from the Congressional Record

[Page: H3040]

[TIME: 0112]

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:

[Page: H3044]

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 [sic] 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.

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: