[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 75 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. LOIS CAPPS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, June 4, 1998

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the concurrent resolution 
     (H. Con. Res 284) revising the congressional budget for the 
     United States Government for fiscal year 1998, establishing 
     the congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 1999, and setting forth appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003:

  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget 
resolution. I am deeply disappointed in this proposal especially in 
light of the bipartisan agreement that this Congress was able to reach 
last year. That agreement encouraged education, prolonged the life of 
Medicare, cut the death tax and capital gains rates--all while 
balancing the budget for the first time in 30 years.
  The budget proposal before us today threatens Social Security and 
Medicare, and would require cuts to a wide variety of critical areas, 
including education, environmental protection, NASA and research and 
development funding.
  The proposal would allow using the budget surplus to begin 
privatizing Social Security. This is the wrong approach. Instead, I 
favor reserving that surplus to ensure the long term viability of this 
most critical program for America's seniors. And, up until last night, 
this proposal has called for cutting yet another $10 billion from 
Medicare--on top of the $115 billion in Medicare cuts that Congress 
passed last year. I cannot support any budget that will continue to 
weaken the historic protection we afford our senior citizens.
  While the proposal before us makes very few specific recommendations 
on how to reach the $100 billion in cuts called for, earlier versions 
of the budget have spelled out where the cuts would come from. This 
budget would mean severe cuts in environmental protection, housing and 
education. It would mean a five year ``freeze''--which is really a 
cut--for Head Start, Veterans' medical care, Section 8 housing and the 
Women and Infant Children's nutrition program. And if that's not bad 
enough, this budget would freeze almost all Federal law enforcement 
funding, including the FBI, DEA and programs covered by the Violent 
Crime Reduction Trust Fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the Committee on Science. Also on the 
list of ``suggested cuts'' that originally accompanied the budget 
resolution, NASA's aeronautics and technology program would be cut 
nearly $600 million over the next five years and the agency would be 
targeted for another $500 million in unspecified cuts. And funding for 
the National Science Foundation would be frozen, instead of receiving 
the 10% increase called for in the President's budget.
  Many of the supporters of this resolution claim that these draconian 
cuts are necessary to fix the marriage penalty. I am a cosponsor of 
legislation to ensure that married couples don't pay higher taxes than 
similarly situated singles, and am fighting to ensure that this 
Congress addresses this issue. But this budget proposal goes way beyond 
what is necessary to fix the marriage penalty and by miring the issue 
in controversy may make it less likely to achieve this necessary reform 
this year. That is a shame because our working families deserve relief 
from this onerous and unfair burden.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this resolution and support a fair, 
balanced budget resolution.

                          ____________________