9 percent. The positive economic climate 
makes fiscal restraint more palatable and clearly facilitated the 
achievement of the balanced budget agreement.
  However, Mr. Chairman, while some in Washington would like to lay 
claim and take political credit for the business cycle expansion, the 
credit really belongs to the many millions of American workers and 
entrepreneurs and savers and investors whose activities made the 
economy grow.

                              {time}  1915

  Fortunately, they were afforded that opportunity by our system, and 
the current business cycle expansion is the result.
  To the extent that Washington policy is relevant to this expansion, 
the Fed's; the Federal Reserve that is, anti-inflation policies have 
lowered interest rates, improved the operation of the economy and 
sustained the expansion. The Federal Reserve's decision today to 
refrain from raising interest rates is certainly a welcome decision 
which I wholeheartedly endorse. The only suggestion I would make is 
that if the Fed could explain its policy decisions more fully, now and 
in the future, so that people who are taking part in our free 
enterprise system can understand why decisions are made from time to 
time.
  In fact, today's decision was announced in two words; that is right, 
two words: No increase.
  One of the benefits that this expansion brings is an improvement in 
the budget situation. As the economy continues to grow, the Federal 
revenues increase while Federal spending is restrained. The surge of 
revenue supplied from the business cycle has sharply lowered budget 
deficits, and as I pointed out some time ago, it now appears that this 
revenue surge from economic growth will reduce the 1997 deficit to 
below $70 billion.
  Although the economy has performed well, improvement in the economy 
is still possible. The bias in our current tax system against savings 
and investment undermines economic growth. Reduction in capital gains 
tax rates and death taxes and expansion of individual retirement 
accounts will add to growth in the years ahead. I endorse each of those 
features.
  Once the budget agreement is implemented, Congress can turn its 
consideration to ways to limit the many counterproductive features of 
the current income tax system.
  Just to complete, let me finish this thought, that aggressive further 
expansion of IRA's should be high on our list of future tax 
improvements.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H2983]]

  Mr. Chairman, we have labored long and hard in this body to find a 
solution to the deficit problems that confront our Nation. The 
Committee on the Budget last Friday adopted a resolution by a 
bipartisan vote. It was historic. It has been years since we have had a 
bipartisan vote in support of a budget resolution that is now headed to 
the floor, is on the floor and is expected to pass by a wide margin. 
Many of us have focused on what we feel are the critical parts of a 
successful effort to balance the budget. We have established standards. 
We would like to see a glidepath; that is, we would like to see the 
deficit reduced steadily rather than having the task of the heavy 
lifting backloaded in the last year or two and have such an amount that 
it is unrealistic to expect that we would actually be able to balance 
that budget in the last year or two.
  Mr. Chairman, we have talked about having realistic projections, 
conservative projections as to how the economy will perform, realistic 
projections as to what it will cost to run government, to support the 
programs that we have established: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 
environmental programs, conservation programs, agriculture, consumer 
protection and hundreds of others. We do not think it is realistic to 
expect to balance the budget by dramatically cutting programs in the 
outyears that we know are popular, where there will not be the 
political will to actually impose or implement those cuts.
  We have also said that we cannot use smoke and mirrors, we cannot be 
looking for some sort of a magic solution in numbers where we have 
unrealistic projections and where we have so-called triggers where 
things will be implemented based upon some unrealistic forecast in the 
future or where programs will be sunsetted. Certainly we recognize if 
we have popular programs, new programs that millions of Americans 
immediately identify as being critical, that to think that we will 
eliminate those programs in the outyears is politically unrealistic.
  We also think it is unrealistic to expect to eliminate programs when 
we have a different administration or a different Congress. We are not 
going to make decisions that bind that administration or bind that 
Congress. So that is another standard that we look for in whether or 
not we actually have a deficit reduction program that will work.
  By the same token, we are looking for real cuts. We are looking for a 
slowing in the rate of growth in programs. We are looking for scaling 
back existing operations to make government operations not only leaner, 
but also more efficient and more effective in delivering the services 
that are so important.
  We think it is important to maintain an investment in priorities, 
maintain an investment in education, our Nation's future, in the 
infrastructure that is so important, and transportation. We will hear a 
great deal about transportation as the evening goes on. These are 
priority areas that it is unrealistic to expect us to simply zero out.
  We also recognize that we will not be able to balance this budget 
unless we recognize the problems that we face with entitlement 
programs. Entitlement programs are becoming increasingly a major 
portion, or the major portion of this Nation's budget, and if we do not 
find a way to constrain our spending in that area or limit our 
spending, we will not be successful in the long run in balancing this 
Nation's budget and keeping it in balance.
  And probably no program presents a greater challenge then Social 
Security. All of us know that we pay into Social Security, we expect 
certain benefits back. It is virtually a contract arrangement. But we 
also know that we do not have a Social Security trust fund that is 
actuarially sound, that will be there in the long term for our children 
and our grandchildren at the current rates at which it is being drawn 
down and the current rates of contribution. Changes need to be made.
  There has been a great deal of discussion of the Consumer Price Index 
and its accuracy, and we feel that one of the characteristics of trying 
to come up with a balanced budget is to recognize any inaccuracies that 
exist in the Consumer Price Index and to forthrightly correct those 
inaccuracies, and it is possible to make dramatic improvements in the 
prospects for the Social Security trust fund if, indeed, we do correct 
those inaccuracies, and there are a couple of ways that this can be 
implemented.
  First, if we adjust the Consumer Price Index as reported from the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics to make it more accurate, we will reduce 
incrementally the payouts from the Social Security trust fund, and that 
reduction becomes billions and hundreds of billions of dollars over the 
years. This can extend the life of the Social Security trust fund for 
between 5 and 15 years, depending on what the correction might be that 
we would make to the Consumer Price Index. At the same time, by slowing 
the rate of growth of other programs we reduce the need to borrow from 
the Consumer Price Index.
  This is positive, and I think that we need to recognize that taking 
the Social Security trust fund off budget is the goal that many of us 
share and ought to be a goal of this Congress. We recognize that if we 
make adjustments in entitlement programs like Social Security, that 
there are certain individuals that depend upon Social Security for 
virtually all of their income, and they may have a modest level of 
benefits, and we have advocated a flat cost of living adjustment for 
that reason.
  So whether one is the person that does the cleaning or the person 
that is the president of the company, whether they work in the mailroom 
or they are the chief financial officer, their Social Security increase 
is the same flat dollar amount from year to year. That is what we mean 
by a flat cost of living adjustment or a flat COLA. And in a 
combination of an adjustment for accuracy and a flat COLA we will 
find that the folks that are at the low-income level will not be 
disadvantaged, but in fact would see their Social Security benefits 
increase modestly over what they would be with no cost of living 
adjustment.

  Mr. Chairman, these are all characteristics that I believe are 
important if we are going to actually balance our budget and keep it 
balanced.
  Now I have used the term ``we'' at several points here, and when I 
say ``we,'' I have been talking about an approach that has been taken 
by the coalition or group that has been known generally as the blue dog 
coalition. We have developed a budget that we hope is credible, and the 
commentators, the critics and other Members of Congress have recognized 
it as probably the most credible budget that has been presented to this 
institution this year. But we also recognize that a budget that was 
adopted by the Committee on the Budget is not the same as our budget, 
and we wish to lend support to a budget that we think will ultimately 
pass and, as a consequence, we are not here in an attempt to defeat the 
budget resolution that has been reported out, but instead to draw some 
contrasts and to point out some areas where we need to improve, perhaps 
next year or the year after, so that we can constantly make progress in 
our efforts to eliminate the deficit in this country.
  One of the areas where we feel that dramatic improvement is needed is 
enforcement, because we cannot expect to in the long term have a 
balanced budget unless we have credible, strong, effective enforcement 
mechanisms in that budget.
  So this evening what we will be doing with the time that has been 
allotted to us is emphasizing some of the enforcement features that we 
think are important to include in a budget and certainly in the 
reconciliation bills and also emphasizing some of these features that 
we feel are important if we are going to be successful in the long term 
in keeping our deficit at bay. This is a bipartisan effort, and I will 
be recognizing and yielding to individuals on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time and will 
then subsequently yield more of my time to others in the Chamber.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that the gentleman who 
just spoke who spoke on the Consumer Price Index adjustment was either 
speaking for himself or some other budget. The CPI adjustment is not 
mandated or contained in any way in the committee budget.

[[Page H2984]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Thornberry].
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to focus my time on a part of 
the budget that is not all that big in terms of its relative size, but 
it is very big in terms of what we believe in and what we stand for and 
what we want to encourage in this country.
  The budget agreement with the President and this budget includes some 
relief on death taxes, otherwise known as inheritance, or estate taxes. 
Benjamin Franklin said that nothing is certain but death and taxes, and 
as tough as each of these things are when they come, to have them to 
come together at the same time is virtually unbearable. Farmers, 
ranchers, small business folks of all varieties in my area have felt 
the sting and effects of this tax, but the truth is the consequences 
affect all of us.
  I want to make three key points on why it is so important to do 
something in this area of death taxes.

                              {time}  1930

  No. 1 is that of all of the money coming to the Federal Government, 
only about 1 percent comes in the form of estate or death taxes. It is 
about $15 billion a year. Yet Congress has received testimony that 
administration and litigation costs eat up more than half of that 
amount, so that it is a very expensive and very cumbersome tax for the 
Government to administer.
  However, one member of President Clinton's Council of Economic 
Advisors has found that it costs taxpayers as much to comply with this 
tax as all of the money that they pay in in the form of tax. Now, if we 
have a tax that it costs as much to comply with as the tax itself, 
something needs to be reevaluated.
  Second, this tax is a drag on the economy. Professor Wagner's study 
has found that, if we abolish the inheritance tax altogether, that 
within 8 years we will have created 250,000 new jobs; we will have 
added $80 billion to the gross domestic product, and we will have 
increased the amount of capital by about $640 billion. That is money 
that can go to create jobs and expand the economy and improve the 
standard of living for everyone.
  There have been other studies that have reached other conclusions. 
But the bottom line is our society is spending a tremendous amount of 
money just trying to avoid these taxes, and if people did not have to 
play these games, it would be good for everybody.
  In other countries they have already reached this conclusion. Mexico, 
Canada, and Australia have no death taxes. As a matter of fact, only 
Japan has a higher rate of taxes once you die than the United States.
  I think it is as important as anything, however, in looking at this 
part of the budget agreement, that it goes against the American dream. 
What we want to encourage people to do is to work hard, to save, to 
build up something so that we can have something to pass along to our 
children and hopefully they can have a better quality of life to pass 
along to their children.
  It is human nature for us to work and build and create something and 
to leave it to our children for a better future, and we should want to 
encourage that. But instead, this tax works to discourage savings. What 
it encourages is immediate gratification. That is not in the long-term 
best interests of this country, and it is not what we want to encourage 
as a government.
  If we look at the numbers, 60 percent of family-owned businesses 
already do not make it to the second generation; 87 percent do not make 
it to the third generation. If we look at the numbers for minority-
owned small businesses, it affects them particularly hard.
  So the bottom line is that, rather than encourage more opportunities, 
which is what we want to do to have a better standard of living for all 
of our people, this tax punishes those things that create those 
opportunities to begin with. It goes in exactly the wrong direction, 
and all of us are affected by it in one way or another.
  This budget agreement is not the complete answer. It does not go as 
far as I would like it to go. When the tax bill comes up from Ways and 
Means, it will not go as far as I would hope we could go; but it is a 
small step in the right direction. And it is a small step in the right 
direction that has big consequences for all of us and says a lot about 
where we want to go as a society and what we want to encourage in this 
country.
  So among the many positive things in this budget agreement, it will 
do something for the first time in a long time on death taxes, and I 
think that is a significant factor that we should all be encouraged by.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, many Members have called this a historic 
day. I slightly disagree. Today has the potential to be a historic day 
but only if we are willing to do much more heavy lifting than we have 
been willing to do thus far.
  I am disappointed that the agreement missed the opportunity to make 
real reforms in long-term costs of entitlements. The failure of this 
budget to deal with the long-term problems with the growth of 
entitlement spending guarantees that this budget agreement will not end 
our budget problems. Sooner or later, we will have to come back and 
deal with entitlements.
  The gentleman from New Jersey was exactly right. Nothing in this 
budget agreement that I will support tonight deals with the CPI. That 
is a mistake. That is a weakness, not a strength. It is irresponsible 
for us to continue to place an unnecessary drain on the Social Security 
system by providing COLA's that virtually everyone acknowledges are 
inaccurate. A small adjustment to provide accurate COLA's would be a 
major step in strengthening the Social Security system. A 0.8-percent 
adjustment would extend the trust fund by 13 years and allow us to take 
it off budget honestly by 2005.
  I am disappointed that symbolic political arguments succeeded in 
blocking an agreement in the provision from the Coalition budget to 
require upper-income Medicare beneficiaries to contribute more for 
their Medicare coverage.
  Reaching an agreement to balance the budget by 2002 does not 
guarantee that the budget will actually be balanced in 2002. The 1981 
budget projected balance by 1984. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings I promised a 
balanced budget by 1991. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings II promised a balanced 
budget by 1993. The 1990 budget agreement projected a balanced budget 
by 2002. Only the 1993 balanced budget agreement met and exceeded the 
promises on this floor.
  All six of these plans, though, failed to reach the promised land of 
a balanced budget because we did not follow through to make sure the 
plan succeeded, and today the Coalition was denied the opportunity to 
even vote for a meaningful enforcement mechanism for this budget.
  In order to avoid a repeat of the failures of past budget agreements, 
legislation implementing this resolution must include a strong 
enforcement mechanism to force Congress and the President to take 
action if the budget falls off of the path.
  The Coalition budget proposed strong budget enforcement to lock in 
the deficit reduction through hard deficit targets enforced by 
sequestration. If the deficit fell off the glidepath toward balance and 
exceeded the deficit target for any year, Congress and the President 
would be required to take action to put the deficit back on the 
glidepath toward balance. If Congress and the President failed to take 
corrective action, there would be sequestration targeted to the part of 
the budget that caused the problem. The enforcement provisions that we 
have proposed to avoid the problems in past enforcement efforts were 
denied an opportunity to be voted on today.
  Two lessons from Gramm-Rudman-Hollings: One, exempting any area of 
the budget from enforcement will encourage certain groups to sit on the 
sidelines while balanced budget plans unravel. It is critical that an 
enforcement mechanism include all portions of the budget, spending and 
revenues, without exception, to ensure that everyone has a stake in 
keeping the deficit on a declining path. Enforcement cannot be a 
substitute, though, for making tough choices. Our proposal is designed 
to complement the reforms that are in this plan to make sure they 
achieve the savings they were intended to achieve.

[[Page H2985]]

  The 1990 agreement demonstrated that enforcement provisions can 
control new spending in taxes, but failed because it did not control 
existing programs or taxes. An enforcement mechanism must require 
Congress to control existing programs and taxes. Our proposal would set 
targets for the total deficit, all spending and all revenues.
  This resolution is simply the beginning of the process. The real test 
will come with reconciliation and appropriation bills implementing this 
resolution.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], 
with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], the 
administration, and others in improving this blueprint or plan or 
laying of the foundation tonight.
  I would like to see us improve the glidepath. I do not like to see 
the deficit going up temporarily for any reason. I think we should 
build on the success of the last 5 years, 5 consecutive years of a 
declining deficit. We should have built on that to, say, 6, 7 and 8. 
Instead, currently this plan suggests that the deficit go back up again 
for 2 or 3 years to get a running start on getting it balanced by 2002.
  I will support this resolution today to keep the process moving 
forward. However, I will find it extremely difficult to support 
reconciliation legislation that does not improve the credibility of 
this budget. This budget agreement--and I believe that many of my 
colleagues who share my concern for serious deficit reduction share 
this concern; but for tonight, this is the best we could do in a 
bipartisan way, working with a divided House, a divided Senate, and a 
divided Congress, and administration. I encourage my colleagues to 
support it but look forward to improving it as we build on this 
foundation.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity to address a point which I 
think is very, very important, and that is the matter involving the 
consumer price index and the fact that it is not contained in the 
Committee on the Budget's proposal that we will vote on later tonight.
  It is true that a recent commission known as the Boskin commission 
reported that the CPI overestimates inflation by better than 1 
percentage point. While that is true, I would like to say to all of the 
gentlemen and gentlewoman who are here in this Chamber that neither 
they nor I have the ability, objective as we might try to be, to arrive 
at an accurate figure through the legislative process.
  It is extremely difficult to be accurate with regard to the CPI, and 
inasmuch as family taxes to a large degree are impacted by CPI 
adjustments, and on the other hand, Social Security benefits are 
impacted by CPI adjustments, it seems to me that those people who have 
the expertise to bring together the facts about our economy that relate 
to price stability and increases or decreases in inflation, should be 
the people to make those judgments. Therefore, I worked extremely hard 
over the last month or 6 weeks to convey to the members of the 
Committee on the Budget and the leadership on both sides of the aisle 
how difficult it is to arrive at this CPI in any accurate measure.
  As a matter of fact, as long ago as 1928, a very famous economist by 
the name of Ludwig Vaughn Mises, who may be familiar to some of my 
colleagues, was a very important guy back in the 1920's, when he 
predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union as an economy. He did that 
because he had great insight. One of the minor things that he did, 
which today is rather important, is that he predicted and said that it 
would always be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at a 
truly accurate measure of price stability. That is true, and that is 
why this House, in my humble opinion and why I have worked so hard for 
the last 6 weeks to avoid that measure being adjusted in this budget 
document, that is why it is extremely difficult to arrive at an 
accurate measure.
  So I wanted to be sure that everyone who is here who will be voting 
tonight understands that CPI is simply not part of this budget, and 
that is why.
  Let me turn to another part of the subject here and talk a little bit 
about why I think this is a good budget. Another reason that I think we 
should all vote for this budget is that it obviously, over time, 
provides that our government will consume a smaller and smaller part of 
our gross domestic product. Now, this is extremely important because, 
if government consumes more and more of GDP, government becomes less 
and less efficient. And as government becomes less and less efficient, 
operating with more and more of the money in our economy, it tends to 
dampen economic growth.
  We did several major studies of this. If I may just refer to this 
little chart, this, I must admit, is a rather strange looking chart, 
but it tells a great story. The great story that it tells is that as 
the economy grows and consumes a larger and larger part of GDP, this is 
how the economy grows. As the economy grows, and it reaches an optimum 
point of producing economic activity, my colleagues have all heard, we 
have all heard the suggestion that the economy can be stimulated by 
government. Well, that is true, to a certain point. We believe that 
through our studies on the Joint Economic Committee that, once we reach 
about 17 percent, that we have maxed out the effect on the economy of 
government spending. And once we move beyond 17 percent into all of the 
other kinds of activities that government involves itself in as it gets 
large, we get a dampening effect on the economy. So we get good growth 
during the time that we spend the first 17 percent of GDP; and today, I 
say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, we are at 21 percent of GDP, 
expenditures through the Federal Government.
  Now, this has all kinds of consequences. It means bigger government, 
it means more regulation. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], who 
has fought so hard to reform the regulatory process, is here with us. 
And all of those activities have negative effects which we all want to 
avoid.
  So congratulations to the budgeteers who have recognized that, as 
spending increases and government gets bigger, it represents a more 
difficult time for our economy to expand.

                              {time}  1945

  Let me just show one or two other examples.
  This is something that our Speaker, who just entered the room, spoke 
about not long ago in a press conference which I saw on C-Span. It is 
something called Tax Freedom Day. The size of government has a direct 
effect on this.
  Today Tax Freedom Day is the latest it has ever been. Americans pay 
taxes to support some level of government until May 9. Imagine that, 
January, February, March, April, and 9 days in May that we send money 
to Washington, our government, our State Capitol, and our local 
government to support government activities. That is a direct result of 
growing government.
  Again, congratulations to the budgeteers, who have recognized this 
fact and have provided us with an opportunity here tonight to vote for 
a budget that reduces the growth in government, and will begin to 
shrink the period of time that we Americans have to work each year to 
support government. This year it is May 9. Hopefully next year it will 
be back toward May 1, and hopefully the year after that it will be back 
into April. That should be our goal.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Barton].
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we are here this evening not on an 
historic occasion, but on an important occasion. I had hoped that I 
would be a part of the affirmative process to try to improve the 
agreement that was reached with the President and the leadership of the 
House and Senate. I have worked in a bipartisan fashion since that 
agreement was announced in principle to come up with some mechanisms to 
actually make the goal of a balanced budget a reality.
  With the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] and the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and others of the Blue Dog Coalition, I helped put 
together a group of conservative Congressmen who wanted to actually put 
some enforcement mechanisms into this agreement.

[[Page H2986]]

  What we did was come up with the radical idea that we would take the 
budget agreement that came out of the Committee on the Budget and add 
to that some structural reforms like entitlement caps. The 
discretionary spending caps that were part of the 1991 agreement have 
actually worked. Since entitlements are 53 percent of this year's 
budget and are growing to be approximately 60 percent of the budget in 
the year 2002, we thought, let us extend that principle of capping not 
just to discretionary spending but to entitlement spending.
  We looked at the sequestration process that was used in Gramm-Rudman 
and decided to modify it so we had sequestration by program. The 
programs that were within their caps would not be sequestered but those 
that were growing more rapidly than the caps would be. To make sure it 
was a bipartisan solution, we decided to make the tax cuts, the $85 
billion net tax cuts over 5 years, contingent on meeting the revenue 
targets.
  In sum, what we did was take $85 billion worth of tax cuts and say 
that we are going to make those subject to meeting the revenue 
estimates in this budget; take $5 trillion, $5 trillion of entitlement 
spending and cap it within the existing agreement; and say, now, let us 
use these enforcement mechanisms to make sure we get the budget 
balanced in the year 2002.
  Because that idea is so powerful, of having some spending restraint 
on entitlements with some contingency on tax cuts, that there was a 
possibility that a bipartisan coalition might actually come together on 
the floor this evening and improve the budget agreement, for whatever 
reason our amendment was not made in order. It was made in order to 
have an increase in spending through the Black Caucus, an increase in 
tax cuts through the Conservative Action Team on the Republican side, 
but the one truly bipartisan effort to improve this agreement was not 
made in order.
  So I will not be voting for the budget agreement later this evening, 
Mr. Chairman, but luckily, this is not the end of the process. It is 
the beginning of the process. The real heavy lifting is going to come 
later this summer when we do what is called reconciliation. At that 
point in time this bipartisan coalition that has come together to 
demand some structural reform through the enforcement mechanisms I 
think will be heard and will be successful.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] for working in a bipartisan 
fashion. I think we have a good framework. I am sure that at the 
appropriate time we will be given an opportunity to have our vote here 
on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Latham].
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from 
New Jersey, my very good friend, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan Congress, and today we are 
considering the budget framework that will put our Nation's finances in 
order by the year 2002. Republicans and Democrats alike have often 
stated this goal. Today we all have an opportunity to literally put our 
money where our mouth is and support this budget resolution.
  Within this budget agreement is language that specifically addresses 
one of my greatest concerns. I know I am not alone in this view. I want 
to ensure that seniors in rural northwest Iowa are going to enjoy 
Medicare benefits not just in the next couple of years, but for the 
next generation and beyond.
  Our seniors have paid into the Medicare system and have every right 
to expect efficient health care coverage. However, the current Medicare 
system has always comparatively overcompensated urban areas in regard 
to the Medicare reimbursement rate at the expense of rural States like 
Iowa. By efficiently utilizing our health services in the past, the 
current Medicare law punishes Iowa seniors through low reimbursement 
rates. Some urban areas receive 2\1/2\ times the reimbursement rate per 
person than rural areas like northwest Iowa do.
  What does this current Medicare inequity do for Iowa's seniors? It 
means a lack of choice in the Medicare plans. No managed care 
organization could even afford to do business in Iowa to serve my 
constituents. I have been working for the past 3 years with other 
Members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, to help cure this 
inequity. I am proud to report that this budget resolution includes a 
simple directive to Congress in reforming the Medicare program as this 
budget is enacted in further legislation.
  The final budget resolution mandates that we ``Reform managed care 
payment methodology to address geographic disparities.'' This simple 
and understandable directive will work to correct the urban-rural gap 
in Medicare reimbursement rates. I am proud of having this priority 
included in the budget resolution, but more importantly, I am proud 
that the residents in rural Iowa will soon enjoy the Medicare benefits 
currently available to those in more populous areas in the United 
States.
  So along with this change and the tax relief that we are going to see 
in this bill as far as the reduction on the death tax, reduction on the 
tax on savings, investment, and job creation, there is the family tax 
credit, something we have worked for in the 2\1/2\ years that I have 
been here. I am certainly going to support this budget agreement, and I 
would encourage all Members to do so also.

  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Mrs. Tauscher], one of our new and outstanding Members.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the budget 
resolution for fiscal year 1998. As a member of the Blue Dog Coalition 
and in support of the Blue Dog budget, I am particularly pleased that 
this deal includes many of our recommendations. In particular, the 
foundation of this budget is firm because of the economic assumptions 
it employs.
  For the past couple of years Congress has debated whether to use 
Congressional Budget Office or Office of Management and Budget 
estimates in calculating economic projections. The Blue Dog Coalition 
has been consistent in its support of CBO numbers because we believe 
they tended to be more conservative. In the past, deficit reduction 
plans have failed because of incorrect assumptions relating to spending 
and revenue levels.
  We have learned that for a plan to be successful, it must use 
economic forecasts that do not overstate revenue projections or assume 
unrealistic levels of spending cuts. Use of conservative budget numbers 
is added insurance against unexpected downturns in economic 
productivity or unrealized revenue collections. If the assumptions turn 
out to be too pessimistic, the budget would simply balance earlier than 
anticipated. Would that not be nice?
  The budget agreement is an important bipartisan accomplishment. For 
the first time in years we have a plan to restore fiscal responsibility 
to our budget process, return accountability to our political system, 
and hopefully regain the confidence of the American people.
  As someone who campaigned on balancing the budget and has worked with 
the Blue Dog Coalition in support of a balanced budget, I am very 
pleased, and encourage my colleagues to vote for this budget 
resolution.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Boyd], one of several new Members of outstanding 
experience and ability the Blue Dog Coalition has been fortunate in 
having.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to rise with some reservation in support 
of the budget resolution which we will have an opportunity to vote on 
tonight. I have those reservations because of frontloading the tax cuts 
and new spending while backloading the spending cuts. Many of us came 
here as freshmen with a mandate to put our fiscal house in order, and 
delay any new spending programs or tax cuts until we can pay for them 
with something besides borrowed money and increased Federal debt.
  My concern as I look at this budget resolution is that we are doing 
the easy things first, and save the heavy lifting for later. I think it 
is very evident now that actually the glide path goes the opposite way 
that many of us would like to see it go. It goes up until the

[[Page H2987]]

year 2001, and then falls off significantly to come into balance by the 
year 2002.
  I think most of us recognize that that is the case because we have 
had some very good years here, and particularly this year, and our 
deficit is lower than it was expected to be. But nevertheless, that 
gave us a wonderful opportunity to move this glide path quickly into 
balance, and then we could begin our tax cuts and our new programs 
after we put our fiscal house in order.
  But that has not happened. I think it has not happened because many 
of us are realists, and we realize to get something that would work 
that we have to have some compromise. So maybe that is the reason some 
of us support it, with reservations, is because there has been some 
compromise, so that we have something we can pass off the floor of the 
Congress.
  A group of us, in recognizing that we did not get everything we 
wanted, just took the budget that we agreed upon, that we could 
compromise and support, and said, let us put some enforcement 
mechanisms in it. Therefore, I find tonight that the major problem I 
have is the lack of any enforcement language in the resolution.
  Yesterday in the Committee on Rules I joined several of my colleagues 
in supporting a budget resolution that is exactly the same as the one 
reported out of the Committee on the Budget, with one important 
addition. It contains strong enforcement language that would ensure we 
meet our deficit targets every year.
  Unfortunately, this alternative was not ruled in order. This troubles 
me greatly, because of the assumptions included in this agreement. The 
only reason we are standing here today is because the CBO found $225 
billion in assumptions which allowed the negotiators the room to 
satisfy everyone's needs and concerns. If these assumptions turn out to 
be inaccurate, what measures are included in this budget resolution to 
make sure we actually reach balance by the year 2002? The answer is 
there are none.
  While I was not here in 1990, Congress and the President reached a 
very similar historic budget agreement that would balance the budget in 
5 years. Yet we are here today, again, with another balanced budget 
proposal. Why? Because the 1990 agreement did not have enforcement 
mechanisms for entitlement programs or revenue.
  My fear is that we will reach 2000, the year 2000, and we will be 
nowhere near the glide path that is outlined in this agreement. This 
budget resolution has no enforcement mechanism to correct this problem. 
Not only will this result in larger budget deficits than projected, it 
will also mean another broken promise to the American people.
  So Mr. Chairman, that is why I urge Members, even though we can all 
support this budget agreement, that we need to have strong enforcement 
language and work with the coalition to make sure that that language is 
present in the budget reconciliation.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I want to open with some kudos to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. There is always one warrior that is 
out there with faith when there is little hope; and the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], our distinguished Committee on the Budget chairman, 
was that individual. He stayed with this and persevered months and even 
years to bring us to this point.
  What is this about? It is about the average American wanting 
Washington, D.C. to balance its checkbook the way they have to balance 
their checkbooks or be penalized the way they are penalized. But as 
with many other things in this city, potentially the devil is in the 
details.
  I am going to vote for this budget resolution, but I share the 
concerns of the coalition Blue Dog Democrats about potentially the 
details of this agreement. They are called enforcement provisions. They 
are simply the teeth in the agreement, when we finish this work weeks 
from now, that allows us to follow through on the commitments that we 
make today and tomorrow. Back home on the Tennessee River we have a 
lock at the Chickamauga dam in Chattanooga. As the water rises before 
boats pass through that dam, there is a floating mechanism on the lock 
itself and, as the water rises, the lock rises and it floats up and 
down.
  That would be the enforcement provisions. To give Members an analogy 
of an agreement such as this, so that if the assumptions, the 
projections, the revenues that we are basing this long-range forecast 
on hold up, we are okay. But it would actually be a floating provision.
  We heard earlier today that there is a $26 billion savings from 
spectrum sales. Frankly, I think that is overstated. If in fact the 
spectrum sales do not generate 26 billion, where are those dollars 
going to come from in order to keep us on the glide path to a balanced 
Federal budget? Well, the enforcement provisions would be details as to 
exactly what would give or have to give in the agreement in order for 
the deficit not to rise. That is what we are here in a bipartisan way 
to support today, is the basic provisions that allows this agreement to 
succeed over time, not just today, not just this summer but 2 years 
from now, 4 years from now, 5 years from now.
  Some Republicans want to make sure that tax cuts are not given up, 
and we understand that. The Democrats have heartburn every time we talk 
about capping entitlements, but the fact is this agreement has to have 
the flexibility based on revenue projections and the economy to have 
this float built in. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too, unless 
you are willing to have the discipline to exercise every day. Then 
maybe you can have your cake and eat it, too. So we are going to have 
our cake and eat it, too, but we need enforcement provision, which is 
that daily regimen of exercise necessary to burn those calories if you 
want to have your cake and eat it, too.
  Mr. Chairman, this is good for America. It is a good agreement if we 
make sure between now and the end of June we put enforcement provisions 
in the agreement.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. John], another member of the Blue Dog coalition.
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I want to say a few words about why we are here today.
  Only twice in the last 40 years, just twice, in 1960, the year I was 
born, and in 1969, have we balanced our budget. I believe that today we 
stand here on the brink of a new millennium but also the brink of a 
very historic moment for the United States Congress and the people of 
America.
  Forty years ago, which was 1957, was a long time. Through those 40 
years, we have accrued over $5 trillion of debt. Therein lies the 
problem. It is not the balanced budget as much as it is the debt. How 
do we address the debt? We stop adding to it. That is as simple as I 
can put it.
  We spend $241 billion to pay our interest on our debt; 15 percent of 
our budget, 15 percent of our budget we spend paying interest on the 
debt because of fiscal irresponsibility in the past.
  That is more than our whole Medicare budget, more than our whole 
Medicaid budget, almost as much as our national defense budget. It is a 
lot of money. But we stand here today, and I want to commend the 
ranking member, the gentleman from South Carolina. And I want to 
commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], chairman of the Committee 
on the Budget, for working very hard in times that were somewhat and 
sometimes very difficult.
  But we, along with a lot of other Members, came up here, elected in 
November of 1996, with a very clear message. I believe the American 
people want us to stop fighting and start getting down to business. I 
think the American people sent us here to work in a bipartisan way to 
do one thing that I heard over and over and over again: Balance our 
budget. Do it for our kids. Do it for our grandkids.
  I believe it is incumbent on this Congress, the 105th, to do that. It 
is not a perfect resolution to the problem. There are some Republican 
victories with some tax cuts, a lot of which I

[[Page H2988]]

embrace. There are some Democratic victories, 5 million more kids with 
health insurance. It extends the solvency to 2007 of the Medicare trust 
fund. It corrects some unfair backlashes about the welfare reform 
program that was passed last year. But it balances the budget in 5 
years. I think that is the most significant piece of legislation. I 
believe that this Congress will not face any more important issue in 
this Congress. I urge Members to support the bipartisan agreement and 
support this balanced budget that brings it to balance in the year 
2002.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Turner], a member of the coalition and another new Member of 
this body.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I have been a strong supporter of a 
bipartisan budget agreement. I am among those on both sides of the 
aisle who believe that the Federal Government must start living within 
its means, just as every household in this country must do every month. 
Republicans and Democrats have joined together to make a commitment to 
balancing the budget, and we are determined to finish the job. We have 
come a long way in the last few weeks, and that is what makes it so 
important that we follow through and finish the job that we have 
started.
  Reaching an agreement is only the first step. Enforcing the 
agreement, making it stick, is the real challenge we face.
  I join tonight with Members on both sides of the aisle who believe 
that we must work to ensure that necessary enforcement provisions are 
enacted into law to ensure the promise of a balanced budget. If 
everything goes well, we will have a balanced budget by 2002, but 
Murphy's law says that, if something can go wrong, it will go wrong. 
And that is certainly true with the budget process. Reality has a way 
of confounding our expectations. And this Congress does not have the 
ability to repeal Murphy's law.
  And if the guesses that we have made and assumptions we have made in 
this budget agreement turn out to be incorrect, the consequences for 
the budget will be dramatic. Even small variations in economic growth 
projections could derail our efforts to balance the budget.
  As an example, consider the fact that we assume a 7-percent growth 
rate for Medicaid costs. Just a few years ago those costs were 
escalating at 14 percent, twice the rate that we have assumed. If the 
ratings go up again, we could end up with billions of dollars in 
additional expenditures. The budget agreement as it stands has no way 
of dealing with this kind of unexpected circumstance.
  We are relying on predictions about what the economy will do in the 
next 5 years. But we all know a lot can happen in 5 years. We will have 
a different President, a different Congress and we will be dealing with 
problems in a new century.
  History shows us that we need an insurance policy and we are 
proposing some commonsense steps that will give us that insurance 
policy so that if our assumptions and our projections are wrong, we can 
still arrive at a balanced budget in 2002. The American people are 
overwhelmingly in support of a bipartisan budget agreement, but they 
are skeptical about our ability to follow through. They have heard the 
promise of a balanced budget before, and with public trust and 
confidence in government at an all-time low, we cannot afford to fail. 
We must show the American people that we can come together and adopt a 
realistic, enforceable budget that will bring us to balance in 2002. We 
must not just promise; we must produce.
  America has much at stake in what we do here. Our ability to preserve 
the American dream for all our children depends on our ability to 
balance the budget in an enforceable way.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to reiterate my commitment 
to balancing the budget of this country and to announce my reserved 
support for the resolution.
  I support the resolution because I wish to move the budget process 
along, but I also feel compelled to enumerate a serious concern I have 
regarding the pending resolution. The targets outlined today should be 
enforceable and they are not. Why should they be enforceable? Let us 
look at the historical record.
  Under the 1982 budget resolution shown on the chart to my right we 
were told that the budget would be balanced in 1984. The green lines 
are targets. The red lines are the truth. The budget was not balanced. 
In 1985, under Gramm-Rudman 1, we were told that the budget would be 
balanced in 1991. It was not.
  In 1987, under Gramm-Rudman 2, we were told that the budget would be 
balanced in 1993, and it was not. In 1990, under the Budget Enforcement 
Act, we were told that finally the budget would be balanced in 1994, 
and, again, all of those green targets show a balanced budget. All of 
the red lines show the historical record.
  Today the last lines I will draw attention to would be the 1997 deal 
that does not even give the pretext that in the immediate future the 
deficit will go down. The red line shows the March CBO baseline.
  What do all of these budgets have in common? None contain enforcement 
mechanisms and never was the budget balanced. That is why earlier this 
year I introduced the budget enforcement act of 1997, which was 
cosponsored by my colleagues, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dooley]. That is why I joined with 59 of my colleagues 
in sending a bipartisan letter to the Committee on the Budget 
requesting that tough enforcement language similar to that contained in 
the balanced budget enforcement act be included in tonight's 
resolution.
  When the Committee on the Budget did not include comprehensive 
enforcement language, an effort was made in the Committee on Rules to 
give the entire House the opportunity to approve or reject enforcement 
procedures as part of the budget resolution approved by the committee. 
Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules rebuffed this request.
  This is a serious flaw and one reason why I and other supporters of 
the conservative coalition budget will work hard to overcome the 
experience of history and keep the pressure on all parties involved to 
make sure that the targets set today are finally met tomorrow.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to reaffirm my support for a balanced 
budget.
  Since coming to the Congress in 1985, I have been committed to 
balancing the Federal budget for the future of our children and our 
children's children. That is why I am an original cosponsor and strong 
supporter of the Blue Dog Coalition budget. The coalition's budget sets 
a benchmark for balancing the Federal budget in a manner that is both a 
fair and responsible.
  First, the coalition budget sets a smooth and steady glidepath to a 
balanced budget. It reduces the deficit by a roughly equal amount each 
year for the next 5 years, achieving 38 percent of its deficit 
reduction in the first 3 years. One of the reasons that the coalition 
budget contains such a steady glidepath is because it postpones tax 
cuts until we complete the tough work of balancing the budget. I do not 
oppose tax cuts, but I do believe that our first priority should be to 
put our fiscal house in order. By delaying tax cuts, the coalition 
budget is able to avoid adding billions to the Federal debt and will 
save additional billions by not paying interest on that debt.
  Because it resists the temptation to grant expensive tax cuts before 
the budget is balanced, the coalition budget is able to address many of 
the long-term financial problems faced by entitlement programs. The 
coalition budget plan makes important structural reforms to Medicare 
and Medicaid, and extends the life of the Social Security to the year 
2043. The coalition budget deals with these issues so effectively that 
it balances the budget without relying on the Social Security trust 
fund surplus by the year 2005, and would not rely on any trust fund 
surplus by 2007.
  The lessons of previous budget resolutions, is that reaching an 
agreement to balance the budget does not guarantee that the budget will 
actually be balanced. We need only look to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 
experiences of the past decade to be reminded how easily a balanced 
budget agreement can fall off track. The coalition budget addresses 
this reality by including strong enforcement provisions based on 
legislation that I have introduced along with

[[Page H2989]]

our colleagues Representatives Stenholm, Minge, and Dooley. This bill, 
the Balanced Budget Enforcement Act, H.R. 898, would reform the budget 
process by locking in deficit reduction through hard deficit targets, 
which would be enforced by across-the-board sequestration if the 
targets are not met. Without meaningful enforcement mechanisms like 
this one, we run the risk of passing a budget resolution that amounts 
to nothing more than Gramm-Rudman III.
  In many ways, the coalition budget represents the perfect world.
  Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and as such, I have 
reached a point where I am willing to put the ideals of the coalition 
budget aside and support a bill that will get us to a balanced budget 
despite its flaws.
  First and foremost, I am concerned that the tax cuts contained in the 
committee-approved budget resolution will sabotage our efforts to 
achieve a balanced budget by 2002 and keep it balanced thereafter. We 
have repeatedly been assured that the tax cuts in this bill have been 
structured in such a way that they will not prevent us from balancing 
the budget by 2002. Despite these assurances, there is overwhelming 
evidence to suggest that the cost of many of these tax cuts will rise 
substantially after 2002, when they are fully phased in. For instance, 
the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that, in the 5 years 
after 2002, the tax cuts outlined in this bill will cost an additional 
$165 billion, almost twice as much as in the preceding 5 years. It 
would be a cruel hoax on the American people if we enact tax cuts this 
year, only to have these same cuts cause the deficit to explode again 
after 2002.
  I am also concerned that the specific nature of the tax cuts 
contained in the resolution will benefit the wealthiest in our society, 
while those who really need tax relief will be left out in the cold. 
Clearly, if we are going to enact tax relief this year, we should do so 
in a way so that the cuts we approve are targeted to people on Main 
Street, not Wall Street.
  I am also disappointed that this budget does not follow a steady 
glidepath to balance. While the coalition budget reduced the deficit 
smoothly from 1998 to 2002, the committee-approved budget resolution 
actually causes the deficit to increase in the first several years 
before from an estimated $67 billion in fiscal year 1997 to $90 billion 
in fiscal year 1998, where it will hold nearly steady until the painful 
cuts kick in and the deficit falls to $53 billion in the year 2001, 
eventually achieving a $1 billion surplus in the year 2002. In fact, 
more than two-thirds of the deficit reduction occurs in the final 2 
years of the plan. This is an approach that was tested--and failed--in 
the early 1980's under President Ronald Reagan. When it came time to 
make the difficult cuts, they did not materialize, and the deficit 
skyrocketed. One has to wonder how much money could be saved in 
interest on the Federal debt if we began chipping away at the deficit 
earlier, rather than later, in the process.
  Concerns about the exploding nature of the tax cuts makes enforcement 
of this budget resolution even more important. That's why on May 13, I 
joined 59 of our House colleagues in sending a bipartisan letter to 
Budget Committee Chairman Kasich and ranking member Spratt, requesting 
that tough enforcement language, similar to that contained in the 
Balanced Budget Enforcement Act, be included in the budget resolution. 
When the Budget Committee did not include comprehensive enforcement 
language, an effort was made in the Rules Committee to give the entire 
House the opportunity to approve or reject enforcement procedures as 
part of the budget resolution approved by the committee. Unfortunately, 
the Rules Committee rebuffed this request, and the House will not have 
the opportunity to vote on a resolution that contains strict 
enforcement mechanisms.
  Finally, I am concerned that the budget resolution before us puts off 
many of the difficult decisions on entitlement programs. As we all 
know, many of these programs, which primarily serve the elderly, 
disabled, and children, will be in serious financial jeopardy when the 
baby boomers start retiring in the next 10 years. While this budget 
resolution extends the life of the Medicare part A trust fund by 10 
years, it shies away from tackling the long-term problems faced by 
Medicare and other entitlement programs.
  In closing, I believe that balancing the budget is our moral 
responsibility as Members of Congress. I have always supported a 
balanced budget, and the responsibility to achieve this goal is not one 
that I take lightly. For the first time in more than a generation, we 
have a realistic chance to pass a budget that will actually achieve 
balance in 5 years. Although I would much prefer to see an enforceable 
budget resolution, where the deficit decreases every year and tax cuts 
don't threaten to undo our efforts after 2002, the time has come to put 
the future of our children and grandchildren first by voting for this 
balanced budget resolution.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich], very fine chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let me make it perfectly clear that there 
is, in fact, tough enforcement in this balanced budget agreement. We 
continue to have spending caps. If the discretionary spending, the 
programs that run the Federal Government, would exceed the caps we set, 
there would be automatic cuts across the board.

                              {time}  2015

  Second, no new programs can be created unless they are, in fact, paid 
for by reducing other government programs. Now, I think that is very 
good enforcement.
  Furthermore, we will have additional hearings throughout this year to 
see if there are other mechanisms, an additional budget process reform 
that we think will help the process. But no one should be confused. If 
in fact spending goes above the ceilings that we have set, there will 
be automatic across-the-board cuts. No new programs can be created 
unless they are paid for by cutting other governmental programs.
  Let me make clear my position. I am not in favor of raising taxes. I 
am not in favor of allowing the tax cuts we have in any way to be 
repealed, triggered in, triggered on. I am for permanent tax cuts for 
the American people.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas, [Ms. Granger].
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, today we will consider a number of 
proposals to balance the budget by 2002. We will debate these 
proposals, but I think we should step back just for a minute and 
consider the historic importance of this day.
  Today is historic because for the first time in a generation, the 
leaders of Congress and the President are both committed to a specific 
plan to balance the budget.
  We are fond of saying that the Federal budget was balanced in the 
year Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. I happen to remember it 
differently. 1969 was the year my first child was born. Two days ago, I 
watched proudly as that young man walked down the aisle to receive his 
doctor of jurisprudence. My oldest son has not seen a balanced budget 
since the year he was born. My twins, my son and daughter, have never 
seen a balanced budget in their lifetimes.
  My children do not remember a balanced budget, so they do not know 
how good it will be for them, and they are not alone. Millions of 
Americans have forgotten how important a balanced budget will be to 
their lives, so I want to remind them of the importance of a balanced 
budget to all Americans.
  I have had different jobs in my life and my positions have taught me 
why this opportunity to finally produce a balanced budget is so 
important. I was a mayor, and I learned that local communities need 
more power and less mandates from Washington. I gave up the job as 
mayor to come to Washington, to produce a balanced budget and to return 
power and money and decisions back to families and to local 
communities.
  As a small business owner, I know that jobs and opportunities can 
only be created with a growing economy. By forcing the government to 
balance its books, a balanced budget will yield more than 4 million new 
jobs over 10 years and raise incomes by 16 percent.
  And this balanced budget includes a capital gains tax cut to unleash 
a rising tide of new jobs and higher incomes and raised hopes. The 
capital gains tax reduction in this balanced budget will make the 
American dream come true for some who missed it the first time.
  I was also a public school teacher, and I learned there is nothing 
more important than education. By eliminating the deficit, a balanced 
budget will lower the cost of a typical student loan by nearly $9,000 
and college education will be more affordable to young men and women 
like the ones in this room today.
  Most importantly, the job that convinced me that a balanced budget is 
so very critical, the most important job I ever had, was as the mother 
of three children. By reforming entitlements and providing a per-child 
tax credit, this balanced budget will make sure that America looks 
toward the future.
  For 26 years, the lifetime of my children, politicians have promised 
a balanced budget, but the red ink has continued to rise and we have 
raised taxes

[[Page H2990]]

again and again. Today we replace false hopes with an historic vote to 
balance the budget. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting a 
balanced budget today. It is simply the right thing to do for America.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine, Mr. [Baldacci].
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  We have an opportunity before us, Mr. Chairman, to achieve the first 
balanced budget in a generation. We would not have been at this point 
if it had not been for the President's 1993 economic plan, which 
reduced the deficit by 77 percent, from $290 billion in 1992 to a 
projected $67 billion this year.
  As a result of the fiscal discipline imposed by that 5-year economic 
plan, we have achieved the highest economic growth in a decade, the 
lowest unemployment in 24 years, and the lowest inflation in 30 years. 
We have created 12 million new jobs. Had that plan not been in place, 
it would have been much more difficult and painful to balance the 
budget. We simply would not have had the same options available to us 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, there is little doubt in my mind that every one of us 
in this Chamber could point to elements in this budget that we would 
find distasteful. Each of us would have written it differently, but 
compromise requires give and take. We have to reach common ground and 
gain the support needed to pass such an ambitious plan. Each of us has 
to agree to give up some things in order to reach our goal of balancing 
the Federal budget and getting our fiscal House in order.
  I am very pleased that the agreement balances the budget in a way 
which is consistent with our values. It maintains the fundamental 
commitments to our parents, to working families and to children. It 
ensures that the budget is not balanced on the backs of those who can 
least afford it.
  With a robust economy and declining deficits, we have the best 
opportunity in years to balance the budget. We must strike while the 
iron is hot. Passage of this budget resolution is an important first 
step towards restoring fiscal sanity to our government.
  I urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to support this resolution, and 
look forward to working with them to implement the plan that is being 
laid out before us today.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] has 4\1/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] has 
6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
talk about a couple of aspects of this budget which I think are 
extremely important.
  One of the things that we try to do to encourage economic growth is 
to encourage what we refer to as capital formation. In other words, we 
encourage Americans to save and invest. One of the ways to do that is 
to reduce the burden imposed by the capital gains tax.
  Now, there are a couple of ways to do that. Obviously, we 
congratulate the chairman of the Committee on the Budget for his 
foresight in proposing to reduce the rate of taxation on capital gains. 
But there is another reason. That reason is that capital gains today 
can accurately be referred to as a tax on inflation.
  Let me explain. This chart depicts capital gains realizations from 
investments that may have been purchased in 1955 all the way through 
1994. The red and green lines together represent the entire amount upon 
which capital gains is paid. The green lines represent that part of the 
gain that is due strictly to inflation. That is why we need to index 
capital gains taxes.
  In other words, if we paid taxes, capital gains taxes, on that part 
represented by the red bars, we can see how much less of a saver's and 
an investor's money would be taken away from them than if we do not 
index capital gains. It seems quite ludicrous to me to try to encourage 
young people, middle class people, investors to invest in those assets 
which will increase in value, upon which they will have to pay capital 
gains, if we tax inflation. So I commend the chairman for his foresight 
in bringing about that change or proposing to bring about that change.
  Let me also talk about deficit reduction and economic growth. Let me 
point out quickly that between fiscal years 1992 and 1997 the deficit 
has fallen by a wonderful $290 billion, I mean it is wonderful that it 
fell that much, to an estimated amount of less than $70 billion in the 
upcoming year. Part of these savings are the result of spending 
restraint by the Congress in 1995 and 1996, for which Congress should 
be commended, but by far, by far, the most important factor is the 
cyclical business expansion that began in 1991.
  That expansion continues today and shows no signs of slowing down. 
Unemployment is now below 5 percent. That is great, and I think that we 
should learn from what we have begun in terms of encouraging economic 
growth. The lesson to be learned here is that when the economy is 
healthy and people are working, the government naturally takes in more 
revenue and it makes our budgeteers' job just that much easier. Indeed, 
a strong economic growth represents the most pain-free path to a 
balanced budget. This fact alone should serve as a reminder that it is 
our number one deficit reduction tool that we have to make use of.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to urge my colleagues to keep in 
mind the role the economy plays in deficit reduction. The job of 
balancing the budget is made immensely easier when we have economic 
growth.
  The issues that we have talked about today, a recognition of the role 
of the Fed, a recognition that tax policy tends to increase or decrease 
economic growth, a recognition that when government expands to a size 
of more than 17 percent of GDP, and a recognition of the role of taxes 
and the tax on inflation imposed in our current system's capital gains, 
are all issues that have an important part to play in deficit reduction 
and in economic growth.
  So I will close, Mr. Chairman, by commending the gentleman from Ohio, 
[Mr. Kasich], and the other members of the Committee on the Budget and 
the negotiators who took part in these negotiations with the 
administration for the very fine document they have brought us, and I 
look forward to taking part in further discussions relative to these 
measures as we implement them in the appropriations process.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and I ask unanimous consent that he be 
allowed to allocate time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I find it very interesting that the previous speaker has referred to 
the tax on inflation, and I think that is an important point, but I 
just hope that as the Committee on Ways and Means considers the 
problems of inflation and investment, they also recognize that those of 
us that simply put our money in the bank also experience a tax on 
inflation because the interest rates have to reflect the inflation in 
this economy. I think that we should treat those of us that put our 
money in the bank or in savings in a parallel way to those that put 
money into equity investments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. 
Bishop], who is also a member of the Blue Dog Coalition.
  (Mr. BISHOP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 84, the 
balanced budget resolution for 1998. This is an historic agreement 
which reflects a spirit of bipartisanship and a spirit of cooperation.
  Today, we have an opportunity to pass a resolution which strikes a 
workable balance between keeping the budget balanced and sustaining and 
investing in our most essential domestic and defense priorities.
  This bill attempts to balance the budget in a way that is fiscally 
sound and fair. It represents a commonsense

[[Page H2991]]

approach, a middle ground that all sides should be able to support. 
Once we enact this agreement, we can begin the implementation of a 
balanced budget plan that will put money back into the pockets of 
working Americans.
  Like all of my colleagues, I am committed to providing a higher 
better quality of life for my constituents. This means supporting 
policies for stimulating job growth, a stronger, a more diversified 
economy, a better educated population, safe and secure communities that 
are free from crime and drugs, a clean environment, affordable health 
care, and a strong national defense, but all within the context of a 
balanced budget. The resolution up for consideration today establishes 
a good framework for achieving these goals.
  I want to commend both parties for their diligent work in crafting an 
agreement which moves toward eliminating deficits, expands health care 
coverage for our most vulnerable citizens, keeps Medicaid and Medicare 
solvent while preserving essential care, intensifies our efforts to 
protect the environment, provides persons with the necessary tools to 
move from welfare to work, gives a boost to education and provides 
equitable tax relief, including capital gains and inheritance tax 
reductions, for the American people and it preserves a strong defense, 
which has already been cut enough.

                              {time}  2030

  I doubt if anyone regards this bill as perfect. With a measure this 
far-reaching, there is no way to reach perfection. From everyone's 
point of view, there are provisions in the bill that I do not like and 
have fought against all along, including those to increase the 
retirement share made by civil service workers and that assume that 
cost-of-living adjustments for veterans compensation will be rounded 
down to the nearest whole dollar. I do not like these.
  Our veterans and our civil service workers are carrying their share 
of the budget reduction burden already and will continue to try to 
change provisions such as these. Additionally, I will work with my 
coalition colleagues for enforcement measures to ensure that the 
deficit indeed remains on the glide path to balance in the next 5 
years. It is extremely important that we do this so that we can reach 
our deficit targets each year.
  But on balance, Mr. Speaker, this agreement may be our last best hope 
to finally achieve a balanced budget and save our country from an 
economic calamity, which is sure to occur if budget deficits and the 
national debt continue to run amuck. Our choice is clear, our mandate 
strong. Pass this resolution.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. McIntyre], a new Member of this institution and a member 
of the Blue Dog Coalition.
  (Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, just as each of us expect to balance the 
budget of our own personal checkbooks or our family's checkbooks or our 
small business's checkbooks, we should never expect any less from the 
Federal Government.
  When I ran for this office, it was because of that very concern for 
our working families and our small business owners. We realize that in 
States like mine, in North Carolina, we are required to balance the 
budget and we meet that mandate every year. We should expect no less of 
our own national government. This is a chance for us to give working 
families an opportunity to see that we are stewards of their trust, 
that our government is accountable for every penny it takes in and 
every penny it puts out.
  An old proverb once says that the longest journey begins with the 
single step. Although this is not perfect, it is a way to take that 
first step to make our government move towards the balanced budget 
responsibility that it should have.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to inquire of the Chair as to how 
much time I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 12 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to close by just recognizing some of the 
positive and problematic situations that we face. As we have an 
opportunity here to eliminate the deficit, I think it is important to 
remember that we are enjoying prosperity in our Nation, relative 
prosperity, because we know that economic cycles come and go and that 
we are going to face a downturn at some point in the future.
  It is prudent for us to plan for that and not to assume that the full 
employment and the good, strong economic growth that we have today is 
going to survive indefinitely. Therefore, I think it behooves us to 
practice fiscal responsibility now and to put money aside, if at all 
possible, for the rainy day.
  I think, at the same time, it is important to know that we are 
talking about the difference quite often between the debt and the 
deficit. Yet, the American people quite often are confused. They think 
when we say we are going to eliminate the deficit it means we are going 
to eliminate that $20,000 per capita debt. That could not be further 
from the truth. The debt will still be there, $20,000 for each man, 
woman, and child in this country, interest running at the rate of close 
to $250 billion a year.
  Those of us in the Blue Dog coalition have supported tax cuts. We 
think tax cuts are important. We think new programs are important. But 
on the other hand, we think that our first and most immediate 
responsibility is to eliminate this deficit. And, therefore, we have 
stood for the proposition that let us work for and plan for tax cuts, 
but that is the dessert, that is the reward that we should achieve 
after we have accomplished this heavy lifting of balancing the budget.
  I would also like to emphasize and reemphasize that we have looked 
for and hoped for strong enforcement mechanisms in our budget 
resolution and in the reconciliation bills. That is extremely important 
to us. We must, as the reconciliation bills are drafted, include in 
them the caps, the pay-go provisions, the sequestration and other 
provisions that are so necessary to safeguard what we have worked long 
and hard for in this body this spring.
  Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to present these views.
  (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, from Seattle to Miami, from 
California to Maine, all across America, our infrastructure is 
crumbling. Thirty percent of our interstate system needs to be rebuilt; 
25 percent of our bridges are structurally deficient. There are 41,000 
people killed on our highways every year. And we are told that 30 
percent of those deaths are caused by inadequate construction of the 
highways; and if we can wave a magic wand and correct those highways 
with investment, we could save up to 12,000 lives a year.
  Congestion in our 50 largest cities costs $51 billion a year. Right 
here we need not look beyond the Nation's Capital and the metropolitan 
area. The Washington Post recently reported that the Capital Beltway 
already operates well above capacity, and in sections of it they expect 
a 43 percent increase in the next 20 years. The Metro chief here in 
Washington, Richard White, said, and I quote, ``I thought we are two or 
three years away from a crisis with Metro, but I was wrong. It is 
closer than that.''
  Twenty-four hours after the budget resolution was released, 49 
Governors signed a letter and sent it to us saying they were 
disappointed in the transportation funding and they urged us to 
increase transportation funding. We have letters from the mayors urging 
increased funding for transportation, letters from the counties, 
letters from the building trades unions, from the Teamsters, from the 
Chambers of Commerce, and from the environmentalists, all saying we 
need to spend more money in transportation.

  In inner-state repair projects alone, we have over 30 projects, each 
of which costs over a billion dollars apiece. One hundred cities need 
new transit projects. Amtrak is on its way to bankruptcy. Our airports 
are clogged. Our air traffic control system is failing. And yet, this 
should be a positive problem because it represents the vibrant growth 
of our country.
  While we have an increase in population, travel is increasing at 
three

[[Page H2992]]

times the rate of our increase in population. In aviation we are moving 
from 230 million passengers a year to over a billion passengers a year 
as we moved into the first decade of the next century.
  Truck traffic is projected to increase on our highways by 30 percent 
in the next 7 years. Our global competitors are building for the 
future. In Japan they are spending $30 billion U.S. in one airport, the 
Kansai airport. In Shanghai, get this, 17 percent of all the world's 
construction cranes are in Shanghai. It looks like a city over which 
pterodactyls are hovering.
  In Hong Kong they not only have the most modern container port in the 
world, but they are building the largest airport in the world at a cost 
of $22 billion U.S. with 288 ticket counters. Now, that is the kind of 
infrastructure building that is going on in Asia, where we have fierce 
competition and can expect even fiercer competition in the next 
century.
  Our needs. Well, we need $16 billion a year more in highways and 
bridges just to keep up. We need $13 billion to improve transit, $10 
billion for airports and aviation. And what does this budget resolution 
do with regard to transportation? Well, the $33 billion balances in the 
four transportation trust funds, if this budget resolution is 
implemented without change, will increase to $65 billion in the next 5 
years. Now those are not my numbers. Those are CBO numbers. CBO says we 
will increase the balances in the transportation trust funds from $33 
to $65 billion in the next 5 years.
  Beyond that, this budget resolution provides for $125 billion over 
the 5 years in outlays for transit and highways. They say it is an $8 
billion increase over the 5 years. That is not really accurate, because 
there is $3 billion that is not counted in the baseline on the projects 
that were in ISTEA. We have to subtract $3 billion, and we are down to 
a $5 billion increase.
  But there is also $2\1/2\ billion in budget authority which is not 
reflected in outlays, so perhaps this is another $2\1/2\ billion we 
have to subtract. And beyond all that, the so-called $8 billion 
increase, which is more like $1 or $2 billion, is not simply for 
highways or transit; this is function 400, all the transportation 
programs. That includes the Coast Guard, rail, pipelines, all the 
various transportation projects.
  We are told that the revenue that is coming into the trust fund is 
going to be spent. That is not true. CBO has confirmed that it is not 
true. In fact, my good friend the chairman of the Budget Committee also 
confirmed that at a Republican conference last week. We are told that, 
if we really count the general fund spending on transportation, that 
equals all the revenue coming in. Well, the general fund spending 
reflects spending in military bases, reflects spending on CDBG grant 
which have nothing to do with our Federal aid highway system and, most 
importantly, historically reflects the spending out of the general fund 
on transit before we set up a transit account within the trust fund.
  So, indeed, many of the things that we are hearing are not quite 
accurate. But beyond that, what does our modest perfecting amendment 
do? We simply increase outlays over 5 years by $12 billion from $125 to 
$137 billion. And next year, in the budget resolution, we do not make 
any reductions to pay for that, but rather, over the 5 years, we have a 
one-third of 1 percent across-the-board cut on discretionary programs 
and the tax cuts, about as modest as we can get.
  Let me again emphasize, there are no reductions in the fiscal 1998 
budget which we are reflecting in this amendment. We adopt the numbers 
of the Budget Committee, and it is in those outyears. Further, we 
provide safeguards that transportation trust fund money will be used 
for intended purposes, and we modify the transportation reserve fund to 
give priority to the restoration of spending and transportation cut 
offsets if it turns out that more are available. As we are told, this 
is so conservative that more funds may well be available. And, indeed, 
we are also told that this might break the budget deal.
  I would respectfully suggest that insults the intelligence of the 
Members to say that a one-third of 1 percent cut over 5 years is going 
to break this deal when the bottom line remains the same. What are we, 
potted plants? Can we not, as Members of Congress, make a very modest 
adjustment so long as the bottom line numbers stay the same? That is 
all we are doing here. And indeed, I believe we have every right as 
duly elected Members of Congress to make such a modest perfecting 
amendment.
  Now is the time for Members to implement their previous votes where 
they so strongly expressed support for transportation infrastructure.

                              {time}  2045

  Last year, we had a vote to take trust funds off budget. That vote 
passed by a 2 to 1 margin. Seventy percent of the Republicans in the 
House voted in favor of it. Sixty-four percent of the Democrats voted 
in favor of it. A majority of the Republican cardinals on the Committee 
on Appropriations voted in favor of it. A majority of the Republicans 
on the Committee on Ways and Means voted in favor of it. Were these 
serious-minded votes or were they not? Now is the time to address this 
issue. So far this year, we have 239 cosponsors of taking the trust 
funds off budget. We passed it out of committee unanimously in early 
February, but the leadership has blocked us from bringing it to the 
floor to get an honest up-or-down vote. The moment of truth is here. 
This later tonight will be the single most important transportation and 
infrastructure vote we cast not only in this Congress but for the next 
6 years, because it will determine the funding that is available for 
ISTEA.
  What does that mean? It means if we pass this modest amendment, we 
can begin adequate funding for infrastructure, we can address the 
donor-donee formula problem. We can find funds to begin trade corridors 
and border infrastructure. We can address transit and clean air needs 
in urban areas. We can save lives with safer highways and bridges. We 
can reconstruct the interstate system. We can address the other many 
high priority needs that have been brought to us. And we can create 
thousands of good jobs, for every $1 billion spent in transportation 
means 42,000 jobs.
  Tonight is the moment of truth for transportation and infrastructure. 
Support the Shuster-Oberstar-Petri-Rahall amendment and help build 
America and save lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Rahall], the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished gentleman, the chairman of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, trust. An interesting term, that word. Trust. Webster 
defines it as an assured reliance on the character, ability, strength 
or truth of someone or something. That is why we call it the highway 
trust fund. Not the highway fund, but we call it the highway trust 
fund. To the American people, we have said, pay your motor fuel taxes. 
In return, you will receive those funds back in the form of better 
roads, highways, and bridges. That is a sacred trust that we entered 
into with the American people 41 years ago when the Congress 
established the highway trust fund. Yet today we find that that trust 
has been broken. It lays shattered at our feet.
  Over $24 billion in unspent funds has accumulated in the highway 
trust fund. There is no trust in that. At the same time, 4.3 cents per 
gallon in Federal motor fuel taxes is not even being deposited into the 
highway trust fund. There is no trust in that, either. In this budget 
resolution, this budget resolution will not even allow us to spend the 
amount of motor fuel tax receipts that are anticipated to be paid into 
the highway trust fund over the next 5 years.
  Crumbs for a crumbling infrastructure. That is all this current 
budget resolution gives us, is crumbs for a crumbling infrastructure. 
When it comes to highway spending, many of my colleagues have talked 
the talk. Almost 240 of our colleagues have cosponsored H.R. 4 to take 
the transportation trust funds off budget. A vast majority of my 
colleagues have requests pending before the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure for specific highway or transit projects.

[[Page H2993]]

  Those of my colleagues listening, just think of how many of those 
requests are pending. My colleagues may have talked the talk, but now 
it is time to walk the walk, to show what you are made of; to stand up 
for America, not to sit down on it; to build America, not tear it down; 
to promote America, not demote America; to expand America, not contract 
it; to do what is right, what is fair, what keeps faith with the 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a battle for the heart and soul of America. 
This amendment is not just about asphalt and concrete. It is about 
safety. It is about saving lives. It is about our economy, about our 
competitiveness. It is about our jobs. It is about our standard of 
living. It is about the type of legacy that we will leave to our future 
generations.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, it is time to walk the 
walk. Vote ``yes'' on the Shuster-Oberstar-Petri-Rahall amendment.
  I commend the distinguished chairman for this initiative.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Kim], distinguished chairman of one of our 
subcommittees.
  (Mr. KIM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I found this brochure today. It is kind of 
disturbing to me. I rise in strong opposition to the budget resolution 
because of this. This is deceptive, in my opinion, cleverly devised 
propaganda which is totally untrue. This says who pays for 
transportation increases? Then it says, education, $980 million. Now, 
come on. All we are asking is, do not gut our transportation trust 
fund. We are not cutting any programs like this.
  Every time that American motorists fill up their gasoline tank, they 
pay 18.3 cents per gallon of gasoline tax. Of that money, almost one-
third goes to the deficit reduction program, but the remaining 14 cents 
is supposed to go to highway programs. It is not. We have not been 
honest with the American people. The truth is we have not actually used 
the whole 14 cents for transportation at all. Instead, every year we 
gut the transportation trust fund money and spend it on other 
nontransportation programs. I am tired of this.
  Even this budget agreement that we are discussing tonight continues 
that deception. This budget agreement takes $13 billion in gas tax 
revenue and diverts them to other nontransportation programs, Mr. 
Chairman. That is $13 billion that we promised to spend on roadways, 
highways and mass transit. Now we are going to turn around and spend it 
elsewhere.
  At a time when our national infrastructure is deteriorating, this 
breach of trust is totally unacceptable to us. We should be spending 
more to maintain and improve our infrastructure, not diverting money to 
wasteful Government programs. In fact, the recent studies show that the 
Federal Government should be spending almost $20 billion more a year 
than it does today to meet the transportation needs of the next decade. 
Instead, we are dishonest in diverting this $13 billion to other 
Government programs. Shame on us.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern].
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to express my very, very 
strong support for the Shuster-Oberstar-Petri-Rahall amendment as a 
path to ensure that the transportation needs of our Nation are 
addressed. If we are to compete with the growing economies of the 
Pacific Rim and Europe, transportation must be America's economic 
development priority for the 21st century.
  This budget as it now stands simply does not meet those needs. This 
agreement falls woefully short of allowing us to merely maintain our 
aging highway and transit systems, let alone make greatly needed 
repairs. Transportation funds in this budget are insufficient. Every 
Governor in this Nation has emphasized that transportation is a 
priority and that this additional funding is absolutely critical to 
meeting America's vast infrastructure needs. This amendment is a 
sensible bipartisan effort to address this shortfall and increase 
transportation funding to the minimum acceptable level.
  Mr. Chairman, I am strongly committed to balancing the Federal 
budget, but let us do it in a way that is honest and honors our 
commitment to the American people and guarantees a strong economy. I 
ask my colleagues to be bold, to be daring and to invest in our 
Nation's economic security and our future.
  Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues truly believe that transportation is a 
priority for their States, they have an obligation to support this 
amendment. I want to thank my chairman for his extraordinary leadership 
on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following material for the Record:

         The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of 
           Transportation and Construction,
                                         Boston, MA, May 19, 1997.
     Hon. James P. McGovern,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman McGovern: As you prepare to cast votes on 
     the balanced budget agreement, I want to express my concern 
     over the agreement's level of funding for transportation and 
     ask you to support the Shuster-Oberstar-Petri-Rahall 
     Amendment which will be offered during debate.
       The budget agreement sets transportation levels at $125 
     billion over the five year period, $13 billion shy of the 
     Highway Trust Funds (HTF) expected receipts. This under 
     investment in our infrastructure would cause the HTF balance 
     to increase to at least $37 billion and our nations 
     infrastructure needs to remain unmet. To accentuate this 
     point, the Federal Highway Administration estimates that it 
     will taken an investment of $16 billion more per year just to 
     maintain the conditions of our highways and bridges.
       Furthermore, at this funding level it is likely that the 
     Commonwealth's transportation funding needs would be in 
     peril. For example, a worst case scenario would present us 
     with a 5 year loss of $1.4 billion. Therefore, I ask for your 
     support of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committees 
     bipartisan amendment to increase the funding level by a 
     reasonable $12 billion. This increase, which will not draw on 
     the $24 billion HTF balance or capture the 4.3 cents going to 
     deficit reduction, will help the Committee to reach a balance 
     among its many competing concerns.
       I thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate 
     to contact me if you should have any questions or need any 
     further information.
           Sincerely,
                                              James J. Kerasiotes,
     Secretary.
                                  ____



                                      The New England Council,

                                         Boston, MA, May 20, 1997.
     Hon. James McGovern,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative McGovern: On behalf of the hundreds of 
     businesses and non-profit organizations that comprise The New 
     England Council, I am writing to urge you to support a 
     bipartisan amendment to the Budget Resolution that will 
     increase funding for projects under the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
       The Budget Agreement reached by the Clinton Administration 
     and Congressional leadership provides inadequate funding 
     levels for surface transportation projects in New England and 
     across the nation. The amendment, offered by the bipartisan 
     leadership of the House Transportation and Infrastructure 
     Committee, seeks to rectify this situation. It mandates 
     increased Highway Trust Fund spending so that outlays for the 
     next five years would rise $12 billion from the $125 billion 
     stipulated by the Budget Agreement.
       Strong economic growth depends on viable and advanced 
     highway and transportation systems. Without the significant 
     investment in our transportation infrastructure that the 
     amendment calls for, we are placing the nation and our long-
     term economic prosperity at risk.
       I urge you to support an increase in transportation funding 
     when the House votes on the Budget Resolution. A vote for 
     this increase is a vote for New England's future.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James T. Brett,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____


        House Amendment is ``Make or Break'' for Highway Funding

       Transportation leaders in Congress will offer an amendment 
     to the Budget Resolution increasing transportation spending 
     over the next five years, while still achieving a balanced 
     budget by 2002.
       Currently in the Budget Resolution, highways and transit 
     would receive $124 billion over the five year period, 
     equating to a $1-2 billion increase for highways per year. 
     This funding level would not even spend the revenue going 
     into the Highway Trust Fund each year, let alone the 
     exisiting $13 billion cash balance in the fund.
       The Shuster-Oberstar-Petri--Rahall amendment would increase 
     transportation spending to the amount of revenue deposited in 
     the Highway Trust Fund, $137 billion over five years or $13 
     billion more than the Budget Resolution currently provides. 
     To offset the increased transportation funding, the amendment 
     would reduce other spending accounts (except entitlement 
     programs) and

[[Page H2994]]

     the tax cut package by 0.44%. That is an across-the-board cut 
     in other government programs (except entitlements) of less 
     than one-half of one percent.
       This amendment is extremely important to Massachusetts and 
     our industry.
       Balancing the federal budget is very important, but should 
     not be done with taxes paid by highway users that were 
     intended to make highways safer. Inadequate roads and bridges 
     are a factor in traffic accidents that result in over 12,000 
     highway deaths each year.
       If the total pie currently available for highway 
     construction is not increased significantly, Massachusetts 
     may lose a substantial amount of funding when ISTEA is 
     reauthorized later this year. The funding provided in the 
     Budget Resolution is insufficient to take care of the donor-
     donee problem.
       The Highway Trust Fund can support a $26 billion annual 
     highway program through 2002 with current income (no new 
     taxes). The Budget Resolution would only allow for a highway 
     program averaging about $22 billion per year. If held to that 
     low funding level, the cash balance in the HTF will continue 
     to grow until it reaches more than $40 billion in 2002.

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Kelly].
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I salute the efforts of the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman, and the leadership of both sides of 
the aisle in working with the administration to achieve a balanced 
budget agreement. It is a good agreement but we can make it better, and 
that is why I am supporting the bipartisan Shuster-Oberstar-Petri-
Rahall substitute.
  To put it simply, this substitute restores trust to the highway trust 
fund, ensuring that revenues into the fund are spent out of the fund to 
support needed highway transit improvements around the country.
  This investment is desperately needed. There is a multibillion dollar 
backlog of transportation projects across the country, investments that 
we must make if we are able to compete in the global marketplace. The 
Shuster substitute boosts funding for transportation and includes 
offsets to keep the budget on a glide path to balance by 2002. It is 
fiscally responsible and fulfills our responsibility to invest in our 
aging infrastructure.
  Passage of this substitute will help us to craft an ISTEA 
reauthorization bill that will resolve the donor versus donee State 
controversy. If the issue is important to my colleagues, I hope they 
will join me in supporting the Shuster-Oberstar-Petri-Rahall 
substitute.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn].
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank our distinguished 
chairman for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, the highway trust fund is one of the things that we use 
to endear our relationship with those who are all about making the 
future for all of our citizenry what it ought to be.
  The $12 billion that we are requesting in this amendment is something 
that we think is fair and it is balanced. We think that if we take a 
look at the facts, only a one-third of 1 percent reduction in domestic 
spending and the tax cuts over the next 5 years is a fair way to 
approach our permanent infrastructure. I think our roads and our 
bridges are in dire need of repair. We know from every study that has 
ever been developed that for each $1 billion we spend, we create a 
42,000 jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I will support this amendment and I call upon my 
colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Shuster-Oberstar budget amendment. It provides needed 
transportation funding to repair and rebuild our roads and bridges and 
to provide funding for public transit, Amtrak, local passenger trains, 
subways, and buses.
  This amendment helps the environment. It provides jobs. It improves 
safety for motorists and commuters. Fifty-one Governors, Mr. Chairman, 
have endorsed the Shuster-Oberstar transportation funding amendment. It 
does not interfere with the balancing of our budget. It does not change 
any annual deficit targets. It does not make cuts to entitlement 
programs. It does not draw down highway trust fund balances. It does 
not spend any of the 4.3 cents of the gas tax. It is the most pro-
people bill. We must pass this legislation. It is going to help all of 
our citizens in every single State. I urge strong support of the 
Shuster-Oberstar budget amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Blumenauer].
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, the chairman, for his courtesies and for his eloquence a 
moment ago when he explained to America what this measure is about. We 
are talking about American economic competitiveness. We know that the 
Japanese are spending trillions of dollars, and we are debating here on 
the floor whether or not we are going to add $12 billion in order to 
meet our current priorities. It is a question of whether or not we are 
going to support our communities in terms of their livability agenda. 
It is an opportunity for us to think forward when others are looking 
back. This budget resolution amendment, if passed, will enable us to 
look forward as opposed to ducking issues that we know if we avoid are 
going to be worse 10 years from now.

                              {time}  2100

  And I find a little incongruous people talking about the cost of this 
proposal because this is an investment in our future that will provide 
a half million additional jobs. I am absolutely convinced it will be 
self-financing, and if we do not, it will be self-destructing.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy, and I strongly 
urge the approval of this amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment, and I 
would like to make it very clear why I support it. The people of 
America pay a great deal of money in Federal gasoline taxes, and the 
people of America have every right to expect that this money be spent 
for transportation purposes. We do not spend anywhere near the amount 
raised for transportation purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will help adjust that inequity, and I 
think we should support it, and I commend the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] for his efforts in this area.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pascrell].
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster] for giving me this time. What my colleagues have proposed 
and what many have joined them with is not a breach of any kind of any 
agreement. We will decide the agreement in this House. That is the only 
agreement that we are concerned about. Forty-nine Governors, 89 
senators, 239 Members of this House are on record supporting the 
transportation spending level proposed in this amendment.
  What we have done is not any different than what we did with 
veterans. We collect fees, and then we put those fees back in the 
general fund rather than spend them on veterans. What we are doing here 
is a collection agency, $20 billion that goes back into the general 
budget rather than being spent on the infrastructure, on economic 
development in this Nation.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] is right on target. We 
are going to win this fight tonight. It is an important one for 
America. It is just as important as our balanced budget.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Boswell].
  (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I am very impressed by the bold leadership 
that is being taken with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] on 
this subject. Just stop and think about it, my colleagues. I think 
about some of the products come out of the Midwest, out of our part of 
the country, farm products and so on. It has got to travel on a system, 
and that system is broken down at times when we cannot move grain from 
Iowa and we have got sales to go to the Ukraine or wherever, and

[[Page H2995]]

this is unacceptable. We can make many, many examples of that, and a 
time has come to realize that we are collecting this for the purpose, 
we have a need, that the needs of the country are at stake. The 
competition with the Pacific rim and the European Union are real. They 
are going on, and they are making the investment. We have got to do no 
less, and I hope that my colleagues are paying attention tonight.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown].
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], which directly addresses the 
issue of truth and honesty in the transportation budget.
  In President Clinton's State of the Union message he talks about 
building a bridge to the future and to the 21st century. Well, I got 
news for my colleagues. They cannot build a bridge without money for 
transportation and infrastructure needs. Thirty percent of American 
urban highways are congested. This damaged air quality, increased 
travel time and cost travelers in the largest city more than $43 
billion in delays and excess fuel consumption area.
  The future of this country is intermodal. Our economy is not based on 
Florida competing against Georgia or even California. It is a global 
marketplace, and we are competing with countries like Japan and 
Germany. These countries have a highly developed transportation and 
infrastructure system to move goods, people, and service.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the President's commitment too, 100 percent. 
Let us build the bridges to the 21st century and let us make sure 
everyone can travel it safely.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Tauscher].
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Shuster-
Oberstar amendment. While I am supportive of the budget agreement 
overall, it is sorely lacking in funding for important transportation 
needs.
  The Shuster-Oberstar amendment will make a modest adjustment to the 
resolution by adding roughly $12 billion over 5 years for 
transportation. This amendment does not address the issue of taking the 
transportation funds off budget, nor does it attempt to recapture the 
4.3 cents in gas tax revenue that currently is directed to deficit 
reduction. Instead, it simply asserts that the money collected by the 
Highway Trust Fund in the next 5 years will be spent on highway and 
transit needs.
  The Shuster-Oberstar amendment is a good investment for America. The 
amendment would retain the balanced budget target, but would better 
provide for our Nation's transportation needs.
  I urge my colleagues to improve this budget resolution by adopting 
the Shuster-Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize just how modest this is. There are 
several things we would like to have done. We would like to have taken 
the transportation trust funds off budget. After all, we had a 2-to-1 
vote, an enormous victory in this House last year to do just that. This 
year we have 237 Members, a majority of Republicans I might add, who 
have cosponsored H.R. 4 to take those transportation trust funds off 
budget. But we do not do that in this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been blocked from bringing that to the floor 
even though that bill passed unanimously out of our committee.
  Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I must say that it insults the intelligence of 
our Members to somehow suggest that this modest proposal could hurt the 
deal to take one-third of 1 percent of the overall discretionary 
spending in taxes, a minuscule amount over 5 years, and indeed to have 
no reductions, I emphasize no reductions, in the first year, which 
means we will be back here again with another budget resolution next 
year, as we are every year, to have no reductions, and to be certain 
that this is CBO scored so that the bottom line, indeed, is consistent 
with the overall deal between the White House and the budgeteers, and 
to somehow suggest that that hurts the deal, Members certainly have 
every right to express themselves on this modest amendment.
  I must also say, Mr. Chairman, I am very much moved by the 
extraordinary support that we are receiving for this modest perfecting 
amendment. We thought it was going to be a very uphill battle. Indeed, 
we felt it was a matter of fighting the battle as a matter of principle 
even though we recognized that it was, we thought, quite a long shot, 
and now, as we stand here tonight, as we have received expressions of 
support from Members in all philosophical positions in this House, 
Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, they are reflecting 
the views of the American people who say we need to build more 
infrastructure for America, we need to save lives and we need to keep 
faith with the American people.
  There is so much cynicism about Government today, and one of the 
reasons for that cynicism is when we tell the American people, ``You 
pay your gasoline tax, you pay your aviation ticket tax; we're going to 
spend that money to improve transportation,'' and then we do a flimflam 
on them. We do not spend the money. Instead, we use it to mask the size 
of the general fund deficit to the extent that, as we stand here today, 
there are $33 billion of balances in those trust funds, legal 
obligations of the United States of America, and what is even worse, if 
we adopt this budget resolution without this perfecting amendment, 
those balances in those transportation trust funds will rise from $33 
billion today to $65 billion in 5 years. It is just wrong.
  Forty-nine Governors have sent a letter to us saying to spend more on 
transportation. When the vote comes tonight, vote in favor of this 
amendment to build America for the future.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster] has expired.
  Under the unanimous consent agreement entered into earlier today, the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is with great pride that I rise on behalf of myself, 
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Thompson] and the entire 
Congressional Black Caucus, first to thank those who have worked to 
present this House with a budget and, without spending time to discuss 
why the negotiated budget deal misses the mark, I would like to discuss 
another approach, another vision for America embodied in the CBC 
budget.
  The CBC budget alternative that will be offered later on this evening 
reaches budget balance by the year 2001, Mr. Chairman, not 2002, as the 
budget deal does. Each year between now and then our deficit is lower 
than that projected by the so-called budget deal.
  This Congressional Black Caucus alternative is a fiscally 
conservative budget. This budget, scored by CBO, reduces the deficit 
immediately and smoothly. This budget does not backload savings. The 
budget does not include tax cuts. This budget does not raise any tax 
rates, not on individuals, not on businesses. The CBC budget 
alternative achieves its savings through a balanced combination of 
military spending reductions, nondefense discretionary spending cuts, 
reductions in corporate welfare and modest reforms in Medicare and no 
increased premiums for seniors.
  Our budget makes the Medicare trust fund solvent into the future, as 
does the budget deal. The CBC budget alternative does this while 
staying within the overall domestic discretionary spending levels 
agreed to by the budget deal.
  This budget accomplishes balance in the following ways: We make 
$189.9 billion in military budget savings. Our budget presumes in the 
post-cold War period this country can rationally reduce military 
spending while protecting military families and investing in 
economically viable alternatives through economic conversion.
  Our budget saves nearly $20 billion in nondefense discretionary 
spending programs. By reducing Government subsidies to corporations in 
various parts of the budget the CBC alternative cuts billions in 
wasteful, unnecessary spending. Our budget closes $195.5 billion in 
corporate welfare loopholes over 5 years. This represents less than $40 
billion in savings from corporate welfare

[[Page H2996]]

per year. Surely, as this country embarks on its course to produce a 
balanced budget, multinational and other large corporations can and 
should pay their fair share.
  And finally, we would enact entitlement reform through a $25.5 
billion in savings from Medicare. By eliminating waste and abuse from 
the program, we would not increase premiums or reduce Medicare 
benefits, but protect the trust fund and Medicare recipients. This is a 
modest fair approach to budget savings.
  Our spending cuts facilitate real increases in other areas of the 
budget, all the while staying within the budget caps imposed by law and 
assumed in the budget deal. Our budget invests in programs which 
empower individuals, enhance community development, and expand economic 
growth.
  Mr. Chairman, our budget works within every budget guideline that 
exists. It balances the budget on a true glidepath. It achieves balance 
by 2001, a full year earlier than the budget deal. Through our savings, 
we invest an additional $99.7 billion in programs for people. We pay 
for our spending increases, and we prioritize.
  This budget is fair, responsible, and balanced.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi 
[Mr. Thompson].
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, let me first compliment the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Waters], the chairman of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, for this leadership in this budget effort, but this evening I 
rise in strong support of the Congressional Black Caucus fiscal year 
1998 alternative budget.

                              {time}  2115

  It is the only budget that balances a year earlier and shares the 
burden equally. This alternative budget offers a vision of America for 
all people, regardless of race, color or creed or economic status. It 
is our obligation to present a budget which promotes the general 
welfare and advances the interests of the caring majority of our 
Nation. The majority of Americans believe that the power and wealth of 
our country should be utilized for the benefit of all people.
  The Congressional Black Caucus views the military and other defense 
programs funded in a defense function as just one element of the three 
in a comprehensive national security strategy.
  The second leg of the triad is an engaged and effective foreign 
policy strategy to bring about conditions of regional and international 
security.
  The third leg of that triad includes domestic involvement in 
education, research and development, community and economic 
infrastructure, and individual well-being that are so critical to 
maintaining safe and cohesive communities.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget reflects a caring and sharing majority, not 
one that is business as usual.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 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, we call this the Congressional Black Caucus 
budget, but the only thing that we have in common is that our 
constituents have the same dreams, the same aspirations and the same 
hopes to participate in this ever-growing economy that we have today. 
As we take a look at those of us that support it, the President's 
budget, which had a tax increase in it before, we see that without any 
Republican support it passed, and we found economic growth except for 
one group of people, and that is those people that did not have the 
tools to access, or the education, the jobs or the training to 
participate in this growth.
  Now that we are moving forward into the next century where trade and 
technology is going to lead, what we have tried to do in our budget is 
not to stress how much money we need for drug rehabilitation and how 
much we need for cops and jails, but to concentrate on how we can make 
the best investment, not just by reducing taxes, but by investing in 
people, giving our kids a chance to get an education similar to the GI 
bill so that they can participate, be productive, and have a society 
where we do not have to have welfare programs, but just decide what 
jobs are best for certain people that are trained for them.
  We want to make certain that the budget is balanced, not as just 
economists, because we cannot afford to have the interest on the debt 
really be further than just the interest that we have in our students. 
We would think that this great Nation would not want to see every State 
capital investing more in our prisons and in our jails when we have 
over 1 million people walking around, unproductive, not producing 
anything; where what we are saying is, put some human investment in our 
schools and we will find that the youngsters are dreaming about jobs 
and hopes and not dealing with crime and drugs.
  So we clearly have an alternative for those people that have a 
similar type of community, but even better than that, to make certain 
that towns like we have in New York where we have detention of children 
who make mistakes, we pay $84,000 a year to keep a kid in jail, and yet 
the unions are fighting with the mayors to see whether or not we can 
spend $7,000 to keep a kid in school.
  So it seems to me that even though the President had to pull together 
a bipartisan popular budget, that a courageous thing for all of us to 
do is to say that we should start cutting the taxes when we have no 
deficit, we cut the taxes when we are satisfied that we have made the 
investments in our teaching institutions so that we can effectively 
compete with our trading partners.
  For those people that may have to vote on more than one, I would 
suggest to my colleagues that the Congressional Black Caucus budget is 
one that one would not be politically ashamed.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus budget is 
a balanced budget. It balances our national priority and it is fair to 
its people.
  Mr. Chairman, if we have policies that truly promote shared 
sacrifices, there is enough that no one in this affluent country should 
go hungry. Nutrition programs are essential, and I am pleased to note 
for my colleagues' consideration that the Congressional Black Caucus 
does not forget the hungry.
  Nutritional programs are essential to the well-being of millions of 
our citizens who are disadvantaged children, the elderly and the 
disabled. Nutritional programs in many cases provide the only 
nutritional food that millions of our Nation's poor receive on a daily 
basis.
  Why then, we may ask, are there those of us who would deny them a 
chance; a chance to eat, a chance to feed their family? Perhaps it is 
because we do not see them, we do not know who they are, we have an 
image of them that in most cases is in error. But who are these people 
who now face hunger? They are people we do not see and we do not know, 
so we forget them.
  Under the welfare reform bill, called the Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Act of 1996, able-bodied adults now have a limited 
time to participate in the food stamp program, and legal immigrants are 
restricted from participation all together. There are 27 million 
persons who participate in the food stamp program, but there are only 
1.3 million who are able-bodied. That is less than 5 percent.
  Who, then, are these able-bodied persons? The popular misconception 
is that they are young males who are shiftless, who depend on other 
persons doing their work. They live off the worth of others. Some 
persons fit that description, but Mr. Chairman, many, many more do not.
  According to the Mathematica study, 40 percent of the able-bodied 
persons are women. As many as 59 percent of the able-bodied adults have 
a high school education. They are not derelicts, they are not 
vagabonds. Many of these are responsible persons who have fallen on 
hard times.
  Who are these persons we do not see? Forty-one percent of the able-
bodied adults have no income whatsoever, and when they do have income 
it is as low as $225. Mr. Chairman, we should care about the hungry. 
This budget responds to that vital goal.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Stokes].

[[Page H2997]]

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget.
  I want to commend the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] and 
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Thompson] for their leadership in 
developing this budget.
  This substitute firmly supports the fact that the budget can be 
fairly balanced while responsibly addressing the needs of the American 
people, especially the needs of our Nation's most vulnerable 
populations: seniors and children, in the areas of education, health, 
housing, and human services. The CBC budget fully funds the Head Start 
Program to help prepare our Nation's children to achieve their highest 
developmental and academic potential. Over 2 million children would be 
served. Currently, no more than 40 percent of all eligible 3- to 5-
year-olds participate in Head Start.
  Our substitute also fully funds section 8 housing to help ensure that 
needy citizens have a roof over their heads, it fully funds chapter 1 
to ensure that children in need of assistance in basic reading and math 
receive the help they need, and fully funds summer jobs to help prepare 
our Nation's young people to enter the work force.
  The bill protects and improves the health of the poor and the elderly 
by ensuring funding and Medicaid and Medicare. The $25.5 billion in 
Medicare savings will begin to ensure the program's solvency. The 
measure also restores funding for the Nation's health professions 
training program. These programs are actually essential to help ensure 
access to health care services for all Americans. For the TRIO 
programs, the budget provides $625 million to ensure that disadvantaged 
students not only have the opportunity to attend college, but most 
important, they graduate.
  The bill provides adequate funding for basic quality of life 
necessities, including meals for the elderly, energy assistance for 
low-income families, and with respect to AIDS/HIV, the bill addresses 
the needs of communities across this country by fully funding Ryan 
White and providing critical funding for AIDS research, outreach, and 
public education.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support the CBC 
substitute bill.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick].
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank our chairperson, 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] for her fine leadership, 
as well as the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Thompson] as our lead 
budget person for the Congressional Black Caucus.
  I rise to support the alternative budget for the Congressional Black 
Caucus. Unlike the budget deal before us, it takes care of America's 
children and America's families. The Congressional Black Caucus budget 
balances it in 2001, just 4 short years from now, a year ahead of 
projections for the other budget. It has no tax increases and no tax 
cuts until the budget is balanced.
  The Congressional Black Caucus budget makes an investment in our 
cities and in our families. As was said before, it fully funds the WIC 
Program, fully funds Head Start, offers assistance for section 8 
housing program, and chapter 1 for our children's education. 
Additionally, it provides for summer jobs for our youth who are most in 
need in America today.
  Infrastructure needs of our public school system. Unfortunately, in 
this current budget deal before us, there is no money for 
infrastructure for our schools, for our children's education. Unless we 
now invest in our children and provide for them the resources that they 
need to become competent, capable young men and women, America will not 
be successful as we move to the new millennium. The Congressional Black 
Caucus budget is the budget before us tonight that meets those needs. 
We must support it. We must vote for it, and we must take care of our 
families and children.
  As we move forward tonight and we will be here, we have been debating 
this, much of this, all night long and we will continue, let us not 
forget the least of these. We, the Members of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, know that this budget can be balanced and can be balanced in an 
even approach. It is not necessary to put stress on families who cannot 
afford it. It is not yet necessary to not invest in our children. This 
is the richest country in the world, the land of the free, the home of 
the brave. Let us act like it. Let us support the one budget that has 
the resources in it, that takes care of America's children.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the first order of business 
is to thank the chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus and the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Thompson] for recognizing that America, 
albeit diverse, is of one mind, and that is a mind of equality and 
fairness and opportunity.
  The Congressional Black Caucus budget amendment is not an amendment 
for African-Americans. It is an amendment, however, for Americans. It 
stands for those who are least able to stand for themselves. 
Particularly let me say, do any of my colleagues have a grandmother or 
a mother? Have any of my colleagues ever known a single parent that has 
worked long and hard to bring about an opportunity for their child? Do 
any of my colleagues know anything about immigration, coming from the 
bottom belly of a slave boat, or maybe crossing over the Rio Grande 
River?

                              {time}  2130

  This particular amendment responds to full funding for Medicaid. It 
is remembering the history of our elderly, our senior citizens who 
paved the way for us, and yes, it remembers 10 million uninsured 
children.
  At the same time, the CBC budget looks to the future and provides $5 
billion over the 1998 to 2002 period to stimulate new construction and 
renovation projects in school districts with severe deficiencies in 
their facilities.
  Have Members ever been to a PTA meeting when we have discussed over 
and over again the leaking roofs, the bathroom that does not work, 
parents who work every day, and children who are educated in buildings 
that are crumbling? This budget stands for those children. Can we do 
any less?
  Yes, the 21st century is a century of science. In this budget funds 
for elementary and secondary math and science programs are included in 
the CBC budget via full funding for the National Science Foundation.
  Do Members know what that means? It makes prekindergarten to grade 12 
competitive with the world market in science. It increases literacy in 
computers. It establishes computer learning centers. These math and 
science programs accelerate progress toward meeting the national 
educational goals in science and mathematics.
  As I stated before, this is not a budget for one group versus the 
other. This is a budget for Americans. Join us and stand for those who 
are least able to stand for themselves, and walk into the 21st century 
with the Congressional Black Caucus budget.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, again, the Congressional Black Caucus budget 
has demonstrated that we can balance the budget, and we can balance it 
without pain. Our budget shows how we can cut more corporate welfare 
and balance the budget without cutting Medicare and Medicaid. We can 
balance the budget and still increase funding for education.
  One of the big problems with this budget is that the deal that was 
made has taken out some vital parts. One of the parts taken out was the 
construction initiative that the President proposed for schools. The 
construction initiative is very important. It is a pivotal kingpin 
issue with respect to the improvement of education.
  We cannot go forward and really improve education unless we have safe 
places for children to sit, unless we take care of the enormous amount 
of disrepair that has taken place over the years in our schools. We 
cannot have telecommunications going forward if

[[Page H2998]]

we cannot wire the schools properly because they are too old to take 
the proper wiring. We cannot institute a national curriculum and 
national tests if we do not provide safe places for children to sit or 
conducive places for them to study.
  None of the education improvements are going to prevail if they do 
not have a conducive setting in which to operate; construction is very 
important.
  Early in the discussion the Republican majority introduced the 
controversy of Davis-Bacon with respect to its impact on school 
construction. That was false, a red herring. The issue was raised to 
divert attention away from the real issue of the need for construction.
  Davis-Bacon is not a problem. Where Davis-Bacon prevails, where 
prevailing wages are paid, schools are built at a lower cost than in 
States which do not have a State prevailing wage and where there is no 
utilization of the prevailing wage of Davis-Bacon.
  The Sheet Metal and Air-Conditioning Contractors National Association 
has sent me a copy of a study that was done. They can prove step-by-
step, State by State, that it is cheaper to build schools under the 
prevailing wage requirements of Davis-Bacon. That is not at issue.
  We should go forward with school construction. This is a fight we 
should not give up, despite the fact that it is not in the present 
agreement.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the budget agreement has 
over a 5-year period 135 billion dollars' worth of tax cuts. Eighty-
five percent of those tax cuts go to the 5 percent of the richest 
people in America. How can we give $135 billion in tax cuts when there 
are children who cannot read; when there are children who are going to 
school hungry and we are not fully funding the WIC Program; when there 
are people sleeping on the street and we are not putting any money into 
the housing programs; when there are children who cannot read when they 
enter the first, second, third, fourth grade, and we are cutting the 
Title I reading program; when unemployment is rampant in our 
communities, in some places 17, 18, 19 percent unemployment in our 
communities, and we are cutting the summer jobs program?
  How can we give tax cuts to the richest people in America when the 
schools are falling down around our students in our public schools? 
Yet, it is the Congressional Black Caucus budget which is the only 
budget that addresses all of these needs. This is the budget that has 
its priorities in order.
  It should be the priorities of America. Yet, the agreement says let 
us cut taxes while our children go hungry. Let us cut taxes while our 
children cannot read. Let us cut taxes while people sleep on the 
street.
  We can be a better America. Support the Congressional Black Caucus 
budget.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 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 thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me, and for her leadership, and the other Members, including the 
gentleman from Mississippi, for his leadership in preparing this 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of budgets on the floor today. What 
budgets do is reflect the Nation's priorities. I rise in support of the 
Black Caucus budget because I think it can best be described as an 
opportunity budget.
  A lot of people want to talk about more spending and this and that, 
and we have lower taxes. The issue is how we visualize America. We 
visualize it as a country of opportunity. We want to make sure that 
that opportunity becomes a reality as reflected in this budget.
  First, I like this budget because it talks about empowerment zones 
and enterprise communities. We do not have an urban policy in America. 
We do not have a rural policy in America. We do not have a policy to 
address the problems of poverty in America. We talk about it a lot, but 
we do very little.
  This budget provides $100 million for a second round of empowerment 
zones in enterprise communities. It will enable us to provide tax 
credits to encourage investments into both poor urban communities and 
poor rural communities, and other communities around the country in 
between that have pockets of poverty. I think that is very important.
  This is an opportunity budget because it talks about education. It 
provides funds for school construction. One-third of the schools in 
this country are in need of repair. This budget will provide 
educational opportunity by providing a basis upon which those schools 
can be repaired.
  We look across our country and we see our young people falling 
through the cracks. This budget addresses that problem by expanding 
opportunities in Head Start, a fundamental program that gives every 
child, regardless of its origins, a good start in life. I like the 
budget because it provides opportunities for young people.
  Summer youth employment programs, this budget also provides funds of 
over $2 billion for summer youth programs. We talk about what has 
happened with our teenagers, we talk about juvenile crime. The real 
solution is providing jobs. An important component of that is summer 
jobs. This budget enables us to do it.
  Finally in terms of opportunity, it provides educational opportunity 
by helping young people attend college. I think that is a good thing. I 
think it reflects America's values. I support the Black Caucus budget.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Clay].
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waters-Thompson amendment, 
which is a real alternative budget that promises to restore some 
balance to our society while balancing the Federal budget in the year 
2001. The CBC budget alternative cuts $187.5 billion in corporate 
welfare. It cuts $25 billion from Medicare, ensuring that Part A 
remains solvent, with no cut in services to beneficiaries.
  The budget cuts $189 billion from defense over the next 4 years and 
ensures that the U.S. defense policies reflect the changes in the 
international arena that have occurred since the end of the cold war. 
This budget cuts another $28 billion from domestic programs while fully 
funding basic human needs programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the budget alternative offered by the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters] and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Thompson] fulfills our society's moral obligation to provide a safety 
net to meet basic human needs. This budget alternative fully funds Head 
Start. The CBC budget alternative fully funds the WIC Program. It fully 
funds section 8 housing programs. It fully funds Chapter I education, 
and it fully funds the summer jobs for youth program. It also 
eliminates the 3-month COLA delay for Federal civil service retirees. 
This budget alternative funds these critical programs and stays within 
discretionary spending caps.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to consider the needs of the poor 
and to consider the needs of the elderly, veterans, and working 
families. The Congressional Black Caucus budget makes no tax cuts until 
the Federal budget is balanced. This budget distributes budget cuts in 
a compassionate and fair manner. Unlike the so-called deal, the CBC 
budget does not seek a balanced budget on the backs of our Nation's 
neediest families.
  I urge my colleagues to support this budget.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Maxine Waters, the 
chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus, and my friend, the 
gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Bennie Thompson, for bringing this 
budget before us.
  The CBC budget, Mr. Chairman, is the right budget. It is the budget 
to prepare us as we enter the 21st century. It is the budget that will 
look out for the needs of all of our people, that segment of the 
population that has been left out and left behind.

[[Page H2999]]

  This budget is a fair budget. It provides education for our children. 
It takes care of our seniors. It protects the environment. This budget 
says over and over again that all of our people have a right to know 
what is in the water we drink, what is in the food we eat, and what is 
in the air we breathe.
  I urge all Members to vote to support the CBC budget because we have 
a mission, a mandate, and a moral obligation to help our people help 
themselves.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the bold and brilliant leadership 
of the chairwoman of the CBC, and my colleague from the great State of 
Mississippi, for offering to this Congress an opportunity to proceed 
along a rational budget process, a process in which those who are 
deficit hawks can have deficit reduction and a balance 1 year ahead of 
all other alternatives.
  For those of us interested in investment and opportunity, we can have 
more schools and better education, rather than more jails and more 
social problems. This is a budget that puts before the Congress some 
very clear decisions in terms of what our priorities ought to be.
  Let us not just have a balanced budget that is fiscally balanced. Let 
us have one that is also morally correct, and faces the real tough 
issues that we have to face as a country.
  I would offer to my colleagues that they seriously consider and cast 
a vote, not just to whisper quietly their support for the CBC 
alternative, but stand up and cast a vote on behalf of what is a 
reasonable fiscal policy for our country, in keeping with American 
priorities and with the promise of the next century that we should 
govern our votes by this evening.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Ford].

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
yielding me the time. I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
that this Congressional Black Caucus budget, Mr. Chairman, is a humane 
budget. It is a budget that recognizes our priorities. It is a budget 
that invests in our future. It is a budget that invests in our 
children, for America has laid claim to the 20th century like no other 
Nation in the world.
  One of the reasons we are able to do that is because of our 
commitment in our people and our resources in human capital. I say, Mr. 
Chairman, this budget does that and much more. This Congress, Democrats 
and Republicans, ought to show that by supporting this chairwoman and 
this caucus.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am so proud of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who 
have worked very hard to put together a budget that answers the 
concerns of the people of this country. Our CBC alternative budget is 
the budget deal the American people would negotiate. This is the real 
budget deal. Our budget not only balances finances, it balances values. 
I believe this is the budget that would win a vote of the American 
people. The CBC alternative budget will be presented in detail later on 
this evening.
  We have taken part in this part of the debate in order to introduce 
the vision, in order to talk about what is possible, in order to help 
the American people understand that we do not have to posture, we do 
not have to pretend, we do not have to put our hand in the wind and 
figure out which way the wind is blowing, that we can, indeed, fashion 
a budget that deals with the concerns of the American people in a real 
way. This budget that I am so proud of is a budget that would protect 
the elderly, reach out to the children, embrace the families, and it 
would do it without cutting taxes or increasing taxes.
  We could not have a more sensible, a budget that is put together any 
better than this one. Again, Mr. Chairman, we will present the details 
of this budget later on this evening, but I am pleased and proud that 
the Congressional Black Caucus was able to share this vision in this 
portion of the debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] has 30 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays] has 22\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has the right to close the debate.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me say 
how much I admire the gentleman from South Carolina and the work that 
he has done on this budget. While I think he has done yeoman's work in 
terms of some of the values that I know that he and the Democratic 
Party have pledged to, I think that it falls, this budget agreement 
falls far short of the standards that I believe are part and parcel of 
standing up for the needs of working people and the poor, the senior 
citizens of this country, the necessary investments that we have in our 
children and in education and health care and transportation and 
research and development and economic development.
  I had proposed an alternative budget which will come up later this 
evening. Under the Kennedy balanced budget proposal, we will have 
investments of $100 billion more than the budget agreement in health, 
education, transportation, research and development and economic 
development. We continue to provide $60 billion in targeted tax cuts 
for the middle class and for small businesses. We will provide $32 
billion, exactly the amount necessary to meet the needs of the 10 
million currently uninsured children.
  We will maintain the kind of commitment to the Medicare fund and put 
$18 billion more into the Medicare fund than the coalition and the 
President's budget calls for. We will completely fund the Medicaid 
without any cuts to that program whatsoever. We will fund Pell grants 
by $1000 a year increases. We will have full funding for the new school 
construction plan which also includes $9 billion for the critical 
Federal education programs and an additional $15 billion for ISTEA, $3 
billion more than the Shuster amendment coming up later today calls 
for. Included in this proposal would be the elimination of the cuts in 
the VA loan programs and 100 percent fulfillment of our promise to our 
veterans.
  I would just like to state that I believe that it is fundamentally 
important for this country for our party, for Members on both sides of 
the aisle to stand up for the needs of working Americans. We do not 
need to have a budget that lines the pockets of the wealthiest people 
in this country. We need to have a budget that comes into balance. I 
have called for a balanced budget. I have voted for a balanced budget 
amendment. This budget brings us into balance but maintains our 
investments in the critical areas of economic growth that I think will 
protect the American people's interests and create the kind of long-
term economic development that is critical to the future of this 
country. I urge support for the Kennedy balanced budget resolution 
later this evening.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the budget 
resolution, but I do so with disappointment that the President and 
Congress have not offered a vision for this country beyond balancing 
the budget. Our country is faced with great challenges, but there is no 
evidence that this resolution aspires to setting new direction for our 
Nation. Balancing the budget is an important priority and this budget 
represents our best hope for a balanced budget. I will vote for it, but 
we must begin a bigger debate about our future.
  In order for me to continue to support this budget, the legislation 
to carry it out must meet several vital conditions:
  One, tax cuts must benefit the middle class not just the wealthiest 
Americans. Too many parents are struggling to provide for their 
families, raise their children and send them to college. The 
President's HOPE scholarships and education tax cuts are a critical 
part of investing our economic future. And if capital gains tax cuts, 
which benefits the rich, are made retroactive, then tax cuts for the 
middle class should be too.
  Second, tax cuts cannot explode in the outyears.

[[Page H3000]]

  As much as we all want to pay lower taxes, we must not give away 
breaks that we cannot afford. It is irresponsible to enact tax cuts 
whose costs balloon in 6 or 10 years. I will oppose any tax package 
which does that.
  Third, the budget must invest in children and in education and in our 
future. Whether it is educating future leaders or providing health 
coverage for children, building economic infrastructure, protecting our 
environment, domestic spending is an important investment in our 
Nation's future. If our budget projections are wrong and less money 
comes in than we anticipate, cuts should not be made solely in 
education, health and economic development. Tax cuts must also be 
reduced to help keep the budget on line to balance if our projections 
fall short.
  Under Democratic leadership, we have made important strides toward 
balancing the budget while protecting vital priorities. We must 
continue our vigilance to ensure that our hard-won progress is not 
undermined as we move through the budget process.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Rothman].
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, for too long Congress has been our 
national example of promises made and promises broken. But today's vote 
is a promise kept.
  As a freshman, the people of New Jersey's Ninth District sent me here 
to work on a bipartisan basis to balance the budget, but not at the 
expense of our children or the environment.
  I support this budget because it delivers on the very promises I made 
when I ran for Congress. There are aspects of the plan which I think 
need more work, but this is a good first step that will put our Nation 
on the road to fiscal responsibility.
  From helping preschoolers in Head Start to providing Pell grants to 
needy college students, this budget agreement invests in education. It 
expands health coverage to 5 million uninsured American children. It 
strengthens environmental protection, and it preserves the Medicare 
trust fund for at least another decade.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why I am proud to cast my vote in favor of this 
balanced budget agreement, a budget with a vision, a budget that offers 
a promise for a better America, a stronger America for all Americans.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I urge this body to vote for the 
budget agreement as worked out between the leaders of our parties and 
the President of our country.
  The alternative to this budget agreement is not the ideal from the 
Democrats' perspective nor the ideal from the Republicans' perspective. 
The alternative is to go on fighting, to go on fighting every single 
appropriation bill, every single tax measure, to reach no resolution, 
to have the President veto many of them, to struggle over whether or 
not they will be overridden, and with every showdown will come the 
threat of another shutdown. That is not what we want, and I know it is 
not what the country wants.
  The Republicans wanted $220 billion of tax cuts over 5 years. What 
they got was $135 billion, half of that, and $35 billion of that amount 
has to go in to education tax credits and deductions, which was a 
Democratic priority.
  The Democrats wanted a lot more money for nondefense domestic 
discretionary spending. They did not get it, but they got $189 billion 
more than was included in the Republican budget resolution of last 
year. That is a substantial increase.
  Politics has got to be the art of compromise. Neither of us is going 
to get everything we want. But what the country wants is us to start 
working together in their interest. They want the Democrats to realize 
that it is not our money but their money over which we have 
stewardship. And they want the Republicans to understand that there is 
a responsible role for government in our lives, that government should 
be maintained, but that we should ensure that it is held accountable to 
be as efficient and as effective as possible.
  This budget accomplishes those objectives. I urge my colleagues to 
vote for it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from 
Virginia, I would like to align myself with his comments.
  I think some of us have different philosophies of what should be 
included in the fine points of this agreement. Just think for a minute 
where we were 3 years ago.
  Three years ago we had half of this Chamber saying that it is 
reasonable to borrow more money for ``investment spending.'' It is 
reasonable to increase taxes to assure Government services.
  What has happened in the last 3 years is we have totally reframed the 
debate here in Washington, DC. Almost everybody now is saying, yes, it 
is reasonable to stop borrowing, to stop spending the money that our 
kids and our grandkids have not even earned yet. It was only 2 years 
and four months ago that the President sent us a budget that had a $200 
billion deficit, not only for the next year but as far into the future 
as we could see.
  I think we all need to remind ourselves what our real goals are--not 
reelection, not popularity, but what is going to be good for the 
working men and women and the families of America.
  But I think when some start suggesting that the tax increase of 1993 
is the reason the deficit has gone down, it is misleading the American 
people and it is going against most economic philosophy. In spite of 
that tax increase that deters economic expansion, the businesses of 
this country have forged ahead and, anticipating the Republican effort 
to balance the budget have driven ahead to expand economic activity 
and, ultimately, to expand the revenues coming into this country.
  Just for a moment look at this chart. The blue line represents 
increased revenues from an expanding economy. The red line represents 
spending outlays. It is obvious we have not been as frugal as we should 
have been in cutting down on spending and cutting down on waste in the 
Federal Government. The blue line is inflation. So, Mr. Chairman, let 
us rejoice in this step forward of this budget resolution, in doing 
what is good for the American working family.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this budget 
resolution and I want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina, 
[Mr. Spratt], for his strong leadership on our side of the aisle for 
bipartisanship.
  In Shakespeare there is a very interesting and intriguing exchange 
between Glendower and Hotspur. Glendower says, and braggingly so, ``I 
can call spirits from the vastly deep.'' And Hotspur replies, ``Well, 
so can I, and so can any man, but will those spirits come when you call 
for them?''
  The American people have been calling for a similar spirit, a spirit 
of bipartisanship to balance the budget with fair values and with 
priorities on our families and our children.
  That is the historic agreement that we achieve tonight with this 
balanced budget. We will borrow $906 billion less under this agreement 
and balance by the year 2002. That is important. We will create a brand 
new health care initiative for our children. Five million children that 
are not covered today will be covered under this agreement. That is 
important. We have brand new initiatives for children in education, and 
we will spend more on education than at any time since the Great 
Society in the 1960's. That is important. We will get more for Pell 
grants for college students than ever before. That is important.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to say this is not ultimate perfection, 
but it is definitely progress, progress for our children, progress for 
deficit reduction, progress for the right values and the right 
priorities for this country at this critical time.
  Let us now move forward to begin to define where we go in the future 
and, hopefully, it will be on a brand new initiative for children 
between zero and 6, it will be to work even harder for Pell grants, and 
it will be to help our middle class families. I thank the body for the 
bipartisan cooperation here tonight on this historic agreement.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].

[[Page H3001]]

  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for 
his hard work on this budget. I rise in support of this budget. It is 
not a perfect budget, but I do believe we need to pass a balanced 
budget to stimulate economic growth in America.
  This is not a perfect budget. The Black Caucus makes what I consider 
to be better investments. I am disappointed we were not able to provide 
money in this budget for school construction, and I think the tax cuts 
go too much to the wealthiest in America. But we cannot let the perfect 
be the enemy of the good and there are many good things in this budget: 
$35 billion in tuition tax credits, and tax deductions to help working 
families send their kids to college is a very good thing. Increasing 
Pell grants by $300 for over 300,000 additional young people is a very 
good thing. Coverage for 5 million uninsured children who do not have 
health insurance now is a very good thing. Improvements in last year's 
welfare reform bill to take care of some of the problems of our 
immigrant population is a good thing.
  This is not a perfect budget, it is a compromise. And as I say, 
neither side is completely happy. Maybe that means it is a good deal. I 
support the compromise budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington, Mr. Adam Smith.
  Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I too rise in support of 
the budget resolution before us today. While there are many reasons 
that I support it, there are two that stand out; it represents fiscal 
responsibility and bipartisan cooperation.
  The two things my constituents told me that they wanted during the 
course of my above campaign were anything else bipartisan cooperation 
and fiscal responsibility. They feel both of those things are 
desperately needed back here in Congress. I feel this resolution is the 
first step toward delivering on those requests and strongly support it.
  Now, it is not perfect and I do not think any one person in this body 
would have drafted it exactly as it came out, but that is the nature of 
compromise. Compromise does not mean we get the other side to do what 
we want; compromise means we find middle ground we can all live with in 
order to make progress on difficult issues.
  As strongly as I support this budget resolution for its fiscal 
responsibility and bipartisan cooperation, it is but the first step. 
There is more work to be done by this Congress and by future Congresses 
if we are going to maintain the fiscal responsibility we need to 
balance the budget. I urge my colleagues' support.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Watkins].
  (Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the leadership on 
the majority side, the Republican side, and also I want to express my 
thanks to the Democrats, the minority, for working out a bipartisan 
budget.
  I want to express to my colleagues in my 15 years this is the best 
budget that I have seen based on credible economic assumptions. It is 
the best budget in order to balance the budget. That is No. 1, and 
something we have to address quickly.
  But second, it is the best budget for economic growth as we enter the 
21st century and a globally competitive world to build a future for our 
children and grandchildren. We must not be overtaxed or overregulated 
to compete in a global economy.
  When I say based on sound economic assumptions, I want to address 
this to my colleagues on the majority side. This budget, by far, is 
better than Reaganomics. It is a lot better. It is based on sound 
economic assumptions. The budget David Stockman put together in 1980-81 
was based on erroneous figures. He confessed to that in the Atlantic 
Monthly of December 1981.
  Let me give my colleagues some figures. In 1981, under Reaganomics, 
the GDP was at 1.1 percent growth at the time. They projected the GDP 
in 5 years to be 5.2 percent. It could not be done. Ours is based on a 
budget of conservative 2.1 percent. Right now it is 5.4 percent. We can 
see that we have conservative figures. They are credible figures.
  The same way when we look at inflation. The budget in 1981 was at 
11.1 percent inflation. They said it would go down to 4.7. This budget 
is based on 2.7 percent, and right now inflation is approximately 2 
percent. That means a great deal as to whether we have a credible 
budget that is going to withstand the test of time to have a truly 
balanced budget.
  The same thing with unemployment today at 4.9 percent. The 
unemployment is estimated at 6 percent in the outyears, a sound and 
credible figure. The interest rates, with this balanced budget, will go 
down which will stimulate stronger overall economic growth. We will see 
the economic growth that this country must have if our children and 
grandchildren will have jobs in the United States.
  We saw a chart a second ago where it illustrates that economic growth 
is the reason we have the money to leave a balanced budget. I request 
and ask of my various colleagues on both sides of the aisle to let us 
have a budget passed tonight that will give us the economic growth to 
allow our children the opportunity to compete in a global competitive 
economy. I thank my colleagues for listening, and their support for the 
budget committee bill to balance the budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this budget agreement has potential for much 
good. It also has the potential for considerable ill.
  In the decades of the 1990s, we started on the path toward fiscal 
responsibility after a decade of fiscal recklessness. This resolution 
has the promise of moving us ahead further, but whether it fulfills 
that promise will depend mostly on its implementation, much of which 
will occur within the Committee on Ways and Means, on which I sit.
  Our committee will take the first crack as to whether the tax package 
is fiscally responsible or will blow the budget, thereby threatening 
continued economic growth; whether the tax package will be aimed at 
those who stood still or slipped back these last two decades, or at 
those who have stood on the top rungs of the economic ladder; whether 
action now is a stepping stone toward still more difficult decisions or 
an excuse for long-term inaction.
  I will be especially vigilant from the outset about the 
implementation of the budget agreement. How it is written will 
determine my vote on the ultimate product, the reconciliation bill.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to congratulate all 
those who worked on this budget agreement. Having said that, I do not 
think this is an agreement that people ought to feel puffy about. I 
think it is a maintenance budget.
  Four years ago we confronted ballooning deficits of some $300 
billion. We had some tough choices to make and we made those choices 
without one single Republican supporting the budget reduction bill of 
1993.
  Some of my colleagues across the aisle said our plan would lead to 
economic ruin. Well, 4 years later let us look at the results. The 
deficit dropped in 1993, it dropped in 1994, it dropped in 1995 and it 
dropped in 1996. And for the fifth year in a row we have declining 
deficits, something that has not happened in 50 years, and American 
families are reaping the benefits.
  Unemployment is down, inflation is down, American businesses are 
buying new equipment and companies are boosting their inventories and 
this year's deficit will be the lowest in 20 years. So the bottom line 
is we had a balanced budget program and we adopted it in 1993 and it 
worked.
  The question is can we maintain it? I maintain that the real deficit 
problem that we have in this country today is the trade deficit, and it 
is getting worse and worse, and we will have that debate in the coming 
months.
  But 4 years ago Democrats came to this well and cast what for many of 
us was the toughest votes of our careers. Four years ago the Democrats 
did the

[[Page H3002]]

heavy lifting to balance the budget. Today we are called upon to cast 
another budget vote, and for many of us this is also a difficult 
decision. In the end, each of us must search our own conscience and 
make a judgment about what is best for our constituents and our 
country.
  There are different blueprints we could choose today to balance the 
budget. The budget agreement is not my first choice. The proposal of 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] does a better job 
investing in education. The proposal of the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Waters] does a better job cutting corporate welfare and all the 
other things that I think it encompasses in terms of progressively 
moving this country forward, and I will vote for both of them. But I 
also will vote for this budget agreement. I believe it is an important 
step to reaffirm the commitment that we made in 1993 to balance the 
budget.
  The details in this budget are still unclear. It is still just an 
outline, and whatever the House decides today, the debate has just 
begun. In the weeks ahead we will be asking some tough questions. Will 
this budget really eliminate the deficit or will it undermine, even 
erase all the gains we have made these past 4 years? Will this budget 
target tax breaks to America's working families or will it turn into 
another giveaway for the wealthiest that sends the deficit soaring 
again? Will this budget provide educational opportunities for our 
children or will it shortchange their future?
  I am not just talking about opportunities for the wealthy and the 
college bound, I am talking about opportunities for the poor, for the 
working folks of this country, for the middle class children who need 
that 13th and 14th year of education for higher pay and higher job 
skills.
  Will this budget really provide our children with health insurance or 
will it become yet another vague promise that is never fulfilled?
  I will vote for the balanced budget agreement today, and I am 
prepared to fight in the weeks and months to come on these important 
questions of tax policies helping working families in dealing with the 
questions of education that are so important to investing in America's 
future.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, today Congress is considering 
an historic plan that will balance the budget in 5 years. This is the 
final milestone in our effort to balance the budget since the deficit 
grew at such an explosive rate during the 1980's. I feel it only proper 
to consider historically why and how we got here.
  Economists will argue the finer points of the economic policies of 
the 1980's, like the supply-side tax cut imposed at the outset of the 
Reagan administration, but the facts speak for themselves. In 1979, the 
deficit was only $40 billion. In 1982, the first Reagan fiscal year, it 
was $128 billion. And it finally reached an astounding $290 billion in 
1992.
  In 1993, Congress and the new President Clinton embarked on an 
ambitious plan to cut the deficit.

                              {time}  2215

  Then and now, this President has had the discipline to bring focus 
back to where it should be, setting priorities about where these 
precious taxpayer dollars should be going. I believe we need to first 
and foremost raise the educational level of our citizens so we have a 
reliable work force and a strong economic base. In addition, we must 
maintain and expand access to adequate health care, nutrition, and 
housing, and, of course, protect Medicare and Social Security for 
future generations.
  The 1993 Democratic plan brought the deficit from $290 billion down 
to just $65 billion. No Republicans voted for the Clinton deficit 
reduction plan. Not a single Republican was willing to support the 
measure that has brought us to this day. Their empty partisan rhetoric 
that almost crushed this effort rings in the ears of those of us who 
have been committed to reducing the deficit and balancing the budget 
for years. The prominent Republicans predicted that the plan would lead 
to ``higher deficits, a higher national debt, deficits running $350 
billion a year'' and that ``this plan will destroy more than one 
million jobs over the next several years.''
  But what is the reality today? The economy is strong. The stock 
market has attained record levels. Home ownership is the highest in 15 
years. And the combined rates of unemployment, inflation, and mortgage 
interest are lower compared to any time since the early 1960's. Twelve 
million jobs have been created. And most important, real family wages 
are finally on the rise. And by the way, the deficit is at a 20-year 
low.
  We said we were going to reduce the deficit, and we did it. We kept 
our word, and the economy has responded. It makes me so proud to vote 
for this budget resolution after voting for the deficit reduction that 
made this day possible back in 1993. Others will take credit for 
bringing us this day, but most will not deserve it.
  Those who worked tirelessly to defeat the 1993 Democratic budget plan 
will today vote for a balanced budget and claim victory. Those of us 
who courageously voted for the Clinton budget plan can vote for this 
balanced budget armed with the full knowledge that we laid the 
groundwork to make it possible.
  So I urge my Democratic colleagues to vote yes to finish the job 
Democrats started 4 years ago.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has 
11\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] 
has 13\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Connecticut has 
the right to close.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich].
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I also want to add my voice of 
congratulations to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and 
particularly the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], my chairman of the 
House Budget Committee.
  We hear lots of talk and rhetoric and numbers here tonight. I am sure 
the American public at home is looking at their TV saying, what is 
going on there? I would just like to direct my minute and a half here 
to one aspect of this bipartisan budget agreement, which is tax relief, 
because I become frustrated when I hear all the rhetoric about tax 
relief.
  The American public is familiar with the numbers, $135 billion in 
gross tax relief and $85 billion in net tax relief. But what is 
included in that $85 billion, Mr. Chairman? Tax relief for families, 
for working families, families with children, incentives for savings 
and investment, cutting capital gains, not for the rich but for 
farmers, for small business people, the people that work in this 
country, the producers in this country, the people who pay the penalty 
for the disincentives in our Tax Code and who create the jobs and who 
are about economic growth, incentives for economic growth like capital 
gains tax relief and the education costs, as other speakers have 
discussed.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget agreement is not perfect. If I were king, 
it would not look the way it does. But when it comes to taxes, it 
represents a significant step in the right direction. It is a 
significant step toward an opportunity society, which we all believe 
in. It is a significant step away from class warfare, which I hope 
everybody is real tired of hearing about. It is a significant step away 
from penalizing the producers and successful people in this country who 
really do create the jobs and take the risks in this private economy. 
And it is a significant step toward our goal of, really, honest to God, 
we mean it this time, even in Washington, DC, even on Capitol Hill, of 
ending the era of big government. It is not perfect, but it is not bad, 
Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to vote for a balanced budget amendment tonight, 
but I cannot do it in all good conscience should the Shuster substitute 
pass. I suppose in speaking for a balanced budget, on the one hand, and 
against the Shuster substitute, I could bring to the attention of this 
body how it cuts into education, those young

[[Page H3003]]

people that are the hope of the future, how it cuts into the fight 
against crime, how it cuts veterans and those people who are now 
reaching the age where they need veterans' help in hospitals, and how 
it cuts into agriculture, which is the very heart of the district that 
I represent. Mr. Chairman, it cuts drastically into the national 
security of our country; $5.65 billion. That is over a billion dollars 
a year; that is the equivalent of 50,000 troops cut per year.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I speak on the subject this evening that has been 
avoided in this debate, and that is of national security and of that 
lone soldier who is out there standing on top of the hill in Bosnia 
because his Commander in Chief sent him there. We want to encourage 
him. We want to keep him trained. We want to take care of his family. 
And when he returns, we do not want him to have to go back on 
additional unnecessary deployments because of the lack of fellow 
soldiers.
  Cutting into national defense is cutting into the basic insurance 
policy of America. We cannot allow that to happen. We must think of 
where we are in this world. We are the superpower in this world. If we 
are to have diplomacy that is to be credible, we must have it backed by 
strong national defense. We cannot allow ourselves to become a second-
rate military. If we become a second-rate military, we become a second-
rate power.
  This is a step in the wrong direction should the Shuster substitute 
pass. Should it pass, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to vote against the bill because we would not then have a 
balanced, balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spratt] and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and members 
of the committee, I was here in 1981 when we took arguably the most 
fiscally irresponsible act that I have seen us take in 17 years of 
service in this body. As a result of that act, it inevitably led to 
high deficits, high unemployment in the short term, and escalating 
deficits up until 1993.
  Happily, I was here in 1993 as well, and I had the opportunity to 
vote for a budget that began what we will continue tonight, and that is 
the uninterrupted reduction of the budget deficit and the energizing of 
the American economy.
  Others have said it on this floor tonight; yes, we are proud, we are 
proud because we stood, 218 of us, Democrats all, and said it is time 
to have the courage to move to reduce this deficit that is strangling 
America and is threatening the next generation. Two hundred eighteen 
Democrats.
  Some of those Democrats are not here today. Majorie Margolies-
Mezvinski, she paid the price of her seat in this House because she had 
the courage to say, I believe this is good for America. How many of my 
colleagues stood on this floor and said, if this budget passes, high 
unemployment, inflation, depression will occur? How wrong my colleagues 
were. How glad I know that my colleagues are that they were wrong.
  But the fact of the matter is, today I stand for this budget offered 
by that same President, who, in 1993, had the courage to stand up and 
say, let us address the real problems with real solutions. He has done 
so again. Yes, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman; yes, 
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. John Spratt]; yes, those of us 
who vote for this budget; but it is the President's leadership that has 
brought us to a day and night when we will vote for a balanced budget 
not just in fiscal terms. It is easy to do that, but it is not enough, 
because it must also be balanced in terms of the investment in our 
children, in our families, in health care, in basic biomedical 
research, and all of the things that make us a healthy, wealthy, great, 
and just Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise for this budget. And like my colleague who spoke 
before me, I will be disappointed if we adopt the Shuster alternative, 
which cuts across the board without thinking of what is a priority and 
what is not. I am for transportation funding, but I am not for simply 
funding one objective by cutting all the rest, irrespective of their 
importance. I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
budget agreement.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Hooley].
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the budget 
resolution today. Although not a perfect plan, and we have heard that 
many times before, the heart of this agreement is in the right place. 
Balancing the budget without making massive cuts to Medicare or 
Medicaid is a good thing. Crossing party lines and working together is 
a good thing. Providing $35 billion in education tax relief is a good 
thing. And that is what this agreement is all about.
  I agree with my colleagues who have expressed concerns about some of 
the tax cut packages. But what is the appropriate response to that 
concern? I think we should embrace this budget framework with cautious 
optimism, work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure 
that the tax bills provide relief for the people who really need it, 
support tuition tax deductions for working families, and target estate 
tax relief for family farmers and small business owners. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this budget agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 13\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] 
has 7\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Capps].
  (Mr. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, others have spoken about voting in 1990 and 
in 1993. This is the first time that I have had an opportunity to vote 
for the budget resolution. On balance, I am going to vote for it. As 
others have said, I do not think it is a perfect bill by any means, but 
I think it is a victory for fiscal responsibility. It offers sensible 
tax relief. It increases our commitment to education, to health and 
environmental protection. What I like about the provision is that it 
provides tax cut provisions to help families, small businesses and 
farmers throughout the country. It provides the strongest Federal 
support for education in 30 years. It provides health insurance for 
half of our Nation's 10 million uninsured children. It increases 
financial security for VA hospitals. It restores benefits for disabled 
legal immigrants, callously cut off during welfare reform.
  There are parts of the resolution I do not agree with. The amount of 
savings in Medicare could harm hospitals and affect the quality of 
health care that our seniors receive. But on balance, Mr. Chairman, I 
am for this, and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, the last 2 years have been too partisan, 
too antagonistic and too disrespectful of diverse views and problems. 
Too often ideological perfection has been the enemy of the general 
good. But the budget resolution is a step toward the general good. It 
has transcended bipartisan bickering and found grounds where rational 
individuals can agree. I am mindful that this budget agreement was 
built on the tough decisions that were made in 1993 by Democrats alone. 
Many of our former colleagues paid a high price in 1994 to get us on 
the right track that has led us to today's agreement.
  There are plenty of things in the agreement with which I do not 
agree, but it represents a balanced budget without the dismemberment of 
vital Federal programs. In education we expand Pell grants. In 
protecting the environment we double the pace of Superfund cleanups. In 
health care we help manage diabetes and detect breast and colon cancer 
earlier. We strengthen Medicare and Medicaid. We move people from 
welfare to work and begin to treat legal residents fairly. We enable 
every willing and able 18-year-old

[[Page H3004]]

to go to college. An additional 5 million children will have medical 
insurance. For the first time in a generation, there is a balanced 
budget while investing in our people and giving families in America tax 
relief. We have balanced the budget not only on the numbers but on our 
principles. We will do this only if we proceed in true faith to the 
agreement brought to us today. Theodore Roosevelt said, ``If we are to 
be a really great people, we must strive to play a great part in the 
world. We cannot avoid meeting great issues. All that we can determine 
is whether we shall meet them well or ill.''
  This budget agreement is well met and deserves our support.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we will shortly have before us for a vote the so-called 
Shuster-Oberstar substitute. I would like to take just a minute to 
explain to everyone in the House exactly what the consequences of that 
amendment would be.
  Starting in 1999, if that were to become the will of the House, if 
that substitute were to carry, it would cut discretionary spending 
government wide on a pro rata basis and reduce the tax cuts to increase 
transportation funding by $19 billion in budget authority, $12 billion 
in outlays. The reduction to defense would be $5.65 billion according 
to the best estimation of the Committee on the Budget, and $5.8 billion 
would come out of nondefense discretionary spending, across the board.
  Of the $12 billion increase in transportation spending, 94 percent 
would be offset by decreased discretionary spending, 6 percent would be 
offset by reduced tax cuts. What would be the consequences? The first 
consequence would be that this agreement, hard wrought, negotiated over 
3 months, would be severely undercut.
  Second, the offset to pay the $12 billion would require, as I said, 
across-the-board reductions, so these carefully allocated cuts, these 
programs that have been protected as priorities, Head Start, for 
example, would be cut along with everything else. The good, the bad, 
the indifferent, everything would be cut. These would not be just skims 
across the top. These would be deep, disruptive programmatic reductions 
in programs that are important to the people of this country. 
Transportation is, too, but I think it should be borne in mind by the 
Members of the House that the current budget agreement does a lot for 
transportation. Under this agreement, we have provided an additional 
$8.5 billion in outlays above the CBO scoring of the President's 
budget, $8.5 billion in additional outlays for the Nation's 
transportation infrastructure. Under the agreement, this budget 
agreement, the fiscal year 1998 obligation for highways would be $22.2 
billion. That is 6 percent over the fiscal year 1997 level of $20.9 
billion provided for already in this agreement without the Shuster 
substitute. House Concurrent Resolution 84 provides sufficient funding 
over the 5-year period, in fact, so that the spending from the trust 
funds will be consistent with the so-called Chafee-Bond proposal. In 
other words, it will permit obligations out of the highway trust fund 
roughly equal to the receipts that will be deposited within the trust 
fund from gasoline taxes over the next 5 years.
  The budget resolution, the base bill, assumes total transportation 
outlays of $40.9 billion. That is not small change. That is a 
significant commitment to transportation infrastructure. In 1998 alone, 
$40.9 billion for total transportation, and $206.1 billion over 5 
years. That means that discretionary outlays provided for in this House 
Concurrent Resolution 84 are $8.8 billion above a freeze over the next 
5 years, $8.2 billion above the President's request, and in terms of 
budget authority, $20 billion over the President's request for the next 
5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members who, like me, would like to see more 
money spent on transportation, particularly in their own districts, in 
their own jurisdictions, to look carefully at the costs that will be 
exacted by this particular substitute. The budget resolution provides 
the mechanism whereby if we can identify discretely offsets in the 
future, there is a separate account created herein, in this budget 
resolution, which will allow for increased spending on transportation. 
But to do it with across-the-board cuts, to eviscerate defense, $5.65 
billion, to cut another $5.5 billion out of nondefense discretionary, 
is not the way to go.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
budget resolution before us tonight. It has been interesting listening 
to the debate for the past several hours, because some of the arguments 
from the other side of the aisle are really making a defining 
definition of the difference between what we believe in a budget 
resolution and budget resolutions that have been proposed by the 
Democrats in the past. The key part of it is taxes.
  Many Members on the other side of the aisle have risen to support 
this particular budget but they are upset with the fact that we are 
going to cut taxes. We have an $85 billion net tax cut over 5 years. We 
are talking about $9 trillion of spending. We are not talking about 
giant tax cuts. Most of it is going to help the working Americans in 
this country.
  Another thing I keep hearing from the other side of the aisle is we 
are proud of raising taxes in 1993. We are proud of raising taxes in 
1990. I think the American people are tired of paying taxes. They are 
paying too much in taxes already. It is not that they are taxed too 
little. The problem is we spend too much. The key to our particular 
budget is the fact that we are controlling spending. We started it in 
the last Congress and we are continuing it in this Congress.
  Let me go back to what this tax cut is about. There are $85 billion 
in net tax cuts. First of all there is a $500 per child tax cut for 
working Americans. Then we are talking about $35 billion in education 
tax cuts, helping families with kids go to college or higher education. 
That is helping the working Americans. Capital gains, we are going to 
make money on capital gains. The past 2 times we have cut capital gains 
in this country, we got more money flowing into the Federal Government 
than we did for cutting the taxes. That is a moneymaker for us. And 
then death taxes, who likes the idea of death taxes? We should 
dramatically increase the exemption for death taxes. That is what we 
are talking about, making the IRAs more available for more Americans, 
helping families take care of their kids. This is good for America. It 
is the right way to balance a budget by reducing taxes and controlling 
spending.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman on the Committee on the Budget for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the budget resolution in front of 
us. It captures an agreement that is truly historic in nature. It leads 
us to a balanced budget. It does so with the give-and-take that has 
occurred between both political parties and a mutual resolution that 
this is a reasonable deal to get to the balanced budget and preserve 
the priorities that we feel are critical to this country. Because I 
favor this resolution and feel so strongly about the give-and-take in 
the agreement that brought us here, I must speak against the Shuster-
Oberstar amendment that would break up this deal on the floor before 
the resolution can even be adopted.
  There are a number of reasons to oppose the Shuster amendment and 
none of them terribly easy. Obviously transportation and infrastructure 
is critical. But there are many, many critical priorities captured in 
this budget agreement. Mr. Chairman, a deal is a deal, and this deal 
represents a compromise that has been painstakingly cobbled over weeks 
and weeks; terribly difficult decisions reflecting in my view a 
balanced outcome leading us to this balanced budget.
  Let us take a look at some of the tradeoffs, because one of the 
things about the Shuster amendment is you just focus on one thing. You 
do not really focus on what you have to give up if the Shuster 
amendment should be adopted. Right off the top, a $5.4 billion hit to 
defense. The Secretary of Defense announced just yesterday he wants two 
additional base closure rounds to try and fit within the budget he is 
trying to live with. This would take an additional $5.4 billion out of

[[Page H3005]]

defense. Also, $5.8 billion in nondefense discretionary, cutting 
programs like education, like housing, like our support to the efforts 
to fight crime. A deal is a deal. Support the resolution. Do not 
unravel the deal on the floor tonight by supporting the Shuster 
amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  Mr. POSHARD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 
84, not because it represents a perfect agreement but because it is a 
bipartisan solution to what I consider the greatest problem facing our 
Nation. We simply cannot continue to postpone the difficult choices 
inherent in this process. When I came to Congress 8 years ago, I made 
balancing the Federal budget my highest priority. During the last 4 
years, we have made tremendous progress toward this goal. We have 
reduced the deficit by over 60 percent, finally turning rhetoric into 
action, and giving the American people a glimpse of a brighter fiscal 
future. Given the acrimonious tone in the budget debate of the last 2 
years, I am not prepared to reject what I feel is a workable 
compromise. In the past, I have endorsed the concept of balancing the 
budget first and developing a plan for tax cuts second. I wish this 
budget would have reflected more of those priorities.

                              {time}  2245

  At the same time, however, if we fail to capitalize on this long 
awaited opportunity, the burden we place on our children will continue 
to grow, and the future economic health of the Nation will be 
threatened. There is no secret to the fact that the choices before us 
are not easy ones to make, but that is why we are here. While I hope we 
will work together to soften the impact on our neediest citizens, I am 
ready to take this important yet difficult step.
  There is certainly positive aspects of this budget: increased access 
to health care for uninsured children, education spending that will 
allow a new generation of students to attend college and an extension 
of supplemental security income for many disabled legal immigrants. 
Most importantly, this agreement erects a significant milestone on our 
political landscape. It moves beyond gridlock and the fear of 
compromise and seeks to solve a problem that is desperate for 
resolution.
  It is not perfect, but the time for excuses is past. It is time to 
honor our promise to balance the budget of this Nation.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the problem that I have with this budget is 
its total lack of optimism. The deficit has been reduced from $300 
billion down to $60 billion over the last 4 years, and it is going to 
continue to be reduced whether we do anything on the floor tonight or 
not.
  In fact, today Alan Greenspan in his decision not to increase 
interest rates has reflected the reality that our economy is growing at 
an over 4-percent rate of growth with negligible inflation. There is a 
very high probability, in other words, my colleagues, that the budget 
is already balanced this year, 1997, not the year 2002; that the final 
$60 billion, in other words, is going to be found this year before the 
end of the fiscal year.
  So I just wish that we all reflected that more optimistic view of 
America. The American people have done it. They are working hard. They 
are producing the revenues. We should not be engaging in this root 
canal politics of cutting valuable programs so that we can hand over 
tax breaks to those who do not need them, thereby spurring interest 
rate increases which are sure to follow by the Fed.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, could we be informed of how much time each 
side has remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 6\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] 
has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] is prepared to close, I would yield him some additional time. I 
yield the gentleman 2\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized then 
for 3\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, more than I bargained for, and I thank the 
gentleman from Connecticut for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, when I opened this argument I noted to the House that 
the budget resolution before us is a product of nearly 3 months of 
negotiation. This is a hard wrought agreement, and I speak to my 
colleagues, in particular on this side of the aisle, Democrats, when I 
say that in this agreement there are a number of initiatives which we 
could not have accomplished on our own as the minority party in this 
House and in this Congress, hard wrought concessions that make this an 
agreement that is a balanced plan to balance the budget over the next 5 
years. The Shuster-Oberstar amendment will undercut some of the gains 
that we have made, some of the priorities that we have protected, some 
of the things that we were able to put into this budget agreement that 
gives it a stamp that is peculiar and particular to our party and our 
constituents and what we believe in.
  Shown there in the well of the House is a handout that has been 
prepared by the Committee on the Budget which takes us account by 
account through the budget and shows us where the money will come from 
to plus up transportation spending. Basically the Shuster amendment 
seeks to add $11 to $12 billion in outlays. To achieve that much in 
outlays we need about $19 billion in budget authority. So we are not 
talking about small change or minor skimming cuts. We are talking about 
deep and disruptive cuts here.
  And here they are individually, and I ask my colleagues, particularly 
those on my side of the aisle, to bear these reductions in mind and to 
keep in mind how much we have expended in effort and negotiation in 
order to achieve these gains in this agreement:
  National defense. We have held national defense to a level that I 
think is barely sufficient. I would like to see more there. I do not 
like the quadrennial review. I am perhaps in a minority in my own party 
in that respect, but I certainly do not want to go any lower in what we 
have allocated for defense in this budget.
  The Shuster amendment will take us lower, $5.65 billion, and most of 
that comes in the outyears, 1999 and 1998 and 2000, when we will be 
stepping up to the plate to buy some important systems that will 
modernize our force structure; $5.65 billion, whack, right out of 
defense.
  Education. Now here is one area where we had a clear win as Democrats 
in this agreement. We have got tuition tax credits, we have got tuition 
tax deductibility, we have got a literacy project, we have got the 
biggest increase in Pell grants since the origination of the program; 
$980 million will be taken out of education by these across-the-board 
cuts.
  Section 8 housing, LIHEAP and WIC. All of these important priority 
programs are protected as such in this agreement. We went to great 
endeavors in these negotiations to see that section 8 was adequately 
funded over the next 5 years just at a level to maintain the existing 
housing stock of subsidized housing. But this will take us below that 
level. It will take section 8, LIHEAP and WIC down by $860 million over 
5 years, and that is not small change. That is a big hit in these 
programs.
  Health research at NIH. There are Members on both sides of the aisle 
who are pushing right now a bill that would plus up significant funding 
for health research and funding for the National Institutes of Health. 
This would take those accounts down by $520 million.
  Criminal justice. Now this is something that normally unites the 
House. We want to put more money into criminal justice. We are 
sometimes divided about the means, but I think we are all usually 
united about the ends. It takes $510 million out of criminal justice.
  Veterans benefits. The veterans already are displeased with this 
agreement because we have not fully funded what it will take to 
maintain the veterans' benefit programs, the veterans' medical care 
program. We have said instead that the Veterans' Administration will be 
able to keep the resources

[[Page H3006]]

they collect from collateral sources from health insurance, and we 
anticipate that that $600 million will make up the difference. This 
budget, however, takes another $400 million out of veterans' programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, I encourage my colleagues before 
they vote, to read this handout, look at this list and see who pays for 
the transportation increases proposed by the Shuster amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, it is my distinct privilege to yield the 
balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the 
Speaker of the House, to close debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Speaker of the House is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Connecticut [Mr. 
Shays] for yielding this time to me, and I want to commend the 
distinguished ranking member from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt]. I think 
we are in the middle of a truly historic process, and that is really 
the point I want to drive home here as we close this debate.
  This is a historic process, I believe, in two very different ways. It 
is a historic process in the substance of what we are doing, reforming 
entitlements, saving a trillion, $100 billion, over the next 10 years, 
reducing taxes for the first time in 16 years with a $250 billion tax 
cut over the next 10 years, creating more opportunities for job 
creation and for small business so that as welfare reform goes into 
effect people can leave welfare and find work, because if we do not 
have work, we cannot reform welfare.
  So, these are steps that are exactly right.
  All these things are important, and the substance of what we are 
doing is important, and people will look back on this as, I think, a 
historic vote. But there is something equally important happening, 
which is the process, and that is why I wanted to come to the floor to 
close this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, we live under an unusual constitutional system. The 
Founding Fathers were afraid of dictatorship. They thought of 
themselves as engineers, and they consciously tried to design a machine 
so inefficient that no dictator could force it to work, and they 
succeeded.
  Some of the power is down at the White House, some of the power is in 
the House, some of the power is in the Senate, some of the power is 
across the street in the Supreme Court. All other powers are reserved 
to the States and to the people thereof.
  And this machine is so inefficient that even as volunteers we find it 
hard to get it to work, and the Founding Fathers will all, I think, 
look down on us and be happy because the frustration of freedom is the 
safeguard of freedom. If this system could work quickly, it could 
become a dictatorship.
  So we found ourselves after this last election with a Republican 
congressional majority, the first we elected in 60 years, which would 
learn the hard way, I would venture to say, in 1995 and 1996, that no 
matter how excited a majority is in the legislative branch, by itself 
we cannot legislate unless the majority is large enough to override 
vetoes, and we did not have that majority.
  I suspect our friends who have been in the majority under Reagan and 
Bush could have probably taught us some of this if we would have been a 
little more open to listen, but we learned it the hard way.
  On the other hand, the newly reelected President, the first Democrat 
to win reelection since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, looked up the hill 
and realized that under our system he could not govern in a positive 
way for 4 years if he could not get something out of the Congress, that 
the veto is a powerful tool to stop things, but it does not start 
anything.
  And we were faced with a choice: 4 years of deadlock, 4 years of the 
American people growing even more cynical of the news media covering us 
even more negatively, of all of us in our wonderful system of 
government decaying in public esteem, or something which, frankly, we 
did not do enough of last time. Get in a room, lay out what we really 
want and really need, and then listen to the other side and try to find 
a common ground that is not perfect.
  Mr. Chairman, every liberal could write a budget that is better than 
this by their values: less defense, fewer tax cuts, more domestic 
spending. Every conservative can write a budget that is better than 
this: more tax cuts, more defense, less domestic spending. They do not 
happen to fit. The President does not want everything in this 
agreement, and we do not want everything in this agreement, neither our 
friends on the Democratic side, nor those of us on the Republican side. 
But together, through months of hard work, we have fashioned an 
agreement which inside our constitutional system meets the necessary 
balance. It can pass the House, it can pass the Senate, and the 
President is willing to sign it.
  Now tonight we are going to have several very good opportunities to 
offer a different way of solving the problem. The President is opposed 
to every one of those opportunities. He is opposed to the liberal 
versions and the conservative versions. And I am here to say on behalf 
of our leadership I am opposed to every one of those opportunities. I 
am opposed to the liberal version, and I am opposed to the conservative 
version. We have forged a balance which is not brilliant, it is not 
perfect, but it is a huge positive step for our children and our 
grandchildren. It will rebuild faith in this country and these 
institutions. It is going to be followed by hard negotiating and hard 
legislating because that is the way this system works, and it is no 
more wrong for us to collide and try to write something in creative 
conflict than it is for NBA players to collide under the boards as long 
as it is done within the rules.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the creative process that leads to good 
legislation. But tonight we have a simple choice.

                              {time}  2300

  We can pass one of the substitutes, and this agreement will have been 
crippled, and it will not pass the Senate and it will not be signed by 
the President; or we can say to our liberal friends and our 
conservative friends, yes, we have good ideas and on another day we 
want to visit with you again, but for this evening at this time with 
this agreement, the best thing for our country under this 
constitutional process is to pass the agreement that the congressional 
leadership and the President made together.
  That is the right bipartisan thing to do. It is the right thing to do 
for America. So I urge all of my colleagues to vote no on every 
substitute, vote yes on final passage; let us move this agreement one 
step closer to giving the American people a balanced budget with lower 
taxes, with real reforms, and with a chance to create a better future 
for our children.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to House 
Concurrent Resolution 84, the fiscal year 1998 Budget Resolution
  Mr. Chairman, in my years of service in this august body, I have 
found myself in this position too many times. I appreciate the fact 
that compromise is necessary to do the peoples' business when the 
executive branch is controlled by one party and the legislative body is 
controlled by another. Congress and the President over the years have 
negotiated for long hours behind closed doors, and, after heated 
debate, much ballyhooed budget deals were announced. In recent years, 
these budget deals have all attempted to reduce the size of the budget 
deficit and the federal debt. Unfortunately, they did not accomplish 
their desired goals.
  In 1990, President Bush caved in to the Democrat-controlled Congress 
to reduce the budget deficit by raising taxes on the American people. 
Joining my colleagues who now comprise our House Leadership, I opposed 
our Republican President and his tax increases. The American people 
expressed their opinion of this deal by electing a new President in 
1992.
  In 1993, although Democrats controlled both ends of Pennsylvania 
Avenue, the much-hearalded budget again tried to slow our runaway 
deficits by enacting the largest tax increase in the history of our 
Republic. Ironically, in my statement of May 27, 1993 opposing the 
budget, I reminded my colleagues that the budget deals are usually too 
good to be true. In that statement, I recited the promises of the 1990 
budget deal which were never fulfilled.
  This year's budget deal is also too good to be true. Although House 
Concurrent Resolution 84 projects a budget surplus in 2002, I have more 
faith that my grandchildren will see their Social Security benefits 
than I have faith that, based on these assumptions, we will balance the 
budget in five years. This year, our

[[Page H3007]]

budget deficit is expected to be roughly $67 billion. Under the budget 
resolution, the deficit will jump to $90 billion in fiscal year 1998 
and will remain in excess of $80 billion until 2001, when the deficit 
will fall some $30 billion. Then to achieve a balanced budget, the 
deficit will have to be cut another $54 billion to achieve the 
projected $1.3 billion surplus in 2002.
  History has again repeated itself. The failing of the 1990 and 1993 
budget deals was that Congress refused to cut spending to balance the 
budget, always putting the hard choices off to a future Congress. This 
budget resolution also contains no substantial spending reductions to 
realistically balance our budget. While the spending increases take 
effect next year, spending cuts are put off until 2001 and 2002.
  In short, President Clinton appears to have won the budget debate. He 
secured the spending increases he desired in exchange for spending cuts 
which will take place, if they ever do, after he leaves office. 
Republicans won modest tax cuts of between $85 and $135 billion in 
exchange for spending $18 billion more than the President requested in 
his fiscal year 1998 budget!
  Just two years ago, the Republican Congress proposed a tax cut 
package of $345 billion. After negotiations with the other body, the 
tax relief package that went to the President shrunk to $226 billion. 
President Clinton prevented that tax relief from reaching the American 
people by using his veto pen. Now we are willing to abandon any hope of 
enacting spending cuts in return for a relatively modest tax relief 
bill. The justification for this small amount of tax relief is that 
Congress cannot ``afford'' more money for this purpose. How much longer 
will this continue? Big government supporters in Washington are 
generally not concerned whether taxpayers can afford to be the most 
heavily taxed generation in American history.
  I argued earlier this year that the budget deficit is only a symptom 
of a disease, not the disease itself. The disease afflicting our great 
nation is a federal government that has grown to a size and scope that 
would be incomprehensible to our Founding Fathers. Our federal debt has 
not resulted from Americans being taxed too little, it is because our 
government has spent too much money. Balancing the federal budget is 
not a worthy goal unless we are simultaneously reducing the size of the 
behemoth government.
  To gain my support for a budget resolution, I would challenge my 
colleagues in this way--instead of waiting until 2002 to enact $54 
billion in deficit reduction, we should make the necessary cuts in 
fiscal year 1998 to cut the deficit by that figure. This would 
establish a natural glide-path to balance in 2002, rather than shirking 
our responsibility onto future Congresses.
  I appreciate the hard work put in by our Republican leadership in the 
budget negotiations. The propensity of this President to simultaneously 
take both sides of an argument makes negotiating very difficult. 
Unfortunately, I cannot accept this agreement as the best the American 
people can expect from a Republican-controlled Congress. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this budget resolution so that we may return with 
a budget along the lines of the conservative substitute that I 
supported. Even with minor modifications, we can cut the excess 
spending increases in order to allow the American people to keep more 
of their own money. We can show our constituents that we are serious 
about fulfilling the promise of ending the era of big government.
  The American people deserve no less from us.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of House 
Concurrent Resolution 84, the fiscal year 1998 Budget Resolution. With 
the passage of this resolution, we are one step closer to the first 
balanced budget in 30 years.
  I support this balanced budget agreement because it controls the 
growth of federal spending by reducing the size and scope of the 
federal government, uses real numbers, provides tax relief for hard 
working families and reforms entitlement programs.
  This plan is a blueprint for ensuring America's long-term economic 
health by lowering interest rates and reducing the tax burden.
  Is this a perfect agreement? No. We still need to make fundamental, 
long-term reforms to ensure the continued financial stability of vital 
government programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And, 
I'm concerned about the new spending on Presidential pet projects in 
this plan. But, it is a lot better than the alternative: more deficit 
spending and less economic opportunity for all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I support House Concurrent Resolution 84 and urge my 
colleagues to do so as well.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of balancing the 
budget. That is why I will offer my mild support to this resolution. It 
is, by my view, flawed in many respects. I will not, however, see fit 
to impede further movement toward a balanced budget.
  The budget agreement is a product of compromise which is the hallmark 
of our great democracy.
  I cannot help but remember 1993, when the Democrats, without the 
support of a single Republican, passed the budget plan which cut the 
deficit and provided a solid framework for the economic expansion we 
currently enjoy. While we would have appreciated some Republican 
support, I recognize the need to move past malevolent politics and 
engage constructively with my colleagues in a bipartisan effort to 
solve a national problem.
  We have it backward. We've had our ice cream and cake but its time to 
eat the spinach. I fear that we do not remain wise and diligent, we are 
doomed to repeat the same failure of the 1981 Reagan voodoo budget 
agreement. I am concerned that the tax cuts should be fully paid for up 
front, and this agreement backloads the tough budget cuts. I also have 
serious reservations about a proposal to index the capital gains tax 
cut which has the potential to empty the U.S. Treasury. Soon after this 
we will have to work through the reconciliation process to ensure that 
we move in a fair and equitable way to accomplish our purpose of a 
balanced budget.
  I will be voting in favor of the budget resolution because I believe 
it is with all its flaws, the best tool to achieve a balanced budget. 
As in any compromise, there are aspects which I support and some which 
I do not. I can only hope that the good will and bipartisanship will 
finally deliver us a total final package for which I can more 
enthusiastically cast my vote. We will wait and see what the future 
brings. I hope the process will bring us votes which I can support at 
every stage, including the last one.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this budget 
resolution as the blueprint to the goal we all want to achieve--a 
balanced federal budget in 2002. For months now, negotiations have been 
taking place between Congressional leaders and the Administration on 
how best to reach that goal. I want to state that this budget 
resolution is not perfect, but a ``perfect'' budget resolution is 
unattainable. With 435 members of this body, nearly every member would 
offer their own unique solution for achieving a balanced budget. 
Therefore, compromise is a necessity; yet, this body did not compromise 
the goal we all share, which is a balanced budget in five years.
  I have supported a Balanced Budget Amendment since being elected to 
Congress in 1988 and have consistently voted for a Constitutional 
amendment requiring a balanced budget. I am pleased that the current 
budget efforts focus on balancing the budget in 2002. Enacting a 
balanced budget will ensure that as we begin the 21st Century, we rid 
our country of its deficit and move in the direction of national growth 
and prosperity--growth and prosperity which have been impeded over the 
last part of this century because of our federal debt and the interest 
payments on it.
  This package provides some much-needed middle-income tax relief. The 
package proposes $500 per child tax deductions and additional tax cuts 
for tuition costs. Education initiatives are a driving force of this 
agreement. The maximum Pell Grant award is increased in fiscal year 
1998 by $300, from $2,700 to $3,000. This is the largest increase in 
two decades. While the package calls for some Medicare cuts, there are 
many positive changes in Medicare. There is expanded coverage for such 
health services as mammography services, diabetes self-management, 
immunizations and colorectal cancer screening.
  There are a few areas of concern about the agreement which I wish to 
address. The first is transportation spending. While I was pleased to 
hear that this budget resolution would include funding for 
transportation above the President's proposed level, I still have some 
very strong concerns that this budget does not allow for adequate 
resources for our transportation and infrastructure needs. We can ill-
afford to continue to neglect our crumbling infrastructure. The current 
level of assumed spending is insufficient to deal with the increasing 
needs of our transportation infrastructure. I am supporting both the 
Kennedy and Schuster-Oberstar substitutes because they address this 
need by increasing transportation spending by $15 billion and $12 
billion respectively over the five year period.
  The Kennedy substitute offers smaller cuts in Medicare than the 
agreement. By achieving cuts in the administrative area, the substitute 
proposes an additional $8.6 billion for preventive care benefits in 
such areas as Alzheimers Disease and osteoporosis. The Kennedy 
Substitute also provides improved Medicare protections for low-income 
seniors. I also support this substitute because it recognizes the 
President's proposal to invest in renovations and construction in needy 
school systems throughout the country.
  This agreement builds on the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, which has 
reduced the deficit from $250 billion to $75 billion over the last five 
years. I support this agreement because I feel it is the last 
opportunity we have to balance this budget once and for all. I do not

[[Page H3008]]

want my children and grandchildren to be deprived of opportunity 
because of the interest payment on our federal debt. This plan is not 
perfect, but it is the best and only plan we have to make a balanced 
federal budget a reality. I urge my colleagues to support this budget 
resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the budget resolution before the 
House is historic: for the first time in 32 years, the budget balances.
  That is real progress.
  Nevertheless, this budget--conceived in a strong economy--is one only 
a mother could love.
  How does one explain priorities that over the next 10 years set aside 
only $3 billion to get people--including legal immigrants--off welfare 
and into jobs but more than $16 billion for additional entitlement 
benefits for non-citizens?
  How does one explain that over the next 5 years $13 billion in 
Medicaid savings are mostly offset by $10 billion in additional 
benefits for non-citizens?
  That $10 billion funds additional benefits for non-citizens, many of 
whom are financially self-sufficient, most of whom entered the country 
on the promises of their sponsors to financially provide for them.
  The mandatory added spending over the next 5 years for benefits for 
non-citizens--individual's whose sponsor's average income is $38,000 a 
year--is four times greater than that for defense, twice that for 
natural resource and environment programs, and six times greater than 
that for community and regional development.
  Explain these priorities to overtaxed, middle-income Americans trying 
to buy a house and educate their children, Americans who worked until 
May 9 this year to pay taxes to fund these priorities.
  I will support this budget resolution because it balances.
  That will help families.
  But its priorities are not those of hard-working Americans or hard-
working legal immigrants.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, when I was elected to Congress in 1992, my 
overriding priority was to promote an agenda of important investments 
for our Nation's future and the urgent need to reduce and eliminate our 
enormous deficit. Today, we come to a budget resolution that promise a 
balanced budget by 2002 and we have come to it because of the tough 
1993 Budget vote only Democrats cast. The deficit has been reduced from 
a quarter of a trillion dollars to $67 billion. Now we can move on to 
finish our tough task for America.
  The agreement reached between the President and congressional leaders 
2 weeks ago is not a perfect one. In fact, I expressed my deep concerns 
that we not take the country back to the deficits of the 1980s and 
allow the deficit to explode in the out years of the plan.
  While some concerns remain, I believe the resolution before the House 
today represents an important step toward bringing our Nation's budget 
into balance. Much work remains to be done to hammer out the specifics 
of it.
  Mr. Chairman, there is much to support in this compromise budget 
resolution. It represents the largest increase in 30 years for higher 
education. It adds important preventive benefits to Medicare such as 
annual mammograms, colorectal cancer screening, and diabetes 
management. It adds important resources to protect our environment. It 
provides funding for healthcare for five million of our Nation's 
children who have no insurance coverage at all. It restores our promise 
to legal immigrants that came to our country expecting to be treated 
equally under the law while they labor to add to the greatness of our 
Nation. It recognizes the need for tax relief for America's families.
  I support the resolution and look forward to working in the weeks 
ahead to fulfill the best of its promises for the betterment of all 
Americans.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, to say that I am happy to be here speaking 
on a budget plan that will lead to a balanced budget is an 
understatement. Mr. Chairman, this is a good day for the American 
people. I am pleased to be a Member of the 105th Congress which is 
about to achieve something for which many of us have fought for a very, 
very long time. I salute Chairman Kasich and Chairman Domenici and all 
those involved in these very difficult negotiations.
  This plan will first and foremost allow for tax relief for all 
taxpayers in America. There is no doubt that our citizens pay too much 
for government and keep too little of their earnings for themselves. 
Hard working people should be allowed to make their own choices about 
how to spend their hard earned dollars instead of giving them to 
Federal bureaucrats to spend. I know that the Ways and Means Committee 
will be working out the details of that tax relief in the next month or 
so, but I am very optimistic that there will be real capital gains tax 
reform and estate tax reform. These two taxes are onerous and counter 
productive. Relief in these areas will create economic growth which 
will mean more good jobs and less reliance on government programs. And 
I am equally pleased that we will be able to improve the lives of 
families with children by allowing them a $500 per child tax credit. 
That $500 for each child will mean a lot to families who have many, 
many uses for that money which they won't have to send to the IRS.
  Securing Medicare for the next several years is another very 
important step for the citizens of southern Arizona. This important 
medical insurance program for senior citizens is on the brink of 
bankruptcy. With the reforms contained in this plan, we can be sure 
that Medicare will be kept solvent and available to our parents and 
grandparents and maybe even to some of us.
  Mr. Chairman, is this a perfect plan? Quite honestly, it is not.
  Would I have preferred more tax relief for our citizens? Yes, I 
certainly would have. Families without children could use tax relief. 
Small businesses could use tax relief. Everyone could benefit from 
lower taxes.
  Would I have preferred more savings in many programs? I definitely 
believe there are ways we could have held down discretionary spending 
levels. But we will have an opportunity to work out some of these 
differences as we take the steps necessary to turn this plan into 
legislative reality.
  But, Mr. Chairman, this is a big step for a Congress and a President 
that only a short time ago shut down the Government about our 
disagreements over these issues. Let's take this step and use the 
accrued benefits as a foundation for future efforts. For future efforts 
will be needed.
  As good as this budget plan is, it will not solve the problem in the 
long term. We already know that in a very few years we will find 
ourselves in another very difficult situation when we deal with the 
reality of a Social Security Trust Fund emptying as baby boomers begin 
to retire. All the revenues from FICA taxes and the trust fund itself 
will actually be spent for Social Security recipients instead of 
masking the deficit as it does today. And the Medicare Trust Fund also 
will need further work as these new recipients start drawing benefits.
   Mr. Chairman, the problems we will inevitably face in the years 
ahead are just some of the reasons I urge my colleagues to support the 
budget resolution reported by the Budget Committee. This is an 
excellent opportunity to help the people we represent get out from 
under the burden of over-taxation and overspending. We need the 
foundation we are building now for the work we must do later. We must 
not let the excellent slip away while we await the perfect.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the bipartisan budget 
resolution which is before the House today. When I was elected in 1992 
to change the priorities of our Government in Washington, I knew that 
one part of stopping business as usual was getting our fiscal house in 
order. In order to stop mortgaging our children's future, it was 
imperative to take bold steps to reduce and ultimately eliminate the 
budget deficit. I'm proud of my vote in favor of the 1993 Budget 
Agreement which forced our budget deficit in the right direction--
downward--and truly made balancing the budget a possibility.
  There are a number of a provisions in this budget resolution which 
make it a good agreement, aside from the important fact that it will 
indeed balance the overall budget. First, I am pleased that House 
Concurrent Resolution 84 includes improved Medicare coverage of 
diabetes education and supplies in a new self-management benefit. As 
Co-Chair of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, I have worked for 4 
years to make these important changes. Earlier this year, in 
conjunction with my friend, Mr. Nethercutt, I was proud to sponsor H.R. 
58 to improve Medicare coverage for people with diabetes. Currently our 
bill has 265 Members cosponsors. I want to thank both the 
administration and Speaker Gingrich for their commitment to this issue, 
as well as the authors of H.R. 15, the Medicare Preventive Benefit 
Improvement Act: Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Cardin. I am going 
to work vigilantly to make sure these benefits stay in the budget 
agreement and are enacted into law.
  This budget resolution also acknowledges the importance of education 
in helping our families enjoy a secure future. Unlike last year's 
balanced budget plan which made students pay more and was correctly 
vetoed by the President, this resolution includes $35 billion over 5 
years for postsecondary education tax cuts and the largest Pell Grant 
expansion in 20 years. There are over 38,000 students in Oregon who 
rely on Pell Grants; this resolution will expand the number of eligible 
students and increase the maximum grant to $3,000. Education is a vital 
national security issue and is critical to helping everyone fulfill 
their potential
  I am also pleased that this resolution maintains Medicaid as an 
entitlement and contains

[[Page H3009]]

very modest cuts. Earlier this year I authored a letter to the 
President, signed by the entire Oregon delegation, expressing our 
opposition to a per capita cap proposal in Medicaid. I am pleased that 
this resolution rejects the per capita cap proposal which would have 
seriously jeopardized the Oregon Health Plan. When Medicaid reform 
comes before the Commerce Health Subcommittee, of which I am a member, 
I will work to ensure that any proposal protects and preserves the 
Oregon Health Plan.
  There are also a number of other important initiatives in this bill. 
After passage of last year's welfare reform legislation, I pledged to 
work with the administration to restore benefits for legal immigrants 
and am pleased this provision is included in House Concurrent 
Resolution 84. As the author of the Children's Health Insurance Access 
Amendments, I am pleased that this resolution includes a $16 billion 
initiative to help the 10 million children who are without health care 
coverage. Lastly, I am pleased that this resolution emphasizes the 
importance of our environment, with improvements in funding for 
Superfund, the brownsfield initiative, land acquisition, national 
parks, and EPA enforcement.
  As most people have acknowledged, and I do so as well, this is not a 
perfect agreement. As I stated earlier, I was elected to Congress in 
1992 to change the way we do business in Washington. In some respects, 
this agreement continues the same bad priorities of spending far too 
much on the Pentagon. As I've often said, we should spend every penny 
we need on a sound national defense and not a penny more. This 
agreement perpetuates the trend of spending more than half of our 
discretionary dollar on the military. Our true national security 
depends on more than just weapons systems. A recent poll by Celinda 
Lake cites that 74 percent of people disagree with the fact that we 
spend more on building and maintaining nuclear weapons than we do on 
the funding of Head Start, fighting illiteracy, and providing college 
tuition combined.
  In addition, I am very concerned about the re-emergence of firewalls 
between defense discretionary and non-defense discretionary funding. I 
want to give credit to my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, for his 
work on the Senate Budget Committee to eliminate the firewalls that 
this bill resurrects for 2 years. While Senator Wyden was unsuccessful, 
he knows that firewalls only limit the ability of Congress to meet the 
pressing needs of our Nation's families. It is my hope that the 
Conference Committee will reconsider the utility of firewalls in the 
context of a balanced budget and eliminate them from any final 
agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress has a long way to go to fully implement the 
recommendations of this budget resolution. While I do have a few 
reservations and concerns about this legislation, I am cautiously 
optimistic and urge my colleagues to support this compromise balanced 
budget resolution.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the budget 
resolution reported out of the Budget Committee. This resolution builds 
upon the past success of deficit reduction agreements made by Congress 
and outlines a plan to lead to a balanced budget by the year 2002. Each 
of us could and would change the priorities and adjust the way we 
arrange our priorities and the tax expenditures, but how do we find 
common ground. This measure does so in a means that will be accepted 
and implemented in the next 2 years.
  The deficit this year is estimated to reach a low of $67 billion 
through September 30, 1997, the lowest annual deficit since 1969. While 
a strong economy has helped budget numbers, the low deficit is also in 
large part a result of major work done by the Democratic majority in 
Congress in 1993. Ironically, that year we passed a deficit reduction 
package with close to $500 billion in deficit reduction, more than 
double the amount we are talking about today. Not one Republican voted 
for that package, but the improved budget numbers we are working with 
now in 1997 are principally a result of those tough choices we made in 
1993. The current budget resolution builds upon this substantial 1993 
budget action. And importantly none of it is being repealed or greatly 
modified in the agreement being offered as a solution today.
  We have made progress in the deficit, and we can continue to make 
progress without extreme actions. This budget agreement shows that we 
can pursue fiscal balance without creating social imbalance. It 
protects initiatives which help American working families and seniors 
gain access to affordable health care, a clean environment, and quality 
education. If we were operating without the need of a majority vote, 
each of us no doubt would substantially change this budget. For 
example, I believe most of the tax breaks should wait, much as 
Congressman Minge outlined in the measure that he was precluded from 
offering by the House rule. But we must examine and judge this budget 
based on what is possible politically and practically, against for 
example the backdrop of 1995-96, when polarization and shutdown of the 
Federal Government were the means employed unsuccessfully to achieve 
the ends that the majority in Congress sought.
  This 1998-2002 budget resolution is a major improvement over the plan 
put forth by the Republican majority in the last Congress which would 
have created a serious human deficit all in the name of deficit 
reduction. Questionable deficit reduction, I would add. That budget 
plan of the past Congress, which I voted against, included $288 billion 
in Medicare cuts, $187 billion in Medicaid cuts in the 7-year period, a 
complete repeal of Federal entitlements to important programs such as 
Medicaid and school lunches, and an attack on natural resources 
programs with deep funding cuts and a gutting of important 
environmental protections. And, of course, the initial Republican House 
budget plan would have irresponsibly added $353 billion to the deficit 
within 7 years through wild tax cuts and breaks--a budget that was at 
the expense of the poor and for the benefit of the wealthy in America, 
unfair and unworkable.
  We fought those extreme GOP proposals in the last Congress and our 
effort and positions have been vindicated. The numbers and policy 
recommendations in today's resolution reflect the fact that our country 
does not need to renege on the basic commitments to the American people 
in order to reduce the deficit. We can invest in our Nation's future 
through health care, education, infrastructure, and the environment and 
still achieve sound budget goals. This agreement extends the Medicare 
trust fund, even while adding crucial preventive benefits to Medicare, 
preserves the Federal guarantee to Medicaid, strengthens environmental 
protection and enforcement, expands health coverage to 5 million 
uninsured children currently without health care, and increases our 
investment in education, including increasing the amount and number of 
Pell Grants, increases for Head Start, and key targeted tax breaks for 
higher education investments.

  This budget agreement serves as a fair outline for an economic agenda 
over the next 5 years. Of course, it is only an outline, and the real 
budget work is just beginning. No doubt some adjustments and 
modification of the priorities will be made as we correct for economic 
and political reality and attempt to reprioritize in the months and 
years ahead. It will be important for us to protect and reexamine the 
priorities important to the American people as we work to craft the 
bills to implement the goals inherent in the budget resolution both in 
the near future and for the long term. We will have to ensure that the 
tax cuts will benefit working Americans, not just corporations and 
affluent individuals.
  On the questions of environmental policy, I am pleased that oil 
drilling in the pristine coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge has not been added as a potential source of revenue. There are a 
number of other more environmentally sound ways to recover taxpayer 
money and I urge my colleagues to avoid the exploitation of this 
important caribou calving grounds on Alaska's Arctic plain as we move 
forward to implement budgets today and in the future. Importantly, this 
budget provides for an unprecedented cleanup of brownfield sites at 
President Clinton's initiative. Congress will also need to develop a 
comprehensive solution to the problems legal immigrants face under the 
1996 welfare reform law. Although I am pleased that benefits to legal 
immigrants have been partially restored, this is not enough, especially 
in regard to refugees and asylees. The provisions addressing treatment 
of refugees and asylees are a quick fix to a much larger problem. 
Extending the eligibility period for refugees from 5 to 7 years is not 
an adequate approach. The only way to restore fairness back into the 
treatment of refugees and asylees is for Congress and the 
administration to set in place permanent eligibility for such 
categories of individuals. Anything less means that some will fall 
between the cracks and lose benefits and their chance to meet their 
needs.
  Overall, this budget agreement is a positive step, the product of 
compromise, which is necessary in today's political climate. The budget 
builds on our past success in deficit reduction, finishing the job in a 
reasonable, if not an ideal manner. Now we must ensure that the actual 
budget bills that we consider follow through on this outline. I fully 
intend to reserve judgment on the individual spending measures and the 
tax policy packages. If these actions fall short of the promises and 
commitments inherent in today's agreement, they would merit defeat. If 
they retreat from these compromises, they should be defeated. I 
certainly will support some of the substitutes being offered today. In 
fact, while the substitutes will not likely prevail, but will 
importantly demonstrate in graphic terms that fiscal stability and a 
balanced budget can be achieved on a different basis. But the political 
symmetry of this Congress doesn't permit such policy path and 
achievement today. At the end of the day,

[[Page H3010]]

my vote for this budget resolution is a vote for Congress to move 
forward and do what is possible in the next 18 months to achieve a 
socially and fiscally sound Federal Government.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to oppose House Concurrent 
Resolution 84, the so-called bipartisan budget resolution agreement. 
This budget resolution fails to adequately protect millions of 
disenfranchised and disadvantaged Americans, both those who are 
unemployed, and those who work, but cannot rise out of poverty.
  I cannot support a budget resolution that calls for tax cuts of $85 
billion that include cuts in capital gains and estate tax relief that 
will benefit the richest 5 percent of our country. Speaker Newt 
Gingrich has made it clear that this budget is another step in the 
Contract on America--which is a Contract on Poor People. According to 
the New York Times, which obtained a copy of a May 16 memo from Mr. 
Gingrich to Republicans, Speaker, Gingrich makes it clear that the 
Republican's top priority is giving tax breaks to the rich. And the 
Speaker minces no words in saying that ``there is no limit on the size 
of the capital gains and estate tax relief'' in the budget resolution.
  I cannot support this budget when unemployment in some communities in 
the First District of Illinois exceed 20 percent, especially for 
African-American youth. Instead, I am proud tonight to support the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget. This budget is truly a budget for 
the people. And I thank my colleagues, Congresswoman Maxine Waters from 
California, and Congressman Bennie Thompson, for leading the caucus in 
forging this more socially and fiscally responsible framework.
  In contrast to the budget deal, the CBC budget balances the budget 1 
year earlier--in 2001. And it does so by making no tax cuts until the 
budget is balanced. In distributing tax cuts, the CBC budget does this 
in a fair manner. The CBC budget includes $187.5 billion in cuts for 
corporate welfare.
  The CBC budget invests in vital social programs. In contrast to the 
budget resolution, the CBC budget fully funds proactive programs that 
ensure the future of our youth and communities. These include Head 
Start, WIC, section 8 housing, chapter I education, and summer jobs. 
This latter is particularly important. Just last week, this Congress 
passed a job training bill that eliminates distinct funding for the 
summer youth employment program.
  And while the bipartisan budget resolution does include new, 
significant initiatives such as coverage for 5 million uninsured 
children, the CBC budget goes further. The CBC budget proposes a child 
health initiative that would cover 10 million uninsured children.
  The CBC budget is the only budget alternative that offers the promise 
of protecting future generations. This budget proposes to restore the 
safety net that welfare reform dismantled. It assures that millions of 
Americans who are struggling to make the transition from welfare to 
work have that chance. I am proud to cast my vote tonight for the CBC 
budget.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my 
concerns about House Concurrent Resolution 84, the House budget 
resolution. I commend the administration and the Republican leadership 
for their hard work in negotiating this balanced budget agreement. I 
believe this speaks well to the bipartisan commitment to a balanced 
budget and a healthy future for our economy that has permeated this 
body. However, I do not believe that true success is found merely in 
the doing of the thing, but in the way that it is done. And it is here 
that I believe that the budget resolution fails.
  I am disappointed in the budget resolution because I do not believe 
that it provides adequate investment in our Nation's future. America's 
future depends on that of her young people--in providing them adequate 
resources and opportunities to become our future leaders, including 
providing them education and access to adequate health care.
  The budget resolution provides inadequate resources for the education 
of our young people. I firmly believe that we must focus our attention 
and our energy on one of the most important challenges facing our 
country today--revitalizing our education system. Strengthening 
education must be one of our top priorities both to raise the standard 
of living of the American family and to ensure America's preeminence in 
the global economy.
  We must provide our children access to a superior education at all 
ages from their very young years, until their graduate years. Recent 
studies emphasize the importance of early education to a child's future 
development. In fact, I was honored to attend a recent conference at 
the White House highlighting this fact. And yet, despite these studies, 
the budget resolution still inadequately funds programs that would 
provide for programs targeting children in their earliest years.
  Further, we need to open the door of educational opportunity to all 
American children in their later years. It has been well documented 
that the better educated a person is, the more he or she is likely to 
earn. The cost of a college education, however, is prohibitive. Many of 
our Nation's families cannot afford to send a child to college. Many 
families go deeply into debt financing this step for their child's 
future.

  The Congressional Black Caucus will offer an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute that promises to provide for our Nation's future--to 
provide for all the people of our Nation. Just like the budget 
resolution, the CBC substitute balances the budget, and it does this by 
fiscal year 2001, 1 year earlier than the budget resolution. The CBC 
substitute calls for appropriations of $74.9 billion in fiscal year 
1998 for education, training, and development. This is $28.2 billion, 
or 60 percent, more than the budget resolution provides. The CBC 
substitute will fund college tuition scholarships and allows for a 
gradual increase in Pell grant awards. In addition, the CBC substitute 
fully funds a child health initiative to cover all of the 10 million of 
America's children who are uninsured.
  I urge my colleagues to think carefully when they cast their votes 
this evening. We have before us a number of proposals each of which 
will assure us a balanced budget within 5 years. It is critical, 
however, that we achieve the goal of a balanced budget in a manner that 
is compassionate, fair--and very importantly--is intelligent. In 
balancing the budget, we must be sure not to provide inadequate 
resources to the very areas that will assure America a strong and 
healthy future.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Concurrent 
Resolution 84, the concurrent bipartisan balanced budget agreement.
  Balancing the budget brings practical benefits to every American, in 
the form of lower interest payments, stronger economic growth, lower 
taxes, and less Government spending. It is not the budget I would write 
on my own. Nor is it the budget that the President would write on his 
own. I am concerned that it does not provide sufficiently for our 
national security, reduce spending enough, save Medicare for future 
generations, or return as much money to hard-working American taxpayers 
as it should. But it is a real, balanced budget, with less Government 
spending and real tax cuts for American families, that Republicans, 
Democrats, and the President have agreed upon.
  For my children, and for everyone's children, it means less of their 
future earnings will be taken just to pay interest on the debt. 
Interest on the debt, which today costs over $1 billion every business 
day, cannot be invested in education, or transportation, or returned to 
the taxpayers. However, under this budget, we will stop adding to the 
debt. It represents a beginning so that we can develop a plan to pay 
down the debt, and free the next generation from its heavy and immoral 
burden.
  For my mother, and for everyone who is or is kin to a 
``chronologically gifted'' American, this budget means she can count on 
the good health of her Medicare for the next decade. We still have work 
to do here. We have to work together to save Medicare for the next 
generation. But we have made a real and substantial start.
  For every family, this budget means the Federal Government will take 
less of their money in taxes, so they can invest more in their 
children, and in their children's education. Despite the good 
intentions of people in Government, the best chance a young person has 
to achieve the American Dream is to have a mom and a dad that love and 
care for them. And under this budget, many moms and dads that have to 
earn two incomes today--one to pay the bills, and the other to pay the 
taxes--may find that through lower taxes and lower interest payments, 
they may be able to prosper on the income of one family member.
  For everyone who saves or invests, or wants to save or invest, or 
wants to keep or create a job, or owns a home, this budget insures a 
reduction in the capital gains tax.
  Let me for a moment focus on how far we have come.
  In 1994, liberal congressional leadership had reigned for 40 years. 
The Clinton administration had levied the largest tax increase in 
American history and attempted total Government control of people's 
health care. The deficit was headed skyward, a classic case of the 
Federal Government leaving an immoral and untenable legacy to our 
children.
  And the American people responded by electing a Republican House and 
Senate.
  We began working the people's will. We enacted historic welfare 
reform legislation, restored credibility to our borders and our 
immigration laws, and revitalized telecommunications for the 
information age. We attempted to enact a balanced budget amendment and 
a real balanced budget that saved Medicare and cut taxes. But on those 
matters, our work was vetoed or otherwise blocked by the President.
  And so the American people reelected the Republican Congress in 
1996--and reelected a President of the opposite party.

[[Page H3011]]

  Now we have before us a real balanced budget, representing the 
commonsense conservative values that Americans have long demanded, and 
never really had reflected in their Government, until now. We can and 
should pass this budget, knowing that the hard work remains ahead. We 
have to enact appropriations bills that limit the growth of spending. 
We have to enact real tax cuts for the American people. We have to 
enact this budget into law, and the President has to sign it.
  Mr. Chairman, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. The 
journey to balancing the budget begins with this step. Let us step out 
boldly now. Let us do what is best for America and for Americans, and 
pass the budget resolution.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I rise in support of the 
budget resolution and the underlying budget agreement. Members on both 
sides of the aisle including Chairman John Kasich and John Spratt from 
the Budget Committee; the bipartisan leadership of the Congress; and 
President Clinton and senior members of the Administration deserve our 
thanks and gratitude for working together in a bipartisan way to 
develop the balanced budget plan that is before us today.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a historic day. For over a generation--nearly 
thirty years--the federal budget has been in deficit. During this same 
period, the gross national debt of the country has increased from $360 
billion to $5.6 trillion. Without this budget agreement, annual budget 
deficits continue and the national debt will skyrocket to nearly $10 
trillion early next decade. That is a trend we cannot allow to 
continue.
  The budget resolution before us today provides for nearly $1 trillion 
of spending reduction over the next ten years including $115 billion in 
Medicare savings that will add ten years to the life of the Part A 
hospital trust fund. The resolution also provides for a decrease in 
total projected discretionary spending, while providing for increases 
in funding for high priority programs like education and training, 
research and development, the nation's defense needs, transportation 
and infrastructure, and health care programs. On the entitlement side 
of our budget--which consumes over fifty percent of outlays and is 
where the real growth in spending has occurred--spending is cut over 
$600 billion over the next decade.
  At the same time spending is curtailed, the agreement provides for 
modest tax relief including a reduction in capital gains and estate 
taxes, a $500 per child tax credit, and education tax deductions and 
credits.
  Overall, this is a solid agreement. The real work is ahead of us, 
however, as we move to implement this budget resolution. The Blue Dog 
Democrat coalition will continue to work with the bipartisan leadership 
and the President to ensure that the final reconciliation bills fairly 
and honestly implements this resolution.
  Mr. Chairman and colleagues, a final reconciliation bill should 
maximize deficit reduction each year, provide structural reforms in 
entitlement programs consistent with the reductions in those programs, 
and not explode spending or the deficit in the out-years. The final 
reconciliation measure must also have a strong and effective budget 
enforcement mechanism to ensure that the reductions and reforms in 
spending we contemplate today will in fact take place. Budget 
enforcement must extend the discretionary caps that expire this year, 
renew the PAYGO system, and should also extend sequestration to new 
revenue and spending programs and exempt few or no programs from any 
future sequestration process. My Blue Dog colleagues and many others on 
both sides of the aisle will be working together in the next few weeks 
on budget enforcement and other issues of mutual concern.
  Mr. Chairman and colleagues, today is indeed a historic day. To be 
sure, the road ahead will be bumpy and difficult, but we should 
remember that what we do today will bring real and lasting economic 
benefits to our children and grandchildren and is worth the toil.
  Mr. Chairman, the budget resolution today deserves our strong 
bipartisan support and I urge its passage.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by commending the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the Committee on the Budget, the House 
leadership, and our colleagues in the Senate for the good job they have 
done in keeping us headed down the road toward balancing the budget by 
2002.
  I am pleased that the Administration and Congress have reached a 
compromise. While the agreement is certainly not perfect in all its 
respects--in particular because of the unwillingness of the 
Administration to address the need for comprehensive reform of 
entitlement spending--it does represent a sincere effort to reduce the 
budget deficit, and it is therefore deserving of our support.
  It is important to recognize that the budget process is just that--a 
process. And the budget resolution represents not the end of that 
process, but rather the first step and one that is necessary in order 
for the authorizing committees to proceed to implement their 
reconciliation directives and the the appropriations committee to move 
forward with the thirteen funding bills for fiscal year 1998.
  Since the Republican party took control of the House in 1995, the 
budget process is one that has been refocused on making tough choices 
and setting priorities. This is as it should be. Congress today is 
responding to the demand of the American people that we review every 
department, every agency and every program in the government and 
determine which of these activities provide relatively poor returns or 
paybacks and should not be continued, which are more appropriately the 
responsibility of local or state governments or the private sector, and 
which can be made to work better. In addition, in this process, the 
Congress has worked to identify those things that are true national 
priorities and that should be provided with additional resources. As a 
member of the Appropriations Committee, I have been proud to 
participate in this effort and I look forward to continuing in this 
direction in the coming year.
  As for the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services and Education, which I am privileged to chair, the budget 
resolution that we have before us will again require that difficult 
decisions be made. My subcommittee faces many demands from many 
constituencies for limited funds. The failure of the President to 
regard the need for such things as life-saving assistance of those 
suffering from AIDS, for a health care workforce capable of reaching 
the medically underserved, and for expanded biomedical research to 
develop new treatments and cures for disease as priorities at least on 
a par with--if not superior to--his interest in creating new education 
programs and untested initiatives, will not make the process of 
drafting FY98 funding legislation an easy one. Fortunately, the budget 
resolution does provide sufficient flexibility for the Appropriations 
Committee to meet the needs of the American people by adequately 
supporting those activities--like biomedical research--that are true 
national priorities. This is certainly the outcome that I will push for 
in the coming months as we move to implement the broad spending and 
revenue framework contained in this budget blueprint.
  Mr. Chairman, budget deficits are simply intolerable in a time of 
strong economic growth. They represent a decision to spend for the 
present and leave to our children and grandchildren the responsibility 
to pay for our profligacy. Such behavior is simply unacceptable and I 
am pleased that we here today have the opportunity to take a major step 
forward in the effort to put an end to such irresponsible behavior. I 
urge all members to support this resolution.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, today, this chamber continues the important 
progress first begun in 1993 to reduce the Federal deficit and reach a 
balanced budget by the year 2002. The 1993 budget was one of the most 
difficult votes I have cast, yet for 5 straight years, its effect has 
been to cut the deficit. The deficit is now at its lowest level in more 
than 20 years.
  This bipartisan balanced budget resolution keeps the momentum moving 
forward. It is based on realistic economic and policy assumptions that 
will sustain economic growth. But while the outline of the balanced 
budget before us is historic, let us not disguise the difficult steps 
ahead to translate that outline into specific legislative language.
  The resolution continues important investments in our society. It 
assumes extension of health insurance coverage to 5 million low-income 
children, the largest investment in education in more than 30 years, 
restoration of SSI eligibility to the elderly and disabled legal 
immigrants cut off last year, and maintenance of a strong national 
defense. Lastly, the resolution assumes enactment of needed tax changes 
for families and investors that will be paid for.
  The resolution sets forth a glidepath for reducing spending at a 
relatively constant rate for the next 5 years. Unlike previous budget 
plans, it does not postpone the most difficult cuts to the later years. 
In addition, the resolution calls for a two-track reconciliation 
process, thus requiring separate votes on the legislative proposals 
enacting savings and the proposals making tax changes. This will assure 
that deficit cutting precedes tax cuts.
  I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make in order the 
amendment proposed by my colleagues David Minge and Charlie Stenholm to 
include enforcement provisions to the budget resolution. Such 
enforcement provisions are critical to ensure that the deficit remains 
on the glidepath to balance by the year 2002 and beyond.
  None of us wants a repeat of past deficit reductions efforts that 
failed to live up to their promises. Indeed, without enforcement 
mechanisms, future deficit reduction efforts become less credible as 
they become harder to make. That's why, in particular, all portions of 
the

[[Page H3012]]

budget--both spending and revenues--have to be included in the 
enforcement mechanism. All members and interest groups have to have a 
stake in maintaining the glidepath to a balanced budget. That means, as 
well, that future tax cuts must be contingent on meeting the revenue 
targets in the agreement.
  Despite these imperfections, the balanced budget resolution is the 
result of hard-fought compromise by all involved. I want to 
congratulate President Clinton and my Congressional colleagues, 
particularly the ranking member, Mr. Spratt, and the chairman, Mr. 
Kasich, who were directly involved in these difficult negotiations.
  I also congratulate my colleagues with whom I helped fashion the Blue 
Dog balanced budget plan. The Blue Dogs showed it could be done. The 
American people are the beneficiaries.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to House 
Concurrent Resolution 84, the budget resolution for fiscal year 1998.
  In 1993, when faced with a record $290 billion deficit, Democrats 
passed a tough budget plan that contained real deficit reduction and 
restored tax fairness. And the results are clear, Mr. Speaker. The 
deficit has fallen by a whopping 63 percent--from $290 billion in 1992, 
to $107 billion in 1996. The tough decisions Democrats made in 1993 
have produced the best economy in decades and put our Nation on the 
doorstep of balancing the budget. All that needs to be done is to take 
the final step.
  I am pleased at the progress we have made toward achieving a balanced 
budget, but I am concerned about the priorities that this resolution 
sets forth. While we must reach a balanced budget, we must also create 
the educational opportunities our children deserve, provide the 
financial relief that working Americans need, and protect the benefits 
our senior citizens have earned. Unfortunately, this budget resolution 
falls short of those goals.
  There are, however, many positive aspects of this budget. I applaud 
the inclusion of funding for several programs that are important to 
middle-class families.
  For example, the budget resolution for fiscal year 1998 calls for a 
10-percent increase in funding for education, training, and social 
services programs. The budget increases the maximum Pell grant award 
$300, from $2,700 to $3,000, the largest Pell grant increase in over 
two decades, which will help more of America's youth to be able to 
afford a college education.
  The budget also calls for the creation of many of the educational 
initiatives that have been proposed by the Democratic leadership over 
the last few years. The budget agreement provides for the creation of 
the HOPE Scholarship, a 2-year, $1,500 per student tax credit for 
college tuition--enough to pay for the tuition costs for a typical 
community college. It provides for the ability of working Americans to 
withdraw the costs of an education, tax-free from expanded, individual 
IRA accounts. In addition, the budget provides funding for the 
President's America Reads Challenge Program, which is intended to help 
children learn to read well and independently by the end of the third 
grade. While I am not able to support the final budget agreement, I 
look forward to working with my Republican colleagues in the future to 
bring these important educational initiatives proposed by the 
Democratic leadership into being.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also heartened by the allocation of $16 billion 
over the next 5 years to provide health insurance for up to 5 million 
children who are currently uninsured. While I am pleased that the 
budget recognizes the plight of our Nation's uninsured children, with 
no specific offsets to pay for these additional benefits, I am 
concerned where the funding for this expanded, program will come.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the budget agreement 
attempts to depoliticize any adjustment in the Consumer Price Index 
[CPI] by providing that any necessary change be taken by the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics [BLS], the agency created to address these matters and 
not be held hostage to create a slush-fund for tax breaks. However, at 
the same time, I am deeply concerned that this budget agreement makes 
assumptions that the CPI will be reduced by 0.3 percent, resulting in a 
decrease in the monthly cost of living adjustment [COLA] of our 
Nation's seniors to pay for the tax breaks to the wealthy.
  But, every budget plan has winners and losers. Under this plan, the 
winners would be the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans. Over half of 
the proposed tax cuts would go to households making over $100,000 per 
year. That means that most of the hard-working men and women of my 
district won't be able to take advantage of cuts in the capital gains 
and estate taxes. Most of the families in my district won't see the 
benefit of expanded IRA's.
  No, Mr. Chairman, my district would be the loser in this deal. The 
senior citizens and working families of my district would bear the 
brunt of the cuts in spending. Hospitals in my district would shoulder 
the burden of Medicaid savings. And Philadelphia would suffer the loss 
of jobs and revenue as a result of this budgets priorities.
  This budget asks seniors to pay more for Medicare, while telling them 
that they will get less in Social Security COLA's. By 2005, seniors 
will have $150 less in their pockets due to COLA reductions, while 
being forced to pay over $500 in Medicare premium increases. In fact, 
the only way this budget plan will ever reach a balance is if seniors 
COLAs are cut--the money is already spend somewhere else.
  In addition, the hospitals that serve the neediest children and 
families will take an enormous hit. The $13.6 billion in Medicaid cuts 
that this budget calls for would come primarily from disproportionate 
share hospital payments [DSH]. These cuts would hurt only those 
hospitals who serve the sickest and neediest among us. The obvious 
result would be a decline in the quality of care, inevitable job losses 
and--possibly--the closing of hospitals in my district. Since nearly 15 
percent of my region's economy depends directly on providing health 
care, these cuts would have a ripple effect that would be felt in every 
sector of the local economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent the 20th oldest district in America. Well 
over half of all the hospital admissions in my district are dependant 
on either Medicare or Medicaid. Clearly, these substantial cuts to 
these important programs would have a profound impact on the hospitals' 
ability to provide quality care to my constituents.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a budget that 
asks for sacrifices from senior citizens, ignores the needs of 
middleclass families, and turns its back on the uninsured. As the late 
Vice President Hubert Humphrey said, ``the moral test of a society is 
how that society treats those who are in the dawn of life--the 
children; those who are in the twilight of life--the elderly; and those 
who are in the shadow of life--the sick, the needy, and the 
handicapped.'' Because of these cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, this 
budget does not pass that test for the Third Congressional District of 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, in a town famous for saying one thing and 
doing another, Congress is doing what it promised.
  The balanced budget agreement that Congress reached with the 
President delivers on the promises we made to the American people. The 
resolution puts that agreement into action. It balances the budget, 
saves Medicare, lets American families keep more of what they earn, and 
reforms entitlement programs.
  Under the budget resolution, deficits will be a thing of the past, 
and like every American family and American business, the Government 
will live within its means for the first time since 1969.
  If the budget resolution did nothing else but eliminate the deficit, 
it still would be a huge victory for the American people. But it does 
more.
  The budget resolution saves Medicare from bankruptcy and gives 
seniors new health care choices. By changing Medicare's structure we 
will protect its solvency for another decade, while expanding benefits 
to cover mammography, diabetes self-management, immunizations, and 
special cancer screenings.
  If this resolution just balanced the budget and saved Medicare it 
would still be historic, but goes further.
  Over the next 10 years, this budget will reduce tax burdens on 
American families by $250 billion, including reductions to capital 
gains taxes, death taxes, a tax credit for families with children, an 
expanded IRA to encourage savings for retirement, and tax relief to 
help families send their children to college.
  And to help make sure the tax burden stays lower, we're going to 
change the entitlement programs that have put the real pressures on our 
budget year after year: A balanced budget; a sound Medicare Program; 
tax relief for families; and entitlement reform.
  I'm very proud of this budget resolution, and I'm proud of the people 
in the House and the Senate who helped forge it. Special thanks goes to 
Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich and Ranking Member John Spratt 
for helping move this bill through committee last week, and the 
committee staff under Rick May deserves our thanks for all their hard 
work getting the resolution ready for consideration.
  We're doing something real and permanent here with this budget 
resolution. We're being responsible and we're heading off a fiscal 
crisis before it happens. This commonsense approach helped win strong 
bipartisan support for the budget in committee where it passed by 31 to 
7. I encourage my colleagues to support the resolution and get involved 
in the process of enacting it into law.
  As an indication of the support the budget is already winning back 
home, I'm submitting for the Record an editorial from my hometown 
newspaper that praises the bipartisan spirit in which the budget 
agreement was reached.

[[Page H3013]]

           [From the Springfield (OH) News-Sun, May 12, 1997]

                    Budget a Result of Serious Work

       Considering the bad blood between the Clinton White House 
     and congressional Republicans, their agreement to balance the 
     federal budget in 2002 is extremely gratifying. The work 
     negotiators from both sides put into this accord is precisely 
     the serious, public-spirited give-and-take Americans expect 
     of their national leadership.
       On many substantive questions, negotiators kept their 
     partisan instincts in check. They reached surprisingly easy 
     compromises to curb domestic spending, to achieve Medicare 
     savings at modest cost to beneficiaries and to check Social 
     Security cost-of-living increases. They also restored 
     benefits to legal immigrants--benefits which should never 
     have been taken away.
       But what got this budget deal moving was the dynamism of an 
     economy now whirring along at a phenomenal 5.6 percent annual 
     growth rate and producing bulging tax revenues for Uncle Sam.
       In fact, budget negotiators were told at the last minute 
     the Treasury was likely to take in $200 billion to $225 
     billion more than previously expected over the next five 
     years. And this good news came during the same week that the 
     Treasury announced it would be able to make a $65 billion 
     payment against America's $5 trillion national debt, the 
     first such payoff in 16 years.
       The budget deal does have its flaws--such as the increase 
     in defense spending--but the major disappointment is the $135 
     billion in tax reductions. With the next few budgets still 
     projected to be in the red, it is not time to start rewarding 
     taxpayers for their sacrifices.
       Only one of these tax breaks can be defended as wise social 
     policy: Clinton's tuition tax credits. No public investment 
     is so vital to maintain this country's edge in technology and 
     the world economy as educating Americans, both our youth and 
     adults, for tomorrow's jobs.
       How much better for all of America it would have been if 
     the billions of dollars in tax relief had been added instead 
     to that $65 billion payoff on the national debt.

  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, although I plan to vote for House 
Concurrent Resolution 84, which contains the balanced budget agreement 
of 1997, I want to express a few concerns with it and the other budget 
options.
  I believe the major short comings in the budget which was negotiated 
between congressional leaders and the White House are: The spending 
increases, which will cause the deficit to rise until 2001 at which 
time it will fall below the 1997 level of $67 billion; the savings are 
back loaded, so that they will not be realized until near the end of 
the agreement; the Clinton funding priorities which amount to an 
expansion of the Federal Government; and the net tax cuts of $85 
billion amount to less than 1 percent of expected total tax collections 
of $9 trillion. Specifically, on the tax front, the latest predictions 
are that the budget agreement will result in a reduction of the Federal 
capital gains tax rate from the current 28 percent to as high as 21 
percent, which may be targeted to a limited number of investments.
  My concerns over the small tax cuts which are to be expected from the 
budget agreement are the primary reason I also will support the budget 
substitute being offered by a Republican group, the Conservative Action 
Team [CAT's], to which I belong. This budget would freeze spending at 
the current levels while transferring the $109.3 billion this would 
save in nondefense, nontransportation discretionary spending to greater 
tax relief. Although the CAT's budget is not expected to receive the 
votes of a majority of the House, I believe it represents the best 
alternative if we are truly committed to a smaller Federal Government 
and returning to every American more of their hard-earned tax dollars.
  I want to touch briefly on the other four substitute budgets. While 
the Congressional Black Caucus [CBC] is a serious participant in the 
budget debate, I cannot support the CBC's substitute primarily because 
it does not include any tax cuts, effectively delaying this debate 
until the budget is balanced in 2002, and cuts defense spending by 
$189.9 billion. The Brown of California substitute not only postpones 
tax relief and reduces defense spending, it increases total spending 
over 5 years by $25 billion more than House Concurrent Resolution 84. 
The Kennedy of Massachusetts budget substitute essentially abandons 
broad-based tax relief in favor of additional funding for health 
programs, while dismantling the Medicare compromise in House Concurrent 
Resolution 84. The budget substitute proposed by the bipartisan 
leadership of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
seeks to allocate an additional $12 billion for transportation 
priorities. It offsets this funding by across-the-board reductions of 
just over one-third of 1 percent in all discretionary spending and 
proposed tax relief. Regardless of the size of the proposed across-the-
board cuts included in this substitute, I fundamentally oppose the 
assumption that all discretionary spending in the Federal budget should 
be treated equally. Particularly disturbing is the cumulative size of 
the cuts which would fall on our Nation's military, and the suggestion 
that there is room in the limited tax relief for a proportional burden.
  Therefore, I will vote for House Concurrent Resolution 84 with 
reservation and hope that it will bring us to a balanced budget on 
schedule in 2002, once and for all.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan 
budget. In particular, I want to point out that this Budget will bring 
American families significant tax relief for the first time in 16 
years.
  We've tinkered around with the Tax Code in the past. But that was 
mostly just redistributing who pays the tax.
  This Budget will lead to tax cuts--$85 billion over 5 years. This 
will be tax relief on capital gains that provides incentives for 
economic growth.
  We will have relief from the death tax.
  We will have relief from the high costs of college education.
  And most importantly, we will have tax relief for families with 
children.
  Further, this agreement preserves Medicare. There are no cuts in 
Medicare in this budget. Medicare spending continues to grow. All we 
are trying to do is to slow the growth in Medicare spending to ensure 
that it will be available not just for our current elderly citizens, 
but future generations as well.
  It does that while continuing to increase spending on each 
beneficiary in each of the 5 years.
  Federal spending per beneficiary which is $5,480 this year will rise 
to over $6,900 in the year 2002.
  Total spending on Medicare also rises from $209 billion this year to 
$280 billion in 2002.
  This budget estimates taxpayers will save $115 billion through these 
efforts to control the growth of Medicare spending.
  I'm glad that the President has decided to support this Budget which 
will preserve Medicare for the future.
  I do want to note that while this package, that the President 
supports, saves $115 billion, it is almost identical in savings to the 
$118 billion in savings over 5 years that would have been achieved had 
the President decided not to veto the Balanced Budget Act in 1995.
  I applaud the President for now agreeing to preserve Medicare by now 
supporting virtually the same Medicare preservation package he derided 
just 2 years ago.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the bipartisan budget resolution 
House Concurrent Resolution 84 and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating a 
historic budget agreement which would balance the budget by 2002. The 
resolution we are voting on today just locks the numbers in place. 
There are still many details that have to be worked out before we vote 
on omnibus budget reconciliation legislation.
  This debate reminds me of the old saying ``the devil is in the 
detail.'' It is these details which could ruin the historic agreement. 
The resolution calls for $135 billion in gross tax cuts and $85 billion 
in net tax cuts over 5 years. There is no firm agreement on the design 
of the tax package. The elements to be included in the package are 
education tax provisions, capital gains estate taxes, a $500 family 
credit, and expanded IRAs. $35 billion of the tax cuts are geared 
towards education.
  We do not want a repeat of tax legislation which passed this House 
during the 104th Congress. Only 8 percent of the population realizes 
capital gains in any given year. Capital gains relief should be 
targeted and geared towards individuals. Indexing of capital gains will 
be a source of substantial complexity for taxpayers and open up 
loopholes in the tax code. New types of tax shelters could be created. 
Last Congress's capital gains relief was skewered to the wealthy. 
Seventy-six percent of the capital gains tax cut would have gone to 
taxpayers with income of $100,000 or more.
  Citizens for Tax Justice's analysis of last Congress's tax cuts found 
that 52.3 percent of the tax cuts go to 5.6 percent of Americans with 
income greater than $100,000 a year. Proportionally, middle-income 
families would benefit little from the proposed tax cuts. In fact 75 
percent of all American families earn $75,000 of less per year. This 
group would have only benefited from one-fifth of the total tax cuts. 
Individuals making more than $200,000 annually would have received tax 
cuts averaging $12,600 a year.
  We cannot have these type of tax cuts. As we all remember, the 
President vetoed last years budget and part of this was due to the tax 
cuts. I do support tax cuts and they have to be targeted and benefit 
the middle class. The distribution of the tax cuts need to be balanced.
  The tax cuts cannot come at the expense of valuable tax expenditures. 
The earned income tax credit [EITC] should not be cut to pay for any 
provision of this budget agreement. It is

[[Page H3014]]

our most valuable anti-provety program. It provides incentives which 
work to move individuals from welfare to work. I support compliance 
provisions recommend by the Treasury Department, but not a reduction in 
benefits.
  As the Mayor of the City of Springfield, I saw the benefits of the 
low income housing tax credit. I supported the President's efforts to 
make this permanent in 1993 and we cannot sunset such a valuable 
program.
  For a minute, let us remember how things were at the beginning of the 
Clinton administration. We were faced with an outrageous deficit of 
$290 billion. President Clinton pushed his economic package and it 
passed without one Republican vote. This package worked. The deficit is 
now at $67 billion and this is a 77 percent reduction. We have to build 
on what we did in 1993.
  We have to continue on our path of deficit reduction. We must stay on 
this path and we will not if we enact tax cuts that balloon after the 
year 2002. Let us work together in a bipartisan manner to pass a fair 
tax package that includes no budget gimmicks. We need to keep the devil 
out of the details.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, nearly three decades of federal budget 
deficits have taken their toll on our nation's economy and America's 
working families. But today, we continue our efforts to produce a 
balanced budget.
  Rarely do compromises produce all the results or protect all the 
causes that one side would champion. This plan does not. However, it is 
a good step forward. It will control the size and scope of the federal 
government and provide necessary services while at the same time 
allowing our children to look to their future instead of looking back 
at our debt.
  One way or another, this Congress has been determined to have a 
budget agreement enacted that will eliminate the national debt, reduce 
wasteful spending, provide a smaller federal government, and reduce the 
burden of taxation and regulation that have had a strangle-hold on this 
nation's households and businesses. We must continue to work towards a 
government that is more responsible, more effective, and a better 
manager of the people's money. However, for the first time since 1969, 
we will not ask if we will balance the budget, but answer when we will 
balance the budget
  If we are successful in our endeavor to balance the budget, we will 
be handing our children and our grandchildren the American dream, not 
the American debt. And for today's working families, this balanced 
budget plan will help ensure a strong economy, more jobs, lower 
interest rates and badly needed tax relief. This tax relief will 
directly benefit families through a $500 per child tax credit, expanded 
individual retirement accounts, and reductions in the estate or 
``death'' tax.
  Furthermore, economists predict that a balanced budget will reduce 
interest rates between 1 and 2 percent. A 2 percent reduction in 
interest rates would: Equate to a reduction of $15 billion in annual 
interest payments made by farmers; save students (and their parents) in 
my district at the University of Illinois and Illinois State University 
approximately $9,000 over the course of a typical 10-year student loan 
for a four-year college; save homeowners in Pontiac or Monticello with 
a typical 30-year, $80,000 home mortgage, $107 each month and $36,653 
over the life of the mortgage; and save car buyers in Danville or Paris 
$676 on a typical 4-year new car loan.
  The hope for America held out by this agreement will take our 
dedication and faithfulness to achieve. The stakes are very high, but 
so are the rewards if we are successful.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to House 
Concurrent Resolution 84. As a Member of Congress who has consistently 
voted over the last 16 years for fiscally responsible budgets, I would 
like very much to vote for legislation that would balance the Federal 
budget by the year 2002. I have concluded after careful consideration, 
however, that I cannot support this legislation. I understand that this 
legislation will undoubtedly pass today, and I would like to take this 
opportunity to lay out my reasons for opposing House Concurrent 
Resolution 84.
  We have all accepted the goal of balancing the Federal budget by the 
year 2002. According to CBO, this budget achieves that goal. The bill 
has other positive features as well. It would expand health care 
coverage to uninsured children in low-income families. It would provide 
additional Federal assistance for education. It would ensure the 
Medicare trust fund's solvency for the next 10 years. And it would 
restore some of the cuts that were enacted as part of the welfare 
reform bill last year.
  The resolution falls short on other, very serious grounds, however.
  The budget agreement may balance the budget in the year 2002, but the 
budget will not remain balanced in subsequent years. A number of the 
provisions contained in the budget agreement that forms the basis of 
this resolution are likely to explode the deficit in the out years. 
Moreover, there are serious grounds for concern that the $85 billion in 
tax cuts called for in this budget resolution will be back-loaded so 
that the real impact of these cuts will not be felt within the 5-year 
window between 1998 and 2002. The tax cuts that have been proposed 
would reduce anticipated revenues by $85 billion over the next 5 years, 
but they are estimated to lose twice that much in the subsequent 5 
years--and depending on the actual provisions contained in the 
reconciliation bill, the revenue loss could be even greater.
  This is no time for tax cuts. We all know that policymakers will 
confront a tremendous challenge after the year 2002. In the coming 
decades, the budget will face additional pressures as the baby boom 
generation begins to retire. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid 
spending will increase dramatically as the baby boomers retire. This 
budget agreement not only fails to address this coming crisis; it 
exacerbates it by including tax cuts that produce massive revenue 
losses in the next decade--just when entitlement spending will also be 
expanding significantly. We should postpone major tax cuts until we 
have addressed such long-term budget concerns.
  The budget cuts contained in the agreement also reflect a set of 
priorities that no longer reflect the challenges facing this country. 
During World War II and the cold war, the greatest threat facing this 
country was the military threat posed by first, the Axis nations, and 
then, the Soviet Union. That threat has now passed, and while the world 
is and will always be a dangerous place, the greatest threat facing our 
Nation today is an economic threat, not a military one. Just as many 
generals prepare for the last war rather than the next war, this budget 
spends too much money on our armed forces--and not enough on the 
infrastructure and the work force that will determine the winners and 
losers in the coming global economic competition. The budget resolution 
we adopt today should spend less on our military forces and more on 
investment in our physical and intellectual capital.
  The budget resolution before us falls terribly short in terms of 
investment. Under this budget resolution non-defense discretionary 
spending would suffer inflation-adjusted cuts of roughly 10 percent. 
That almost inevitably means deep cuts in federally funded scientific 
and biomedical research, serious cuts in community and regional 
development programs, inadequate investment in highways, mass transit, 
and other critical public infrastructure, and unwise cuts in job 
training funding and elementary and secondary education.
  Finally, given that there is an agreement to cut taxes by $85 
billion, I have grave concerns about the distribution of the tax relief 
that the agreement would provide. The family tax credit that has been 
proposed would not be refundable. That means that it would provide 
little or no assistance to the families that need it most--the working 
poor. Conversely, the capital gains tax rate cuts and the increases in 
the estate tax exemption which have been proposed will benefit only the 
wealthiest households in our country. If we are going to provide tax 
relief to hard-working American families, we should provide tax cuts to 
the families who need it most--not the wealthy Americans who need it 
least.
  And so, Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I mentioned, I oppose this 
legislation. It may be the best that we can do, but it is not good 
enough--not by a long shot. I will vote against this resolution.
  I will continue to be an active, conservative participant in the 
budget process, however. The budget resolution is only the first step 
in the annual budget process. I will work with my colleagues in the 
coming weeks and months to shape the appropriations and reconciliation 
bills called for in this resolution. I will work with my colleagues to 
correct or ameliorate the flaws that I believe exist in this budget 
agreement. It is my sincere hope that, working together, Congress can 
produce appropriations and reconciliation legislation that I can 
support.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering a plan which 
balances the Federal budget by the year 2002. We should be proud that 
Democrats and Republicans have been able to work together to create 
this plan, but it is important that we review the facts and understand 
how we got ourselves in a position to balance the budget in 5 years, 
while protecting Medicare, Medicaid, investing in education, the 
environment and health care for children.
  When President Clinton arrived in Washington in 1993, he inherited a 
$290 billion budget deficit--the largest deficit in our nation's 
history. Job growth was stagnant, and unemployment was over 7 percent, 
and Washington was unable to find a solution to the exploding deficits 
and sluggish economy.
  But in 1993, President Clinton proposed a budget plan which included 
$500 billion in savings over 5 years. The plan was criticized by many 
of our Republican colleagues, who argued that deficits would explode, 
jobs would be killed, and our economy would crash if we adopted the 
President's budget plan.

[[Page H3015]]

  In fact, not a single Republican--in the House or the Senate--voted 
for the 1993 budget plan.
  But today, 4 years later, the plan has worked, and has put us in a 
position to balance the budget in 5 years. Today our deficit is just 
$67 billion--the lowest amount since 1979. The budget deficit today 
makes up just 0.9 of 1 percent of the gross domestic product [GDP]--the 
lowest level since 1974. Since 1993, 12 million new jobs have been 
created and our unemployment rate--at 4.9 percent--is at its lowest 
level since 1974.
  Democrats know what it takes to balance the budget. We made the tough 
choices in 1993, and made the tough votes. Today we have the 
opportunity to vote on a resolution which will bring our deficit to 
zero in just 5 more years.
  We have assembled a budget plan that is smart--we haven't lost our 
values and goals in the budget cutting process. The budget resolution 
includes $16 billion to insure 5 million children who have no health 
care coverage giving working families the opportunity to make their 
families healthy and more secure. We are investing in education by 
funding the $1,500 tax credit for the first 2 years of college and the 
$10,000 tax deduction for all post-secondary education and training, 
and by increasing the Pell grants from $2,700 to $3,000, making 350,000 
more students eligible for Pell grants.
  We are tightening our belts, but we are committed to protecting 
Medicare and Medicaid. We are investing in education for our kids. We 
are building a system to give uninsured children health coverage. And 
we balance the budget by the year 2002.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this budget plan because it preserves the 
programs and efforts that are important to working and middle-income 
Americans: Medicare, Medicaid, education, environmental protections, 
and child health. It does all these things and still balances the 
budget in 5 years. Mr. Chairman, this plan is smart and it is fair, and 
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution this evening.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Clinton-Congress budget proposal.
  But before I explain the reasons that compel me to oppose it, let me 
thank the members of the Committee for their hard work, and especially 
Chairman Kasich for the energy and effort he has expended in bringing 
this thorough work product to the floor for our consideration.
  It is not for lack of hard work, and good intentions, that this 
budget proposal falls short.
  The problem with this budget is that it will expand the federal 
government when we should be shrinking it.
  Under the Clinton-Congress budget proposal, federal spending will 
grow from $1.6 trillion in fiscal 1997 to nearly $1.9 trillion in 2002. 
That is a 16 percent increase.
  Next year, under the Clinton-Congress budget deal, our federal 
government will spend even more than President Clinton asked for in his 
own 1998 budget. The very first year under the budget deal, Washington 
will spend nearly a quarter trillion dollars more than it did in 1994, 
when the new Republican majority was elected to turn the tide.
  This continues an unbroken pattern of government growth that has been 
unstoppable through boom and bust, recession and recovery, since the 
1960's.
  The accumulated result of that consistent expansion of the size and 
cost of the federal government has been nothing short of phenomenal.
  In 1974, when I was 21 years old and just graduated from college, the 
federal government spent $269 billion. Today, the Clinton-Congress 
budget proposes a federal government that is 700 percent larger than 
that.
  By the end of the Carter Administration, in fiscal 1981, the federal 
budget had more than doubled its spending. But Jimmy Carter's and Tip 
O'Neill's remarkably fat federal government--which cost over two-thirds 
of a trillion dollars--is as nothing compared to the one contemplated 
in this proposed budget. Just the add-ons, on top of present spending 
levels, in the Clinton-Congress budget deal will cost far more than 
two-thirds of a trillion dollars.
  Today, in 1997, I am a 44-year-old father with a wife and two kids. 
Our federal government is now nine times bigger than when I was in high 
school. Compared to just last year, federal spending in fiscal 1997 is 
up 4.9 percent--a higher rate of growth than any time in the last 5 
years. Our current rate of spending growth is even faster than during 
each of the last 3 budget years of the old tax-and-spend Democratic 
Congresses.
  The Clinton-Congress budget is not historic. It is a continuation of 
a pattern of unabated government growth established during 
uninterrupted decades of Democratic Congresses. Consider the facts:

GROWTH IN ANNUAL FEDERAL SPENDING--10-YEAR COMPARISON REFLECTING CLINTON-
                     CONGRESS 1997 BUDGET AGREEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Increase in
                                             Total Spending    Spending
                                               (Billions)        (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic Congresses:
    FY 1993................................       1,409.414         2.01
    FY 1994................................       1,461.731         3.71
    FY 1995................................       1,515.729         3.69
104th Congress:
    FY 1996................................       1,560.330         2.94
    FY 1997 (est.).........................       1,635.000         4.79
This Budget Year (FY 1998).................       1,692.000     \1\ 3.49
    FY 1999................................       1,754.000         3.66
Budget ``Out Years'':
    FY 2000................................       1,811.000         3.25
    FY 2001................................       1,858.000         2.60
    FY 2002................................       1,889.000         1.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ By comparison, President Clinton's FY 1998 budget, submitted in
  February 1997, called for $1.687 trillion in FY spending, a 3.2%
  increase.

  It doesn't have to be this way. We can say ``no'' to ever-expanding 
government. I vote ``no.''
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to speak on 
a matter of importance.
  The addendum to the bipartisan plan to balance the budget, negotiated 
by congressional leaders and the Clinton administration, assumes that 
Congress will increase appropriations for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund [LWCF] by $700 million. Of that money, $315 million 
is intended for the acquisition other Headwaters Forest, located in my 
congressional district, and the New World Mine site, situated near 
Yellowstone National Park.
  From the onset of this agreement, I have had very serious concerns. 
It goes without saying that the acquisition of the Headwaters Forest 
will have a significant effect upon the local tax base and reduce 
revenue for the local government to provide basic social services to 
its citizens and the surrounding communities. This is in addition to 
significant costs that Humboldt County, CA, has already borne on 
account of increased law enforcement to deal with recent protests. 
Suffering from the residual effects of President Clinton's Northwest 
forest plan, northern California counties are nearly bankrupt. 
Therefore, it is imperative that any congressional appropriation of 
Federal taxpayer funds for the acquisition of the Headwaters Forest 
must also include compensation for Humboldt County. This is necessary 
to mitigate the direct loss of tax payer receipts and other economic 
revenue resulting from the removal from the tax base land zoned 
specifically for timber harvest/production.
  An additional concern I have is the need for the Department of 
Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service to work in good faith with 
the Pacific Lumber Co. [PALCO], the owner of the Headwaters Forest 
acreage, to approve a wildlife habitat conservation plan [HCP] and 
other necessary Federal permits that will allow PALCO to selectively 
harvest the remainder of its privately owned forest lands. Plagued by 
years of protests, court injunctions, and civil disruptions, PALCO 
should be given the opportunity to operate without interruption so long 
as it satisfies Federal and State environmental protection statutes. An 
HCP will provide the company with enough stability to ensure continued 
production and peace of mind for its workers.
  Both of these conditions were implicit in last fall's Headwaters 
Forest Agreement, committing the Federal Government and the State of 
California to the acquisition and protection of 7,500 acres of forest 
land situated in Humboldt County. I have insisted on the first 
condition throughout the Headwaters Forest deliberations. My support as 
a signatory to last fall's agreement outlining and memorializing the 
Federal and State plan to acquire Headwaters Forest was contingent upon 
a commensurate economic mitigation package for Humboldt County.
  Now as we begin to implement the balanced budget agreement and 
proceed into the appropriations process, I must reiterate to all 
parties involved that my support for this proposal remains contingent 
upon Federal compensation for Humboldt County.
  I look forward in working with my colleagues and the administration 
on this very important issue in the coming months.

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 1997.
     President William Jefferson Clinton,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As you know, the addendum to the 
     bipartisan plan to balance the budget, negotiated by 
     Congressional leaders and your Administration, assumes that 
     Congress will increase appropriations for the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund (LWCF) by $700 million. Of that money, $315 
     million is intended for the acquisition of the Headwaters 
     Forest, located in my Congressional District, and the New 
     World Mine site, situated near Yellowstone National Park.
       While I support the general principles of the balanced 
     budget agreement and the addendum, my support for increased 
     appropriations to the LWCF for acquisition of the Headwaters 
     Forest, is contingent upon satisfaction of the following 
     conditions:
       1. Pacific Lumber Company, the owner of the Headwaters 
     Forest acreage, must receive approval of a wildlife habitat 
     conservation plan (HCP) and other necessary federal permits, 
     to selectively harvest the remainder of their privately-owned 
     forest lands; and

[[Page H3016]]

       2. Any Congressional authorization/appropriation of federal 
     taxpayer funds for the acquisition of the Headwaters Forest 
     must also include compensation for Humboldt County, 
     California. This is necessary to mitigate the loss of tax 
     payer receipts and other economic revenue resulting from the 
     removal of land zoned specifically for timber harvest/
     production, from the taxable land base and assessment rolls 
     of the County.
       Both of these conditions were implicit in last Fall's 
     Headwaters Forest Agreement committing the Federal Government 
     and the State of California to the acquisition and protection 
     of 7,500 acres of forest land situated in Humboldt County. I 
     have insisted on the latter condition throughout the 
     Headwaters Forest deliberations. My support as a signatory to 
     last Fall's agreement outlining and memorializing the Federal 
     and State plan to acquire Headwaters Forest was contingent 
     upon a commensurate economic mitigation package for Humboldt 
     County.
       Now that the balanced budget agreement and the joint House-
     Senate Budget resolution contemplates the acquisition of the 
     Headwater's Forest through federal appropriations, I must 
     reiterate to all parties involved that my support for this 
     proposal remains contingent upon Federal compensation for 
     Humboldt County.
       I would be happy to discuss the scope and details of the 
     mitigation package for Humboldt County and to facilitate 
     discussions between representatives of the County Government 
     and the Federal Government.
       Again, I wish to stress that I will vigorously oppose any 
     Congressional legislation expressly authorizing and 
     appropriating funds for the exchange of the Headwaters Forest 
     if the conditions I have raised herein are not addressed 
     satisfactorily.
       I look forward in working with you on this very important 
     issue in the coming months.
           Very truly yours,
                                                   Frank D. Riggs,
                                               Member of Congress.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 152, the concurrent resolution is 
considered read for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of House Concurrent Resolution 84 is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 84

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

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1998.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 1998 is hereby established and that 
     the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1999 
     through 2002 are hereby set forth.
                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 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 1998: $1,198,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,241,859,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,285,559,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,343,591,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,407,564,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: -$7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: -$11,083,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: -$21,969,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$22,821,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$19,871,000,000.
       (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 1998: $1,386,875,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,439,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,486,311,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,520,242,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,551,563,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,371,848,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,424,002,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,468,748,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,500,854,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,516,024,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $172,869,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $182,143,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $183,189,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $157,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $108,460,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,593,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,836,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,082,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,301,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,473,200,000,000.
       (6) Direct loan obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $33,829,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $33,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $34,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $36,039,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $37,099,000,000.
       (7) Primary loan guarantee commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $315,472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $324,749,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $328,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $332,063,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $335,141,000,000.

     SEC. 102. 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 1998 through 2002 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $268,197,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,978,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,784,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,771,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $757,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $274,802,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,418,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,305,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,110,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $289,092,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $272,571,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,050,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,909,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,558,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,966,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $12,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,918,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,569,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,021,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $13,093,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,782,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,981,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,077,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $13,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,114,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,751,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,122,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $13,826,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,353,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,812,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,178,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $14,217,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,882,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,203,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,528,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,947,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,013,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,862,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,604,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,668,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,247,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,050,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,469,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,446,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,078,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,186,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,293,000,000.

[[Page H3017]]

       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,109,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,939,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,048,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,141,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,846,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,867,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,174,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,877,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,405,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $30,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,702,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $32,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,570,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,963,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $32,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,720,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $34,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,086,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,313,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $34,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,133,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,892,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,620,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,790,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,294,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,047,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,215,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,664,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,071,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,509,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,978,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,494,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,960,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,670,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,108,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,965,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,660,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,607,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$920,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,739,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $245,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,082,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,299,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,887,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $253,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,183,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,821,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,238,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $255,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,078,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,133,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,574,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $257,989,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,678,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,541,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,680,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $259,897,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,402,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,933,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $155,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,256,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $135,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,114,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,357,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,135,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,303,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,184,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,247,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,387,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,867,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,489,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,902,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,943,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,406,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,810,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,986,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,020,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,764,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,350,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,098,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,452,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,790,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,429,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,180,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,475,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,062,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $12,328,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $20,665,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,335,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,092,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $21,899,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,703,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,728,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,926,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $23,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,959,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,931,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $14,701,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $24,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,339,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,316,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,426,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,676,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $137,799,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $137,767,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $85,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $144,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $144,944,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $154,068,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $153,947,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $163,412,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $163,135,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $172,171,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $171,727,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $210,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $201,764,000,000.

[[Page H3018]]

       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $212,073,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $211,548,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $225,540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $225,537,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,636,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $238,781,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $251,548,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $250,769,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,032,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $247,758,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $45,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $254,090,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $258,064,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $75,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $269,566,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,161,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $110,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,145,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,264,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $145,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,945,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,239,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $170,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,424,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,524,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,060,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,196,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,792,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,866,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,022,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,043,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,398,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,545,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,337,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,029,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $27,096,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,466,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,068,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $26,671,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,740,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,908,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,177,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $26,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,093,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,215,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,249,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,282,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,436,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,277,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,129,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,765,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,609,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,120,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,476,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,240,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,354,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,901,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,883,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,879,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,711,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,959,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,444,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,363,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,977,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,727,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,675,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,131,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,105,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,547,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $304,558,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $304,558,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $305,075,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $305,075,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $303,833,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,833,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $303,728,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,728,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       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 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,841,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$41,841,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,949,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,949,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

[[Page H3019]]

       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,937,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,937,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$39,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$39,151,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,124,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,124,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
                 TITLE II--RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide for 
     two separate reconciliation bills: the first for entitlement 
     reforms and the second for tax relief. In the event Senate 
     procedures preclude the consideration of two separate bills, 
     this section would permit the consideration of one omnibus 
     reconciliation bill.
       (b) Submissions.--
       (1) Entitlement reforms.--Not later than June 12, 1997, the 
     House committees named in subsection (c) 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.
       (2) Tax relief and miscellaneous reforms.--Not later than 
     June 13, 1997, the House committees named in subsection (d) 
     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.
       (c) Instructions Relating to Entitlement Reforms.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture 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: 
     $34,571,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $37,008,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $211,443,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (2) Committee on banking and financial services.--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: -$8,435,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1998, -$5,091,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, and -$50,306,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1998 through 2002.
       (3) 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: $393,533,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 1998, $506,791,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 2002, and $2,617,528,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (4) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce 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: $17,222,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1998, $17,673,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
     2002, and $103,109,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 
     through 2002.
       (5) 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: $68,975,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $81,896,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $443,061,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 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: $0 in fiscal year 1998, 
     $621,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and $1,829,000,000 in 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (6) 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: $18,087,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $17,283,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $106,615,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002.
       (7) 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: 
     $22,444,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $24,563,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $139,134,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (8) Committee on ways and means.--(A) The House Committee 
     on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction such that the total level of direct spending for 
     that committee does not exceed: $397,546,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1998, $506,442,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, and $2,621,578,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1998 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: 
     $1,176,253,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 1998, 
     $1,386,546,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $7,517,939,000,000 in revenues in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (d) Instructions Relating to Tax Relief and Miscellaneous 
     Reforms.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture 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: 
     $34,571,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $37,008,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $211,443,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (2) Committee on banking and financial services.--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: -$8,435,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1998, -$5,091,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, and -$50,306,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1998 through 2002.
       (3) 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: $393,533,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 1998, $506,791,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 2002, and $2,617,528,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (4) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce 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: $17,222,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1998, $17,673,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
     2002, and $103,109,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 
     through 2002.
       (5) 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: $68,975,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $81,896,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $443,061,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 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: $0 in fiscal year 1998, 
     $621,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $1,829,000,000 in fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (6) 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: $18,087,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $17,283,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $106,615,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002.
       (7) 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: 
     $22,444,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $24,563,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $139,134,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (8) Committee on ways and means.--(A) The House Committee 
     on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction such that the total level of direct spending for 
     that committee does not exceed: $397,546,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1998, $506,442,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, and $2,621,578,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1998 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: 
     $1,168,853,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 1998, 
     $1,366,046,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $7,432,939,000,000 in revenues in fiscal years 1998 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.
       (f) Children's Health Initiative.--If the Committees on 
     Commerce and Ways and Means report recommendations pursuant 
     to their reconciliation instructions that, combined, provide 
     an initiative for children's health that would increase the 
     deficit by more than $2.3 billion for fiscal year 1998, by 
     more than $3.9 billion for fiscal year 2002, and by more than 
     $16 billion for the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002, 
     the committees shall be deemed to not have complied with 
     their reconciliation instructions pursuant to section 310(d) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
                     TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SURFACE 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to adjust the 
     appropriate budgetary levels to accommodate legislation 
     increasing spending from the highway trust fund on surface 
     transportation and highway safety

[[Page H3020]]

     above the levels assumed in this resolution if such 
     legislation is deficit neutral.
       (b) Deficit Neutrality Requirement.--(1) In order to 
     receive the adjustments specified in subsection (c), a bill 
     reported by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure that provides new budget authority above the 
     levels assumed in this resolution for programs authorized out 
     of the highway trust fund must be deficit neutral.
       (2) A deficit-neutral bill must meet the following 
     conditions:
       (A) The amount of new budget authority provided for 
     programs authorized out of the highway trust fund must be in 
     excess of $25.949 billion in new budget authority for fiscal 
     year 1998, $25.464 billion in new budget authority for fiscal 
     year 2002, and $127.973 billion in new budget authority for 
     the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (B) The outlays estimated to flow from the excess new 
     budget authority set forth in subparagraph (A) must be offset 
     for fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 2002, and for the period of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002. For the sole purpose of 
     estimating the amount of outlays flowing from excess new 
     budget authority under this section, it shall be assumed that 
     such excess new budget authority would have an obligation 
     limitation sufficient to accommodate that new budget 
     authority.
       (C) The outlays estimated to flow from the excess new 
     budget authority must be offset by (i) other direct spending 
     or revenue provisions within that transportation bill, (ii) 
     the net reduction in other direct spending and revenue 
     legislation that is enacted during this Congress after the 
     date of adoption of this resolution and before such 
     transportation bill is reported (in excess of the levels 
     assumed in this resolution), or (iii) a combination of the 
     offsets specified in clauses (i) and (ii).
       (D) As used in 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.
       (c) Revised Levels.--(1) When the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure reports a bill (or when a 
     conference report thereon is filed) meeting the conditions 
     set forth in subsection (b)(2), the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget shall increase the allocation of new budget 
     authority to that committee by the amount of new budget 
     authority provided in that bill (and that is above the levels 
     set forth in subsection (b)(2)(A)) for programs authorized 
     out of the highway trust fund.
       (2) After the enactment of the transportation bill 
     described in paragraph (1) and upon the reporting of a 
     general, supplemental or continuing resolution making 
     appropriations by the Committee on Appropriations (or upon 
     the filing of a conference report thereon) establishing an 
     obligation limitation above the levels specified in 
     subsection (b)(2)(A) (at a level sufficient to obligate some 
     or all of the budget authority specified in paragraph (1)), 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall increase 
     the allocation and aggregate levels of outlays to that 
     committee for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 by the appropriate 
     amount.
       (d) Revisions.--Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant 
     to this section shall be considered for purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and 
     aggregates contained in this resolution.
       (e) Reversals.--If any legislation referred to in this 
     section is not enacted into law, then the chairman of the 
     House Committee on the Budget shall, as soon as practicable, 
     reverse adjustments made under this section for such 
     legislation and have such adjustments published in the 
     Congressional Record.
       (f) Determination of Budgetary Levels.--For the purposes of 
     this section, budgetary levels shall be determined on the 
     basis of estimates made by the House Committee on the Budget.
       (g) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``highway trust fund'' refers to the following budget 
     accounts (or any successor accounts):
       (1) 69-8083-0-7-401 (Federal-Aid Highways).
       (2) 69-8191-0-7-401 (Mass Transit Capital Fund).
       (3) 69-8350-0-7-401 (Mass Transit Formula Grants).
       (4) 69-8016-0-7-401 (National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration-Operations and Research).
       (5) 69-8020-0-7-401 (Highway Traffic Safety Grants).
       (6) 69-8048-0-7-401 (National Motor Carrier Safety 
     Program).

     SEC. 302. SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

       (a) Budgetary treatment.--
       (1) In general.--For the purpose of any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget and the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, no amounts realized from the sale of an asset shall be 
     scored with respect to the level of budget authority, 
     outlays, or revenues if such sale would cause an increase in 
     the deficit as calculated pursuant to paragraph (2).
       (2) Calculation of net present value.--The deficit estimate 
     of an asset sale shall be the net present value of the cash 
     flow from--
       (A) proceeds from the asset sale;
       (B) future receipts that would be expected from continued 
     ownership of the asset by the Government; and
       (C) expected future spending by the Government at a level 
     necessary to continue to operate and maintain the asset to 
     generate the receipts estimated pursuant to subparagraph (B).
       (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 the 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.
       (d) Determination of Budgetary Levels.--For the purposes of 
     this section, budgetary levels shall be determined on the 
     basis of estimates made by the House Committee on the Budget.

     SEC. 303. ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE FUND.

       (a) Committee Allocations.--In the House, after the 
     Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure report a bill (or a conference report thereon 
     is filed) to reform the Superfund program to facilitate the 
     cleanup of hazardous waste sites, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget shall submit revised allocations and 
     budget aggregates to carry out this section by an amount not 
     to exceed the excess subject to the limitation. These 
     revisions shall be considered for purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as the allocations and 
     aggregates contained in this resolution.
       (b) Limitations.--The adjustments made under this section 
     shall not exceed:
       (1) $200 million in budget authority for fiscal year 1998 
     and the estimated outlays flowing therefrom.
       (2) $200 million in budget authority for fiscal year 2002 
     and the estimated outlays flowing therefrom.
       (3) $1 billion in budget authority for the period of fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002 and the estimated outlays flowing 
     therefrom.
       (c) Readjustments.--In the House, any adjustments made 
     under this section for any appropriation measure may be 
     readjusted if that measure is not enacted into law.

     SEC. 304. SEPARATE ALLOCATION FOR LAND ACQUISITIONS AND 
                   EXCHANGES.

       (a) Allocation by Chairman.--In the House, upon the 
     reporting of a bill by the Committee on Appropriations (or 
     upon the filing of a conference report thereon) providing 
     $700 million in budget authority for fiscal year 1998 for 
     Federal land acquisitions and to finalize priority Federal 
     land exchanges, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall allocate that amount of budget authority and the 
     corresponding amount of outlays.
       (b) Treatment of Allocations in the House.--In the House, 
     for purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     allocations made under subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 
     made pursuant to section 602(a)(1) of that Act and shall be 
     deemed to be a separate suballocation for purposes of the 
     application of section 302(f) of that Act as modified by 
     section 602(c) of that Act.
                 TITLE IV--SENSE OF CONGRESS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON BASELINES.

       (a) Findings.--The 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 portrayed 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 and executive accountability for 
     Federal spending.

     SEC. 402. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON REPAYMENT OF THE FEDERAL DEBT.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) The Congress and the President have a basic moral and 
     ethical responsibility to future generations to repay the 
     Federal debt, including the money borrowed from the Social 
     Security Trust Fund.
       (2) The Congress and the President should enact a law which 
     creates a regimen for paying off the Federal debt within 30 
     years.
       (b) Sense of Congress Regarding President's Submission to 
     Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that:
       (1) The President's annual budget submission to Congress 
     should include a plan for repayment of Federal debt beyond 
     the year 2002, including the money borrowed from the Social 
     Security Trust Fund.
       (2) The plan should specifically explain how the President 
     would cap spending growth at a level one percentage point 
     lower than projected growth in revenues.
       (3) If spending growth were held to a level one percentage 
     point lower than projected growth in revenues, then the 
     Federal debt could be repaid within 30 years.

     SEC. 403. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON COMMISSION ON LONG-TERM 
                   BUDGETARY PROBLEMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) achieving a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002 is only 
     the first step necessary to restore our Nation's economic 
     prosperity;
       (2) the imminent retirement of the baby-boom generation 
     will greatly increase the demand for government services;

[[Page H3021]]

       (3) this burden will be borne by a relatively smaller work 
     force resulting in an unprecedented intergenerational 
     transfer of financial resources;
       (4) the rising demand for retirement and medical benefits 
     will quickly jeopardize the solvency of the medicare, social 
     security, and Federal retirement trust funds; and
       (5) the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 
     marginal tax rates would have to increase by 50 percent over 
     the next 5 years to cover the long-term projected costs of 
     retirement and health benefits.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     legislation should be enacted to create a commission to 
     assess long-term budgetary problems, their implications for 
     both the baby-boom generation and tomorrow's workforce, and 
     make such recommendations as it deems appropriate to ensure 
     our Nation's future prosperity.

     SEC. 404. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CORPORATE WELFARE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that the functional 
     levels and aggregates in this budget resolution assume that--
       (1) the Federal Government supports profit-making 
     enterprises and industries through billions of dollars in 
     payments, benefits, and programs;
       (2) many of these subsidies do not serve a clear and 
     compelling public interest;
       (3) corporate subsidies frequently provide unfair 
     competitive advantages to certain industries and industry 
     segments; and
       (4) at a time when millions of Americans are being asked to 
     sacrifice in order to balance the budget, the corporate 
     sector should bear its share of the burden.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     legislation should be enacted to--
       (1) eliminate the most egregious corporate subsidies; and
       (2) create a commission to recommend the elimination of 
     Federal payments, benefits, and programs which predominantly 
     benefit a particular industry or segment of an industry, 
     rather than provide a clear and compelling public benefit, 
     and include a fast-track process for the consideration of 
     those recommendations.

     SEC. 405. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FAMILY VIOLENCE OPTION 
                   CLARIFYING AMENDMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) Domestic violence is the leading cause of physical 
     injury to women. The Department of Justice estimates that 
     over 1,000,000 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, Illinois, document, for the 
     first time, the interrelationship between domestic violence 
     and welfare by showing that from 34 percent to 65 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.
       (6) The restructuring of 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.
       (7) In recognition of this finding, the House Committee on 
     the Budget unanimously passed a sense of Congress amendment 
     on domestic violence and Federal assistance to the fiscal 
     year 1997 budget resolution. Subsequently, Congress passed 
     the family violence option amendment to last year's welfare 
     reform reconciliation bill.
       (8) The family violence option gives States the flexibility 
     to grant temporary waivers from time limits and work 
     requirements for domestic violence victims who would suffer 
     extreme hardship from the application of these provisions. 
     These waivers were not intended to be included as part of the 
     permanent 20 percent hardship exemption.
       (9) The Department of Health and Human Services has been 
     slow to issue regulations regarding this provision. As a 
     result, States are hesitant to fully implement the family 
     violence option fearing it will interfere with the 20 percent 
     hardship exemption.
       (10) Currently 15 States have opted to include the family 
     violence option in their welfare plans, and 13 other States 
     have included some type of domestic violence provisions in 
     their plans.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) States should not be subject to any numerical limits in 
     granting domestic violence good cause waivers to individuals 
     receiving assistance for all requirements where compliance 
     with such requirements would make it more difficult for 
     individuals receiving assistance to escape domestic violence; 
     and
       (2) any individuals granted a domestic violence good cause 
     waiver by States should not be included in the States' 20 
     percent hardship exemption.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendments are in order except the amendments in the 
nature of a substitute designated in section 2 of the resolution, if 
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Each amendment shall be considered 
only in the order designated, may be offered only by the Member 
designated, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 20 
minutes, except as otherwise provided in section 2, 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 shall 
constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution 
for amendment.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5 
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed 
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device 
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by 
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be 
less than 15 minutes.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 designated in 
paragraph 1 of section 2 of House Resolution 152.


  Amendment No. 1 In The Nature of A Substitute Offered by Ms. WATERS

  Ms. WATERS. 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 No. 1 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Ms. Waters:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1998.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 1998 is hereby established and that 
     the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1999 
     through 2002 are hereby set forth.
                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 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 1998: $1,241,721,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,295,692,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,358,192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,421,796,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,466,331,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $36,142,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $44,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $54,953,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $60,198,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $45,352,000,000.
       (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 1998: $1,390,471,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,460,826,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,505,659,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,544,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,591,266,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,377,266,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,445,118,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,495,407,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,517,370,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,564,726,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $135,545,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $147,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $137,215,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $95,534,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $98,395,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,556,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,803,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,037,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,241,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,466,700,000,000.
       (6) Direct Loan Obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $33,829,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $33,378,000,000.

[[Page H3022]]

       Fiscal year 2000: $34,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $36,039,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $37,099,000,000.
       (7) Primary Loan Guarantee Commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $315,472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $324,749,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $328,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $332,063,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $336,141,000,000.

     SEC. 102. 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 1998 through 2002 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $237,067,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $245,233,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $233,589,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $233,746,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $757,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $233,861,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $232,174,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $235,829,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $227,453,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $224,717,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $221,137,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,050,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,545,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,726,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,966,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $12,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,533,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,510,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,021,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,093,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,647,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,376,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,077,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,759,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,166,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,122,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,826,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,696,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,001,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,178,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,217,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,522,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,042,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,503,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,745,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,322,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,314,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,311,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,271,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,302,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,291,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,550,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,731,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,050,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,094,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,078,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,725,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,822,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,109,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,425,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,484,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,141,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,312,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,174,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,765,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,352,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $30,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,214,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,550,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $32,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,495,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,780,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $32,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,974,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,362,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $34,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,614,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,767,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $34,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,757,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,465,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $7,620,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,061,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,543,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,047,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,637,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,069,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,071,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,509,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,444,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,937,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,960,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,720,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,965,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,660,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,724,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $828,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,739,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $245,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,117,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,357,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,887,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $253,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,216,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,820,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,238,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $255,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,226,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,264,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,574,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $257,989,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,642,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,481,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,680,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $259,897,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,663,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,261,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $155,000,000.

[[Page H3023]]

       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,737,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,652,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $135,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,422,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,640,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,698,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,022,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,098,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,665,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,550,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,567,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,867,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,818,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,803,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,943,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,406,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,366,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,352,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,020,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,537,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,606,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,098,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,452,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,707,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,165,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,180,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,415,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,088,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,799,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $12,328,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $20,665,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $88,488,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,032,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $21,898,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,114,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,926,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $23,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,114,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $14,701,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $24,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,897,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,336,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,426,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,676,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $138,580,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $138,347,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $85,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $152,463,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $152,307,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $112,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $162,025,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $172,747,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $172,314,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $184,519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $183,955,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $205,685,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $205,808,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $225,366,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $224,825,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $241,420,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $245,382,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $261,614,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,765,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $283,933,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $283,140,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $245,866,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $255,468,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $45,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $260,828,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,255,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $75,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $277,750,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $279,066,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $110,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $284,544,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $254,127,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $145,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $298,580,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $297,014,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $170,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,472,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,547,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,231,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,858,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,918,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,115,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,116,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,513,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,513,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,235,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,885,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,029,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $27,096,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,047,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,184,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,068,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $26,671,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,477,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,312,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,177,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $26,201,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,855,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,105,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,249,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,301,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,361,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,277,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,129,000,000.

[[Page H3024]]

       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,165,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,009,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,161,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,378,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,573,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,541,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,042,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,576,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,451,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,898,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,040,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,639,001,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,490,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,222,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,625,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,014,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,405,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,122,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,060,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $295,593,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $295,593,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $301,972,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $301,972,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $300,590,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $300,590,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $297,107,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $297,107,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $295,816,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $295,816,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$11,864,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,369,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,093,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,734,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,935,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,672,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,370,000,000.
       (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 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,244,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$41,244,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$32,858,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$32,858,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,516,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,516,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,845,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,845,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,331,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$41,331,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
                 TITLE II--RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Submissions.--Not later than August 1, 1997, 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) Instructions.--
       (1) 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: $396,058,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 1998, $592,292,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 2002, and $2,724,790,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (2) Committee on ways and means.--(A) The House Committee 
     on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction such that the total level of direct spending for 
     that committee does not exceed: $397,268,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1998, $535,924,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, and $2,692,944,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1998 through 2002.
       (B) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to 
     increase revenues as follows: by $36,142,000,000 in revenues 
     for fiscal year 1998, by $45,352,000,000 in revenues for 
     fiscal year 2002, and by $240,895,000,000 in revenues in 
     fiscal years 1998 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 gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Waters] and a Member opposed each will control 30 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, at this time should I acknowledge that I am 
in opposition to the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] opposed?
  Mr. SHAYS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] will control 
30 minutes as a Member opposed.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this moment not to introduce my friend, the 
gentleman from the great State of Mississippi, Mr. Bennie Thompson, 
but, rather, I take this moment to thank him and to say to him all of 
the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are extremely 
appreciative for the work that he has put in on helping to bring about 
this Congressional Black Caucus budget. The gentleman met with the Blue 
Dogs and he met with every Member of the Congressional Black Caucus and 
others in an effort to get input. He met early in the morning, he met 
late at night. He worked very hard to put together the kind of document 
that we could be proud of; and indeed, we are very proud of the product 
that he has produced.
  This budget represents our hopes, our desires, our dreams, our 
aspirations. It is everything that we could have asked for.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Mississippi, the person who is our senior member representing us on the 
Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Bennie 
Thompson.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, for the record, let me start by reemphasizing the 
fundamental principles upon which Members of Congress, both Democrat 
and Republican, already agree. First, we must balance the budget. 
Second, we must

[[Page H3025]]

responsibly protect the budget priorities of the American people: 
education, the environment, the social safety net, Medicare and 
Medicaid; and most important, we must apply deficit reduction fairly 
and ask Americans who are the most able to shoulder their portion of 
our shared economic burden.
  Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus's budget alternative 
accomplishes all of these goals. It is balanced, it is fair, it is 
responsible. By all accounts, Mr. Chairman, if we hold the Republicans 
true to their word, then they should love this budget. Our alternative 
contains no tax increases on individuals or businesses. It cuts 
domestic spending by $23 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office 
says our budget will balance a year before the Republican budget will.
  For the last 3 years, my esteemed colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have focused budget debate here in the House on obtaining a 
budget that is certified by the Congressional Budget Office as being 
balanced by the year 2002.
  The Congressional Black Caucus's alternative budget does better than 
that. We balanced the budget by the year 2001, a whole year before any 
of the budgets introduced by the Republicans. While they are trying to 
figure out how to squeeze the last few billion dollars out of our 
children, seniors, and the poor to reach a balance by 2002, under our 
budget, America will already have a $7 billion surplus. And we managed 
to do all of this and all the other things while maintaining an 
effective social net, by fully funding Head Start, the WIC Program, 
section 8 housing, and Chapter 1 education.
  Mr. Chairman, there are no tax cuts in our budget. That is because 
the CBC believes America cannot afford them. We should balance the 
budget first.
  It makes no sense to force the poorest Americans to go without food 
stamps, school lunches, and baby formula in order to balance the budget 
and then turn around and give wealthy campaign contributors, people who 
can afford to pay $25,000 to have dinner with the Republican leadership 
in the Library of Congress, a huge tax cut. No American should benefit 
from another American's suffering.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the Congressional Black 
Caucus alternative. Unlike the budget resolution we will be voting on 
later tonight, this budget was forged in the light of day. What my 
colleagues see in our budget is exactly what they get. It is balanced, 
it is fair, it is responsible.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to say that this is a balanced budget, it is certainly 
legitimate in terms of its Members, but we oppose it for a variety of 
very important reasons.
  First, it provides no tax relief for American families. Again, let me 
say, it provides no tax relief for American families. In fact, in our 
reading of the legislation, it increases taxes, demanding $300 billion 
more from American taxpayers over the next 5 years than the bipartisan 
budget agreement, which cuts taxes. It extends the solvency of Medicare 
by only 4 years at best, and 1 year at worst. And many on our side of 
the aisle strongly oppose the fact that it will be cutting defense 
appropriations by $183 billion below the level of this bipartisan 
budget agreement over the next 5 years.
  The fact is that under this plan, the era of big government is not 
over, it increases. And importantly, and it just cannot be understated, 
this budget would clearly be an agreement-breaker. In other words, the 
bipartisan agreement between the White House and Congress would not be 
respected by passage of this caucus budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ 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. Chairman, I want to thank the members of 
the Congressional Black Caucus, our wonderful chairperson, the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters], and our very stalwart 
Mississippian who chaired the Committee on the Budget of our caucus.
  I served on the Committee on the Budget during the 104th Congress, 
but I have never been prouder of the Congressional Black Caucus' budget 
as I am this year, because of the fact that the Congressional Black 
Caucus' budget this year is doing what no other budget has done.
  Last year there was quite a bit of incivility when it came to 
decisions in the Committee on the Budget. I understand that this year 
there has been much more civility, but we still must come together on 
what will make America proud.
  This reconciliation bill that balanced the budget last year was one 
that I voted against, and I voted against it because it balances the 
budgets on the backs of the poor and the disenfranchised. The 
Congressional Black Caucus' budget is an excellent alternative to that. 
We did not seek to balance the budget on that. We did not seek to cut 
taxes just for the sake of cutting taxes. We did not believe in the 
pious platitudes that are floating around Congress at this point, that 
is on a glidepath to the year 2000, being able to balance the budget. 
All of those, in my opinion, are pious platitudes if they do not show 
where they are helping the people who need the help more.
  I wonder why we are rushing to complete this work on this 5-year 
straightjacket? The Congressional Black Caucus looked at this and when 
they looked at it they said, this straightjacket needs some changes. My 
colleagues took in their budget in the Congressional Black Caucus the 
first steps toward cutting Medicare, at least the President's budget 
and the Republican budget, by $115 billion and it cut Medicaid by $14 
billion over 4 years.
  I do not have enough time to talk about the goodness of this budget. 
I can only say it is balanced, it is fair, it does what no other budget 
has done. And I want to say those of my colleagues who think about what 
is good about this country will vote for the Congressional Black 
Caucus' budget. I thank my colleagues for their eloquence and their 
good decision for putting this budget together. I am proud of the 
Congressional Black Caucus. My colleagues better believe it.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], the cochair of the CBC budget caucus.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I also want to congratulate the 
chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus and the chairman of the 
Congressional Black Caucus Committee on the Budget for his efforts.
  This amendment is a perfecting amendment. It allows us to do the best 
we can. It is not necessarily the winning one, but nevertheless, it is 
a perfecting one. It is the one that allows us to balance the budget, 
balance the national priorities, and not to allow so much suffering. It 
is the ideal of a shared sacrifice. It makes provisions for those who 
are left out in other amendments, and certainly those who are left out 
in the budget agreement.
  I just want to raise two areas, particularly out of rural America and 
that of the minority farmers. The Congressional Black Caucus allows for 
funds to speak to years of deprivation and discrimination that have 
gone on now for almost 30 years, three decades, since the early 1960's. 
Just recently we have had three substantial reports, a GAO report, an 
IG report, as well as an extensive civil rights report, detailing the 
discrimination both denying farmers as well as employees from the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture.
  This budget provides $30 million to provide for resources to make the 
adjudication where appropriate to make sure we make those farmers 
whole. Also, it provides $12 million in additional funds for the 
historically black college, again, to make a commitment that we have 
made before, authorization, but never fully funded.
  In addition to that, rural America funds provide another $10 million 
for everyone, not just for minorities, but to make sure rural 
opportunities are provided as they are in other areas.

                              {time}  2315

  This particular amendment is indeed the most ideal. I commend it to 
the Members, and urge all of us, if we want to do the best that America 
can have, vote for the Waters and Thompson amendment.

[[Page H3026]]

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas, [Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Mississippi [Mr. Thompson] and the chairwoman of this caucus for 
an amendment to this budget, substitute budget, that really answers the 
questions of the previous speaker.
  There was reference made to a conservative budget or a liberal 
budget, and the fact that we do not have the time to have those budgets 
presented. What we do not have the time for is to leave millions of 
Americans outside of the circle.
  I am very proud that the Congressional Black Caucus has another 
attribute that has not been mentioned tonight. This is the deal, or the 
deficit reduction, red and very loud. This is the CBC reduction of the 
deficit, as Members can see, by the year 2002.
  Mr. and Mrs. America, look at this very carefully. This is not an 
African-American budget or a Hispanic budget or an Anglo budget or an 
Asian budget, it is a budget that reflects the principles of the 
quality of life.
  Let me very quickly speak to those quality of life issues. One, we 
have already heard that Chairman Greenspan has indicated that he is not 
going to raise the interest rates, so we can do more creative things 
with our budget. The Congressional Black Caucus responds to our 
concerns about Medicare, and does not raise the premium $1.50 per month 
on seniors least able to do it.
  It also, as I have said, brings down the deficit, but it reinforces 
very strong principles, one of investment, which increases the 
Community Reinvestment Act so our urban and rural communities can be 
improved and have money reinvested in housing, and housing built. 
Education, it rebuilds our schools, so crumbling schools will not be 
part of our children's history. Veterans, it preserves the benefits for 
veterans. Health, it increases the Ryan White treatment dollars, and it 
provides monies for our public hospital systems, who serve the most 
indigent of ours.
  As well, it does something unique: It takes us into the 21st century 
with science, in math and science, in NASA funding, in National Science 
Foundation funding, in funding for traditionally black colleges, 
allowing them to be prepared for the 21st century; and yes, computer 
learning centers.
  This is a budget for Americans that should not be left out. The 
deficit reduction is part of this budget. I ask my colleagues to be 
bipartisan in their support for the Congressional Black Caucus budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me repeat what the Speaker said earlier. This 
amendment and each of the amendments that we will be debating this 
evening are agreement-breakers. If any one of them passes, it is going 
to violate the agreement that we have between the budget committees. 
The resolution was passed by both budget committees in the House and 
Senate, and the administration. So it is essential that we work 
together, Democrats and Republicans, to defeat this amendment.
  Let me remind everybody what our budget resolution is all about. 
First of all, it balances in 5 years. In 5 years, without any gimmicks, 
without any smoke and mirrors, we are going to balance it. It does not 
have the trigger that was talked about in previous budgets by the 
President, that would automatically change tax cuts or change spending.
  It is a real budget with real numbers, with conservative estimates on 
economic growth of 2.1 percent a year. We are growing at a much faster 
rate than that. I think in all probability we are going to balance the 
budget in fewer than 5 years. But with conservative economic 
projections, we are going to have a true, honest balanced budget by the 
year 2002.
  This budget that was passed by the Committee on the Budget has 
permanent tax relief for America's families. When we talk about tax 
relief, as I talked about earlier, it is a real defining issue, I 
think, between many of the Members of the Democratic side and the 
Republican side.
  We on the Republican side believe that the American people are taxed 
too much already, that we need to reduce taxes. We believe that people 
back home are better able to spend their money than to send it to 
Washington for them to tell us how to spend it. The less money that is 
sent to Washington, it allows us to reduce the size and scope of the 
government, it allows us to shift power and money and influence back to 
the States, and put the power back with the people rather than with the 
bureaucracy here in Washington. This has permanent tax cuts.
  We are talking about $85 billion in tax cuts, net tax cuts over 5 
years. And we are talking about $9 trillion in Government spending? 
This is not any giant tax cut, but it is the right thing because it is 
for America's families: A $500 tax credit for children; tax credits for 
college or going for vocational skills; capital gains, which actually, 
we call it a tax cut, but it makes money for the Federal Government, 
and we are talking about the help with IRA's and death taxes. It makes 
no sense.
  We have permanent tax relief provided for these. The key to balancing 
the budget is controlling spending. Two-thirds of our budget is in the 
mandatory side. Half of it, actually, is in the entitlement side. This 
budget resolution has $600 billion of reductions in entitlement 
spending over the next 10 years, $600 billion in controlling 
entitlement spending. That is the key to balancing the budget.
  We cannot balance the budget by just raising taxes, and we cannot 
just do it with discretionary spending because that is only one-third 
out of budget. We have to talk about serious entitlement reforms, and 
that is what we have in this budget.
  And we save Medicare from bankruptcy. Medicare is one of our largest 
entitlements. It is going bankrupt. It is going to be bankrupt in 4 
short years. We have to do something about it. Unfortunately, it was 
used as a political issue last year on the elections, but the thing is, 
we agree.
  This is where I commend President Clinton for stepping forward and 
saying, yes; we need to reform Medicare, we need to change it, we need 
to have structural changes in the Medicare program, and we are going to 
save $115 billion. But to save $115 billion we are going to increase 
spending every year per person on Medicare. We are going to extend it 
for 10 years.
  We still have a crisis in Medicare, it is only a 10-year solution, 
and the real crisis comes when the baby boomers start to retire. But at 
least we are making a step to get us moving in the direction of saving 
Medicare from going bankrupt. We are going to increase spending by 6 
percent per year per person on Medicare.
  The way we solve Medicare problems is opening it up to the 
marketplace, slow down the rate of growth, get a little competition in. 
It is happening in the private sector for big businesses and small 
businesses, and gives some choices. Allow groups to have provider 
service organizations, which are where local hospitals and doctors can 
provide a program in their community.
  Back in my hometown of Bradenton, a local hospital can go together 
with the local doctors and provide health care to people in Bradenton; 
or in Sarasota, the local Sarasota hospital can go together with their 
doctors and offer a program.
  We are going to give an opportunity to create a little competition in 
the community and offer better service, rather than big insurance 
companies totally controlling what is happening. We believe it is going 
to make it a better Medicare Program by giving people a right to 
choose. They do not have to take any of these plans, but the thing is 
they have a right to choose, because they do not have a choice right 
now.
  As a Federal employee all of us get to choose a plan every year. We 
get the same insurance plan, pay the same costs as somebody who works 
for the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Agriculture, so 
we are in the same plan they are in, but we get a right to choose. Why 
can our seniors not have the same type of plan that we have? We believe 
having a plan like that, slowing the rate of growth in spending by the 
market pressures will save that plan.
  So this budget resolution that we are going to be voting on this 
evening or

[[Page H3027]]

the early hours of tomorrow morning is the right thing for America. It 
is the right thing for our families and kids, because it is so exciting 
to be at this stage today. We are going to be able to say that we are 
balancing the budget because we are doing it for the children of today 
and the children of the future.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands, Ms. Donna Christian-Green.
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Thompson] for yielding me this time, 
and our chairwoman, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with pride and in full support of the alternate 
budget presented by the Congressional Black Caucus. This caucus has 
once again demonstrated its leadership as the representative of the 
majority of Americans who would otherwise have no advocate for their 
interests.
  This budget puts realistic spending into education and repair of our 
schools to ensure that no one is left behind as this country builds its 
bridge and prepares to cross over into the 21st century. It is a budget 
that seeks to keep our children, families, and communities whole, and 
increases the funding for crime and violence prevention programs.
  Our budget remembers those who have fallen to drug addiction and 
AIDS, and places over $400 million more in research and treatment for 
these devastating illnesses. Mr. Chairman, it is a budget that is 
serious about jobs and opportunity for all, which are the keys to the 
future of this great country.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the CBC budget, a 
budget that puts people first, that advocates a better quality of life 
for all Americans, and that balances the budget by 2001. I thank the 
chairman, and I commend my distinguished chairwoman, the gentlewoman 
from California, Ms. Maxine Waters, and my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Bennie Thompson, for their leadership 
on this amendment.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California, Mr. George Brown.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, as some Members may be aware, I have a budget of my 
own. They may wonder why I am speaking here on behalf of the Black 
Caucus budget. There is only one reason: it is a better budget than 
mine. I was afraid to offer such a good budget because I did not think 
it would get enough votes, so I have compromised. We all do that around 
here. We rationalize it in one way or another. But this is a budget 
which I have consistently voted for, and its predecessor budgets, over 
a number of years, because I felt that it really did reflect the values 
of America.
  The other side talks about a budget which has no smoke and mirrors 
and solves a lot of problems. There is a difference of opinion on that. 
I remember the Reagan budget of 1981, in which we had this feeding 
frenzy to see who could cut the budget the most, either the Democrats 
or the Republicans, and it has left its mark on this country for the 
next 18 years. I had been in Congress about 18 years at that time. I 
voted against those tax cuts, and I am going to vote against the tax 
cuts in this budget, and for the Black Caucus.
  I urge Members' support for it.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Mississippi and the gentlewoman from California for their hard work in 
developing this budget.
  I rise tonight to echo my colleagues' support for the Congressional 
Black Caucus alternative budget, and to speak briefly on the judiciary 
elements of that budget. The CBC alternative balances the budget, 
reduces crime, and invests in our future economic and social well-
being, and it does so by better utilizing our scarce resources.
  For example, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the $711 million allocated 
for the building of new prisons and jails in the committee budget could 
be put to better use by stressing the treatment and prevention 
programs. The CBC budget increases our investment in more local 
community prevention programs, such as mentoring, parental training, 
truancy prevention, gang intervention, and comprehensive educational 
services for at-risk youth, so fewer of our children will become 
involved in the juvenile justice system in the first place, and fewer 
crimes, fewer victims, and a decrease in taxpayer money spent on 
prisons will be the direct result.
  The CBC budget also includes an increase in the budget for the Legal 
Services Corporation, which will allow equal access to justice for all 
Americans, not just those who can independently afford it.
  The CBC alternative also addresses understaffing at the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission, which requires increased Federal 
funding to eliminate its backlog in order to make employment 
opportunities accessible to countless more American men and women who 
lose those opportunities because of illegal discrimination.

                              {time}  2330

  By passing the CBC alternative, we can look forward to the day when 
this Nation meets and surpasses the goals of full opportunities for all 
of its citizens to participate in the American dream.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi 
and the gentlewoman from California for their hard work.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Ms. Brown].
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of 
the Congressional Black Caucus budget and against the proposed budget 
resolution. I am so disappointed with this proposed budget. I think we 
should rename it the fudge it budget resolution.
  All this resolution does is fudge numbers here and there and paint a 
rosy colored picture of a balanced budget with a surplus by the year 
2002. What it really does is to continue what I call reverse Robin 
Hood, robbing from the poor and working people to give a tax break to 
the rich. Look at what this proposal will do to Medicaid 
disproportionate share hospital payments in my home State of Florida.
  These payments go to hospitals in my district that greatly assist the 
poor and needy who cannot afford health insurance. But under the fudge 
it budget resolution, we will cut payments by $548 million over 5 
years, a 42-percent reduction in what Florida has received over the 
past 5 years. Florida already ranks 42d in the Nation for Medicaid 
costs per recipient. This budget proposal will only make the situation 
worse.
  But on the other hand, the Congressional Black Caucus budget takes 
other things into consideration and it is really the American people's 
budget. It supports children, seniors, and veterans.
  Let me give my colleagues two or three ideas about some of the 
proposals in the Congressional Black Caucus budget: Pell grants, $2,700 
to $5,000 per student; eliminates the COLA delay for Federal Civil 
Service workers; makes no, let me emphasize this, makes no cuts to 
Medicaid and fully funds a child health initiative to cover 10 million 
uninsured children; fully funds Head Start and the WIC Program; 
includes an additional $591 million than the so-called budget deal to 
ensure that veterans will receive additional benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not fudge it. Let us vote for the Congressional 
Black Caucus budget.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Bishop].
  (Mr. BISHOP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the Congressional Black 
Caucus for crafting an alternative budget to ensure that all Americans 
share the burden of balancing the budget. Year after year the caucus 
steps up to produce an alternative budget, one that is consistent with 
the values of America. This plan reflects the compassion of the caucus 
and, as the conscience of the Congress, the caucus continues to be a 
voice for the voiceless and power for the powerless.
  More importantly, the caucus remains at the forefront fighting for 
issues affecting our country's most vulnerable citizens.

[[Page H3028]]

  This alternative budget has many good points. It makes a firm 
commitment to our Nation's domestic priorities. It provides funding for 
a $1,500 HOPE scholarship. It protects the solvency of Medicare and 
Medicaid. It includes full funding of health insurance for our Nation's 
10 million uninsured children. It eliminates the 3-month COLA delay for 
Federal retirees and expresses the caucus' commitment to increased 
funding for veterans and crime prevention programs to move our young 
people through the difficult years of childhood and adolescence to a 
positive and promising future. It ensures funding for adequate housing 
for the most needy.
  While I support the noble goals of this alternative budget, I must 
respectfully disagree with the cuts to defense. As a Member who 
represents three military bases where thousands of military and 
civilian workers proudly carry out the mission of our country's 
national defense, I cannot vote to cut another $189.9 billion from 
defense. I must act in the best interest of my constituents. I must act 
in the best interest of our national security. Because I believe that 
defense has already cut the fat and cut the muscle needed to assure a 
strong defense, I cannot cut the bone at the expense of our service 
members and their families.
  Yet this CBC budget is compelling. It is compassionate, and it is 
courageous. I congratulate our Chair, the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Waters], and I congratulate the architect of this budget, the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Thompson], and the other members of the 
CBC for their hard work. And I congratulate their staffs.
  While I cannot, because of the needs of my district, vote for it, Mr. 
Chairman, I cannot in good conscience vote against it. It is, indeed, a 
worthy alternative.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the people who are 
supporting the underlying budget have too little faith in the private 
market. I mean this quite seriously. The private market does not need 
as much help as they think.
  We have a private sector economy that is capable of providing for 
most of us the wealth that will enable us to improve our quality of 
life. But it will do it especially today, with technology and world 
trade being the driving engines, in a way that will stay the increasing 
equality.
  Large numbers of people will prosper, but some will be left behind 
unless we intervene. And this is the budget, the budget before us today 
brought forward by our colleagues in the Black Caucus, that shows 
concern for those who are left behind. It does not in any way, shape or 
form retard our economy.
  Indeed, by sensibly reducing military spending, it frees up resources 
for constructive use. But this is the vehicle for compassion. Reject 
this and vote for the underlying budget and what you will do will be to 
condemn the poorest among us to a worsening of their conditions while 
the rest of us prosper.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson].
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
support of the CBC budget. We know it is an alternative budget. The so-
called budget deal is not the only budget, however, that should receive 
consideration in this body. The CBC alternative budget balances the 
budget a year sooner than the deal. It applies deficit reduction fairly 
and preserves the fundamental budget priorities of the American people. 
The CBC budget does several things which contrast it from the deal, 
which few Members have really actually been able to see and which 
imposes deficit reduction on many of the most vulnerable populations in 
this country.
  The budget alternative would not impose undue cuts on programs 
serving the elderly, veterans, working families or the poor. Wealthy 
corporations would bear their share of the deficit. The budget would 
fund education programs at levels beyond those proposed by President 
Clinton while incorporating his priorities.
  The budget would fund child health initiatives, which cover the 10 
million children who do not receive health care coverage at this time. 
The budget would institute a real program of welfare reform, 
reinstating cuts in food stamps, immigrant services and SSI which 
simply went too far in the deal.
  In short, the Congressional Black Caucus budget alternative is the 
most reflective of the values and priorities of the American people 
that Members will have an opportunity to support. A vote for this 
budget will be a vote for jobs. A vote for this budget would be a vote 
for welfare reform. A vote for this budget will be an opportunity to 
give the wealthy and large corporations an opportunity to assist in 
deficit reduction. A vote for this budget would be a vote for keeping 
Medicare trust fund solvent. A vote for this budget would be a vote for 
protecting social investments which help our economy grow.
  I urge all of us to consider that we do represent real people. Let us 
vote for the real people and support this budget.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me add my accolades to the 
gentlewoman from California, our dynamic leader, and to the gentleman 
from Mississippi who has crafted such a delightful document.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express support for this budget amendment 
because it is one that is balanced, fair, responsive, responsible and 
speaks to the needs of the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget, the Congressional Black Caucus budget, is 
worth fighting for. It is designed to invest in the people of America. 
It helps to cut the deficit, to grow the economy, to reduce corporate 
welfare. And it helps those most in need of vital programs such as Head 
Start, WIC, drug treatment, section 8 housing, special education, and 
summer jobs for youth. This budget highlights and places special 
emphasis upon the needs of small businesses, minority-owned businesses 
and women-owned businesses.
  The budget includes a million and a half dollars more than the 
President's request for community development through financial 
institutions and recommends expansion of the community reinvestment 
guidelines to make it easier for financial institutions to reinvest in 
low-income communities.
  This budget provides $10 million for the Office of Women's Ownership. 
It provides $100 million for round 2 of the empowerment zone and 
empowerment communities. This budget recognizes that Government must 
act as a catalyst and help people to be in a position to help 
themselves.
  The Government must give rise to hope and generate faith. This budget 
is a good budget. It is one that represents the people. It is one that 
deserves support. I urge, Mr. Chairman, all of my colleagues, even 
those who would talk about compromise, even those who would recognize 
that sometimes we come together, but I just do not believe that we can 
compromise on the backs of the poor. I do not believe that we can 
compromise on those who have no food and no shelter.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this CBC 
budget. This is a budget that balances the budget sooner and spends 
less than the budget resolution. Not only is this budget responsible, 
it offers an added bonus to the budget process: It is fair. The CBC 
budget does not gut the Medicaid Program and it would not cause 
Medicare recipients to pay more for less services.
  This budget does not ask the poor to bear the burden for tax cuts for 
the wealthy. This budget does ask corporations to give up many of the 
tax breaks that they have unfairly enjoyed for too long.
  Mr. Chairman, we must ask ourselves what the American people really 
want. Do they want to pay for huge tax cuts for the rich and for big 
corporations? Do they want to pay for huge outlays in defense? I do not 
think so. Or do the American people want a budget that provides 
fairness to working families? Do they want a budget that protects 
Medicare and Medicaid? Do they want a budget that has its priorities 
straight? I think so. Support the CBC alternative.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Owens].

[[Page H3029]]

  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, in 1 minute I can only summarize the essence 
of Function 500, the education and job training component of the CBC 
budget. It continues the tradition of assigning the highest priority to 
education. We applaud the fact that the President has also saw fit to 
assign the highest priority toward education. Speaker Gingrich and 
Republicans in the House as well as the Republicans in the Senate have 
seen fit to emphasize education, but they are making a great mistake by 
not continuing to press for the construction initiative.
  At the heart of the opportunity to learn is a safe place to sit, 
conducive to learning. We do not have that in most of our inner-city 
schools. New York has 300 schools that still burn coal in their 
boilers, and they pollute the air in addition to providing other kinds 
of problems for children in those schools. I urge that we get back on 
track and really go to the core of providing opportunities to learn. We 
want to have a national curriculum. We want to have national testing. 
We need national standards in terms of the opportunity to learn.
  At the heart of the opportunity to learn is a safe place to sit, 
conducive to learning. We need a construction initiative. This 
Congressional Black Caucus budget insists on adopting a construction 
initiative.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in overwhelming support of a budget that 
genuinely reflects the vision and hope of the Caring Majority: The 
Congressional Black Caucus Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Proposal. This is 
the first budget resolution of the 105th Congress (fashioned by the 
President and Members of the House and Senate) and is nowhere near the 
mean-spirited, devastating cuts proposed in past budget resolutions (in 
the 104th Congress). Despite its improvements, the budget agreement 
still fails to acknowledge the role of the United States as an 
indispensable nation capable of adequately providing for all Americans, 
especially the most vulnerable. In 1997, we are making decisions which 
will have monumental effects on the generations of the 21st century. 
Accordingly, we must accept the pivotal role that this generation 
plays. With courage, compassion and sound fiscal policy, the CBC 
embraces this challenging role and pledges the nation's abundant 
resources to invest in America.
  In Function 500 (Education, Training and Social Services), the CBC 
Budget ensures that every child from Head Start to College and beyond 
will be sufficiently prepared to compete in the world. In fiscal year 
1998, funding for education and training programs would amount to a 
$28.2 BILLION increase (compared to FY97 levels) over the White House-
Republican budget agreement's increase of $4 billion. Similar to the 
priorities outlined in the agreement, the CBC Budget includes the 
President's America Reads Challenge, Hope Scholarship Initiative 
($1,500 tax credit to college students), and increases in funding for 
significant job training programs, including Job Corps.
  However, the CBC Budget represents an all-out, comprehensive and 
determinative effort to prepare the next generation for 21st century 
learning. By the year 2002, America's students will be empowered by 
several milestones: 100 percent of those children eligible for Title I 
compensatory education will be able to receive it; every single 
eligible 14 to 21 year old who desires work and is unable to find a 
summer job will gain employment through the Summer Youth Employment 
Program; all 2 million 3-5 year olds currently eligible for Head Start 
will be able to participate in the program; 100 percent of the 3 
million children classified as limited English proficient students 
would be served by bilingual education; and low-income college students 
will be eligible for a maximum Pell Grant of $5,000, the amount that 
the grant would be if it kept pace with inflation.
  Unlike the White House-Republican budget agreement, the CBC Budget 
does not abandon the much needed emergency School Construction 
Initiative. Undoubtedly, learning will not take place when the schools 
that our children attend are literally collapsing around them. The CBC 
Budget provides $5 billion in interest subsidies over a 5-year period 
to stimulate new construction and renovation projects in school 
districts with severe facilities deficiencies. In addition, the CBC 
Budget provides an additional $20 billion (over a 5-year period) for 
the Education Infrastructure Act (P.L. 103-382) which was never funded. 
This would provide emergency grants for the repair, renovation, 
alteration, and construction of public schools, school libraries and 
media centers. It has been well documented that over 60 percent of 
schools in the U.S. need major repairs. Approximately 25 percent of 
schools are too small and suffer from severe overcrowding. And 40 
percent of all schools, especially those in the inner cities with a 
large minority student body, cannot moderately accommodate science labs 
or technology such as computers and cable. Finally, the CBC Budget 
would fund a $20 million new program to establish at least 200 
Community Computer Centers for families in both rural and urban 
economically depressed areas.

  The CBC Budget recognizes that school construction initiatives and 
telecommunications initiatives must be implemented in tandem. These 
programs should not be treated as bargaining chips that are mutually 
exclusive and subject to sacrifice. In fact, rumors are being mounted 
which state that labor protections such as the prevailing-wage 
requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act may result in a ballooning of costs 
to renovate and construct the nation's schools. The Sheet Metal and Air 
Conditioning Contractors' National Association (SMACNA) has submitted 
evidence showing that school construction costs in prevailing wage 
States were lower per square foot than in States without prevailing 
wage statutes. We must dispel the myths that deviously seek to derail 
policies that help America's children.
  Recently, we applauded the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) 
decision to grant discounts to schools and libraries for 
telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal connections. 
At a cost of more than $2 billion per year to implement the universal 
service provisions of the Communications Act of 1996, public and 
private schools could qualify for discounts ranging from 20 percent to 
90 percent. Although media outlets did not grant the FCC's decision 
recognition and much fanfare, it represents a monumental achievement. 
Yet, without the school-construction initiative, many schools will not 
realize the benefits of this Federal action. Schools across the country 
still suffer from asbestos problems. One third of the schools in New 
York City still burn coal for heating. Many schools across the country 
are more than 100 years old. Pentium computers, high-speed modems, and 
fancy satellite hookups will be stockpiled in many school basements 
because their buildings are too old and incapable of accommodating the 
technology necessary for 21st century learning.
  Opponents of the CBC Budget, deficit hawks and fiscal conservatives, 
will undoubtedly argue that the accomplishments outlined in our budget 
are too good to be true. On the contrary, the CBC budget is a realistic 
budget that turns the myth that America is on the brink of bankruptcy 
on its head. The CBC Budget rids the nation of billions of dollars in 
wasteful spending: corporate tax loopholes, and unnecessary defense 
expenditures.
  The White House-Republican budget agreement increases revenues to the 
U.S. Treasury by extending the airline tax, phasing in increases to 
contributions to the Civil Retirement and Disability Trust Fund, 
guarding against fraudulent Earned Income Tax Credit claims, and 
auctioning spectrum. On the other hand, the CBC Budget is the budget 
which would abandon the Federal Government's guaranteed annual payments 
to corporate coffers which allows businesses and wealthy individuals to 
enjoy more than $70 billion a year in corporate subsidies and 
loopholes. This alternative budget cuts $195 billion in corporate pork 
that is clogging the arteries of America's future. Revenue options in 
the CBC budget call for an enforcement of sections 531-537 of the 
Internal Revenue Service Tax Code that prohibit corporations from 
accumulating illegal profits and then buying large amounts of their own 
stock to avoid paying out dividends, thus, avoiding the payment of 
taxes by shareholders. It is estimated that enforcement of this section 
of the code will generate at least $70 billion for the United States.
  Other revenue options include the elimination of the largest of all 
corporate tax loopholes: the accelerated depreciation allowance 
enabling companies to write off the costs of their machinery and 
buildings faster than they actually wear out. This allowance is worth 
over $100 billion over a five-year period. Reforming the taxation of 
income of multinational corporations is another example of a revenue 
option. At a cost of approximately $70 billion (over a 5-year period), 
foreign-owned corporations doing business in the United States 
typically pay far less in income taxes than do purely American firms. 
These practices must be stopped.
  Instead of attacking corporate welfare, the White House-Republican 
budget agreement simply encourages the creation of a Corporate Welfare 
Commission and expresses the sense of Congress that the ``corporate 
sector should bear its share of the burden.'' To add insult to injury, 
the budget agreement includes tax cuts that would benefit the richest 
few, including a capital gains tax cut. It is estimated that more than 
\1/3\ of the net tax cut of $85 billion during the next five years as 
proposed in the agreement would benefit the top 1 percent of all 
households (those with annual incomes of

[[Page H3030]]

more than $350,000). Moreover, 50 percent of the tax cut would benefit 
the top 5 percent of households (those with annual incomes of more than 
$100,000). At this pivotal time, America does not need another 
Commission to study corporate welfare. Our children, our sick, our 
poor, our women, and our families need an assault on corporate welfare 
today.
  Yes, the White House-Republican budget agreement represents an 
historic agreement that moves in the right direction toward promoting 
the country's values and priorities; restoring lost benefits to certain 
disabled legal immigrants; establishing additional empowerment zones 
and enterprise communities, and funding the Jobs Challenge to move 
millions of people from welfare to work. However, as the pivotal 
generation building that bridge to the 21st century, our work is far 
from being realized in the White House-Republican budget agreement. The 
CBC Budget recognizes that the United States is the richest nation in 
the world, the indispensable nation. We can provide health insurance to 
all 10 million children who are without health insurance, replace 
substandard and deteriorated public housing units; increase funding for 
crime prevention initiatives; and fully invest in our children's 
future. I challenge my colleagues to dispel the myth of the economy 
that compels us to oppress the neediest in our society. America can 
afford to assign a high priority to the funding for vital social 
programs and still preserve the free enterprise that this country so 
proudly praises. Vote ``yes'' on the CBC Caring Majority Budget 
Proposal.

                              {time}  2345

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, some people will say that 
this is the Black Caucus budget, but the truth of the matter is, this 
is the America budget.
  The Black Caucus is the only organization which has stepped up to the 
plate and met the challenge of balancing the budget not in the year 
2002 but in the year 2001. As we can see from this chart, in every 
single year between now and 2001, under the Black Caucus budget, our 
deficit is substantially less than any other budget that is on the 
table for consideration.
  The reason is that under every other budget proposal they are 
decreasing taxes, and that is like going on a diet by gaining weight in 
the beginning. One cannot lose weight by gaining weight first and then 
going on a diet. One just cannot do it.
  We go directly to a balanced budget in the year 2001. This is the 
budget that America should support. This is the budget that my 
colleagues should support.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume, 
and then we will allow the gentleman from California to conclude.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to make it very clear that we oppose this 
budget, however well intended. It is an honest budget, but it is a 
budget that provides no tax relief for American families. In fact, it 
increases taxes, demanding another $300 billion more from the American 
taxpayers in 5 years. And, regretfully, it extends the solvency of 
Medicare by only 4 years at best and 1 year at worst.
  Many on our side of the aisle are concerned that it reduces defense 
spending a significant amount of $183 billion below the budget that is 
being presented before us tonight, the base budget.
  This budget is, in fact, an agreement breaker. It would kill the 
agreement. And it is clear that under this budget the era of big 
government is not over, it is extended.
  Mr. Chairman, we have three primary objectives in this Congress. One 
is to get our country's financial house in order and balance the 
Federal budget. The second is to save our trust funds, particularly 
Medicare, not just for future generations but for present generations 
as well. And the third is to transform our caretaking society into a 
caring society.
  Much of the well-intended social effort that has been involved in our 
government in the last 30 years, while well-intended, has just simply 
perpetuated the very things we are trying to end. We not only want to 
end social welfare and put mothers back in a situation where they have 
job training and an opportunity to work, and experience the same 
opportunities that most Americans have, we are looking to end the 
assistance to corporations that some would refer to as corporate 
welfare, but to reduce, to the extent possible, reliance of business on 
government.
  And we, obviously, have been successful in reducing some of the 
benefits that have gone to the farming community that, frankly, in some 
instances, may turn out to be like a welfare program. With the passage 
of the Freedom to Farm Bill, we have ended 50 percent of the subsidies 
to farmers. We have made tremendous strides there.
  This budget moves us in a direction of bringing back the power and 
the money and influence from Washington back home to our local 
communities.
  Regretfully, because we did not have an agreement with the White 
House 2 years ago, right now, as we speak, the trust fund, Medicare 
trust fund, is losing $35 million each and every day. Next year, if we 
do not come to an agreement, it will lose $55 million each day; and the 
year after that, $78 million each day.
  The fund, without correction, the Medicare trust fund by the 10th 
year will have a debt of $612 billion and go bankrupt by the year 2001. 
And by the year 2007, 10 years from now, there will be a debt in the 
fund of $612 billion.
  Under our plan, we extend the Medicare trust fund not for 4 years, 
not for 5, for 10. And in the 10th year, rather than having a debt of 
$612 billion, it will have $75 billion in the fund.
  We do not cut Medicare. Only in Washington when we spend 34 percent 
more would people call it a cut. We are going to go from $208 billion 
to $279 billion. That is an average increase each year of 6 percent. On 
a per-person basis, Medicare will grow from $5,480. In the 5th year of 
the budget agreement it will go to $6,911. Only in Washington, when we 
have an increase of 26 percent in the per-beneficiary benefit, would 
someone call it a cut.
  And the same thing with Medicaid. Medicaid under our plan will grow 
by 40 percent. It will grow from $98 billion to $137 billion. On a per-
beneficiary basis it will grow form $22 billion to $29 billion.
  What we have done is we have allowed these programs to grow at a rate 
that we can afford, providing better programs in each instance.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the intentions of the Black Caucus are high and 
well-intended, but the bottom line is that rather than helping our 
country, in our judgment, if this budget were to pass, it would do the 
exact opposite and hurt our country. I urge the Members to vote against 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dellums], the caucus' final speaker. I do not encourage the 
gentleman to use all that time, but he can use as much of it as he 
wants.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], has 9 
minutes.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleagues for 
their generosity in yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me assure everyone that I plan to use every bit of 
the 9 minutes, because I think it is important to challenge the 
assertion in a very profound and serious way that this budget would 
hurt the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin with the daunting responsibility of 
closing the debate. In assuming my responsibilities in closing the 
debate, I would like to first focus my colleagues on the notion that I 
have made each year that I have served in the United States Congress: 
that the most compelling and important responsibility that we have as 
public people is to establish the national budget.
  I would assert here, very straightforward and very aggressively, that 
how a Nation chooses to spend its money is a profound statement about a 
Nation's principles, its values and its priorities. And in that regard 
I am extremely proud to raise my voice in support of the budget offered 
by the Congressional Black Caucus. It is a budget that accepted the 
daunting responsibility of balancing the budget. It did so in 4 years, 
1 year earlier than is required by the Congress, which is to achieve a 
balanced budget in 5 years.
  Beyond that, I would assert, Mr. Chairman, that this budget is a

[[Page H3031]]

thoughtful and, in this gentleman's opinion, extremely historical 
budget; historical not because it is a bipartisan deal, historical 
because it is the first post-Cold War budget that attempts to frame a 
new debate in these chambers and in this country. And that is in the 
context of a post-Cold War world that we establish a new comprehensive 
national security strategy that includes three interrelated elements.
  Interrelated element number one. For a new comprehensive national 
security strategy. A healthy, vibrant economy within a well educated, 
well informed, well trained citizenry, capable of engaging its economy 
and engaging its civic and political affairs. And the Congressional 
Black Caucus budget does that.
  That has implications for Federal investment. Federal investment in 
the education of its people, training and retraining of its people, 
research and development to enhance the quality of human life. The 
Congressional Black Caucus budget does just that, Mr. Chairman. It has 
implications, Mr. Chairman, for investments in health, in housing, in 
the environment. The Congressional Black Caucus budget does that.
  I would offer this question. If we have the most powerful, awesome 
military that our minds could comprehend, and our society is 
deteriorating behind us culturally, politically, economically and 
educationally, what are we defending? Therefore, a vibrant economy and 
an investment in an informed and well-educated and well-trained 
citizenry is a vital and integral part of our national security 
strategy.
  Second, an engaged foreign policy. Martin Luther King probably said 
it best and most eloquently; that peace is not simply the absence of 
war, it is the absence of conditions that give rise to war. And an 
engaged foreign policy that invests in economic development, economic 
stability, regional stability, commitment to human rights, democratic 
freedom, is how we prevent war.
  So engaging the world is extraordinarily important. Preventing war, I 
would assert to my colleagues, is not expensive, it is the most 
fundamentally economic way to do it; to commit ourselves to arms 
control, to commit ourselves to nonviolent conflict resolution in the 
world. I continue to believe that peace is a superior idea. An engaged 
foreign policy is the second and most integral part of our national 
security strategy.
  Mr. Chairman, the third and important point in our national security 
strategy is an appropriately sized, properly trained, properly equipped 
military to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and we need to 
have that debate in this country. To assert we are for a strong 
defense, intellectually, what are we saying? But if we are saying we 
are committed to a properly sized, properly trained, properly equipped 
military, then let us have the debate on what that is.

                              {time}  0000

  I would assert that we can achieve the kind of savings that are in 
the Congressional Black Caucus not by some radical point of departure. 
But Mr. Chairman, for example, if we move beyond the commitment of the 
Bottom-up Review, which says we must fight two regional contingencies 
alone and quickly, that is counter-intuitive to everything we know.
  Rhetorical question: Where are we going to go in the world that we 
must fight alone. That is counter-intuitive to everything we are doing. 
We fight with and we move with and we deploy with allies. And if we 
change this quickness from being on station in 72 hours, that has 
incredible implications for the savings of billions of dollars.
  If we relax the time limits for meeting a crisis, we can meter our 
forces into a theater in a way that dramatically reduces our force 
structure, readiness, and procurement requirements. We can reduce 
active force structure, push some into reserves in light of these new 
time lines. We can achieve operation and maintenance savings through 
further tiered readiness of our forces. If we do not have to be there 
in 72 hours, everyone does not have to be at this high level of 
readiness, we can tier our readiness, we save billions of dollars.
  We must avoid or abandon acquisition programs that are whetted to 
weapons systems that were dreamed up and conjured up in the context of 
the Cold War that had a Cold War objective. We are now beyond that, 
billions of dollars. Reduce our nuclear forces and infrastructure and 
the supplies and arsenals that goes with it.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a congressional mandate that says we cannot 
fall below START I. We ought to be moving unilaterally in START II. We 
ought to be negotiating START III. We save billions of dollars. Who in 
these chambers really believes that someone is going to trigger a 
nuclear device to challenge America's nuclear at this particular 
moment?
  Billions of dollars of implications if we change the level of our 
readiness requirements of our naval forces around the world. We only 
need an 8 carrier task force to carry out a 2 regional contingency 
scenario. If you want to argue, I will give you 10. Why do we have 12? 
Billions of dollars in implications by changing our present 
requirements, we can afford to reduce the fleet, reduce OPTEMPO and 
PURSTEMPO stress that is presently the reality of our forces. We all in 
these chambers know that we can achieve savings in our intelligence 
accounts. We cannot talk about it on the floor. Believe me, we can do 
it.
  Finally, we can achieve procurement savings because of lower force 
structure and reduced training and wear and tear. That just makes 
sense. We can come to this. My point, Mr. Chairman, is that we need to 
have a new debate in this country. We understand the need to balance 
the budget. The caucus stepped up to it. But we are more than 
accountants. We were elected here to care about people. Therefore, 
balancing that budget must take place in some human context. And we 
state that that human context ought to be the search for a new national 
security strategy that incorporates a vibrant economy, a healthy, well-
educated people, and engage foreign policy and appropriately sized, 
properly trained, properly equipped military to meet the 21st century.
  Now finally, let me reiterate a view that the savings that I am 
talking about are in one of the three national security accounts, funds 
that can be urgently spent from those savings in two of our other 
accounts that have been historically underfunded, foreign assistance 
and domestic programs, critical to our well-being and health as a 
Nation. For, without strong, healthy cities to defend, Mr. Chairman, 
cohesive communities and educated citizenry to run our economy and our 
political institutions, we will wither and decline socially, 
politically, economically and culturally.
  We are way past making these investments in these accounts, and we 
fail to do so at our peril. The time is right and the opportunity 
exists to transfer this scale of resources, and we should not fail to 
do so as we think about the type of society we choose to achieve for 
our children and our children's children. Support the budget that is 
before the House at this time.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers, and 
we yield back the balance of our time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time under the rule has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 72, 
noes 358, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 143]

                                AYES--72

     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Engel
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kilpatrick
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Markey
     Martinez
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush

[[Page H3032]]


     Sanders
     Scott
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--358

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Bishop
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Conyers
     Jefferson
     Schiff
     Yates

                              {time}  0025

  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut and Mr. YOUNG of Alaska changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GONZALEZ 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.


 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 2 Offered by Mr. Doolittle

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the House Conservative 
Action Team, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the 
committee budget resolution.
  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 No. 2 offered by 
     Mr. Doolittle:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1998.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 1998 is hereby established and that 
     the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1999 
     through 2002 are hereby set forth.
                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 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 1998: $1,198,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,241,859,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,285,559,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,343,591,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,407,564,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: -$11,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: -$25,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: -$43,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$56,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$55,900,000,000.
       (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 1998: $1,378,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,430,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,475,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,509,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,530,100,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,368,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,409,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,446,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,468,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,480,100,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $172,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $182,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $183,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $157,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $108,500,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,592,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,834,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,081,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,298,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,474,400,000,000.
       (6) Direct loan obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $33,829,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $33,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $34,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $36,039,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $37,099,000,000.
       (7) Primary loan guarantee commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $315,472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $324,749,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $328,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $332,063,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $335,141,000,000.

     SEC. 102. 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 1998 through 2002 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $268,197,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,978,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,784,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,771,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $757,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $274,802,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,418,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,305,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,110,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,050,000,000.

[[Page H3033]]

       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $289,092,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $272,571,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,050,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,966,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $12,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,021,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,093,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,077,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,122,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,826,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,178,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,217,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000. (same)
       (B) Outlays, $15,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,050,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,078,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,109,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,141,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,171,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $32,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $32,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $34,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $34,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,133,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,872,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,620,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,047,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,071,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,509,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,960,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,965,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,660,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,739,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $245,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,000,000.000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,887,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $253,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,238,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $255,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,574,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $257,989,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,680,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $259,897,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $155,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $135,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,867,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,943,000,000.

[[Page H3034]]

       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,406,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,020,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,098,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,452,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,180,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,475,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $12,328,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $20,665,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,092,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $21,899,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,926,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $23,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $14,701,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $24,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,426,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,676,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $137,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $85,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $143,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $143,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $151,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $151,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $161,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $173,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $171,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $201,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $201,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $212,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $211,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $225,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $225,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $238,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $251,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $251,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $238,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $244,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $45,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $251,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $252,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $75,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $264,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $261,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $110,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $271,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $145,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $170,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,900,000,000.
       (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, $14,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,029,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $27,096,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,068,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $26,671,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,177,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $26,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,249,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,277,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,129,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,400,000,000.
       (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, $25,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.

[[Page H3035]]

       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,549,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,549,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $304,567,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $304,567,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $304,867,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $304,867,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $303,659,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,659,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $303,754,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,754,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       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, -$12,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$16,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$48,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$48,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$44,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$44,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$46,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$46,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$50,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$64,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$64,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
                 TITLE II--RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide for 
     two separate reconciliation bills: the first for entitlement 
     reforms and the second for tax relief. In the event Senate 
     procedures preclude the consideration of two separate bills, 
     this section would permit the consideration of one omnibus 
     reconciliation bill.
       (b) Submissions.--
       (1) Entitlement reforms.--Not later than June 12, 1997, the 
     House committees named in subsection (c) 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.
       (2) Tax relief and miscellaneous reforms.--Not later than 
     June 13, 1997, the House committees named in subsection (d) 
     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.
       (c) Instructions Relating to Entitlement Reforms.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture 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: 
     $34,571,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $37,008,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $211,443,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (2) Committee on banking and financial services.--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: $8,435,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1998, $5,091,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
     2002, and $50,306,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 
     through 2002.
       (3) 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: $393,770,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 1998, $507,315,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 2002, and $2,619,820,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (4) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce 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: $17,718,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1998, $18,167,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
     2002, and $106,050,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 
     through 2002.
       (5) 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: $68,975,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $81,896,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $443,061,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 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: $214,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1998, $621,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and $1,829,000,000 in 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (6) 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: $18,287,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $17,483,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $107,615,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002.
       (7) 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: 
     $22,444,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $24,845,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $140,197,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (8) Committee on ways and means.--(A) The House Committee 
     on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction such that the total level of direct spending for 
     that committee does not exceed: $397,463,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1998, $506,377,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, and $2,621,195,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1998 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: 
     $1,168,336,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 1998, 
     $1,346,679,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $7,384,496,000,000 in revenues in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (d) Instructions Relating to Tax Relief and Miscellaneous 
     Reforms.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture 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: 
     $34,571,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $37,008,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $211,443,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (2) 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: $8,435,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1998, $5,091,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, and $50,306,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1998 through 2002.
       (3) 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

[[Page H3036]]

     does not exceed: $393,770,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
     1998, $507,315,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $2,619,820,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (4) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce 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: $17,718,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1998, $18,167,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
     2002, and $106,050,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 
     through 2002.
       (5) 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: $68,975,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $81,896,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $443,061,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 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: $214,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1998, $621,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $1,829,000,000 in fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (6) 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: $18,287,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $17,483,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $107,615,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002.
       (7) 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: 
     $22,444,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $24,845,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $140,197,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (8) Committee on ways and means.--(A) The House Committee 
     on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction such that the total level of direct spending for 
     that committee does not exceed: $397,463,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1998, $506,377,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, and $2,621,195,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1998 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: 
     $1,160,936,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 1998, 
     $1,326,179,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $7,299,496,000,000 in revenues in fiscal years 1998 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.
       (f) Flexibility in Carrying Out Children's Health 
     Initiative.--If the Committees on Commerce and Ways and Means 
     report recommendations pursuant to their reconciliation 
     instructions that provide an initiative for children's health 
     that would increase the deficit by more than $2.3 billion for 
     fiscal year 1998, by more than $3.9 billion for fiscal year 
     2002, and by more than $16 billion for the period of fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002, the committees shall be deemed to 
     not have complied with their reconciliation instructions 
     pursuant to section 310(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974.
                     TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SURFACE 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to adjust the 
     appropriate budgetary levels to accommodate legislation 
     increasing spending from the highway trust fund on surface 
     transportation and highway safety above the levels assumed in 
     this resolution if such legislation is deficit neutral.
       (b) Deficit Neutrality Requirement.--(1) In order to 
     receive the adjustments specified in subsection (c), a bill 
     reported by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure that provides new budget authority above the 
     levels assumed in this resolution for programs authorized out 
     of the highway trust fund must be deficit neutral.
       (2) A deficit-neutral bill must meet the following 
     conditions:
       (A) The amount of new budget authority provided for 
     programs authorized out of the highway trust fund must be in 
     excess of $25.949 billion in new budget authority for fiscal 
     year 1998, $25.464 billion in new budget authority for fiscal 
     year 2002, and $127.973 billion in new budget authority for 
     the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (B) The outlays estimated to flow from the excess new 
     budget authority set forth in subparagraph (A) must be offset 
     for fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 2002, and for the period of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002. For the sole purpose of 
     estimating the amount of outlays flowing from excess new 
     budget authority under this section, it shall be assumed that 
     such excess new budget authority would have an obligation 
     limitation sufficient to accommodate that new budget 
     authority.
       (C) The outlays estimated to flow from the excess new 
     budget authority must be offset by (i) other direct spending 
     or revenue provisions within that transportation bill, (ii) 
     the net reduction in other direct spending and revenue 
     legislation that is enacted during this Congress after the 
     date of adoption of this resolution and before such 
     transportation bill is reported (in excess of the levels 
     assumed in this resolution), or (iii) a combination of the 
     offsets specified in clauses (i) and (ii).
       (D) As used in 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.
       (c) Revised Levels.--(1) When the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure reports a bill (or when a 
     conference report thereon is filed) meeting the conditions 
     set forth in subsection (b)(2), the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget shall increase the allocation of new budget 
     authority to that committee by the amount of new budget 
     authority provided in that bill (and that is above the levels 
     set forth in subsection (b)(2)(A)) for programs authorized 
     out of the highway trust fund.
       (2) After the enactment of the transportation bill 
     described in paragraph (1) and upon the reporting of a 
     general, supplemental or continuing resolution making 
     appropriations by the Committee on Appropriations (or upon 
     the filing of a conference report thereon) establishing an 
     obligation limitation above the levels specified in 
     subsection (b)(2)(A) (at a level sufficient to obligate some 
     or all of the budget authority specified in paragraph (1)), 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall increase 
     the allocation and aggregate levels of outlays to that 
     committee for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 by the appropriate 
     amount.
       (d) Revisions.--Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant 
     to this section shall be considered for purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and 
     aggregates contained in this resolution.
       (e) Reversals.--If any legislation referred to in this 
     section is not enacted into law, then the chairman of the 
     House Committee on the Budget shall, as soon as practicable, 
     reverse adjustments made under this section for such 
     legislation and have such adjustments published in the 
     Congressional Record.
       (f) Determination of Budgetary Levels.--For the purposes of 
     this section, budgetary levels shall be determined on the 
     basis of estimates made by the House Committee on the Budget.
       (g) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``highway trust fund'' refers to the following budget 
     accounts (or any successor accounts):
       (1) 69-8083-0-7-401 (Federal-Aid Highways).
       (2) 69-8191-0-7-401 (Mass Transit Capital Fund).
       (3) 69-8350-0-7-401 (Mass Transit Formula Grants).
       (4) 69-8016-0-7-401 (National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration-Operations and Research).
       (5) 69-8020-0-7-401 (Highway Traffic Safety Grants).
       (6) 69-8048-0-7-401 (National Motor Carrier Safety 
     Program).

     SEC. 302. SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

       (a) Budgetary treatment.--
       (1) In general.--For the purpose of any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget and the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, no amounts realized from the sale of an asset shall be 
     scored with respect to the level of budget authority, 
     outlays, or revenues if such sale would cause an increase in 
     the deficit as calculated pursuant to paragraph (2).
       (2) Calculation of net present value.--The deficit estimate 
     of an asset sale shall be the net present value of the cash 
     flow from--
       (A) proceeds from the asset sale;
       (B) future receipts that would be expected from continued 
     ownership of the asset by the Government; and
       (C) expected future spending by the Government at a level 
     necessary to continue to operate and maintain the asset to 
     generate the receipts estimated pursuant to subparagraph (B).
       (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 the 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.
       (d) Determination of Budgetary Levels.--For the purposes of 
     this section, budgetary levels shall be determined on the 
     basis of estimates made by the House Committee on the Budget.

     SEC. 303. ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE FUND.

       (a) Committee Allocations.--In the House, after the 
     Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure report a bill (or a conference report thereon 
     is filed) to reform the Superfund program to facilitate the 
     cleanup of hazardous waste sites, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget shall submit revised allocations and 
     budget aggregates to carry out this section by an amount not 
     to exceed the excess subject to the limitation. These 
     revisions shall be considered for purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as the allocations and 
     aggregates contained in this resolution.
       (b) Limitations.--The adjustments made under this section 
     shall not exceed--
       (1) $200 million in budget authority for fiscal year 1998 
     and the estimated outlays flowing therefrom.

[[Page H3037]]

       (2) $200 million in budget authority for fiscal year 2002 
     and the estimated outlays flowing therefrom.
       (3) $1 billion in budget authority for the period of fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002 and the estimated outlays flowing 
     therefrom.
       (c) Readjustments.--In the House, any adjustments made 
     under this section for any appropriation measure may be 
     readjusted if that measure is not enacted into law.

     SEC. 304. SEPARATE ALLOCATION FOR LAND ACQUISITIONS AND 
                   EXCHANGES.

       (a) Allocation by Chairman.--In the House, upon the 
     reporting of a bill by the Committee on Appropriations (or 
     upon the filing of a conference report thereon) providing up 
     to $165 million in outlays for Federal land acquisitions and 
     to finalize priority Federal land exchanges for fiscal year 
     1998 (assuming $700 million in outlays over 5 fiscal years, 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall allocate 
     that amount of outlays and the corresponding amount of budget 
     authority.
       (b) Treatment of Allocations in the House.--In the House, 
     for purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     allocations made under subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 
     made pursuant to section 602(a)(1) of that Act and shall be 
     deemed to be a separate suballocation for purposes of the 
     application of section 302(f) of that Act as modified by 
     section 602(c) of that Act.

     SEC. 305. BALANCED BUDGET REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget (or amendment or motion thereto, or 
     conference report thereon) or any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report that would cause--
       (1) total outlays for fiscal year 2002 or any fiscal year 
     thereafter to exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, 
     unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of 
     Congress provide for a specific excess of outlays over 
     receipts by a rollcall vote;
       (2) an increase in the limit on the debt of the United 
     States held by the public, unless three-fifths of the whole 
     number of each House provide for such an increase by a 
     rollcall vote; or
       (3) an increase in revenues unless approved by a majority 
     of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.
       (b) Waiver.--The Congress may waive the provisions of this 
     section for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
     in effect. The provisions of this section may be waived for 
     any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in 
     military conflict which causes an imminent and serious 
     military threat to national security and is so declared by a 
     joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number 
     of each House, which becomes law.
       (c) Definition.--Total receipts shall include all receipts 
     of the United States Government except those derived from 
     borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the 
     United States Government except for those for repayment of 
     debt principal.

                 TITLE IV--SENSE OF CONGRESS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON BASELINES.

       (a) Findings.--The 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 portrayed 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 and executive accountability for 
     Federal spending.

     SEC. 402. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON REPAYMENT OF THE FEDERAL DEBT.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) The Congress and the President have a basic moral and 
     ethical responsibility to future generations to repay the 
     Federal debt, including the money borrowed from the Social 
     Security Trust Fund.
       (2) The Congress and the President should enact a law which 
     creates a regimen for paying off the Federal debt within 30 
     years.
       (b) Sense of Congress Regarding President's Submission to 
     Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that:
       (1) The President's annual budget submission to Congress 
     should include a plan for repayment of Federal debt beyond 
     the year 2002, including the money borrowed from the Social 
     Security Trust Fund.
       (2) The plan should specifically explain how the President 
     would cap spending growth at a level one percentage point 
     lower than projected growth in revenues.
       (3) If spending growth were held to a level one percentage 
     point lower than projected growth in revenues, then the 
     Federal debt could be repaid within 30 years.

     SEC. 403. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON COMMISSION ON LONG-TERM 
                   BUDGETARY PROBLEMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) achieving a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002 is only 
     the first step necessary to restore our Nation's economic 
     prosperity;
       (2) the imminent retirement of the baby-boom generation 
     will greatly increase the demand for government services;
       (3) the burden will be borne by a relatively smaller work 
     force resulting in an unprecedented intergovernmental 
     transfer of financial resources;
       (4) the rising demand for retirement and medical benefits 
     will quickly jeopardize the solvency of the medicare, social 
     security, and Federal retirement trust funds; and
       (5) the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 
     marginal tax rates would have to increase by 50 percent over 
     the next 5 years to cover the long-term projected costs of 
     retirement and health benefits.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     legislation should be enacted to create a commission to 
     assess long-term budgetary problems. Their implications for 
     both the baby-boom generation and tomorrow's workforce, and 
     make such recommendation as it deems appropriate to ensure 
     our Nation's future prosperity.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Doolittle] and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on the Budget, 
I oppose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] will control 
the other 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, while CATS appreciates the hard work of the Committee 
on the Budget and especially its chairman, we feel that more can and 
should be done to reduce the size of Government, lessen the tax burden 
on American families, and stimulate economic growth. Like the committee 
resolution, the CATS substitute balances the budget by 2002 while 
protecting national defense and transportation spending. Our substitute 
improves upon the committee budget, however, by cutting an additional 
$109 billion in discretionary spending and returning those savings to 
American families through lower taxes.

                              {time}  0030

  Unlike the committee budget, the CAT substitute contains sufficient 
tax relief to fully fund the $500 per child tax credit, a 50-percent 
reduction in the capital gains tax rate, real inheritance tax relief, 
and expanded IRA's. The CATS budget pays for these tax cuts by simply 
reducing discretionary spending to the level set out in President 
Clinton's fiscal year 1997 budget.
  The choice tonight is not whether we should balance the budget, Mr. 
Chairman; we have won that debate. The real question is whether we 
think we can find enough wasteful Washington spending to cut so that, 
as we balance the budget, we can allow American families to keep a 
little more of what they earn. We think we can.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] to the budget agreement for a 
variety of reasons. I do so with the knowledge that this represents the 
position of many on my side of the aisle if we did not have a Democrat 
President. But this last election we elected a Democrat President and a 
Republican Congress, and this amendment, if it were to pass, would in 
fact kill the budget agreement made between Republicans and Democrats 
in the House and Senate with the President of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment in 
spite of the fact that they believe it is somewhat seductive and point 
out that in this budget agreement we have with the White House 
Republicans took a very strong position that we should control the 
growth in entitlements and get our country's financial house in order. 
This budget agreement controls the growth of entitlements.
  We also said that we wanted tax cuts. This budget agreement provides 
for $135 billion of tax cuts.
  That is what Republicans got out of this budget agreement. What the 
President wanted was more domestic spending, and that is, in fact, what 
he received in this budget negotiation. While many on our side of the 
aisle would like to reduce domestic spending and do not agree with the 
President of the United States, the fact is this is an

[[Page H3038]]

agreement we have in order to have a tax cut of $135 billion in order 
to control the growth of entitlements.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I rise with some reluctance but with conviction 
that this amendment needs to be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this is not going to tear up 
the budget. The CAT substitute has a simple message: Americans' taxes 
are too high because the government spends too much.
  Americans want, need and deserve to keep more of their own money, so 
support this amendment and give all Americans a better life. If my 
colleagues think the government has grown too big, then vote for this 
substitute because it cuts spending.
  Now is the time for Washington to get off the backs of the hard-
working taxpayers of this country. We have got to stop spending 
Americans' money on big government programs and let them have the money 
to raise a family, buy a house, send their children to school, maybe 
even get a much needed vacation.
  The CAT substitute does the right thing. It balances the budget, 
reduces the size and scope of government and, most importantly, gives 
families more relief from high taxes.
  Vote for this substitute, cut spending, cut taxes. Do it for America.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I remember hearing the words ``Penny-
Kasich.'' I remember hearing the words ``Gramm-Rudman.'' They were 
promises. We look at the budget resolution that is put before us, and 
nearly 75 percent of the savings come in the last 2 years of this 5-
year program.
  The National Taxpayers Union has scored this vote on this CAT 
substitute, and what they have said is the 300,000-member National 
Taxpayers Union strongly supports the substitute to the 1998 budget 
resolution because it proposes better control of discretionary spending 
and larger tax cuts.
  A vote for the budget resolution will be a plus on the National 
Taxpayers Union score card, but it will be a plus for American 
families. It will be rated three times as heavy if my colleagues vote 
for the CATS budget.
  Remember Gramm-Rudman, remember Penny-Kasich. Vote for this budget.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute being 
offered by the conservative action team and against the underlying 
bill. If the budget is not going to be balanced until 2002, why in the 
world would we want more money to be in the hands of government when it 
could be in the hands of families, it could be in the hands of those to 
stimulate the economy and create jobs by having greater tax cuts?
  That is what this substitute does. If my colleagues vote for the 
underlying bill, what they are saying is they want to throw away the 
progress that we have been making for years.
  If we look, Mr. Chairman, since 1992, every year the deficit has been 
coming down $40 to $50 billion a year, and suddenly, realizing that we 
will have the budget balanced within 2 years from now, people say, no, 
let us have one last spending spree, let us start spending more, let us 
wipe out the progress and not start making spending cuts or getting 
serious for another 3 years, until after President Clinton finishes his 
term.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not delay. Finish balancing the budget. Do 
not put it off. Do not have a last spending spree.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, tonight this Congress is making history 
as we finally face the responsibility that previous Congresses ducked 
for a generation, balancing the Federal budget. On that we all agree. 
Where we disagree and what we are truly debating before the American 
people tonight is the path to that agreed upon target.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the CAT substitute budget as the best path, 
the best route to a balanced budget among the many before us tonight. 
It offers the deepest tax cuts, best curtails the burdensome 
bureaucracy by reducing discretionary spending and saves Medicare for 
the next decade.
  Other paths presented here tonight are good, but this is the best 
route to prosperity at home and peace abroad as America puts her 
financial house in order so the Federal Government is less of a burden 
on the homes of hard-working Americans.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, as both sides explained at the outset of 
this debate, what we have before us tonight in the base bill, House 
Concurrent Resolution 84, is a compromise, hard fought, hard wrought, 
carefully balanced compromise. I explained in my earlier comments that 
the design of this compromise intentionally was to allow each side to 
have a few victories it could claim as clearly its own. The Republicans 
would get some in the way of tax reduction; Democrats would get some in 
the way of children's health care and education and social initiatives, 
like that.
  One of the victories allocated to us as Democrats as part of this 
compromise comes in the area of NDD, nondefense discretionary spending. 
In this particular budget resolution discretionary spending increases 
in outlay terms from $538 billion this year, FY 1997, to all of $562 
billion 5 years from now. It goes up by $14 billion over a 5-year 
period of time. Half of the increase goes to defense, half to 
nondefense. So what we have achieved as a victory is to save 
discretionary spending from deep devastating cuts. Even so, it goes up 
by only a half a percent. It is still 9 percent below inflation.
  We consider this a victory because we at least allowed enough to keep 
most of the programs that we consider priorities relatively fully 
funded, but everybody would have to agree that is not amply funded by 
any means.
  This particular substitute would take that hard wrought compromise, 
take $109 billion more out over 5 years out of discretionary spending 
and put it into tax increases. So it would take this carefully balanced 
agreement and tilt it to one side, it would destroy the compromise. It 
has no chance of being passed by the Senate, no chance of being signed 
by the President.
  Mr. Chairman, it would be a dreadful waste of time. We need to go on 
with what is possible, pass the resolution that we have carefully 
prepared and not get off on a side track like this.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Sessions].
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of the conservative 
action team to point out what we are for, what we have talked about, 
and that is that we believe that there should be more tax cuts that are 
available from this bill. What we are standing up tonight to say is 
that we believe that we should fully fund a capital gains tax cut to 
zero, we believe that we should do away with death taxes, and we 
believe we should fully support a $500 per child tax credit.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the direction that America needs to go, and 
this is what we intended to do.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
conservative budget alternative. Why? Because the American people are 
overtaxed, and they deserve tax relief, and they deserve that tax 
relief sooner rather than later.
  The thing all of us in Washington should always keep in mind is that 
the money we spend up here does not belong to us, it belongs to the 
American people. Let us let the American people keep more of their 
hard-earned money, let us support the conservative budget alternative, 
let us cut taxes and do it sooner rather than later.

                              {time}  0045

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].

[[Page H3039]]


  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, tonight is indeed an historic night. 
Tonight we get a chance to vote on balancing the budget. Tonight we get 
a chance to fulfill some of the promises we have made to the American 
people. While the committee budget does a tremendous job in moving in 
the right direction, we can do better, and indeed we have an obligation 
to do better.
  The American people want change in the way Washington works. They 
want a smaller, more efficient Federal Government, and that can be 
achieved through the conservative alternative budget. This chart shows 
it plain and simple. We made a promise to the American people to 
deliver tax relief, tax relief for the average family. Regrettably, the 
sad truth is that the committee budget cannot deliver all of that 
relief, but the conservative alternative budget can.
  The fundamental question is, are we going to keep our promise to the 
American people? Are we going to deliver for them? Do we recognize that 
they can spend their money better than we can spend it? I think the 
answer to that question is yes. We should fully fund the tax cuts that 
we have promised the American people and keep our word.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the conservative 
alternative budget.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, in closing the arguments for this 
amendment tonight for the conservative budget substitute, let me be 
clear: We support the effort that the Committee on the Budget has made 
and applaud them in that effort. Some of us will be voting for it, some 
of us will not, but the debate is not about the merits of their hard 
work and it has been tremendously hard work.
  The debate tonight is about families and whether, as their 
representatives, we will increase the family budget or increase the 
Washington budget. As this chart shows, that my colleague from Arizona 
pointed out, our conservative budget alternative takes $109 billion 
from Washington's budget and gives it to families in their budget.
  Now, while some people say that the economy is growing, the reality 
is that families in America are struggling just to get by. Some are 
spending more on food, clothing and shelter and transportation 
combined, they pay more in taxes than what they do in their budget for 
those necessities.
  This amendment is necessary for two reasons. As this chart shows, the 
President drove a good bargain for Washington in his budget deal, 
because for every $1 of tax cuts, we have $10 of increased government 
spending over the next 5 years.
  The conservative budget would reduce that, $1 of tax cuts for $4 of 
spending. Now, that is not the ideal, I would like to have it $1 for 
$1, but this goes a long way towards balancing our priorities.
  The second reason that this amendment is necessary is that we have 
promised a lot of tax cuts to the American people; a full $500 tax 
credit, cutting the tax on investment in half, relief on the death 
taxes and expanded IRA's. But the fact of the matter is that $83 
billion in taxes are not enough to deliver on those promises, so we 
need the conservative budget in order to be able to fulfill those 
promises for the American people.
  Now, let us ensure that this golden moment as we balance the budget 
is one of selflessness and not selfishness for Washington. I think of a 
family in my district, the Lindleys and their two children. That $500 
tax credit will let them buy clothes for their kids, 435 gallons of gas 
in the car, and another bag of groceries. That family, the Lindleys and 
their two children, from that $500 tax credit will be able to buy 
another bag of groceries each week as they keep more of their paycheck.
  So in closing, Mr. Chairman, let me urge all of my colleagues on the 
Republican and the Democratic side of the aisle to join us in voting 
for this conservative alternative budget, because it is time that we 
stop putting Washington's budget first and start putting the family 
budget first.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an opportunity to more than double the tax cut 
that will go to every person in the Nation. This is a chance to say no 
to Washington bureaucrats, yes to families, yes to economic growth. 
Vote yes on this substitute.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, to end the debate, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich].
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I am an unlikely person to close this 
debate. I was about to walk back to my office and a friend of mine 
asked me to close, and I agreed to because I think something important 
needs to be said.
  Some of my best friends in this House have just spoken. I love this 
plan. Some of the closest friends I have in politics are Members of the 
CATS group. I would love to vote for this plan. I believe in tax cuts. 
I think that the capital gains tax cut break should be zero. However, I 
am not king. I get handed this: National Taxpayers Union, great group. 
They rate us, lots of groups rate us. The CATS substitute will be 
scored as one of the most heavily-weighted taxpayer votes in our 1997 
rating of Congress.
  I do not want to vote against this plan, because I like when people 
like me, because I run for public office. But I say to my colleagues, 
sometimes in public life, in the legislature, even in the national 
legislature, we have to do what is right and we cannot vote on the 
basis of score cards or interest groups or what people are going to 
think about us.
  The reality of it is, that gentleman over here, and various Members 
of the leadership on the Republican side and on the Democrat side with 
whom I have significant philosophical differences, have negotiated a 
deal. For my part on this side, if those folks cannot maintain their 
credibility with respect to any of these amendments, an awful lot of 
good people have wasted an awful lot of time and wasted an historic 
opportunity to do what, at least part of the reason I came to 
Washington, which was to deliver significant and total reform to the 
American people, some tax cuts, and begin to question why the welfare 
state always grows.
  That is the bottom line; that is the reason I am an unlikely closer 
here, Mr. Chairman. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if 
we believe in credibility, particularly credibility with respect to our 
leaders, I ask for a nay vote on this.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 119, 
noes 313, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 144]

                               AYES--119

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kingston
     Largent
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Redmond
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)

[[Page H3040]]



                               NOES--313

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Jefferson
     Schiff
     Yates

                              {time}  0112

  Mrs. EMERSON changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina and Mr. REDMOND changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3.


 Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 3 offered by Mr. BROWN of 
                               California

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute No. 3, the investment budget.
  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 No. 3 offered by 
     Mr. Brown of California:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1998.

       The Congress determines and declares that the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998 is hereby 
     established and that the appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 1999 through 2002 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 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 1998: $1,206,035,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,251,843,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,303,638,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,361,895,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2202: $1,421,072,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $10,419,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $15,212,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $16,589,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $16,807,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $18,133,000,000.
       (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 1998: $1,392,730,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,448,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,500,328,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,535,090,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,582,693,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,358,584,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,422,994,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,480,134,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,495,092,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,544,270,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $142,130,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $155,939,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $159,907,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $116,390,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $105,065,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,686,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,954,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,230,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,488,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,752,800,000,000.
       (6) Direct loan obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $35,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $34,901,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $36,649,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $38,249,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $39,415,000,000.
       (7) Primary loan guarantee commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $315,472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $324,749,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $328,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $332,063,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $335,141,000,000.

     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 1998 through 2002 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $262,267,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $259,255,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $262,354,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $261,353,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $757,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $262,505,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,423,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $262,528,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,287,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $262,552,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $259,471,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,050,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,471,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,207,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,966,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $12,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,317,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,795,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,021,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,093,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:

[[Page H3041]]

       (A) New budget authority, $16,360,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,343,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,077,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,603,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,991,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,122,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,826,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,920,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,073,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,178,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,217,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,587,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,364,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,147,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,281,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,713,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,244,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,687,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,254,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,715,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,287,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,468,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,050,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,537,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,543,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,078,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,717,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,814,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,109,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,857,000,000.
       Outlays, $2,916,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,141,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,115,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,097,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,174,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,899,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $30,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,253,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,604,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $32,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,503,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,253,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $32,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,449,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,518,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $34,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,527,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $34,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,319,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,990,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,620,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,066,000,000.
       (B) Outlays $11,516,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,047,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,567,000,000.
       (B) Outlays $10,978,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,071,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,509,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,429,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,899,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,960,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,232,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,630,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,965,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,660,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,824,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$728,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,960,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $245,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,317,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,507,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,410,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $253,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,488,000,000.
       (B) Outlays $10,092,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,112,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $255,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,326,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,364,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,784,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $257,989,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,942,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,781,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,996,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $259,897,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New Budget authority, $50,846,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,962,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $155,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,715,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,317,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $135,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,172,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,600,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,373,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,552,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,598,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,130,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,269,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,417,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,867,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,678,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,997,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,943,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,406,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,108,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,670,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,020,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,114,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,717,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,098,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,452,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,215,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,845,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,180,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,475,000,000
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):

[[Page H3042]]

       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,011,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,273,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $12,328,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $20,665,000,000
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,143,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,848,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,092,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $21,899,000,000
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,508,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,352,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,926,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $23,263,000,000
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,090,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,780,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $14,701,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $24,517,000,000
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,603,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,401,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,426,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $25,676,000,000
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $135,308,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,055,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $85,000,000
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $144,365,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $143,871,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $154,728,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $153,938,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $165,730,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $164,816,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $177,877,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $176,816,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $205,310,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $200,350,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $219,430,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $212,640,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $232,828,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $225,857,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $249,027,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $234,765,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,828,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $254,365,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $236,956,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $246,922,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $45,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $254,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,304,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $75,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,810,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $272,008,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $110,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $277,236,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $276,973,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $145,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $290,973,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $289,943,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $170,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,179,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,179,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,865,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,865,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,622,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,622,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,879,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,879,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,272,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,272,000.
       (C) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,112,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,029,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $27,096,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,918,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $42,055,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,068,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $26,671,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,385,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,220,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,177,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $26,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,826,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,076,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,249,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,289,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,349,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,277,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,129,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750);
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,360,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,620,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,325,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,834,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,691,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,058,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,060,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,656,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,708,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,322,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,089,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,151,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,121,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,108,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,162,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,206,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,277,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,036,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $295,741,000,000.

[[Page H3043]]

       (B) Outlays, $295,741,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $302,183,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $302,183,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $301,113,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $301,113,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $298,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $298,020,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,583,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,583,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       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 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,244,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$41,244,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$32,858,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$232,858,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$32,516,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$32,516,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$33,143,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$33,143,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$34,327,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$34,327,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

     SEC. 4. INVESTMENTS.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for Federal 
     investments for fiscal years 1998 through 2002 for each major 
     functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050)--for subfunction 051 for 
     Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation:
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,934,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $36,645,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,044,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $35,152,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,044,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $34,666,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,044,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $34,738,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,044,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $34,950,000,000.
       (2) General Science, Space, and Technology (250)--for 
     subfunctions 251 and 252 for General Science, Space and 
     Technology programs:
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,460,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $17,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,333,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $17,838,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,250,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays $18,599,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,213,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $19,512,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,223,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $20,534,000,000.
       (3) Energy (270)--for subfunction 271 for Energy Supply 
     Research and Development, and subfunction 272 for Energy 
     Conservation--
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,937,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $4,148,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,134,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $4,180,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,340,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $4,328,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,557,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $4,464,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,785,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $4,655,000,000.
       (4) Natural Resources and Environment (300)--for 
     subfunction 304 for Regulatory, Enforcement, and Research 
     Programs and Hazardous Substance Superfund, and subfunction 
     306 Other Natural Resources:
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,538,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $9,527,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,742,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $10,013,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,816,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $10,533,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,859,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $10,825,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,943,000,000.
       (B) Budget outlays, $10,889,000,000.
       (5) Agriculture (350)--for subfunction 352 for Research 
     Programs:
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,339,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,351,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,406,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,449,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,476,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,506,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,550,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,556,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,627,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,603,000,000.
       (6) Commerce and Housing Credit (370)--for subfunction 376 
     for Science and Technology:
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $720,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $680,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $762,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $703,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $752,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $851,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $787,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $937,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $818,000,000.
       (7) Transportation (400)--for subfunction 401 Ground 
     Transportation, subfunction 402 for Air Transportation, and 
     subfunction 403 for Water Transportation:
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,491,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,419,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,641,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,211,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,283,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,078,000,000.
       (8) Community and Regional Development (450)--for 
     subfunction 452 for Rural Development and Economic 
     Development Assistance:
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,279,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,259,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,276,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,222,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,276,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,205,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,276,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,253,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,276,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,258,000,000.
       (9) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500)--for subfunctions 501, 502, 503, 504, and 506 National 
     Service Initiative, Rehabilitation Services, and Children and 
     Families Services Program:
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,059,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,656,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,067,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,314,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,112,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,295,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,124,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,206,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,007,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,196,000,000.

[[Page H3044]]

       (10) Health (550)--for subfunction 552 for Health Research 
     and Training:
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,299,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,175,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,771,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,884,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,371,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,628,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,043,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,409,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,783,000,000.
       (11) Income Security (600)--for subfunction 605 for Food 
     and Nutrition Assistance:
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,618,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,506,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,636,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,627,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,734,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,727,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,834,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,827,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,948,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,940,000,000.

     SEC. 5. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Submissions.--No later than June 30, 1997, the House 
     committees named in subsections (b) and (c) 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) House Committees.--
       (1) Committee on commerce.--The House Committee on Commerce 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending sufficient to reduce outlays as 
     follows: $7,900,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $36,500,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $115,700,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (2) 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 sufficient to 
     reduce outlays as follows: $7,900,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1998, $36,500,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
     2002, and $115,700,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 
     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 increased by: 
     $10,419,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 1998, 
     $18,133,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $77,160,000,000 in revenues in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (c) Investment Trust Fund.--The House Committee on Ways and 
     Means shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     that provide for the establishment of a separate account in 
     the Treasury known as the ``Investment Trust Fund'' into 
     which shall be transferred revenues realized by the acution 
     of spectrum allocations by the Federal Communications 
     Commission and, further, provide that amounts in that fund 
     shall be used exclusively for programs assumed under section 
     4.
       (d) 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. 6. COMMITTEE ALLOCATIONS.

       Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Committee on the 
     Budget of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     the Budget of the Senate shall each make separate allocations 
     to the appropriate committees of its House of Congress of 
     total new budget authority and total budget outlays for each 
     fiscal year covered by this resolution to carry out section 
     4. For all purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     those allocations shall be deemed to be made pursuant to 
     section 302(a) and section 602(a) of that Act, as applicable.

     SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BUDGET TRENDS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the increasing portion of 
     the Federal budget absorbed by interest payments and 
     consumption programs, particularly health spending, has led 
     to a declining level of domestically financed investment and 
     may adversely impact the ability of the economy to grow at 
     the levels needed to provide for future generations.

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE NEED TO MAINTAIN 
                   FEDERAL INVESTMENTS.

       It is the sense of Congress that a balanced program to 
     improve the economy should be based on the concurrent goals 
     of eliminating the deficit and maintaining Federal investment 
     in programs that enhance long-term productivity such as 
     research and development, education and training, and 
     physical infrastructure improvements.

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF FEDERAL 
                   INVESTMENTS WITHIN THE BUDGET.

       It is the sense of Congress that the current budget 
     structure focuses primarily on short-term spending and does 
     not highlight for decision making purposes the differences 
     between Federal spending for long-term investment and that 
     for current consumption. In order to restructure Federal 
     budget to make such a distinction, it is necessary to 
     identify an investment component in the Federal budget and 
     establish specific budgetary targets for such investments.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Brown] and a Member opposed will each control 10 minutes.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] rise?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] will be 
recognized 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].

                              {time}  0115

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not possible to enter into an all-encompassing 
discussion of what this investment budget does, but let me start off by 
defining investment budget. Both the OMB and the GAO have categorized 
certain investments or expenditures of the Federal Government as 
investments. These are described in a GAO report that came out 
yesterday prepared at my request and the request of Senator Lautenberg, 
the ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on the Budget, or 
the Committee on the Budget of the other House.
  The salient thing that I wish to point out first is that this chart, 
which is labeled nondefense investments, has shown a steady decline for 
the last 15 years. I have spent most of that 15 years trying to prevent 
that decline unsuccessfully, but what that reflects is we have 
continued to uninvest in most things which contribute to the increased 
productive of the private sector. That includes transportation 
investments, research and development investments, worker productivity 
investments, education and training, and so on, and a few other things. 
This has not reached the critical stage. In this budget we have a 
chance to begin to remedy that situation.
  The budget before us does not. As a matter of fact, it continues this 
decline, much to my chagrin and unhappiness. Let me point out one other 
thing about the investment budget.
  This is a comparison of annual deficits of the investment budget 
versus the underlying budget that we are going to be asked to vote on. 
By a strange coincidence, for the next 3 years the budget deficit goes 
up. And I know that Members are not going to like that, but this is 
what they are being asked to vote for.
  By an equally strange coincidence, the amount of those increased 
deficits over my investment budget is approximately $85 billion. And by 
an even stranger coincidence, the amount of the tax cuts that both 
sides have agreed to is approximately $85 billion.
  So what is before us is a situation contained in the budget that we 
are going to be asked to approve where we are financing $85 billion in 
tax cuts with $85 billion in additional borrowing over the next 3 
years. And then we have this gullible idea that in the last 2 years of 
this budget resolution, where the major cuts have to be made, President 
Gore and the 107th Congress are going to agree to make those drastic 
cuts that my colleagues refuse to make. That is touching faith, like in 
the tooth fairy. I commend all of my colleagues who have that faith and 
are therefore going to vote for the budget that is before them.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let me yield myself 2 minutes.
  Let me first of all give some credit to the gentleman from 
California. I want to give him some credit because, frankly, it is not 
easy to put a program together, a comprehensive budget. I hope the 
gentleman does as well as I did in my first budget. I think I got 30 
votes. I do not mind if we do a little better than that. But we 
obviously have to rise and oppose this for a couple reasons. I do not 
think we need to spend a lot of time.
  There is no tax relief in this proposal. We think that the level of 
defense reductions are, frankly, too high. And let us get to the bottom 
line on it. It stands in stark violation to an agreement that could be 
approved. My

[[Page H3045]]

colleagues are not going to get many votes, probably no votes on our 
side of the aisle. And while I want to commend the gentleman for his 
hard work, his commitment to science, it just is really not in balance 
and does not favor what we think is a new direction in this country, 
and that is a very limited Federal Government and more power and more 
money and more influence being shifted from this city back to people 
across the country.
  It is not with joy that I have to rise against the gentleman from 
California, but certainly I feel compelled to do it, to represent those 
people who were a party to this agreement and particularly the 
Republican Members who really do not share this view. I ask that the 
membership reject the Brown amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California for his hard work in developing this substitute. I rise in 
support of the Brown investment substitute because it moves us to a 
balanced budget in a believable and reasonable way and because it 
protects our veterans, secures our future by investing in our children, 
our families and our economy.
  Mr. Chairman, under the committee, in the committee budget 
resolution, the deficit goes up the first 3 years to pay for tax cuts. 
That is right. Under the committee bill, the deficit 3 years from now 
will be worse than it is today. The Brown investment substitute, 
however, eliminates the deficit and balances the budget in a logical, 
believable and gradual way. It invests in our children, strengthens our 
families, protects our veterans, stimulates and strengthens our economy 
and improves our future.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members of the House to vote for the Brown 
investment substitute.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the spirit in which our 
colleague from California offers his amendment. But it again points out 
some fundamental differences in philosophy. For as my colleague from 
Virginia just pointed out, if we believe that tax hikes and constantly 
paying more and more taxes is the best form of investment in this 
country, then we should vote for the Brown amendment. But if on the 
other hand, we believe, as many of us on both sides of the aisle do 
now, that the American people and working families need to hang onto 
more of their own money and send less of it to Washington, DC, that it 
is possible to rein in spending and at the same time offer the American 
people much needed tax relief, we will vote no on the Brown amendment.
  I would also note, Mr. Chairman, that I listened with great interest 
to the ranking member of the Committee on Science as he outlined what 
he thought might happen in the 107th Congress. He mentioned, Mr. 
Chairman, if I am not mistaken, President Gore. I just wonder if he 
checked that with the minority leader because I believe he might have 
another idea, judging from what I have read in the press recently. But 
whatever happens, we, of course for our money, believe it would be a 
conservative majority and a conservative President in the White House.
  We are taking important steps now to balance this budget, to allow 
working families to have tax relief, to properly weigh our priorities, 
and that is why I rise in opposition to the Brown amendment. Let us 
allow working families to hold onto more of their hard-earned money. 
Let us vote for a responsible budget plan.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate about the scope, the 
size of government, and there are no tax hikes in this substitute. This 
is about the role of investment, and it does not matter whether we want 
a bigger budget or a smaller budget. What the gentleman from California 
is forcing us all to do in this budget is to look at what role 
investment plays in the economy.
  It is possible to balance the budget on paper and totally unbalance 
an economy. We can cut ourselves right down to nothing but, if we do 
not invest in those things that help the economy grow, not government 
grow, the economy grow, then what have we done, what have we produced? 
What the gentleman does is actually put together an investment budget 
similar to what the General Accounting Office has recommended.
  To some of my friends who support capital budgeting, I am a big fan 
of that, this is not capital budgeting. Capital budgeting is not in 
this proposal. Nor does it take anything off budget. But what it does 
do in accordance with GAO recommendations is it puts aside a part of 
the budget as an investment budget. It separates for the first time in 
a meaningful way in the Federal budget what a dollar does. Does a 
dollar buy a dollar's worth of pencils for the courthouse or a dollar's 
worth of gasoline for a Federal vehicle or does a dollar buy a mile of 
road or does a dollar buy research or does a dollar buy infrastructure 
that actually helps the economy grow. I think most of us would 
acknowledge that we need more growth in this economy and we need more 
investment. So I think that is what the gentleman's budget does.
  Also he does it without tax cuts until the budget is balanced, I 
think a very sound principle as well. So if Members believe that 
education and research and development and infrastructure development, 
and incidentally this has the same dollar figure in it for 
infrastructure development as in the Shuster-Oberstar substitute to 
come, then I think they want to be involved in this. In recognizing 
that according to the GAO we have seen investment as a percentage of 
our gross domestic product shrink from 2.6 percent to 1.5 percent, if 
we want to fuel productivity and growth, we have to vote for this 
budget.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Would the Chair kindly tell us how much time 
remains on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] has 4 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of the time.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Brown 
substitute, and I would like to congratulate my ranking member on his 
excellent effort.
  Using CBO scoring, the Brown substitute cuts $220 billion over 5 
years, actually reaching surplus by the year 2002. These cuts provide 
for an overall increase in research and development, including basic 
science research, energy research, health, space, agricultural research 
and defense research of $30 billion over the President's request for 
the next 5 years.
  This work has had an enormous impact on present technology 
development and application. Entire industries have developed from 
Nobel Prize winning research in magnetic resonance, superconductivity, 
lasers, antibiotics, and transistor action.
  However, both industrial and governmental basic research spending has 
steadily declined throughout the 1990s, resulting in a loss of ground 
in many key areas for U.S. research. If the United States is to remain 
the dominant economic force, we must not only recognize but employ the 
vision of the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Brown substitute, and I 
would like to congratulate my ranking member on his excellent effort.
  As a member of both the Science and Transportation Committees, I 
understand the need for adequate investment in our economy. We no 
longer compete in the labor intensive economy of the sixties. Rather, 
we are struggling to maintain our dominance of an ever changing, 
technologically sensitive, information intensive global economy. The 
Brown substitute not only provides the necessary framework to compete, 
but will ensure our economic success through increased investment in 
Research and Development, education, and training.
  Using CBO scoring,the Brown substitute provides a budgetary surplus 
by 202 through spending cuts of $220 billion over 5 years.
  Such cuts provide for an overall increase in Research and 
Development, including basic

[[Page H3046]]

research, energy research, health, space, agricultural research, and 
defense research of $30 billion over the President's request over the 
next 5 years.
  Further, the Brown substitute increases funding for the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology which will enable NIST to 
maintain its core scientific research programs and to expand its 
technology and manufacturing partnership programs. Steady growth in the 
advanced technology program will promote industrial alliances and lead 
to the direct creation of new, well paying jobs. Sustaining funding for 
the manufacturing extension partnership will provide the necessary 
technical and business assistance to ensure the competitiveness of U.S. 
manufacturers.
  Scientific discoveries resulting from basic research have had an 
enormous impact on technology development and application. Entire 
industries have developed from Nobel Prize-winning research in such 
fields as magnetic resonance, superconductivity, lasers, antibiotics, 
and transistor action.
  However, both industrial and governmental basic-research spending 
have steadily declined throughout the 1990's, resulting in a loss of 
ground in many key areas for U.S. research. If the United States is to 
remain dominant economic force, we must not only recognize, but employ 
the vision of Mr. Brown.
  Again, I applaud Mr. Brown's fine efforts on his budget, and, more 
importantly, his vision for maintaining our long term economic 
vitality.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished woman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of 
the Committee on Science for yielding me the time, and I thank him for 
his leadership on this issue.
  With all due respect to esteemed chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], let me say that I think 
this particular amendment is going to get more than the number of votes 
that he thinks that it would not get. Why is that? There are three 
reasons: research, education, and infrastructure.
  This is an investment amendment. This is a competitive amendment. 
This is an amendment that balances the budget by 2002, $220 billion of 
cuts in spending, but it creates jobs.

                              {time}  0130

  Mr. Chairman, when a recent newspaper article said that most all of 
the college graduates would be seeking employment this 1997, it 
characterized for us what makes America great; that is competitiveness 
and jobs.
  This amendment invests in jobs and research and cures in various 
diseases. This is a good budget amendment because it creates the 
opportunity for the 21st century in science, it creates jobs for both 
inner city, rural and all parts of America. This is the kind of 
amendment that reinforces America as a world competitor.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for the support of the Brown amendment.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to rise in 
congratulation of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  I spoke on the budget resolution, which I will vote for and strongly 
support. I do want to rise and say some nice things about the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Brown], and his budget, however.
  If we are going to invest in educating our children, if we are going 
to solve problems such as cancer and AIDS, if we are going to develop 
new technologies for the Internet and high-speed rail and a host of 
other things with supercomputers, we must invest in R&D efforts and in 
education, and that is what the Brown budget does.
  According to the Wall Street Journal, a poll done, polling 1500 
economists, 43 percent of those economists said the best investments we 
can make to stimulate economic growth are in education and R&D.
  So with that, I want to applaud the gentleman for his hard work and 
that of his staff putting this budget together.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver], a distinguished member 
of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I want to commend the gentleman from California for this creative 
blueprint for maintaining American preeminence in science and 
technology.
  The Brown budget proves that we can balance the budget and, at the 
same time, invest in the future. Indeed, what is the use of a balanced 
budget if we are left to second-rate technology and American science in 
retreat? The Brown budget enables us to have first-rate technology with 
first-rate jobs, ensures America will remain preeminent in scientific 
fields crucial to the economy, and to the public health and our 
environment.
  Industries such as computers and software, telecommunications and 
biotechnology offer high wage jobs that are the result of a strong 
Federal commitment to research and development. This budget stands for 
jobs yet to be created, jobs yet to be imagined, and so I urge my 
colleagues to support the vision of the substitute offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my support for the 
investment budget, sponsored by Representative George Brown. I strongly 
believe that the budget must be balanced in 5 years, but I also believe 
it is crucial that we look beyond this limited time frame. The Brown 
substitute is a far-sighted plan which is both fiscally and socially 
responsible. It balances the budget in 5 years, and it provides a blue 
print for economic growth and development for decades to come.
  It is clear that the Nation's economy is undergoing considerable 
change. In today's market place, it is essential that businesses and 
workers be equipped to take advantage of advancements in science and 
technology. Workers must be better trained, and goods and services must 
be produced and delivered more efficiently than ever. If we are going 
to prosper in the context of the economy of the future, it is crucial 
that we make investments today that will continue to pay dividends well 
into the next century.
  However, it is equally important that we do not ignore our current 
responsibilities. The investment budget continues our commitments to, 
among other things, our Nation's senior citizens, veterans, and 
distressed communities. It protects seniors by extending the life of 
the Medicare trust fund and providing coverage for preventive services. 
In addition, it preserves our obligations to our veterans by not 
seeking any budget savings through reductions in the commitment we have 
made to those who have served our Nation.
  Similarly, the Brown substitute contains ample economic development 
funding, which will help to revitalize distressed communities. 
Initiatives such as the Community Development Block Grant program will 
be protected, so that we can continue to rebuild infrastructure, 
improve housing, establish parks, and revitalize commercial 
opportunities, thereby creating jobs and raising the standard of living 
in the localities where they are implemented. By providing cities and 
towns with the tools they need to rebuild themselves, we help people 
help themselves and we increase our Nation's potential for future 
growth.
  We hear a lot of talk in this Chamber about how Congress should 
conduct itself like the average American family. We hear that the House 
and Senate should, like a family, sit down around some sort of kitchen 
table and balance our budget. I suppose that is what we are doing this 
evening. But when a family sits down to balance the checkbook and put 
its finances in order, it also plans for the future. Families devise 
investment plans for the future that will enable them to contend with 
expenses such as college, replacing durable goods, housing, or 
purchasing a new automobile. The Brown substitute is a prudent 
investment plan for our entire Nation's future. In addition to finally 
putting our financial house in order, it will provide help of the 
country's education, research and development, infrastructure, 
community development, and transportation.
  Mr. Speaker, I plan to support House Concurrent Resolution 84 if the 
investment budget is not approved. I believe that the budget agreement, 
drafted by the White House and congressional leadership may be the only 
measure that can attract the diverse support that is needed to produce 
a balanced budget. It is certainly a substantial improvement over the 
budget plans offered by the Republican congressional leadership in 1995 
and 1996. However, the Brown substitute most accurately represents the 
priorities of my constituents in western Pennsylvania. It provides 
greater safeguards for fiscal responsibility by

[[Page H3047]]

postponing tax cuts until after the deficit is eliminated and providing 
a steady glide path to balance. In addition, as I have outlined, it 
makes prudent, far-sighted investments in our Nation's future. Even if 
it is not adopted by the House, I urge my colleagues to examine the 
priorities advanced by the Brown substitute and to consider them as we 
move through the reconciliation process.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, all time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 91, 
noes 339, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 145]

                                AYES--91

     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Green
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--339

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Jefferson
     Meehan
     Schiff
     Talent
     Yates

                              {time}  0152

  Mr. SALMON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. McKINNEY changed her 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.


Amendment In the Nature of a Substitute No. 4 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of 
                             Massachusetts

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. 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. 
     Kennedy of Massachusetts:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1998.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 1998 is hereby established and that 
     the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1999 
     through 2002 are hereby set forth.
                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 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 1998: $1,206,379,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,252,942,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,307,528,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,366,412,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,427,435,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $0.
       Fiscal year 1999: $0.
       Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       Fiscal year 2001: $0.
       Fiscal year 2002: $0.
       (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 1998: $1,399,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,447,879,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,495,779,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,526,178,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,552,378,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,383,432,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,440,016,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,489,140,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,516,666,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,535,000,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $177,053,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $187,074,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $181,612,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $150,254,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $107,565,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,596,684,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,844,015,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,088,538,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,298,829,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,474,034,000,000.
       (6) Direct Loan Obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $33,829,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $33,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $34,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $36,039,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $37,099,000,000.

[[Page H3048]]

       (7) Primary loan guarantee commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $315,472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $324,749,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $328,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $332,063,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $335,141,000,000.

     SEC. 102. 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 1998 through 2002 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $266,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $266,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $757,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $261,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,400,000,0000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,050,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,909,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,558,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,966,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $12,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,918,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,569,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,021,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,093,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,782,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,981,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,077,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,114,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,751,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,122,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,826,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,353,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,812,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,178,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,217,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,437,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,082,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,403,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,728,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,147,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,213,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,062,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,804,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,868,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,247,000,000
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,050,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,469,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,446,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,078,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,186,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,293,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,109,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,939,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,048,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,141,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,846,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,867,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,171,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,877,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,405,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,702,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $32,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,570,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,963,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $32,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,720,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $34,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,086,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,313,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $34,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,133,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,892,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,620,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,790,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,294,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,047,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,215,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,664,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,071,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,509,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,978,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,494,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,960,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,670,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,108,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,965,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $6,660,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,607,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$920,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,739,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $245,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,082,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,299,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,887,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $253,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,183,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,821,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,238,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $255,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,078,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,133,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,574,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $257,989,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,678,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,541,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,689,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $259,897,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,402,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,933,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $155,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.

[[Page H3049]]

       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $* * * To Be Supplied.
       (B) Outlays, $* * * To Be Supplied.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $* * * To Be Supplied.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $* * * To Be 
     Supplied.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $* * * To Be Supplied.
       (B) Outlays, $* * * To Be Supplied.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $* * * To Be Supplied.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $* * * To Be 
     Supplied.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $* * * To Be Supplied.
       (B) Outlays, $* * * To Be Supplied.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $* * * To Be Supplied.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $* * * To Be 
     Supplied.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,184,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,247,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,068,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,687,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,867,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,839,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,252,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,943,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,406,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,210,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,386,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,020,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,214,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,098,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,452,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,290,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,929,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,180,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,475,000,000.
       (A) New budget authority, $46,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,256,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $135,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,114,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,357,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,135,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,303,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,320,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,362,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $12,328,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $20,665,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,750,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,885,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,092,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $21,899,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,903,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,178,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,926,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $23,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,759,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,981,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $14,701,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $24,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,739,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,966,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,426,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,676,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $140,599,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $140,567,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $85,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $149,418,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $149,394,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $159,868,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $159,747,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $170,662,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $170,385,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $181,571,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $181,127,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $203,820,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $203,964,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $214,673,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $214,148,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $229,340,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $229,337,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $244,036,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $243,181,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $256,548,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $255,769,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $240,160,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $248,861,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $45,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,375,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $259,346,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $75,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $271,084,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $269,669,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $110,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $276,898,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $279,007,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $145,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,937,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $287,221,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $170,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $37,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,424,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,524,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,060,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,196,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,792,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,866,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,022,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,043,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,398,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,579,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,371,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,029,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,096,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,745,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,979,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,068,000,000.

[[Page H3050]]

       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $26,671,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,015,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,223,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,177,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $26,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,418,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,540,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,249,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,629,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,783,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,277,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,129,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,165,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,209,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,320,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,476,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,578,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,840,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,054,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,701,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,183,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,879,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,711,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,959,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,444,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,363,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,977,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,727,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,675,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,131,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,105,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,672,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,672,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $304,932,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $304,932,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $305,512,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $305,512,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $304,037,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $304,037,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $303,796,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,796,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       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 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,841,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,841,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,949,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,949,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,937,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,937,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$39,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$39,151,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,124,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,124,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
                 TITLE II--RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Submissions.--Not later than August 1, 1997, 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) Instructions.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture 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: 
     $34,571,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $37,008,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $211,443,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (2) Committee on banking and financial services.--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: $8,435,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1998, $5,091,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
     2002, and $50,306,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 
     through 2002.
       (3) 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: $395,150,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 1998, $513,615,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $2,638,120,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002.
       (4) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce 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: $17,718,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1998, $18,167,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
     2002, and $106,050,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 
     through 2002.
       (5) 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: $68,975,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $81,896,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $443,061,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 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: $0 in fiscal year 1998, 
     $621,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and $1,829,000,000 in 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (6) 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: $18,287,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $17,483,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $107,615,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002.
       (7) 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: 
     $22,478,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $25,192,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $141,497,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.

[[Page H3051]]

       (8) Committee on ways and means.--(A) The House Committee 
     on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction such that the total level of direct spending for 
     that committee does not exceed: $399,663,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1998, $511,377,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, and $2,639,195,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1998 through 2002.
       (B) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to 
     decrease revenues as follows: by $8,000,000,000 in revenues 
     for fiscal year 1998, by $16,000,000,000 in revenues for 
     fiscal year 2002, and by $60,000,000,000 in revenues in 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (C) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to 
     increase revenues as follows: by $8,000,000,000 in revenues 
     for fiscal year 1998, by $16,000,000,000 in revenues for 
     fiscal year 2002, and by $60,000,000,000 in revenues in 
     fiscal years 1998 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.
       (d) Children's Health Initiative.--If the Committees on 
     Commerce and Ways and Means report recommendations pursuant 
     to their reconciliation instructions that, combined, provide 
     an initiative for children's health that would increase the 
     deficit by more than $4.6 billion for fiscal year 1998, by 
     more than $8.0 billion for fiscal year 2002, and by more than 
     $32 billion for the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002, 
     the committees shall be deemed to not have complied with 
     their reconciliation instructions pursuant to section 310(d) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
                TITLE III--SENSE OF CONGRESS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MIDDLE INCOME TAX RELIEF.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Tax reductions in tax bills enacted in the 1980's 
     predominately benefited Americans with higher incomes.
       (2) Increases in the social security payroll tax over this 
     period has resulted in a net increase in the tax burden on 
     middle income Americans.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     Congress should enact legislation providing targeted tax 
     relief, with an emphasis on alleviating the tax burden on 
     middle income Americans, by enacting the following 
     provisions:
       (1) Higher education initiatives, including the President's 
     $1,500 HOPE scholarship tax credit and deductibility of up to 
     $10,000 for higher education tuition and fees.
       (2) Expansion of the child care tax credit, with increases 
     in the amount of allowable expenses, the percentage of 
     allowable expenses, and the income phase-down levels.
       (3) Homeownership provisions, including up to a $500,000 
     capital gains exclusion for home sales, and permitting tax 
     and penalty-free borrowing from an IRA account or a parent's 
     IRA account for a down payment on a first-time home purchase.
       (4) Savings provisions, including an increase in the annual 
     limit for deductible IRA contributions from $2,000 to $2,500 
     per year.

     SEC. 302. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Small businesses are the source of most new jobs 
     created in this country.
       (2) Small businesses have a more difficult time than large 
     corporations in raising capital covering health care costs 
     for employees, and coping with estate taxes.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     Congress should enact legislation providing tax incentives 
     and tax relief for small businesses, including:
       (1) Incentives for long-term investments in small 
     businesses, including capital gains relief, deferral of gains 
     on any small business investments rolled over into another 
     small business investment, and a tripling of the amount of 
     declarable losses on investments in small businesses.
       (2) Estate tax relief for family-owned small businesses and 
     farms, and an increase in small businesses eligibility for 
     10-year installment payments of estate taxes.
       (3) 100 percent deductibility of health care costs for the 
     self-employed.
       (4) Extension of the 5 percent Foreign Sales Credit (FSC) 
     to software exporters.

     SEC. 303. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON REVENUE NEUTRALITY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Large tax cuts in the 1980's led to an unprecedented 
     explosion in the level of debt owed by American taxpayers.
       (2) Tax cuts without revenue offsets increase the level of 
     spending cuts required to balance the budget, in vital areas 
     like education, health care, transportation, and research and 
     development.
       (3) It is a priority to balance the budget first, and to 
     defer tax cuts which reduce revenues until the budget is 
     actually in balance.
       (4) Targeted tax cuts for higher education, child care, 
     homeownership, increased savings, and small businesses can be 
     enacted without reducing the net level of revenues.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     all tax cuts should be fully offset by revenue increases, 
     through reinstatement of expiring excise taxes and the 
     closing of corporate tax loopholes.

     SEC. 304. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CHILDREN'S HEALTH.

       It is the sense of Congress that sufficient funding be 
     provided to insure all currently uninsured children in 
     America, through health care grants to the States and an 
     expansion of medicaid in a total amount of at least 
     $32,000,000,000 over the next 5 years.

     SEC. 305. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON MEDICARE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Medicare Part A Trust Fund will go bankrupt by the 
     year 2000 without congressional action.
       (2) Some 40,000,000 senior citizens rely on medicare for 
     affordable, quality health care.
       (3) Many low-income senior citizens are unable to afford 
     projected increases in medicare premiums.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     Congress should enact legislation to extend the solvency of 
     the Medicare Trust Fund for the next 10 years, using policies 
     which:
       (1) Maintain part B premiums at 25 percent, with a phase-in 
     of home health care changes.
       (2) Provide new preventive and other health care benefits, 
     including expanded mammography coverage, coverage for 
     colorectal screenings, coverage for diabetes screening, 72 
     hours of respite care of Alzheimers patients, bone mass 
     measurements for osteoporosis care, prostate cancer 
     screening, cancer clinic benefits, and immunosuppressant 
     drugs.
       (3) Include sustainable reductions in reimbursements for 
     hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and other health care 
     providers.
       (4) Provide full funding for teaching hospitals through the 
     Graduate Medical Education program.
       (5) Increase health care choices among seniors, without 
     restricting access to fee-for-service health care.

     SEC. 306. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MEDICAID.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Hospitals and other health care providers are already 
     seriously underreimbursed for the actual cost of providing 
     medicaid services.
       (2) Medicaid is the primary source of health care coverage 
     for the uninsured, including poor children, indigent mothers, 
     and low-income senior citizens in nursing homes.
       (3) Medicaid provides critical funding for medicare 
     premiums for low-income seniors.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     medicaid legislation should increase coverage for low-income 
     adults and seniors, and uninsured children, by providing 
     that:
       (1) Any reductions in medicaid reimbursements to health 
     care providers should be used to expand coverage for 
     children's health care, legal immigrants, and low-income 
     Americans.
       (2) Spending reductions should not include either a block 
     grant or a per capita cap.
       (3) Medicaid should extend its program to pay medicare 
     premiums for low-income senior citizens, protecting them from 
     increases caused by home health care shifts.
       (4) States should be given more flexibility in managing the 
     medicaid program, through managed care options, and 
     elimination of unnecessary regulations, while fully 
     protecting the quality and availability of health care for 
     medicaid recipients.

     SEC. 307. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DOMESTIC DISCRETIONARY 
                   SPENDING.

       It is the sense of Congress that sufficient funding be 
     provided for domestic discretionary spending to allow for 
     full inflationary increases over the period from 1998 through 
     2002, to fully fund priority areas like education, health 
     care, transportation, research and development, community 
     development, crime, and housing.

     SEC. 308. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PELL GRANT LIMITS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The spiraling cost of higher education tuition and fees 
     threatens to put the cost of college out of reach for 
     millions of Americans.
       (2) Pell Grants are an effective way to make college 
     affordable for low-income students.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     Congress should increase the annual limit on Pell Grants from 
     $2,700 to $3,700.

     SEC. 309. SENSE OF CONGRESS IN SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Children cannot achieve their full educational 
     potential, if the school buildings they are educated in are 
     falling apart.
       (2) The General Accounting Office (GAO) has determined that 
     it will require $112,000,000,000 to repair and improve our 
     Nation's schools.
       (3) Many communities are unable to afford the full cost of 
     making such needed repairs.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     Congress should enact the President's school construction 
     initiative, to provide $5,000,000,000 to leverage the repair 
     and construction of elementary and secondary schools.

     SEC. 310. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EDUCATION.

       It is the sense of Congress that funding should be 
     substantially increased in a number of programs which 
     increase educational opportunities, including:

[[Page H3052]]

       (1) Title I grants, to help the disadvantaged develop basic 
     educational skills.
       (2) The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, to provide 
     computers, software, and technology training to elementary 
     and secondary schools.
       (3) Special education IDEA grants, to provide services to 
     children with disabilities.
       (4) Adult education grants, to provide adult literacy and 
     other educational programs.
       (5) The Federal work study program, to provide needy 
     students with part-time work.

     SEC. 311. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Our continued economic growth is dependent on 
     maintaining and expanding our basic infrastructure, 
     especially with respect to roads and bridges.
       (2) In many sections of our country, our transportation 
     infrastructure suffers from a lack of adequate funding and 
     neglect of maintenance.
       (3) For many years, Congress has failed to use funds 
     collected under the Federal gas tax to pay for essential road 
     and related transportation needs.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     all new funds collected in the transportation trust fund 
     should be fully spent on transportation improvements.

     SEC. 312. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Adequate nutrition, quality health care, educational 
     opportunities, and high quality child care for children 
     between birth and the age of 3 are scientifically shown to 
     play a critical role in later childhood and adult 
     development.
       (2) Public spending on health, nutrition, education, and 
     child care at the stage of early childhood development has 
     proven to be a sound long-term investment in human resources.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     sufficient funding should be provided in the following 
     programs to meet the needs of infants and toddlers:
       (1) WIC (the supplemental nutrition program for women, 
     infants, and children).
       (2) Head Start.
       (3) Healthy Start.
       (4) Programs for infants and toddlers with disabilities 
     under part H of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (IDEA).
       (5) Programs under the Child Care and Development Block 
     Grant Act.

     SEC. 313. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON HEALTH RESEARCH.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the world's 
     leading biomedical research institution.
       (2) The National Institutes of Health accomplishes its 
     mission of discovering new medical knowledge that will lead 
     to better health for everyone through supervising, funding, 
     and conducting biomedical and behavioral research to help 
     prevent, detect, diagnose, and treat disease and disability 
     in humans.
       (3) The Federal investment in the National Institutes of 
     Health should be sufficient to keep up with the pace of 
     biomedical inflation and public health needs.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     funding for the National Institutes of Health should be at 
     least equal to the Institute's annual professional judgment, 
     which is the best and most reliable estimate of the minimum 
     level of funding needed to sustain the high standard of 
     scientific achievement attained by the National Institutes of 
     Health.

     SEC. 314. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Federal support of research and development has led to 
     numerous advances in science and technology that have greatly 
     enhanced the lives of all Americans.
       (2) Technological innovation has spurred almost half of the 
     economic development of the past century.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     full funding should be provided for Federal research and 
     development programs, including the National Science 
     Foundation (NSF) and the solar and renewable energies 
     programs of the Department of Energy.

     SEC. 315. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CRIME.

       (a) Finding.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Crime continues to threaten residential and commercial 
     neighborhoods through the Nation.
       (2) Juvenile crime continues to grow at a faster rate than 
     other categories of crime in this Nation.
       (3) Intervention and prevention programs have been shown to 
     successfully turn the tide of violent crime.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     funding for crime intervention, prevention, and domestic 
     violence programs should be increased over current levels.

     SEC. 316. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON VETERANS.

       It is the sense of Congress that funding should not be cut 
     for veterans' COLA or for housing benefits.

     SEC. 317. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON HOUSING.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) According to the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development, 13,000,000 Americans have ``acute housing 
     needs''.
       (2) Current funding for rental housing assistance for the 
     elderly, disabled, working poor, and mothers making the 
     transition from welfare to work is inadequate.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     funding for housing assistance should be increased by 
     providing--
       (1) full funding for operating subsidies for public housing 
     authorities, as determined by the Performance Funding System;
       (2) additional funding for capital grants for public 
     housing authorities, to repair and maintain existing public 
     housing units; and
       (3) sufficient funding to create 50,000 new section 8 
     vouchers each year for the next 5 years.

     SEC. 318. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DEFENSE.

       It is the sense of Congress that defense spending should be 
     maintained at current levels, and that priority should be 
     given to defense readiness and full funding for personnel 
     salaries and supplies, as opposed to continued expansions of 
     large weapons systems.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kennedy] and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Committee on the Budget, we 
oppose this amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] will control 
10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are all here tonight to vote for a resolution which 
will finally balance the Federal budget. I have long been a supporter 
of a balanced budget. I respect the work of the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich) and 
others.
  The gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Charlie Stenholm] and so many people 
in this Chamber have worked very hard to achieve a balanced budget, and 
this is the culmination of a year's worth of effort. I salute those who 
have come to this agreement. But while we have in this agreement 
achieved a zero deficit over a period of 10 years, we have also 
achieved a very unbalanced budget.
  This is a budget which is fundamentally unbalanced in terms of who it 
hurts and who it helps. This resolution, as we will vote on it in the 
next hour or so in this Chamber, I think will do great harm to a great 
many people in our country. If we look at the kinds of hurts that this 
will do, we just have to look at the kinds of cuts that are going to 
come about. We see enormous reductions in terms of the programs that 
will affect Medicare and Medicaid, education and transportation, 
research and development, and community development.
  My amendment will provide a fully inflationary adjustment for 
domestic discretionary spending through 2002.
  Some might say, how can you possibly increase Pell grants by $1,000? 
How can you double the amount of funding for children's health to 
complete all $32 billion for children's health?
  Mr. Chairman, the Kennedy balanced budget substitute gets it right. 
This balanced budget substitute reinvests $100 billion more than the 
budget agreement in important domestic programs like Medicare and 
Medicaid, education and transportation, research and development, and 
community development. It provides a fully inflationary adjustment for 
domestic discretionary spending through 2002.
  Some might say, how can you increase a Pell grant limit by $1,000? 
How can you double the amount of children's health funding? How can you 
provide an additional $15 billion for the ISTEA program? How can you 
fully fund programs like WIC and NIH and the National Science 
Foundation, and increase funding for programs like the veterans 
programs, or legal immigrants, or the fuel assistance program, or crime 
prevention and domestic violence programs and housing? How can you 
restore cuts to hospitals and skilled nursing facilities and provide $9 
billion more in Medicaid prevention programs?
  Well, the answer is simple. Rather than providing a huge $135 billion 
tax cut, with over 50 percent of those tax cuts going to the wealthiest 
5 percent of the American people, we provide a modest $60 billion tax 
cut targeted at the middle class and fully paid for with

[[Page H3053]]

tax offsets. Rather than giving 15 or $20 billion worth of estate tax 
breaks which only go to the wealthiest 1\1/4\ percent of the American 
population, we give a modest, targeted estate tax break to the small 
businesses and family farmers that really need it.
  The Kennedy substitute targets tax cuts to the middle class and small 
businesses through the President's college tuition credits and 
deductions program, the expansion of the child care tax credit, capital 
gains for home sales, an increase in the IRA savings limit, capital 
gains incentives for investments in small businesses, estate tax relief 
for family businesses and family farms, and full health care 
deductibility for the self-employed. And it fully pays for all these 
tax cuts with revenue offsets.
  For all of my colleagues on the Democratic side who are disappointed 
with the budget agreement, I say this budget will fully and completely 
represent the values of the Democratic Party, and the Kennedy 
substitute allows my colleagues to vote for a balanced budget and 
protects their priorities.
  And, too, those Republicans that are in the Abraham Lincoln and 
Nelson Rockefeller tradition, this gives them the sense of standing 
``yes'' for tax cuts but ``no'' for just lining the pockets of the 
wealthy. And for my colleagues who will be voting for the budget 
agreement, perhaps grudgingly, I call upon them to also vote for this 
substitute. Do not confuse the best deal possible with the best 
possible deal. Vote for the Kennedy amendment.

                              {time}  0200

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kennedy 
amendment, because once again we stand at a historic juncture where we 
can make a very clear choice. Because quite the contrary what my 
colleague from Massachusetts has said, when we offer broad-based tax 
relief to working families, we are not lining the pockets of the rich. 
Quite the contrary. We are allowing working families to save, spend and 
invest more of their hard-earned money as they see fit. Sadly, the 
Kennedy amendment offers no net tax relief for the American people. 
That is the reality of the Kennedy amendment.
  Now, it is true if there are those in this Chamber who believe that 
the era of big government should continue, they should support the 
Kennedy amendment. However, we have a broad-based agreement which says 
that we should frame our priorities properly, we should allow almost 
every American to hold on to more of his hard-earned money and send 
less of it here to Washington.
  We have worked out agreements and fashioned in the spirit of 
compromise a reasonable approach to fund priorities on both sides of 
the aisle, and that is why we must oppose the Kennedy amendment. 
Because the fact is, even though we can have disagreements about the 
course of government, once we have hammered out this type of agreement 
to lead to a balanced budget and, most importantly, offer broad-based 
tax relief that does not punish people for succeeding nor does it ask 
working families to continue to give more and more and more of their 
hard-earned money to Washington, we have the basis for, in fact, 
bringing this budget into balance, we have the basis for changing the 
psychology of government as well as the reality of government, and so 
it is for compassionate reasons that we rise in opposition to the 
Kennedy amendment, it is precisely because we believe that the era of 
big government should in fact be over. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, 
I oppose the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Connecticut has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from 
Connecticut want to yield to one of his speakers?
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, it is now 2 o'clock. We are going to reserve 
the balance of our time and the gentleman is free to continue.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds 
to respond to the gentleman from Arizona.
  First of all I would just say yama-yama-yama, here we go again. The 
fact of the matter is that we have got $60 billion worth of tax 
reductions scored by CBO in this budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. How does that go, yama-yama-yama?
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's substitute is perhaps the best 
balanced approach that we have had on the floor tonight. I am going to 
support it. For those who are interested in investments in health and 
education, we have a chance here to provide the school construction 
money that we talked about that did not make it into this plan. We have 
a chance to not have to worry about choosing which 5 million kids get 
health insurance and which 5 million do not of the 10 million who do 
not have health insurance in this country, because the Kennedy proposal 
supports both of them.
  We also have in this proposal an increase in Pell grants for those 
who need it the most. It targets the relief both on the spending side 
and the tax side, $60 billion I might tell my friend from Arizona in 
tax relief, and some capital gains tax relief for small businesses. If 
Members are interested in the whole question of full health care 
deductibility for people who are self-employed, it is here. If Members 
are interested in education tax cuts, they are here.
  This is the best balanced approach I think we will have on the floor 
tonight, I hope my colleagues will support it, and I commend my friend 
from Massachusetts for his work.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy substitute 
budget. This alternative budget contains a number of key improvements 
to the bipartisan budget agreement and one of them includes money to 
fix our crumbling schools. School construction funding should have been 
part of the budget agreement. The Republican leadership's opposition to 
this program is seriously misguided. The need is real. Today all over 
America our schools are inadequate, overcrowded and literally falling 
down. A GAO report released last summer confirmed the worst. Record 
numbers of school buildings across America are in disrepair. One-third 
of our schools serving 14 million students need extensive repairs. 
About 60 percent of schools need to have their roofs, walls and floors 
fixed and with school enrollment skyrocketing the problem will only get 
worse. The state of our schools is a national disgrace. We simply 
cannot prepare America's children for the 21st century in 19th century 
schools. Students cannot learn when the walls of the classrooms are 
crumbling down. This amendment makes a big difference in school 
construction and we are going to keep fighting until we win because our 
children deserve nothing less.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I was surprised to hear my 
friend from Connecticut refer to the fact that it was 2 o'clock in the 
morning, as if that was a reason not to debate. That is because his 
leadership decided this. That is because his leadership was in such a 
hurry to get this thing through before people looked at it that we are 
here at 2 o'clock in the morning. This is really a case of blaming the 
victim. Stay here all night, rush the debate through and then use that 
as an excuse to not fully debate.
  We are here again with a budget which is a significant improvement 
because it preserves the balancing of the budget. I want to remind 
Members of what I said before. From 1992 when we had a $292 billion 
deficit until this year, we reduced it $230 billion in 5 years. Now we 
are going the next $60 billion in another 5 years. We are nearly 
drowning in self-congratulation for those who are going to bring it 
down $65 billion in 5 years, who denigrated having brought it down $230 
billion in

[[Page H3054]]

the previous 5. Not only are they doing that, they are doing it by 
making things less fair. They are doing it by saying if you are poor, 
we will make it harder on you. If you are wealthy, we will give you 
more of a tax break because we think that is the way to get you to 
work.
  If you think that this country needs to continue to subsidize the 
defense budgets of western Europe and Japan, then the underlying budget 
is a great one because it builds in all of that subsidy, but if you 
think we ought to be doing more about education here in this country, 
it does very little. The gentleman from Massachusetts continues the 
march towards balancing the budget, but he recognizes that we are in an 
economy today where the market works well to produce wealth, it 
certainly does. The market through technological change, through global 
interaction, is working well, but some people are being left behind.
  What the underlying budget does, with a few exceptions, and I give 
the President credit for getting a few exceptions, but the essential 
task of the underlying budget is to look at those who are being left 
behind and wave good-bye as the rest of us move forward, to give tax 
relief of an unfair sort, unlike the gentleman's balanced tax relief, 
and essentially take one more step away from fairness in this country.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from 
Connecticut going to yield to anyone on his side?
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we will be closing the debate as is our 
right. We have one speaker.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not about big government. 
It is about good government and fair government. This amendment as far 
as I am concerned is far superior than that brought forth by the 
committee. It does more in deficit reduction. It does a much better job 
of guaranteeing investments that we need to grow in the 21st century. 
It provides dramatic rather than token increases in student aid. It 
does a better job for transportation. It does a better job of targeting 
tax cuts to the people who need it rather than the people who lust for 
it. It gives the tax cuts to people who are hardworking, working 
people, not the richest 5 percent of people in the country. It does a 
far better job for children's health, for Medicare, for veterans, it is 
more disciplined on defense, it targets tax cuts to small farmers and 
small businessmen, and it provides basic health care opportunities for 
farmers that they have not seen in many a year in this country.
  It is far superior, it is far more just, and it is far more fiscally 
responsible. I commend the gentleman for offering it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are under no orders tonight or yesterday or 
tomorrow. It is just that I remember the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich] in this Chamber in 1989 offering an amendment to finally get 
our country's financial house in order. There were only 30 people who 
supported him, and our deficits just got bigger and bigger and our 
national debt just kept growing and growing.
  The perfect amendment, it appears on that side of the aisle, is the 
Kennedy substitute, and I respect that. Many on our side felt the 
perfect amendment was offered by the conservative coalition, the CATS. 
So we had our perfect amendment and you have your perfect amendment and 
what we are trying to do is to find something that we both can agree 
on.
  I am hoping that the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and 
others are right, that we can come to an agreement on a package that 
does some of what we want, some of what the Democrats want, and will be 
ultimately signed by the President.
  We wanted to see controlling the growth of entitlements, allowing 
entitlements to grow at 6 and 7 percent a year instead of at 10 percent 
a year, we wanted to deal with the trust fund that is literally going 
bankrupt, and we also on this side of the aisle wanted tax cuts. That 
is true. The other side does not. We accept that. On the other side of 
the aisle they wanted more spending on discretionary spending. We did 
not. But ultimately the President won that battle.
  So we have an agreement, more discretionary spending that that side 
of the aisle wants, controlling the growth of entitlements and tax cuts 
which our side wants. It is an agreement. It is basically the best we 
seem to be able to do with a Democrat President and Republican 
Congress. That is why we oppose this amendment.
  We support something that is very different than what the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] brought forward. I know the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] wants something very different from 
what we brought forward. But in the end we have an agreement, and I 
hope and pray that not only we defeat this amendment but that we defeat 
the transportation amendment that will follow this debate here, vote 
out this agreement, and then work in the next 2 years to make this 
agreement work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 123, 
noes 306, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 146]

                               AYES--123

     Ackerman
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--306

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger

[[Page H3055]]


     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Jefferson
     McIntosh
     Pomeroy
     Schiff
     Talent
     Yates

                              {time}  0230

  Ms. WATERS, Ms. KILPATRICK, and Mr. CUMMINGS 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.


  Amendment No. 5 In The Nature Of A Substitute Offered by Mr. SHUSTER

  Mr. SHUSTER. 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 No. 5 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mr. Shuster:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1998.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 1998 is hereby established and that 
     the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1999 
     through 2002 are hereby set forth.
                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 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 1998: $1,198,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,241,859,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,285,559,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,343,591,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,407,564,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: -$7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: -$11,083,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: -$21,969,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$22,821,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$19,871,000,000.
       (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 1998: $1,386,875,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,439,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,486,311,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,520,242,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,551,563,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,371,848,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,424,002,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,468,748,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,500,854,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,516,024,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $172,869,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $182,143,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $183,189,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $157,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $108,460,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,593,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,836,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,082,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,301,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,473,200,000,000.
       (6) Direct Loan Obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $33,829,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $33,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $34,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $36,039,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $37,099,000,000.
       (7) Primary Loan Guarantee Commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $315,472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $324,749,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $328,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $332,063,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $335,141,000,000.

     SEC. 102. 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 1998 through 2002 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $268,197,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,978,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,784,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,771,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $757,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $274,802,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,418,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,305,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,110,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $289,092,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $272,571,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,050,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,909,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,558,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,966,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $12,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,918,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,569,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,021,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $13,093,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,782,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,981,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,077,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $13,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,114,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,751,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,122,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $13,826,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,353,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,812,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,178,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $14,217,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,882,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,203,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,528,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,947,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,013,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,862,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,604,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,668,000,000.

[[Page H3056]]

       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,247,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,050,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,469,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,446,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,078,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,186,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,293,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,109,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,939,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,048,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,141,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,846,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,867,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,174,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,877,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,405,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $30,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,702,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $32,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,570,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,963,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $32,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,720,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $34,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,086,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,313,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $34,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,133,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,892,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,620,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,790,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,294,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,047,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,215,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,664,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,071,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,509,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,978,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,494,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,960,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,670,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,108,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,965,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,660,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,607,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$920,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,739,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $245,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,082,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,299,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,887,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $253,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,183,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,821,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,238,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $255,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,078,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,133,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,574,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $257,989,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,678,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,541,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,680,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $259,897,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,402,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,933,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $155,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,256,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $135,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,114,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,357,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,135,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,303,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,184,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,247,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,387,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,867,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,489,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,902,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,943,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,406,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,810,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,986,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,020,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,764,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,350,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,098,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,452,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,790,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,429,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,180,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,475,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,062,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $12,328,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $20,665,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,335,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,092,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $21,899,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,703,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,728,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,926,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $23,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,959,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,931,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $14,701,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $24,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,339,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,316,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,426,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,676,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $137,799,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $137,767,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $85,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $144,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $144,944,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:

[[Page H3057]]

       (A) New budget authority, $154,068,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $153,947,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $163,412,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $163,135,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $172,171,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $171,727,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $201,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $201,764,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $212,073,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $211,548,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $225,540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $225,537,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,636,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $238,781,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $251,548,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $250,769,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,032,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $247,758,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $45,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $254,090,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $258,064,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $75,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $269,566,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,161,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $110,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,145,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,264,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $145,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,945,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,239,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $170,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $37,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,424,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,524,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,060,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,196,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,792,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,866,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,022,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,043,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,398,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,545,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,337,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,029,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $27,096,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,466,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,068,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $26,671,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,740,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,908,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,177,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $26,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,093,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,215,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,249,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,282,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,436,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,277,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,129,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,765,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,609,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,120,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,476,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,240,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,354,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,901,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,883,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,879,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,711,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,959,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,444,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,363,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,977,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,727,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,675,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,131,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,105,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,547,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $304,558,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $304,558,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $305,075,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $305,075,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $303,833,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,833,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $303,728,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,728,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       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.

[[Page H3058]]

       (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 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,841,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$41,841,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,949,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,949,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,937,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,937,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$39,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$39,151,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,124,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,124,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
                 TITLE II--RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide for 
     two separate reconciliation bills: the first for entitlement 
     reforms and the second for tax relief. In the event Senate 
     procedures preclude the consideration of two separate bills, 
     this section would permit the consideration of one omnibus 
     reconciliation bill.
       (b) Submissions.--
       (1) Entitlement reforms.--Not later than June 12, 1997, the 
     House committees named in subsection (c) 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.
       (2) Tax relief and miscellaneous reforms.--Not later than 
     June 13, 1997, the House committees named in subsection (d) 
     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.
       (c) Instructions Relating to Entitlement Reforms.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture 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: 
     $34,571,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $37,008,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $211,443,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (2) Committee on banking and financial services.--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: -$8,435,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1998, -$5,091,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, and -$50,306,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1998 through 2002.
       (3) 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: $393,533,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 1998, $506,791,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 2002, and $2,617,528,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (4) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce 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: $17,222,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1998, $17,673,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
     2002, and $103,109,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 
     through 2002.
       (5) 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: $68,975,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $81,896,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $443,061,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 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: $0 in fiscal year 1998, 
     $621,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and $1,829,000,000 in 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (6) 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: $18,087,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $17,283,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $106,615,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002.
       (7) 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: 
     $22,444,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $24,563,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $139,134,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (8) Committee on ways and means.--(A) The House Committee 
     on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction such that the total level of direct spending for 
     that committee does not exceed: $397,546,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1998, $506,442,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, and $2,621,578,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1998 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: 
     $1,176,253,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 1998, 
     $1,386,546,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $7,517,939,000,000 in revenues in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (d) Instructions Relating to Tax Relief and Miscellaneous 
     Reforms.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture 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: 
     $34,571,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $37,008,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $211,443,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (2) Committee on banking and financial services.--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: -$8,435,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1998, -$5,091,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, and -$50,306,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1998 through 2002.
       (3) 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: $393,533,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 1998, $506,791,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 2002, and $2,617,528,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (4) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce 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: $17,222,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1998, $17,673,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
     2002, and $103,109,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 
     through 2002.
       (5) 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: $68,975,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $81,896,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $443,061,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 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: $0 in fiscal year 1998 
     $621,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $1,829,000,000 in fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (6) 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: $18,087,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $17,283,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $106,615,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002.
       (7) 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: 
     $22,444,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $24,563,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $139,134,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (8) Committee on ways and means.--(A) The House Committee 
     on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction such that the total level of direct spending for 
     that committee does not exceed: $397,546,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1998, $506,442,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, and $2,621,578,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1998 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: 
     $1,168,853,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 1998, 
     $1,366,046,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $7,432,939,000,000 in revenues in fiscal years 1998 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.
       (f) Children's Health Initiative.--If the Committees on 
     Commerce and Ways and

[[Page H3059]]

     Means report recommendations pursuant to their reconciliation 
     instructions that, combined, provide an initiative for 
     children's health that would increase the deficit by more 
     than $2.3 billion for fiscal year 1998, by more than $3.9 
     billion for fiscal year 2002, and by more than $16 billion 
     for the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002, the 
     committees shall be deemed to not have complied with their 
     reconciliation instructions pursuant to section 310(d) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
                     TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SURFACE 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to adjust the 
     appropriate budgetary levels to accommodate legislation 
     increasing spending from the highway trust fund on surface 
     transportation and highway safety above the levels assumed in 
     this resolution if such legislation is deficit neutral.
       (b) Deficit Neutrality Requirement.--(1) In order to 
     receive the adjustments specified in subsection (c), a bill 
     reported by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure that provides new budget authority above the 
     levels assumed in this resolution for programs authorized out 
     of the highway trust fund must be deficit neutral.
       (2) A deficit-neutral bill must meet the following 
     conditions:
       (A) The amount of new budget authority provided for 
     programs authorized out of the highway trust fund must be in 
     excess of $25.949 billion in new budget authority for fiscal 
     year 1998, $25.464 billion in new budget authority for fiscal 
     year 2002, and $127.973 billion in new budget authority for 
     the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (B) The outlays estimated to flow from the excess new 
     budget authority set forth in subparagraph (A) must be offset 
     for fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 2002, and for the period of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002. For the sole purpose of 
     estimating the amount of outlays flowing from excess new 
     budget authority under this section, it shall be assumed that 
     such excess new budget authority would have an obligation 
     limitation sufficient to accommodate that new budget 
     authority.
       (C) The outlays estimated to flow from the excess new 
     budget authority must be offset by (i) other direct spending 
     or revenue provisions within that transportation bill, (ii) 
     the net reduction in other direct spending and revenue 
     legislation that is enacted during this Congress after the 
     date of adoption of this resolution and before such 
     transportation bill is reported (in excess of the levels 
     assumed in this resolution), or (iii) a combination of the 
     offsets specified in clauses (i) and (ii).
       (D) As used in 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.
       (c) Revised Levels.--(1) When the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure reports a bill (or when a 
     conference report thereon is filed) meeting the conditions 
     set forth in subsection (b)(2), the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget shall increase the allocation of new budget 
     authority to that committee by the amount of new budget 
     authority provided in that bill (and that is above the levels 
     set forth in subsection (b)(2)(A)) for programs authorized 
     out of the highway trust fund.
       (2) After the enactment of the transportation bill 
     described in paragraph (1) and upon the reporting of a 
     general, supplemental or continuing resolution making 
     appropriations by the Committee on Appropriations (or upon 
     the filing of a conference report thereon) establishing an 
     obligation limitation above the levels specified in 
     subsection (b)(2)(A) (at a level sufficient to obligate some 
     or all of the budget authority specified in paragraph (1)), 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall increase 
     the allocation and aggregate levels of outlays to that 
     committee for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 by the appropriate 
     amount.
       (d) Revisions.--Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant 
     to this section shall be considered for purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and 
     aggregates contained in this resolution.
       (e) Reversals.--If any legislation referred to in this 
     section is not enacted into law, then the chairman of the 
     House Committee on the Budget shall, as soon as practicable, 
     reverse adjustments made under this section for such 
     legislation and have such adjustments published in the 
     Congressional Record.
       (f) Determination of Budgetary Levels.--For the purposes of 
     this section, budgetary levels shall be determined on the 
     basis of estimates made by the House Committee on the Budget.
       (g) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``highway trust fund'' refers to the following budget 
     accounts (or any successor accounts):
       (1) 69-8083-0-7-401 (Federal-Aid Highways).
       (2) 69-8191-0-7-401 (Mass Transit Capital Fund).
       (3) 69-8350-0-7-401 (Mass Transit Formula Grants).
       (4) 69-8016-0-7-401 (National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration-Operations and Research).
       (5) 69-8020-0-7-401 (Highway Traffic Safety Grants).
       (6) 69-8048-0-7-401 (National Motor Carrier Safety 
     Program).

     SEC. 302. SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

       (a) Budgetary Treatment.--
       (1) In general.--For the purpose of any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget and the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, no amounts realized from the sale of an asset shall be 
     scored with respect to the level of budget authority, 
     outlays, or revenues if such sale would cause an increase in 
     the deficit as calculated pursuant to paragraph (2).
       (2) Calculation of net present value.--The deficit estimate 
     of an asset sale shall be the net present value of the cash 
     flow from--
       (A) proceeds from the asset sale;
       (B) future receipts that would be expected from continued 
     ownership of the asset by the Government; and
       (C) expected future spending by the Government at a level 
     necessary to continue to operate and maintain the asset to 
     generate the receipts estimated pursuant to subparagraph (B).
       (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 the 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.
       (d) Determination of Budgetary Levels.--For the purposes of 
     this section, budgetary levels shall be determined on the 
     basis of estimates made by the House Committee on the Budget.

     SEC. 303. ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE FUND.

       (a) Committee Allocations.--In the House, after the 
     Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure report a bill (or a conference report thereon 
     is filed) to reform the Superfund program to facilitate the 
     cleanup of hazardous waste sites, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget shall submit revised allocations and 
     budget aggregates to carry out this section by an amount not 
     to exceed the excess subject to the limitation. These 
     revisions shall be considered for purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as the allocations and 
     aggregates contained in this resolution.
       (b) Limitations.--The adjustments made under this section 
     shall not exceed--
       (1) $200 million in budget authority for fiscal year 1998 
     and the estimated outlays flowing therefrom.
       (2) $200 million in budget authority for fiscal year 2002 
     and the estimated outlays flowing therefrom.
       (3) $1 billion in budget authority for the period of fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002 and the estimated outlays flowing 
     therefrom.
       (c) Readjustments.--In the House, any adjustments made 
     under this section for any appropriation measure may be 
     readjusted if that measure is not enacted into law.

     SEC. 304. SEPARATE ALLOCATION FOR LAND ACQUISITIONS AND 
                   EXCHANGES.

       (a) Allocation by Chairman.--In the House, upon the 
     reporting of a bill by the Committee on Appropriations (or 
     upon the filing of a conference report thereon) providing 
     $700 million in budget authority for fiscal year 1998 for 
     Federal land acquisitions and to finalize priority Federal 
     land exchanges, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall allocate that amount of budget authority and the 
     corresponding amount of outlays.
       (b) Treatment of Allocations in the House.--In the House, 
     for purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     allocations made under subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 
     made pursuant to section 602(a)(1) of that Act and shall be 
     deemed to be a separate suballocation for purposes of the 
     application of section 302(f) of that Act as modified by 
     section 602(c) of that Act.
                 TITLE IV--SENSE OF CONGRESS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON BASELINES.

       (a) Findings.--The 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 portrayed 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 and executive accountability for 
     Federal spending.

     SEC. 402. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON REPAYMENT OF THE FEDERAL DEBT.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) The Congress and the President have a basic moral and 
     ethical responsibility to future generations to repay the 
     Federal debt, including the money borrowed from the Social 
     Security Trust Fund.
       (2) The Congress and the President should enact a law which 
     creates a regimen for paying off the Federal debt within 30 
     years.
       (b) Sense of Congress Regarding President's Submission to 
     Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that:
       (1) The President's annual budget submission to Congress 
     should include a plan for repayment of Federal debt beyond 
     the year

[[Page H3060]]

     2002, including the money borrowed from the Social Security 
     Trust Fund.
       (2) The plan should specifically explain how the President 
     would cap spending growth at a level one percentage point 
     lower than projected growth in revenues.
       (3) If spending growth were held to a level one percentage 
     point lower than projected growth in revenues, then the 
     Federal debt could be repaid within 30 years.

     SEC. 403. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON COMMISSION ON LONG-TERM 
                   BUDGETARY PROBLEMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) achieving a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002 is only 
     the first step necessary to restore our Nation's economic 
     prosperity;
       (2) the imminent retirement of the baby-boom generation 
     will greatly increase the demand for government services;
       (3) this burden will be borne by a relatively smaller work 
     force resulting in an unprecedented intergenerational 
     transfer of financial resources;
       (4) the rising demand for retirement and medical benefits 
     will quickly jeopardize the solvency of the medicare, social 
     security, and Federal retirement trust funds; and
       (5) the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 
     marginal tax rates would have to increase by 50 percent over 
     the next 5 years to cover the long-term projected costs of 
     retirement and health benefits.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     legislation should be enacted to create a commission to 
     assess long-term budgetary problems, their implications for 
     both the baby-boom generation and tomorrow's workforce, and 
     make such recommendations as it deems appropriate to ensure 
     our Nation's future prosperity.

     SEC. 404. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CORPORATE WELFARE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that the functional 
     levels and aggregates in this budget resolution assume that--
       (1) the Federal Government supports profit-making 
     enterprises and industries through billions of dollars in 
     payments, benefits, and programs;
       (2) many of these subsidies do not serve a clear and 
     compelling public interest;
       (3) corporate subsidies frequently provide unfair 
     competitive advantages to certain industries and industry 
     segments; and
       (4) at a time when millions of Americans are being asked to 
     sacrifice in order to balance the budget, the corporate 
     sector should bear its share of the burden.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     legislation should be enacted to--
       (1) eliminate the most egregious corporate subsidies; and
       (2) create a commission to recommend the elimination of 
     Federal payments, benefits, and programs which predominantly 
     benefit a particular industry or segment of an industry, 
     rather than provide a clear and compelling public benefit, 
     and include a fast-track process for the consideration of 
     those recommendations.

     SEC. 405. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FAMILY VIOLENCE OPTION 
                   CLARIFYING AMENDMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) Domestic violence is the leading cause of physical 
     injury to women. The Department of Justice estimates that 
     over 1,000,000 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, Illinois, document, for the 
     first time, the interrelationship between domestic violence 
     and welfare by showing that from 34 percent to 65 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.
       (6) The restructuring of 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.
       (7) In recognition of this finding, the House Committee on 
     the Budget unanimously passed a sense of Congress amendment 
     on domestic violence and Federal assistance to the fiscal 
     year 1997 budget resolution. Subsequently, Congress passed 
     the family violence option amendment to last year's welfare 
     reform reconciliation bill.
       (8) The family violence option gives States the flexibility 
     to grant temporary waivers from time limits and work 
     requirements for domestic violence victims who would suffer 
     extreme hardship from the application of these provisions. 
     These waivers were not intended to be included as part of the 
     permanent 20 percent hardship exemption.
       (9) The Department of Health and Human Services has been 
     slow to issue regulations regarding this provision. As a 
     result, States are hesitant to fully implement the family 
     violence option fearing it will interfere with the 20 percent 
     hardship exemption.
       (10) Currently 15 States have opted to include the family 
     violence option in their welfare plans, and 13 other States 
     have included some type of domestic violence provisions in 
     their plans.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) States should not be subject to any numerical limits in 
     granting domestic violence good cause waivers to individuals 
     receiving assistance for all requirements where compliance 
     with such requirements would make it more difficult for 
     individuals receiving assistance to escape domestic violence; 
     and
       (2) any individuals granted a domestic violence good cause 
     waiver by States should not be included in the States' 20 
     percent hardship exemption.

    TITLE V--TRANSPORTATION REVENUES USED SOLELY FOR TRANSPORTATION

     SEC. 501. READJUSTMENTS.

       (a) Increase in Function 400.--Levels of new budget 
     authority and outlays set forth in function 400 in section 
     102 shall be increased as follows:
       (1) for fiscal year 1998, by $0 in outlays and by $0 in new 
     budget authority;
       (2) for fiscal year 1999, by $770,000,000 in outlays and by 
     $3,600,000,000 in new budget authority;
       (3) for fiscal year 2000, by $2,575,000,000 in outlays and 
     by $4,796,000,000 in new budget authority;
       (4) for fiscal year 2001, by $3,765,000,000 in outlays and 
     by $5,363,000,000 in new budget authority; and
       (5) for fiscal year 2002, by $4,488,000,000 in outlays and 
     by $5,619,000,000 in new budget authority.
       (b) Offsets.--(1)(A) The total budget outlays for each 
     fiscal year set forth in each functional category in section 
     102 shall be reduced by an amount determined through a pro 
     rata reduction of discretionary outlays within each function 
     necessary to achieve the following outlay reductions:
       (i) for fiscal year 1998, by $0 in outlays;
       (ii) for fiscal year 1999, by $746,000,000 in outlays;
       (iii) for fiscal year 2000, by $2,422,000,000 in outlays;
       (iv) for fiscal year 2001, by $3,532,000,000 in outlays; 
     and
       (v) for fiscal year 2002, by $4,242,000,000 in outlays;

     and corresponding reductions in new budget authority shall be 
     made in each function consistent with such pro rata 
     reductions in outlays. Reductions in new budget authority 
     shall be made to section 101(2) consistent with this 
     subparagraph and subsection (a).
       (B) These reductions shall not be made to the mandatory 
     outlay portion of any function, including (but not limited 
     to) Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. For purposes of 
     the application of this paragraph to function 400, the pro 
     rata share shall be determined by using the amounts provided 
     for function 400 prior to any adjustment made by subparagraph 
     (A).
       (2) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed as set forth in section 101(1)(B) 
     are reduced as follows:
       (A) for fiscal year 1998, by $0;
       (B) for fiscal year 1999, by $24,000,000;
       (C) for fiscal year 2000, by $153,000,000;
       (D) for fiscal year 2001, by $233,000,000; and
       (E) for fiscal year 2002, by $246,000,000.
       (3) The amounts by which to appropriate levels of total 
     budget outlays in section 101(3) are increased as follows:
       (A) for fiscal year 1998, by $0;
       (B) for fiscal year 1999, by $24,000,000;
       (C) for fiscal year 2000, by $153,000,000;
       (D) for fiscal year 2001, by $233,000,000;
       (D) for fiscal year 2002, by $246,000,000.
       (4) The reconciliation directives to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means in sections 201(c)(8)(B) and 201(d)(8)(B) shall be 
     adjusted accordingly.

     SEC. 502. HIGHWAY TRUST FUND ALLOCATIONS.

       (a) Allocated Amounts.--Of the amounts of outlays allocated 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate 
     by the joint explanatory statement accompanying this 
     resolution pursuant to sections 302 and 602 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the following amounts shall 
     be used for contract authority spending out of the Highway 
     Trust Fund--
       (1) for fiscal year 1998, $22,256,000,000 in outlays;
       (2) for fiscal year 1999, $24,063,000,000 in outlays;
       (3) for fiscal year 2000, $26,092,000,000 in outlays;
       (4) for fiscal year 2001, $27,400,000,000 in outlays; and
       (5) for fiscal year 2002, $28,344,000,000 in outlays.
       (b) Enforcement.--Determinations regarding points of order 
     made under section 302(f) or 602(c) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 shall take into account subsection (a).
       (c) Statutory Implementation.--As part of reauthorization 
     of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991, provisions shall be included to enact this section into 
     permanent law.

     SEC. 503. PRIORITY FOR RESTORATION OF CUTS.

       Any outlays that would have been allocated for surface 
     transportation pursuant to

[[Page H3061]]

     section 301 shall first be used to restore any cuts to 
     discretionary spending made as a result of section 501. The 
     chairman of the House Committee on the Budget shall implement 
     section 301 consistent with this section.

     SEC. 504. MATHEMATICAL CONSISTENCY.

       The Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may make 
     technical changes consistent with this title to ensure 
     mathematical consistency.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster] and a Member opposed, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich], will each control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Surface 
Transportation.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] on behalf of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  I think as we get into this discussion, we need to take a step back, 
take off the green eyeshades and look at what we are trying to achieve. 
Instead of counting beans, we should view transportation spending as an 
investment in our future. I believe that this budget assumes continued 
positive economic performance. Well, if we are to achieve that, we need 
to be sure that we can have an efficient transportation network that 
can support that growth. In these days of lower costs due to our 
strict, sophisticated inventory controls, business must be able to rely 
on our transportation system.
  Mr. Chairman, in order to move beyond the status quo and to start to 
meet our urgent transportation needs in the upcoming ISTEA 
reauthorization, we need the funding provided for in this amendment. 
Join the many States, cities and other public and private groups who 
support the goals of this amendment and vote yes for a better future 
for all Americans.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the distinguished ranking minority Member of 
our committee, and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to 
control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski].
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shuster-
Oberstar substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Shuster-Oberstar 
Substitute. As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, well versed in the enormous needs of our country's 
infrastructure, I cannot in good conscience support a budget agreement 
that so grossly and dishonestly under funds our highway and transit 
programs.
  When Congress established the Highway Trust Fund in 1956, it was a 
deliberate policy decision to impose a user fee funding mechanism and a 
trust fund rather than continuing to support transportation 
infrastructure programs out of general revenues. The Highway Trust Fund 
ensured that the money was collected from those benefiting from the 
improvements by taxing gasoline, diesel and special fuels as well as 
heavy trucks and tires. By creating a trust fund, Congress was 
presumably guaranteeing a promise to those contributing to the fund 
that the money would be dedicated to transportation infrastructure 
improvements. This promise has blatantly been ignored for far too long. 
The monies that are actually spent on our country's infrastructure are 
consistently, and substantially, less than what is collected. As a 
result, an enormous surplus has been allowed to accumulate in the Trust 
Fund, much to the delight of our Nation's bookkeepers. Though unable to 
spend even one dollar of these hoarded funds, this surplus, currently 
an inconceivable $24 billion, allows them to mask deficit spending. 
This practice of locking up billion of dollars in treasury notes that 
should rightfully be stimulating our economy has been likened to a 
shell game and amounts to nothing more than fraud on the taxpayer. To 
call this money a dedicated tax and then disregard its intended use is 
fraudulent. If we allow this practice to continue, we enable the 
perpetuation of this fraud at the expense of our Nation's 
infrastructure. I can tell you as a fourteen year veteran of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that our nation's 
infrastructure can no longer afford to pay the price for dishonest 
bookkeeping.
  The Department of Transportation estimates that simply maintaining 
current conditions on our highway, bridge, and transit systems will 
require annual investments of $57 billion, an increase of 41%. These 
conditions are indisputable unacceptable and unsafe. In my home state 
of Pennsylvania, for example, more than 70% of our roads were rated 
fair to poor. Over 40% of our bridges were deemed deficient. These 
statistics are not inconsequential. Inadequate roads and bridges are a 
factor in traffic accidents that result annually in over 12,000 highway 
deaths nationwide. Transit needs are at least as critical. One-third of 
rail maintenance yards, stations, and bridges and almost one-half of 
transit buildings are still in poor or fair condition. Rolling stock 
needs immediate replacement as the average fleet age for all classes of 
bus and paratransit vehicles has exceeded the useful life of the 
vehicles. Additionally, 51% of rural buses are overage and more than 
9,000 urban buses need immediate replacement. According to the DOT, to 
improve the condition's of our nation's infrastructure to optimal 
levels would require annual investments of $80 billion. Clearly, our 
country has enormous needs. The Shuster-Oberstar Substitute recognizes 
that we cannot afford to look the other way while revenues committed to 
address these needs sit fallow.
  The Budget Agreement provides for inadequate an dishonest 
transportation funding levels. Despite arguments to the contrary, CBO 
supplied the Budget Committee with data on May 15, demonstrating that 
the Agreement shortchanges infrastructure spending by $12 billion. 
According to CBO, the Highway Trust Fund will amass $137 billion over 
the five years under the Budget Agreement while total outlays only 
amount to $125 billion over the same time period. CBO's data clearly 
reveals that under the Budget Agreement gas taxes deposited into the 
Highway Trust Fund will NOT be spent for their intended purpose. 
Furthermore, under the proposed Agreement, the inaccessible Trust Fund 
balance will increase 55% to $37 billion by the year 2002 while our 
grossly under funded highway and transit programs suffer. The Shuster-
Oberstar Substitute safeguards against this inappropriate practice.
  The Shuster-Oberstar Substitute does not attempt to draw down on the 
$24 billion balance that has already been allowed to accumulate in the 
Highway Trust Fund, nor does it spend the existing 4.3 cents-per-gallon 
gas tax that was created for deficit reduction. Rather, the substitute 
seeks solely to restore the promise inherent in the establishment of 
the Trust Fund by preventing further growth in the idle balances. 
Highway Trust Fund spending is increased to $137 billion so that 
outlays equal revenues into the fund during the five-year period of the 
Budget Resolution. The Shuster-Oberstar Substitute would increase 
transit spending by $2.3 billion from the $18.9 billion proposed in the 
Budget Agreement to more than $21 billion. While such a proposal would 
provide an additional $12 billion above Budget Reconciliation 
assumptions, trust fund balances would remain stable. Under this 
Substitute, our intended system of collection and redistribution is 
preserved and safeguarded.
  The Shuster-Oberstar Substitute provides offsets for the increased 
spending on a year by year basis with minor reductions in discretionary 
spending and the proposed tax cuts. Such offsets must accompany any 
proposal for increased spending within the context of a Balanced Budget 
Agreement. The minimal cuts, .0039 over five years, are distributed 
evenly across discretionary spending and tax cuts, a compromise by all 
that only further illustrates a bipartisan awareness of our 
infrastructure's critical needs. While offsets are not popular, they 
are an unpleasant reality and the only responsible solution. Surely it 
would have been preferable if those involved in formulating the Budget 
Agreement had fulfilled their duties and proposed legitimate offsets 
themselves, rather than continuing the dishonest practice of using 
Transportation Trust Fund revenues to mask deficit spending elsewhere. 
The Shuster-Oberstar Substitute accepts such responsibility, while 
representing the will of the House with respect to taking 
Transportation Trust Funds off budget, and using the available revenues 
for their intended use. In the 104th Congress, 284 Members voted for 
such a measure. An identical bill in the 105th Congress currently has 
239 cosponsors.

  When considering the offsets provided in the Shuster-Oberstar 
Substitute, it is important to recognize the enormous benefits of 
infrastructure investment. Studies have indicated that every $1 billion 
expenditure in infrastructure supports 42,000 full time jobs in highway 
construction and supply industries. Investment in our infrastructure 
does not only serve to create new jobs, it improves the productivity of 
those that already exist. The Department of Transportation has found 
that since the 1950's, industry realized production cost savings of 24 
cents for each dollar of investment

[[Page H3062]]

in highways, the costs of which are recouped through these savings 
after only four years. Current conditions cost our Nation dearly in 
lost productivity as Americans waste 1.6 million hours everyday sitting 
in traffic. More than 70 percent of peak-hour travel on urban 
interstates occurs under congested or severely congested conditions, 
generating costs from wasted fuel and lost productivity to the economy 
of $45 billion each year in our Nation's 50 largest cities alone. 
Perhaps most compelling is the fact that, as a result of lack of 
investment in infrastructure, our Nation's productivity growth rate 
from 1979-1990 was only 35 percent of the average of other 
industrialized countries. Though transportation represents a full 17 
percent of America's economy, the United States continues to rank 55th 
in the world in infrastructure investment while Japan, Germany and 
Taiwan, recognizing the relationship between investment and economic 
vitality, continue to spend trillions of dollars to improve their 
infrastructure.
  The only way to address our Nation's enormous infrastructure needs is 
to support the Shuster-Oberstar Substitute to the Budget Agreement. As 
a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I know 
that without the ability to spend every dime that is rightfully 
dedicated to our infrastructure, we are left with innumerable problems 
and few solutions. Without full access to these excise taxes, we cannot 
even begin to address the Donor/Donee conflict. We will be unable to 
support major reconstruction of the Interstate System nor can we afford 
any substantial upgrading of major international trade corridors and 
border infrastructure. New and improved transit systems, to meet 
mobility and clean air needs in congested urban areas, will be 
forfeited. The consequences of curtailed transit service are severe, 
especially in our urban areas. As fares increase and construction 
stops, highway congestion only worsens. Without additional money, we 
are powerless to reverse these conditions. And, perhaps most 
significantly we will be left without the resources needed to 
adequately attend to our unsafe roads and bridges, which will claim 
thousands of more lives next year.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Shuster-Oberstar Substitute. It 
is vital for our economy, imperative for our safety, and essential to 
restoring truth and honesty to the user fees we impose upon our 
citizens, and to the Highway Trust Fund we created to ensure their 
purpose.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner].
  (Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shuster 
substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the people of California's 50th 
Congressional District, I rise today in strong support of the Shuster-
Oberstar-Petri-Rahall Amendment.
  This Amendment is important to the American economy and is critical 
to the economic development of my own congressional district.
  My constituents sent me to Congress to represent them and their 
interests and to be fair and honest in doing so. Although their many 
priorities are as varied and diverse as the communities I represent, 
their concerns can best be summarized in three words: jobs, jobs, jobs.
  Jobs so they can support themselves and their families.
  Jobs so they can raise and educate their children.
  Jobs so they can contribute to our community.
  Jobs so they can enjoy their recreation.
  Jobs so they can provide for their retirement.
  This Amendment address their concerns in a fair and honest manner and 
creates these much needed jobs.
  Contrary to all the hype and hysteria, this amendment is not a 
budget-buster--in fact it honors the commitment to a balanced budget.
  And while I typically would oppose the across the board cuts this 
amendment proposes, I believe the increased investment in our 
infrastructure would more than offset the impact of these modest cuts.
  America's investment in its transportation infrastructure has created 
the strongest economy in the history of the world. It invigorates the 
economy, creates new jobs and raises revenues. Investment in 
transportation today creates jobs today--and tomorrow.
  The Shuster-Oberstar Amendment provides us with the perfect 
opportunity to again demonstrate this investment policy on a national 
scale. We cannot let this opportunity pass.
  Mr. Chairman, I will vote for my constituents' interests tonight and 
vote for the Shuster-Oberstar-Petri-Rahall Jobs Amendment, and I 
encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  Remember, it's about jobs, jobs, jobs.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  ``A deal is a deal'' intoned our colleague from North Dakota a few 
hours ago. ``Do not break the deal,'' says a panicked White House. 
``Stick to the deal,'' says the Committee on the Budget leadership on 
both sides. Whose deal, I ask my colleagues? Who was a part of this 
deal? Not me, and not very many in this Chamber. We did not have much 
to say about the deal, so why are we being asked to stick with it?
  There is only one deal that counts, and that is the deal that 
Congress made with the traveling public when we passed the gas tax in 
1956 and set up the highway trust fund. That is the deal that counts, 
the deal we made with the traveling public of America, and the public 
has been paying that tax, that user fee, and getting less and less back 
every year, $24 billion less. That is the surplus built up in the 
highway trust fund being unspent, and that surplus, that less, will 
build up to $37 billion under the deal if we stick with it; $37 billion 
more in taxes we are taking out of people and not investing in what 
they agreed to be taxed for.
  Taxes paid, benefits not received. Seventy-six thousand bridges that 
need to be repaired in America, 3 million miles of rural road that have 
been neglected over the past 10 years. Fifteen percent of the 
interstate that needs to be rebuilt, 9,000 transit buses that need to 
be replaced in America. Seventy-three percent of the transit facilities 
in this country that need to be rebuilt, and for the sake of the deal 
we would turn our backs? We would condemn America to 5 more years of 
neglect, to 5 more years of underinvestment, a country that now ranks 
55th in the world in infrastructure investment at the very time when 
Japan is investing $3 trillion in their infrastructure, when Germany is 
investing $2 trillion in their infrastructure, when Taiwan is investing 
$100 billion in their infrastructure, and we are going to say, do less 
for the sake of the deal.
  How short-sighted. We should invest the $24 billion surplus in our 
roads and bridges and transit systems and enhancements. We should put 
the 4.3 cent gas tax that we voted in this Chamber in 1993 that is 
going for deficit reduction and put it into the highway trust fund, but 
we are not asking you to do that. We are asking you to take one-third 
of 1 percent across the board and invest that little bit more, that $12 
billion more, take that little bit of a cut out of the deal that you 
were not a part of and invest it in something that makes a difference 
in America. Invest it in the $1 trillion sector of our national economy 
that is represented by transportation. That makes a difference between 
America being a strong and vibrant economy and falling further behind.
  They say, stick with the deal. I say, no taxation without investment. 
No taxation without investment in our roads, our bridges, our transit 
systems and what is good for America. This Shuster-Oberstar amendment 
balances the budget by the year 2002, does not change annual deficit 
targets, no entitlement cuts, does not specify cuts. In fact, here is 
what the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations says. He supports 
the agreement, but he will not be bound by levels specified for various 
discretionary programs.
  So where is the deal? Our deal is with our constituents. Our deal is 
with America's future. Either we want to be a part of this process, 
either we want to be relevant in America, or spend the next 5 years 
with an oil can filling potholes in the roads that we refuse to 
rebuild, in the bridge decking that needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
  The budget process is where we decide priorities for America's 
future. That is the right place. This is where we decide what our 
values are and to a large degree, put a price tag on them. We have done 
that all evening. We have done it every year in this budget process, 
and tonight, tonight with your voting card, you are going to make a 
choice, you are going to make a choice about the future of America. 
About whether we move ahead, whether that bridge to the 21st century 
the President talks about has some concrete and asphalt on it, whether 
it has some bike lanes in it, whether it has some transit buses on it, 
or where it is just a chimerical bridge that exists out there in 
nowhere. Vote for the Shuster-Oberstar

[[Page H3063]]

amendment, vote to invest in America's future, vote to put America back 
on wheels again.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], the Democratic leader on the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I ask the House to bear with me, as my voice has just about worn 
out.
  Let me first of all say, what is in this agreement? We did not ignore 
the Nation's transportation infrastructure in these negotiations. I 
would like to spend more, too. But in this agreement we have provided 
$8.5 billion in outlays for transportation over and above what the 
President's request was for fiscal year 1998, $8.15 billion over 5 
years. That means that in fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1998, 
obligations for highways will go up to $22.2 billion, as opposed to 
$20.9 billion in this year's budget. That is a 6 percent increase, not 
a whopping increase, but compare it to the one-half of 1 percent 
average increase in discretionary spending over the next 5 years and it 
is a handsome, favorable treatment for transportation.
  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] makes a powerful 
argument. He said, we only want to make a four-tenths of 1 percent cut 
across the board, but that four-tenths of 1 percent wreaks havoc with 
some major programs.
  Let us start with defense. We barely, barely increase defense, $6 
billion over the next 5 years. Pass this resolution and you will take 
$5.6 billion in outlays out of defense. We will have a freeze in 
defense spending for the next 5 years. How about that investment?
  Then look down the list of other things that will be cut across the 
board. Education, one of the things that we want to favor, one of the 
initiatives that we want in this package, $980 million, section 8 
housing, LIHEAP, WIC, $860 million, criminal justice, $510 million, 
veterans benefit, $390 million, and let me make a prediction.
  If this passes and we go to conference, I would predict, given the 
composition of the conference committee, defense will probably be 
largely restored in the compromise. What will come back to us on our 
side of the aisle is a package bereft of these things that we fought so 
hard for for the last three months. Do not make that mistake on this 
side of the aisle. We have a good deal, let us stick with the deal, let 
us put it to bed and go to bed ourselves and get on with it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, when all is said and done, I view this as 
a keep-the-faith with the American people amendment. The authors are 
asking of us to approve exactly what we said we would do, we would 
charge taxes and fees and we would use that money to build, repair, and 
maintain our Nation's infrastructure. Nothing more, nothing less. No 
one is suggesting a raid on any other funds earmarked for any other 
purpose. Rather, what the advocates of this amendment are saying is 
that we should level with the American people.

                              {time}  0245

  If we ask them for money for a specific purpose, we should use that 
money for that specific purpose.
  Let me hasten to add that approving this measure will not, it will 
not take all the hard work and negotiations that have led us to this 
historic moment and toss it out the window forcing us to start anew. 
Does anyone really believe that an approximate one-third of 1 percent 
adjustment in other spending and tax reduction programs, nothing the 
first year, one-tenth of 1 percent the second year and one-third 
overall is going to upset the apple cart? That strains credulity. Let 
us keep the faith with the American people. Let us support Shuster-
Oberstar.
  When all is said and done, I view this as a ``keep the faith'' with 
the American people amendment.
  The authors are asking of us approval to do for the people exactly 
what we said we would do when the Congress imposed gasoline taxes and 
other user fees on the traveling public--take the money provided 
therefrom and use it to build, repair and maintain our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure. Nothing more, nothing less.
  No one is suggesting a raid on any other funds earmarked for any 
other purpose. Rather, what the advocates of this amendment are saying 
is that we should level with the American public. If we ask them for 
money for a specific purpose we should use the money for that purpose. 
And if we don't, we should repeal these taxes and fees. Let me hasten 
to add that approving this measure will not--let me emphasize--will not 
take all the hard work and negotiations that have led us to this 
historic moment and toss it out the window, forcing us to start anew. 
Does anyone really believe that an approximate one-third of 1 percent 
adjustment in other spending and tax reduction programs--nothing the 
first year, one-tenth of 1 percent the second year and one third of a 
percent overall--will upset the apple cart. That strains credulity.
  Let's keep this faith with the American people and support Shuster.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the most important transportation 
infrastructure vote we will cast not only in this Congress but in the 
next 6 years. Why? Because this will set the level of funding for ISTEA 
as we reauthorize that very important piece of transportation 
legislation.
  Make no mistake about it, if we do not have this very modest $12 
billion increase, $12 billion in a $2.9-trillion budget, one-third of 1 
percent, if we do not have it, we are not going to have even the 
beginnings of adequate funds to do the things that are so necessary 
such as rebuilding our interstate, rebuilding our deficient bridges, 
our transit systems, the projects that are so important, and changing 
the formulas.
  If we do not increase the size of this pot, we will not be able to 
change the formulas so that the donor States get a fair share of their 
proportion. And, yes, we will not be able to address the issues of the 
trade corridors which have become so vital to our Nation.
  We have heard about all these so-called cuts that we make. I recall 
when we had the Medicare debate last year, I know my Republican 
colleagues were incensed that our increases were called cuts. Indeed, 
that is what we have here now because under the Shuster-Oberstar 
amendment, national defense will still go up 18.9 billion, education up 
17.7 billion, criminal justice 8.7 billion, veterans up 500 million. 
There will still be increases, but the rate of increase will not be as 
great. And most importantly, perhaps, there will be absolutely no 
reductions in the first year, next year in 1998, no reductions 
whatsoever.
  Indeed, this modest amendment can be described as purer than Ivory 
Snow because Ivory Snow is only 99.44 percent pure. This amendment is 
99.61 Kasich-Clinton pure. That is the only change we make. And if we 
cannot make that kind of modest change, we are potted plants. We are 
not exercising our duties to exercise our own judgment in this 
Congress.
  So if Members care about saving lives on our highways, if they care 
about building infrastructure to increase productivity for America, 
then I urge Members to vote in favor of this amendment. Because if we 
do not, we simply are not going to have the funds so necessary to 
rebuild America as we move into the 21st century.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have made a number of speeches on the House floor. 
This is probably the most challenging. It is the most challenging 
because I really have got to get through to both sides of the aisle. It 
is not good enough for me to just get the Republicans without touching 
the hearts and the souls of the Democrats. See, this is not about a 
highway bill. This is not about highway funds.
  I mean, yes, right, the amendment is about highway funds, but it 
could have been about education. It could have been about defense. It 
could have been about children. It could have been about a million 
different issues. This is not about roads. This is about a team.
  And it is not about a deal. I am sorry, but it is not about a deal. 
It is really about an agreement. It is about a bunch of people who got 
sent by their troops to go and try to bring something back that could 
put us together for once in this House. We did it one other time, not 
long ago. It was the war,

[[Page H3064]]

when we put aside the partisan differences and our leaders worked in 
agreement and we stood and we fought for it together. And many people 
have described that as one of the House's finest moments in modern 
history. I happen to agree with that.
  And we sent our people in, and we spent 4 months fighting like dogs 
and cats. It was not about deals. It was about a lot of principles that 
mattered to all of us.
  The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] went to those meetings 
and he stood up for his colleagues. And I went to these meetings, and I 
stood up for my colleagues. And I remember at one point in time, when I 
thought it was going to collapse, I looked at Gene Sperling and I said, 
Gene, you have to reach toward me, and I am reaching toward you, 
because we cannot walk away from this. We cannot let this fail. Our 
generation owes this to the country that we will stay here and we will 
fight and we will work it out. And we will reach an agreement, and it 
will be based on one thing: that it will not violate your principles 
and it will not violate our principles.
  Mr. Chairman, what I think this is really all about is what the 
country wants. They elected a Democratic President by a wide margin. 
They elected a House and a Senate made up of the other party, and they 
said, put the country first, put the politics second. Pitch in and move 
America forward.
  And that is what we did over the course of these last 4 months. And 
now what we cannot afford to do is, in the spirit of giving your word, 
and many of you have done it, you teach your children about it every 
day, and do you know what it is, you be part of a team. Yes, sometimes 
you stand up and fight, but at the end of the day, you are part of a 
team. That is what America teaches its children, be part of a team.
  That is what this is all about tonight. Americans are asking us to 
reach towards one another. Americans are asking us to reach an 
agreement that will help families today and take a giant step towards 
solving the problems that our children face tomorrow.
  I told you that I kind of have to touch your hearts. Look, I respect 
anybody that comes to this floor. That is why I have so many friends on 
the other side of the aisle. I have high regard for them. I would not 
question their commitment to this project or that road or this 
priority. But I think that our leadership has brought us something that 
represents an agreement that the country wants, the country supports, 
and something we can be proud of marching together, reaching across 
that aisle and holding onto one another and looking at our districts 
and saying, yes, I am here to represent the district, but the country, 
the country wants us tonight to look beyond our district, to look to a 
degree beyond our own priorities and be part of America's team. That is 
what this is about tonight.
  I ask my colleagues, even though this is very difficult for them, let 
us not confuse the message. Let us not confuse the public. Let us not 
have them wake up tomorrow morning and say, can they just never get it 
right.
  Let us send them a clear signal that we were able to advance the 
cause of our country. I ask my colleagues, before they put their card 
in that box, please think about the way that you want to feel about 
yourself and the way you want your children to feel about you after 
this vote is over. I think if you do, I think if you do, as difficult 
as it may be, based on your priorities, you can reach with all of us. 
We can build a better America.
  Please reject the amendment. Support the agreement.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shuster-
Oberstar balanced budget substitute.
  The American people want, deserve, and need a strong national system 
of transportation.
  Almost everyone supports the interstate highway system. The only way 
to adequately maintain and improve our interstate highways and meet the 
needs of a growing population is to pass the Shuster substitute.
  There are no State lines in the air. The people want and deserve and 
need a strong and safe aviation system. Air passenger traffic is 
exploding now and is going way up over the next 10 years.
  The only way to improve our aviation system and make it as safe as it 
can and should be is to pass the Shuster-Oberstar substitute.
  We should not continue the deceptive practice begun by President 
Johnson: using the trust funds not for their intended purposes, but to 
offset the deficit and thus spend highway and aviation funds for 
foreign aid and everything else.
  I urge support for the Shuster balanced budget substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, 
noes 216, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 147]

                               AYES--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Barcia
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buyer
     Camp
     Capps
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Linda
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thune
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--216

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Miller (FL)

[[Page H3065]]


     Minge
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Boucher
     Ensign
     Jefferson
     Schiff
     Yates

                              {time}  0311

  Mr. TOWNS 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.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 147, I intended to vote 
``yes.''
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the 
chair, Mr. Boehner, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the 
State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the concurrent resolution, (H. Con. Res. 84) establishing 
the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for fiscal year 1998 
and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1999, 
2000, 2001, and 2002, pursuant to House Resolution 152, he reported the 
concurrent resolution back to the House.
  The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 333 
nays 99, not voting 3 as follows:

                             [Roll No. 148]

                               YEAS--333

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--99

     Barton
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Engel
     Evans
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Klug
     Kucinich
     Largent
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Markey
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pombo
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weygand

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Jefferson
     Schiff
     Yates

                              {time}  0328

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

  Mr. Schiff for, with Mr. Yates against.

  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________