CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE May 24, 1979

But whether in California or Floridathere is no right by the State to depriveany citizen of his life.

Juries can err and justice is not yetblind to the color of a man's skin or hispoverty.

The taking of a life by any governmentcan only reduce its value before all cit-izens.

PERMISSION TO FILE CONFERENCEREPORT ON S. 7, VETERANS'HEALTH CARE AMENDMENTS OF1979

Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr.Speaker, I ask unanimous consent thatthe managers may have until midnighttonight to file a conference report onS. 7, Veterans' Health Care Amendmentsof 1979.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman from Cali-fornia?

There was no objection.

NAVY MOTION PICTURE SERVICETO REMAIN IN BROOKLYN

(Mr. RICHMOND asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend hisremarks.)

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Speaker, thoseof us in Congress who represent denselypopulated, inner-city districts are oftenreminded of how seemingly "minor" de-cisions by bureaucrats here in Washing-ton can have a devastating impact onthe quality of life in our communities.An innocent decision to move a smallFederal facility from one area of thecountry to another may in fact do irrep-arable harm in terms of unemploymentand economic instability.

Such was the case with the Navy's Mo-tion Picture Service, located in theBrooklyn Navy Yard in my district. InFebruary, the Navy Department pro-posed moving the Motion Picture Servicefrom Brooklyn to California. The resultof the proposed move would have beenthe loss of only 44 civilian jobs.

Yet, this small unit has a $525,000 pay-roll and a $7 million budget. Thus, a"simple" move would have resulted indevastating long-term effects on sur-rounding Brooklyn neighborhoods.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announcethat this story has a happy ending. Mycolleagues in the New York State con-gressional delegation joined me in over-whelmingly opposing this move. TheSecretary of the Navy this week with-drew the proposal, and the Navy MotionPicture Service will remain in the Brook-lyn Navy Yard.

INTRODUCTION OF SENSE-OF-THE-HOUSE - OF - REPRESENTATIVESRESOLUTION ON ENERGY CRISIS(Mr. PEPPER asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend hisremarks, and include extraneous mat-ter.)

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, I am going

to read a resolution that I am now in-troducing.

It is the sense of the House of Repre-sentatives that the deepening energy crisisdemands strong and positive action andleadership on the part of the Governmentand that the President, in the interest ofthe National security and welfare of thepeople, should exercise the power he nowpossesses to assure that by increasing re-fineries, pipelines and other facilities, andby other positive action, the energy needsof the people of the Nation shall, as far aspossible, be met; further, that if the Presi-dent in his judgment lacks authority toassure the maximum production of energyfor the Nation, Congress will give immediateconsideration to his request for such au-thority.

I think the time has come for a policyof action and firm leadership, and Ihope the Members will give approval tothis resolution.

O 1010SHORTAGE OF DIESEL FUEL FOR

OIL WELL DRILLERS(Mr. ARCHER asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend hisremarks.)

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, Texansare doing all they can to produce enoughoil to meet the needs of all regions ofthis country-but a totally absurd sit-uation has developed which seriouslyhinders that effort.

The Congress knows diesel fuel ispresently in short supply. What Con-gress may not know is that 95 percentof the oil rigs used to drill oil wells inTexas and other producing States runon diesel fuel-and, incredibly, Federalallocation regulations are denying themthe fuel they need to operate. Drillersare told to drill more holes in the groundto provide more oil from which gasolineand diesel fuel can be refined-but thenare not allowed enough diesel fuel torun the engines that run the drillingrigs. That is sheer idiocy.

I hope that Department of Energyofficials will respond reasonably oncethey have met with a number of drill-ing contractors in a meeting I am noworganizing. Nonetheless, I urge everyMember of this House to demand thatimmediate remedial action is taken.Whatever your feelings may be on thedirection our energy program shouldtake, you cannot allow this situation tocontinue.

APPOINTMENT AS MEMBERS OF AD-VISORY COMMISSION ON INTER-GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the provi-sions of section 3(a), Public Law 86-380,the Chair appoints as members of theAdvisory Commission on Intergovern-mental Relations the following Memberson the part of the House:

Mr. FOUNTAIN of North Carolina;Mr. RANaEL of New York; andMr. BROWN of Ohio.

APPOINTMENT AS MEMBERS OPNATIONAL COMMISSION ON THEINTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THECHILD

The SPEAKER. Pursuant to section1502(c), Public Law 95-561, the Chairappoints as members of the NationalCommission on the International Yearof the Child the following Members onthe part of the House:

Mr. RANGEL of New York, andMrs. SMITH of Nebraska.

CALL OF THE HOUSE

Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move acall of the House.

A call of the House was ordered.The call was taken by electronic de-

vice, and the following Members failedto respond:

[Roll No. 160]Anderson, I11. Ford, Mich. RangelBaldus Forsytho ReussBolloenson Frenzel RitterBlaggi Fuqua RothBingham Garcia RunnelsBouquard Gibbons SantinlBrown, Ohio Gray ScheuerBurgener Harsha SelberlingBurton, John Hightower Smith, IowaBurton, Phillip Hubbard StarkByron Latta StockmanCavanaugh Leath, Tex. StokesChisholm Leland SymmsClauscn Lent SynarClay McCormack TribloConyers McKay UdlallCorman McKlnney Vander JagtDavis, S.C. Madigan WalgrenDeckard Marriott WamplerDiggs Mathis WaxmanDingell Matsul WeaverDixon Miller, Calif. Williams, OhioDodd Moffett Wilson, C. H.Drinan Moorhead, Pa. YatesFoley Nolan Young, Alaska

O 1030The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

KILDEE). On this rollcall 359 Membershave recorded their presence by elec-tronic device, a quorum.

Under the rule, further proceedingsunder the call are dispensed with.

MOTION TO CONCUR IN SENATEAMENDMENT TO HOUSE CON-CURRENT RESOLUTION 107, FIRSTCONCURRENT RESOLUTION ONTHE BUDGET-FISCAL YEAR 1980

Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, I move totake from the Speaker's table the con-current resolution (H. Con. Res. 107) set-ting forth the congressional budget forthe U.S. Government for the fiscal year1980 and revising the congressionalbudget for the U.S. Government for thefiscal year 1979, with a Senate amend-ment thereto, and concur in the Senateamendment.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerkwill report the motion.

The Clerk read as follows:Mr. GrArMo moves to take from the Speak-

er's table the concurrent resolution, HouseConcurrent Resolution 107, with a Senateamendment thereto, and concur in the Sen-ate amendment.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerkwill report the Senate amendment.

12560

May 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE

The Clerk read the Senate amendment,as follows:

Strike out all after the resolving clauseand Insert:That Congress hereby determines and de-clares, that pursuant to section 304 of theCongressional Budget Act of 1974:REVISIONS TO THE SECOND CONCURRENT RESO-LUTION ON THE DUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1970

(a) Section 1 of H. Con. Res. 683 is revisedas follows:

(1) The recommended level of Federal rev-enues Is $461,000,000,000 and the amount bywhich the aggregate level of Federal revenuesshould be decreased is $100,000,000.

(2) The appropriate level of total newbudget authority is $559,200,000,000.

(3) The appropriate level of total budgetoutlays is $494,450,000,000.

(4) The amount of the deficit in thebudget which is appropriate in the light ofeconomic conditions and all other relevantfactors is $33,450,000,000.

(5) The appropriate level of the publicdebt is $834,200,000,000, and the amount bywhich the temporary statutory limit on suchdebt should accordingly be increased is$4,200.000.000.

(b) Section 2 of H. Con. Res. 683 is revisedas follows:

(1) National Defense (050)(A) New budget authority, $127,000,000,-

000:(B) Outlays, $114,400,000,000.(2) International Affairs (160) :(A) New budget authority, $11,400,000,000;(B) Outlays, $7,500,000,000.(3) General Science, Space, and Technol-

ogy (250) :(A) New budget authority, $5,400,000,000;(B) Outlays, $5,200,000,000.(4) Energy (270) :(A) New budget authority, $7,600,000,000;(B) Outlays, $7,400,000,000.(5) Natural Resources and Environment

(300) :(A) New budget authority, $12,900,000,000;(B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.(6) Agriculture (350):(A) New budget authority, $8,300,000,000;(B) Outlays, $6,200,000,000.(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370) :(A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000;(B) Outlays, $2,000,000,000.(8) Transportation (400):(A) New budget authority, $19,100,000,000;(B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.(9) Community and Regional Develop-

ment (450):(A) New budget authority, $9,200,000,000;(B) Outlays, $09,700,000,000.(10) Education, Training, Employment,

and Social Services (500) :(A) New budget authority, $32,700,000,000;(B) Outlays, $29,700,000,000.(11) Health (550) :(A) New budget authority, $53,000,000,000;(B) Outlays, $49,700,000,000.(12) Income Security (600) :(A) New budget authority, $104,150,000,-

000;(B) Outlays, $161,100,000,000.(13) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):(A) New budget authority, $20,400,000,000;(B) Outlays, $20,200,000,000.(14) Administration of Justice (750):(A) New budget authority, $4,200,000,000;(B) Outlays, $4,200,000,000.(15) General Government (800)(A) New budget authority, $4,300,000,000;(B) Outlays, $4,2000,00,000.(16) General Purpose Fiscal Assistance

(850) :(A) New budget authority, $8,650,000,000;(B) Outlays, $8,750,000,000.(17) Interest (000) :

(A) New budget authority, $52,400,000,000;(B) Outlays, $52,400,000,000.(18) Allowances (920):(A) New budget authority, $700,000,000;(B) Outlays, $700,000,000.

S(19) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts(90) :

(A) New budget authority. $18,100,000-000;

(B) Outlays, $18,100,000,000.SEC. 2. (a) Pursuant to section 301(a) of

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, thatfor the fiscal year beginning on October 1,1979-

(1) the recommended, level of Federal rev-enues is $509,000,000,000, and the amount bywhich the aggregate level of Federal revenuesshould be increased or decreased is zero;

(2) the appropriate level of total newbudget is $604,400,000,000;

(3) the appropriate level of total budgetoutlays Is $532,000,000,000;

(4) the amount of the deficit in the budg-et which is appropriate in the light of eco-nomic conditions and all other revelantfactors is $23,000,000,000; and

(5) the appropriate level of the public debtis $887,200,000,000, and the amount by whichthe temporary statutory limit on such debtshould be accordingly increased is $57,200,-000,000.

(b) Based on allocations of the appropriatelevel of total new budget authority and oftotal budget outlays as set forth in para-graphs (2) and (3) of the preceding subsec-tion of this resolution, the Congress herebydetermines and declares pursuant to section301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of1974 that, for the fiscal year beginning onOctober 1, 1979, the appropriate level of newbudget authority and the estimated budgetoutlays for each major functional categoryare as follows:

(1) National Defense (050):(A) New budget authority, $136,600,000,-

000;(B) Outlays, $124,200,000,000.(2) International Affairs (10) :(A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,-

000;(B) Outlays, $7,900,000,000.(3) General Science, Space, and Tech-

nology (250) :(A) New budget authority, $5,700,000,000;(B) Outlays, $5,500,000,000.(4) Energy (270):(A) New budget authority, $18,800,000,-

000;(B) Outlays, $6,800,000,000.(5) Natural Resources and Environment

(300) :(A) New budget authority. $12,600,000,000;(B) Outlays, $11,700.000,000.(60 Agriculture (350):(A) New budget authority, $5,000,000,000:(B) Outlays, $5,400.000,000.(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):(A) New budget authority, $6,000,000,000;(B) Outlays, $3,200,000,000.(8) Transportation (400):(A) New budget authority. :10,450,000,000;(B) Outlays. $18,200,000,000.(9) Community and Regional Development

(450) :(A) New budget authority, $8,00,000,000;(B) Outlays, $8,100,000,000.(10 Education, Training, Employment,

and Social Services (600):(A) New budget authority. $30,850,000,000:(B) Outlays, $30,500,000,000.(11) Health (550):(A) New budget authority, $58,100,000,000;(B) Outlays, $53,600,000,000.(12) Income Security (600) :(A) New budget authority, $214,800,000,000:(B) Outlays, $183,300,000,000.(13) Veterans Benefits and Services (700) :

(A) New budget authority, $21,200,000,000;(B) Outlays, $20,600,000,000.(14) Administration of Justice (750):(A) New budget authority, $4,200,000,000;(B) Outlays, $4,400,000,000.(15) General Government (800):(A) New budget authority, $4,400,000,000;(B) Outlays, $4,300,000,000.(10) General Purpose Fiscal Assistance

(850):(A) New Budget authority, $8,100,000,000;(B) Outlays, $8,100,000,000.(17) Interest (900) :(A) New budget authority, $56,000,000,000;(B) Outlays, $56,000,000,000.(18) Allowances (920):(A) New budget authority, -$100,000,000;(B) Outlays, -$100,000,000.(19) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts

(950) :(A) New budget authority, -$19,700,000,-

000;(B) Outlays, -$19,700,000,000.

BUDGET AGGREGATES FOR FISCAL YEARS1981 AND 1982

SEC. 3. (a) In order to achieve a balancedbudget in fiscal years 1981 and 1982, the fol-lowing aggregate budgetary levels recom-mended by the Senate are appropriate forfiscal years 1981 and 1982-

(1) The recommended level of revenues isas follows:

Fiscal year 1981: $583,300,000,000;Fiscal year 1982: $621,000,000,000;

and the amount by which the aggregate levelsof Federal revenues should be increased ordecreased is as follows:

Fiscal year 1981: +$4,600,000,000;Fiscal year 1982: -$49,900,000,000;(2) the appropriate level of budget author-

ity Is as follows:Fiscal year 1981: $640,300,000,000;Fiscal year 1982: $691,600,000,000;(3) the aggregate level of total budget out-

lays Is as follows:Fiscal year 1981: $577,700,000,000;Fiscal year 1982: $816,900,000,000;(4) the amount of surplus in the budget Is

as follows:Fiscal year 1981: $5,000,000,000;Fiscal year 1982: $4,100,000,000;(5) the appropriate level of the public

debt is as follows:Fiscal year 1981: $912,600,000,000;Fiscal year 1982: $947,500,000,000.(b) The House projects the following

budget aggregate for fiscal years 1981-82,based on the policies assumed in section twoabove-

(1) The level of Federal revenues Is asfollows:

Fiscal year 1981: $579,800,000,000;Fiscal year 1982: $655,300,000,000;(2) the level of total new budget authority

is as follows:Fiscal year 1981: $658,700,000,000;Fiscal year 1982: $721,400,000,000;(3) the level of total budget outlays is as

follows:Fiscal year 1981: $677,700,000,000;Fiscal year 1982: $622,700,000,000;(4) the amount of surplus in the budget is

as follows:Fiscal year 1981: $2,100,000,000;Fiscal year 1982: $32,600,000,000;(5) the level of the public debt is as

follows:Fiscal year 1981: $916,100,000,000;Fiscal year 1982: $922,500,000,000.

GENERAL PROVISIONSSEC. 4. (a) The Congress recognizes that

the activities of off-budget Federal entitiesare excluded from the budget by law. TheCongress recommends that a way be foundwithin the Congressional budget process torelate accurately the estimates of off-budget

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE May 24, 1979Federal entitles and capital expenditures tothe unified budget.

(b) In 1979 each standing committee of theHouse of Representatives shall report byJuly 1 to the House of Representatives itsrecommendations and the status of its ac-tions with respect to new spending authorityincluding all legislative savings, and otherreforms, targeted by the first concurrent res-olution on the budget for the fiscal year end-ing on September 30 of that same year. Thisreport shall include any additional legislativesavings which the committee believes shouldbe considered by the House in the programsfor which such committee has responsibility.

In 1980, each standing committee of theHouse of Representatives shall include in itsMarch 15 report to the Budget Committee ofthe House of Representatives specific recom-mendations as to all possible legislative sav-ings for the programs for which the commit-tee has responsibility.

In 1980, each standing committee of theHouse of Representatives shall Include In itsMarch 15 report to the Budget Committee ofthe House of Representatives an estimate ofthe unobligated (and unexpended) balancesof budget authority, an analysis of the extentto which such unexpended or unobligatedbalances could reasonably be reduced, andwhat steps, if any, have been or are beingtaken to reduce such balances.

Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that further readingof the Senate amendment be dispensedwith, and that it be printed in theRECORD.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gentle-man from Connecticut?

There was no objection.The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-

tleman from Connecticut (Mr. GIAIMO)is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30minutes for the purposes of debate onlyto the gentleman from New York (Mr.CONABLE), pending which I yield myself6 minutes.

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that all Membersmay have 5 legislative days within whichto revise and extend their remarks, andto include extraneous matter, on thelegislation under consideration.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gentlemanfrom Connecticut?

There was no objection.Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, the purpose

of this motion is to concur in the Senateamendment, as amended last night bythe Senate. As a result of the vote yester-day, we asked to go to conference withthe Senate. We did not go to conference,but we were in communication with theSenate.

The Senate conferees went to the Sen-ate late yesterday afternoon and askedfor consideration and voted on revisingthe Senate amendment by increasing theeducational function, or function 500, by$350 million in budget authority and pro-viding nothing more in outlays.

The reason we can increase budgetauthority by $350 million without affect-ing outlays is because this money dealswith eduaction, and, therefore, much ofit is forward funded. We are talkingabout a total function for education of

about $14.7 billion plus $350 million. Ithink it is about $15 billion. Much of it isforward funded, and, therefore, it wouldnot have an effect on 1980 outlays.Therefore, the deficit is the same anddoes not increase.

The Senate voted on that, and the Sen-ate amendment is back before us foreither acceptance or rejection. If we re-ject it, we still will not have adopted afirst budget resolution for 1980 or a thirdbudget resolution for 1979.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption ofthis resolution. I believe it meets thecomplaint which many Members hadabout the reduction in the educationfunction, and I would say it is a targetresolution. There remain additional con-troversies which can and will be ironedout via the appropriation process, whichcannot start until we get this first budgetresolulon in order and in place. It shouldhave been in place by May 15. We areconsiderably late, and I urge adoption ofthis motion on the concurrent resolution.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. GIAIMO. I yield to the gentle-woman from New York.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, withrespect to the revenue figure in thisbudget resolution that is before us today,I understand the conference report con-tains the House revenue figure of $509billion. The House revenue figure in-cluded $1.2 billion to reflect the Housevote calling for a substantial modifica-tion of the foreign tax credit for oil com-panies. I take it that this $1.2 billion re-sulting from the House action on theforeign tax credit for oil companies iscontained in the conference report?

Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, the Senateconferees accepted our revenue figure.There is no controversy over the revenuefigure. Our revenue figure was included.The gentlewoman's foreign tax creditrevision was accepted, and that would bethe case.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman,

Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. Mr.Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GIAIMO. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Maryland.

Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. Mr.Speaker, I thank the gentleman foryielding.

Under this new arrangement, thegentleman indicates that $350 million isgoing into education. The most pressingproblem, of course, for many of our con-stituents is still unemployment.

Is any adjustment made in terms ofattempting to reduce the unemploymentthat is racking so many of our commu-nities? Is there any of the $350 milliongoing into unemployment or for jobprograms or job training programs?

Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, let me ex-plain to the gentleman from Marylandthat education, which was at $14.7 bil-lion, is part of the total function 500.That includes jobs, as the gentlemanknows, which was at $30.5 billion.

The major objection here yesterday,as I understood it, was that we were notproviding sufficiently for educational

programs, as we had done in the Housebill originally. By having this additional$350 million in function 500, I wouldassume the argument could well be madethat it will take the pressure off theother competing programs-not educa-tion programs-in that function and,therefore, there is a larger number ofdollars totally in that function, and thatshould alleviate in some degree the pres-sures to find money for the trainingprograms.

I think that was one of the argumentsthe gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.OBEY) was making yesterday, if I am notwrong.

Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. Mr.Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CONABLE. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. GIAIMO. I yield to the gentlemanfrom New York.

Mr. CONABLE. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for his comments ad-dressed to the gentleman from Maryland(Mr. MITCHELL). That in some degreeanswers my question.

We on the minority were not privy tothe discussions that went on between theHouse and the Senate relative to thisparticular function 500. Apparently therewas some sort of mental operationamong those engaged in this conferenceto the effect that the money was to beused for education. However, function 500does include a substantial number ofother items.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The timeof the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.GIAIMO) has expired.

Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, may I askthe gentleman from New York (Mr. CON-ABLE) if he would yield 1 additional min-ute to me?

Mr. CONABLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield1 additional minute to the gentlemanfrom Connecticut (Mr. GIAIMO), and Iask the gentleman to yield further to me.

Mr. GIAIMO. I yield to the gentle-man from New York.

Mr. CONABLE. Mr. Speaker, I wouldjust like to have the gentleman's assur-ance that this money is addressed toeducation and not to some other part ofthe functions. Despite what the gentle-man said to the gentleman from Mary-land (Mr. MITCHELL) that it takes pres-sure off the item, we would like to knowthe justification for a change in $350 mil-lion in the budget.

Mr. GIAIMO. First, Mr. Speaker, Ithink we are getting into the problems ofthe appropriating committees, becausethey are the ones that are going to al-locate this money. But suffice it to saythat I think the real pressure yesterdayfor the addition of moneys was for edu-cation, and, therefore, I think it was inreaction to that pressure that the otherbody came forth with a greater proposalin the area of education which technical-ly increases the whole function 500.

But I think it is specifically directedto education. Nevertheless, by increasingthe total amount, the appropriating com-mittees can apportion that money as

12562

May 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--HOUSE

best they see fit, and in that sense itwill take pressure off the job programs.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The timeof the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.GIASMO) has expired.

[ 1040Mr. CONABLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4

minutes to the gentleman from Pennsyl-vania (Mr. SHUSTER).

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise inopposition to this resolution. By addinganother $350 million to budget author-ity, but not to outlays, the majorityhas made it even more difficult to achievea balanced budget in 1981 or 1982. In-stead of the same old spend-now-pay-later policy, it might be modified to becalled the spend-later-never-pay policy.

We might recall that just a few daysago the Brookings Institution published areport in which they said that the budgetwas simply a one-year shot at restraintand really did not deal with the long-term problem of excessive Governmentspending.

This modification made last night bythe majority clearly indicates that thisis the case, because we have the same$23 billion deficit for fiscal year 1985,but by adding the additional $350 millionbudget authority, it creates increasedpressure to spend more money in futureyears.

I would appeal particularly to my col-leagues on my side of the aisle. Yesterdaytwo-thirds of the minority voted againstthe budget resolution. Today this budgetresolution is $350 million worse-notbetter. If you could vote against it yester-day, I respectfully suggest you can moreeasily vote against it today.

I would say particularly to those on myside of the aisle, let us demonstrate thatthere is more than a dime's worth ofdifference between the two great partiesin this land. Let us demonstrate by ourvote that we are opposed to a $23 billiondeficit, that we are opposed to a blueprintof the majority which provides no taxcuts to the American people, that we areopposed to the blueprint crafted by themajority which provides for the morespending and tax increases laid on theAmerican people. Let us indicate that wehave a different dream for America. Letus indicate that our dream for Americaand for the American people is one whichenvisions less spending, and lower taxesso that initiative can be regained inthis great land of ours and so that theAmerican people might be able to onceagain spend and invest and achievethrough their own personal efforts with-out the heavy hand of a massive Govern-ment being laid upon them and stiflingtheir energies and initiative.

Let us oppose this resolution crafted bythe majority party.

Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10minutes to the gentleman from Wiscon-sin (Mr. OBEY).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday bya vote of 260 to 144 the House, in myjudgment, wisely defeated this budgetresolution, because the product whichwas brought to this House for accept-ance was $1.9 billion above the House-

voted figure for defense and it was $1.8billion down below the House figure foreducation and training.

In light of a couple of statements thatappeared, for instance, on CBS News thismorning, in the Washington Star lastnight, in the Washington Post this morn-ing, I would like to make clear, first,.what the argument yesterday was notabout.

First of all, I want to say, as has beenindicated by the gentleman from Con-necticut, that argument yesterday wasnot over CETA. The Labor-HEW Ap-propriations Committee has alreadyrecognized that there is going to be a verylarge carryover in the CETA area. Sowhat the Labor-HEW AppropriationsCommittee has done is to use that CETAmoney, which will not be used by theprime sponsors, to repair the budget inthe area of health and in the area ofeducation. The argument was not oversymbols, as was suggested in an articlethis morning. The argument was over areal process problem that would have oc-curred if the budget resdlution which wevoted on yesterday had been adopted.

Let me explain what I mean. ThatLabor-HEW bill, which the Appropria-tions Subcommittee has marked up, is atthis moment within the President's budg-et request. Despite that fact, the budgetresolution which was brought to the flooryesterday would have required the chair-man of the Budget Committee to standin this well when the Labor-HEW Sub-committee bill was before us and tell theHouse that that Labor-HEW bill ex-ceeded the budget resolution by approxi-mately $250 million, thus playing intothe hands of those people in this Houseand in this society who believe that wehave not cut deeply enough into educa-tion and training programs when we pro-vide in that Labor-HEW appropriationbill for a 10-percent reduction, in realdollar terms, in the purchasing power inthat bill. That procedural situation wouldhave played into the hands of those whowant to make that cut 12 percent, 13percent, or 14 percent, in real dollarterms.

That is why we had the argumentover education funding yesterday. It hasnothing whatsoever to do with symbols.It had a great deal to do with what hap-pens under the budget process.

The second argument was whether wereally need $1.9 billion over the figurethat the House voted for the Pentagon"wish list," or if you take the chairman'sfigure, if we really need $1.3 billion overwhich the Defense committee broughtto this House and which was sustaineduntil the Fisher amendment wasadopted.

So what do we want done? We wantedfunction 500 for education and trainingto be raised by $300 million, and wewanted the Senate to buy a reductionin the defense function and in the for-eign aid function by that correspond-ing $300 million, so there would be nochange in budget authority and we wouldhave resulted in fact in a $100 millionreduction in the deficit. The Senate re-

fused to do that. The Senate is hungup on defense. One of the Senators,forinstance, indicated a few days ago-and this is the state of mind of someMembers of the other body-one of theSenators indicated the other day thathe could vote for SALT II but said itshould be accompanied by accelerationin acquisition of planes, ships, intercon-tinental nuclear weapons, short-rangenuclear weapons and conventional forces,plus more research and development forthe weapons systems.

That reminds me of "1984" double-speak. As a practical result, the voteover there yesterday showed we are notgoing to be able to change the Senate'smind set on defense spending.

I literally did not know what I wasgoing to do on this resolution until I'was driving in this morning, and Ifinally took one speech out of my pocketand scratched out the notes for thisone, and what I would recommend wedo is to support this budget resolution.I would ask those Members who voted"no" yesterday to vote "yes" today. Withthis change, the Labor HEW appropria-tions bill will not have one hand tied be-hind its back procedurally when it comesto the floor of this House. Both the de-fense bill and the Labor-HEW bill will beable to come to the floor in the appropri-ations process and make their own caseunhindered by procedural roadblocks.And that, in a sense, is fair.

O 1050The sooner we pass the budget resolu-

tion, the sooner we can move on to deal-ing with the real spending bills in thisHouse, the appropriation bills; thesooner we can make the real choices onthe bills that spend the real dollars, andthe sooner we move to that process, thesooner we can continue the real fight onthe defense function to see to it, on theappropriation bill, that we do not windup with an incredibly high amount fordefense, vis-a-vis social programs.

As the gentleman from Connecticuthas said, this is a target only. It definesthe limits within which the argumentcan take place. I believe we ought toadopt this, much as I hate to vote for it,because we do not need some of the dol-lars in here in function 050. We do notneed some of the dollars in here for otherfunctions. But at least this will constructa compromise which will enable us toaddress the real issues on the real appro-priations bills.

I think the most effective way thatpeople, who believe as I do on this sub-ject, can behave today, is to vote so thatwe can show that we were not dealing insymbols yesterday. We were dealing inreal process problems, and we have afundamental disagreement with whatsome Members of the Senate are in facttrying to push down the throats of thecountry in return for a vote on SALT.We can continue to make that struggleknown, as we deal with the appropria-tions bill.

I urge that my colleagues vote for theresolution.

Mr. CONABLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4

12563

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE May 24, 1979

minutes to the gentleman from Illinois(Mr. MICHEL), the distinguished minoritywhip.

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker and my col-leagues, I want to first commend my col-league, the gentleman from Pennsylvania(Mr. SHUSTER), for the comment he hasmade with respect to the differentiationbetween budget authority and outlays.

Too often we are trying to kid our-selves around here by the fact, well, aslong as it is not outlays, it is only budgetauthority for the future, we need not beconcerned about it.

We have to be concerned about thoseescalating increases, even if they are insuch valuable programs as education andhealth programs.

Having said that, I think we have donean awful lot of posturing around hereover 2 or 3 weeks on individual amend-ments that, in my judgment, have novalue whatsoever other than for what wecan send back home to the folks in de-claring our position, because the realnitty-gritty votes around this House aregoing to come in June when we havethose individual appropriation bills.

The gentleman from Wisconsin, whoserves on the subcommittee on which Iserve, will amply attest to the fact therewill be many opportunities here for cut-ting some of these programs or raisingthem if that is our choice on individualvotes, on the Labor-Health, Educationand Welfare appropriation bill.

I find myself very sympathetic with themajority on my side who have been ab-solutely opposed to a $23 billion deficit.

We were initially attempting to get thedeficit down to $15 billion. Some of uswere prepared to support the Holt-Re-gula substitute that had a deficit in thearea of $19 billion. So it is really expect-ing an awful lot to ask Members on ourside to vote for a $23 billion deficit.There certainly will be only a handful ofvotes on our side supporting this resolu-tion, but I come down personally to thebottom line, which is: what do we get asan alternative at this juncture?

Do we get anything less by way of adeficit? Do we get anything less in socialprogram projections? Do we get anythingless in defense expenditures? Oh, nowthat is a possibility if we go back toconference,

So my bottom line today has got tobe, on the basis of what the majority tellus, that we have got the most we aregoing to get.

We have made our case over here onthe Republican side time and time again,and the gentleman from New York canshake his head all he wants to. There isnot an issue of taxes in this resolution.If that were the issue, I would be withhim, but we do not have that case today.We are talking about expenditures andprojections and guidelines, and that isall, not individual appropriations bills.So I am going to be prepared to supportthe resolution.

Mr. KEMP. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-tleman yield?

Mr. MICHEL. I am happy to yield tothe gentleman from New York (Mr.

KEMP), who has made a great case overthe period of time, and I love him dearly.

Mr. KEMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank myfriend for yielding and just want to sayI am not looking for praise from thegentleman, but support. This budget res-olution as the gentleman from Pennsyl-vania pointed out mandates higher un-employment. Under this resolution un-employment goes from 5.7 percent in1979 up to 6.5 percent in 1980. That willbe a loss of almost 1 million jobs, thateven the Congressional Budget Officesuggests is caused by an increase in taxrates caused by inflation pushing Ameri-cans into higher tax brackets. Thisbudget raises taxes in the aggregate byabout $50 billion in just 2 years.

The gentleman is suggesting that we,on this side of the aisle, accept the ma-jority parties' assumption that throwingpeople out of jobs in an answer to infla-tion and raising taxes is the way to bal-ance the budget.

Mr. MICHEL. I said nothing about as-sumptions on the other side. I am justaccepting the practical situation forwhat it is.

How many more times are we going toargue about the assumptions?

Mr. KEMP. If the gentleman will yieldfurther, I go back to the suggestion ofthe gentleman from Pennsylvania. Whyshould we support a strategy that sug-gests that the answer to inflation is tothrow people out of work and raise un-employment?

Mr. MICHEL. I think the gentlemanvery well knows this gentleman is not inthat kind of a position.

Mr. KEMP. I know that, my friendfrom Illinois is my comrade in this battlebut, the gentleman should join us in vot-ing against the resolution. If we acceptthis resolution, we are accepting thepremise upon which their budget andstrategy is predicated which is recessionis the cure for inflation.

Mr. MICHEL. I made no such premisein my presentation. I am just acceptingthe practical situation for what it is.

How many times are we going to makethe argument and fail? I say it is timewe get on with the rest of the business fortoday. As I have said-the key votes willbe on the individual appropriation billswhich can not be considered until thisresolution is finalized. Yes, the aggregatesare too high, but I am realistic enoughto know that we cannot expect too mucheconomy from this Congress. At best thisresolution contains targets for our sub-sequent actions. As a member of the ap-propriations committee I can assureyou that we will put the House on recordlater not simply on these levels but at-tempts will be made to go below these tar-gets. We must get on with our individualappropriation bills.

Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, I yield3 minutes to the gentleman from Michi-gan (Mr. BRODHEAD).

Mr. BRODHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I wasone of those who yesterday spoke brieflyand voted and urged others to vote in op-position to the resolution.

Since that time, the immediate problem

in connection with education has been re-solved by the addition of $350 million inbudget authority in function 500. So ourimmediate problem has been resolved.

Has the resolution been made into aperfect resolution, an excellent resolu-tion?

No, it has 'not. I still have the sameproblems with it today that I had with ityesterday, but we are faced with a prac-tical situation.

The situation is this: That if we donot accept this resolution today, we aregoing to delay for a couple of weeks, atleast, the process of getting on with theimportant business of this House, that is,voting on the authorization bills and theappropriation bills that we need to get to.The issues with respect to what should bespent for military, for social programs,are going to be before us. They are goingto be before us in authorization and ap-propriation bills, as the gentleman fromWisconsin has pointed out.

I think the responsible thing to do atthis point is to accept this proposition asprobably the best that we can do underthe difficult circumstances that we findourselves in.

For those who feel as I do, that theconference committee, of which I was amember, ought to have done a better job,I think that our point has been madeand made very well by the overwhelmingvote yesterday.

I think that the Budget Committee ison notice, the leadership is on notice,that we have to do a better job, that wehave to come closer to a compromisewith the Senate instead of giving themas much as we did.

But the problem has been taken careof now in terms of education. I think itis irresponsible to any longer delay thefinal passage of a budget resolution.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues tovote in support of the resolution.

Thank you.Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. SOLARZ).

Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Speaker, the legis-lative process is clearly based on compro-mise and there is probably no part ofthat process in which compromise ismore essential and more necessary thanin the formulation and adoption of abudget resolution.

From the point of view of those of uswho are concerned about the cities,about the poor, about the minorities, andabout the elderly, I think this is not onlyan honorable but even a favorable com-promise.

The second budget conference resolu-tion provides $350 million more in func-tion 500 primarily for education. That is$750 million more than was provided inthe President's budget for educationprograms.

O 1100And it is $200 million closer to the

House position than the Senate positionfor function 500 itself.

Now there is, I think, an element ofdisingenuous demagoguery at work hereon the part of some of those who oppose

12564

May 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--HOUSE

this budget resolution on the groundsthat we have gone over the House figurefor defense while we have gone under theHouse figure for social programs in thecompromise resolution which is now be-fore us. The fact of the matter is thatsince the House was under the Senateon defense, while the House was over theSenate on social programs, unless theSenate was willing to completely capitu-late and accept the House position on de-fense and the House position on socialprograms, whatever compromise budgetresolution we came back with by defini-tion would have to be over the Housefigure on defense and would have to beunder the House figure on social pro-grams.

I think we have come back with anhonorable compromise. I think it is thebest we can get. Some Members have saidthat they would only be willing to sup-port this if there was some nominal cutin the compromise figure for defense. Letus be truthful with each other. Themost we will ever be able to get the Sen-ate to go down on defense-and I do notthink we can even do that-would beabout $200 million in budget authority.That comes to 0.2 of 1 percent of the$136 billion defense budget. I would liketo see more than $200 million taken out,but we are not going to be able to do it.

I say to my friends on this side of theaisle, I do not believe it is worth reject-ing this compromise and upsetting thewhole process, running the risk of notbeing able to come forward with a budg-et resolution at all, simply in order to cutthe defense budget by .2 of 1 percent.

We have a Middle East supplementalwhich is coming up any day now. Weneed that money to go forward with thepeace process in the Middle East. Ifthis budget resolution is not adopted,that Middle East supplemental will notbe in order. And so, in the interest ofpeace in the Middle East, as well as thebudget process itself, I urge you to votefor the resolution.

Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Missis-sippi (Mr. WHITTEN).

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Speaker, I wouldlike to congratulate my colleague fromConnecticut (Mr. GIAIMO) and the mem-bers of his committee for the expeditionthey have shown in bringing this back tous. I do not think there is anything wecan do except to approve this budgetresolution.

Mr. Speaker, we debated this matteryesterday and I addressed the House insome detail but I take this time to pointout once again that involved in this reso-lution is nothing but targets. The reallegislative actions of the Congress will betaken in the authorization and appropri-ation bills we pass later. The Senate isgoing to handle those in light of what itsbeliefs are. The House is going to han-dle those in light of what its beliefs areand this resolution will have no real im-pact then. This is merely a target, andwe have experienced much unnecessaryanguish in dealing with it over the lastseveral weeks.

We must now go ahead with the busi-

ness of the Congress. But until we adoptthis resolution we cannot bring up anybills containing spending authority in-cluding all the appropriations bills. Sothere is a very significant need to adoptthe target resolution right now.

Mr. Speaker, I am fearful that manyMembers have overlooked the fact thatthis resolution also applies to fiscal year1979. We have a new ceiling on budgetauthority and outlays. Pending beforethe Appropriations Committee are nu-merous supplemental budget requests.Some of them are very critical and in-volve disaster relief assistance due toextensive flooding and tornadoes acrossthe country. We have stayed well withinthe new limits in this pending 1979 sup-plemental. Under normal circumstanceswe would have already taken care ofthese emergency items but we could notdo so under the rules because of thisbudget resolution problem. We need toadopt this resolution now because ofthese disasters across our country. Pay-ments must be made. So I say again, letus adopt this target resolution now andlet us meet our immediate needs.

Mr. Speaker, we have spent just toomuch time on this resolution debatingwhat I consider to be irrelevant amend-ments in the form of line increases anddecreases which should be handled inappropriation bills.

As example of the futility of the prac-tice the House has fallen into in thisregard, let me review our action on atypical amendment we had to the budgetresolution when it was before the Housethese recent weeks.

An amendment was offered to reduceby $515 million in budget authority and$465 million in outlays the totals in thetargets for function 600, income security.

Function 600 includes a large numberof diverse and unrelated programs whichhave been more or less arbitrarily placedunder this heading as a matter of con-venience. Included are such activitiesas retirement, unemployment payments,disability payments, public assistancepayments, benefits to the elderly andcoal miners, and low- and middle-incomehousing. It also includes nutrition pro-grams such as snecial milk, food stamps,and child nutrition.

This $515 million amendment to func-tion 600 which includes all these pro-grams I have cited would have reducedthe target for this broad function. Itwas stated that amendment was directedat food stamos but, of course, it cannotreach the food stamp legislation in thismeasure, but, if it should ever becomefinal would reduce the overall target forthese many items.

The Budget Act was designed to estab-lish a relationship between total Federalrevenue and total Federal spending. Itwas designed to focus attention on thedeficit and the debt, and promote debateon macroeconomic issues.

It was not designed, Mr. Speaker, asa vehicle to debate individual line itemprograms. That responsibility was pre-served in the Budget Act in the tradi-tional authorization and appropriationsprocess.

These targets in this resolution onbroad functional categories are nothingbut general guidelines and never becomeanything but targets. There is neveranything binding insofar as functions.The only figures that are binding con-cerning spending are the totals for theentire Federal Government for thebudget authority, and budget outlaysand those figures are only binding inthe second resolution, not the first reso-lution which is before us now.

The various committees and the Houseand Senate can and will take actions onspecific legislation that provides author-ity and appropriations for programs.Unquestionably some of these targetswill be exceeded and some will not beachieved. They will be forgotten. Thepoint is that we can take whateveraction necessary in the legislative proc-ess to work our will.

So, Mr. Speaker, the so-called foodstamps amendment I have referred tois without meaning and had no realimpact. Such amendments have no placein the budget resolution. All these mat-ters will be dealt with in appropriationbills. I have reviewed the 11 of the 13appropriation bills for fiscal 1980 whichhave been acted upop by the subcom-mittees and will soon be before the fullcommittee. They are all under thePresident's budget. Subcommittee actionon the other two bills had not beencompleted.

Mr. Speaker, we just must move alongnow and pass this resolution so we mightaddress our urgent needs.

Mr. CONABLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield4 minutes to the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. KEMP).

Mr. KEMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in op-position to the resolution. This budgettotally ignores the fact that the economyis falling apart at the seams. In fact, theresolution proposes to split those seamsfurther by raising taxes and increasingunemployment.

We have a real rate of economicgrowth at a recession-like 0.4 percent,productivity falling at a rate of 4.5 per-cent, unemployment increasing for thefirst time in several quarters, industrialproduction down one full percent lastmonth alone, housing starts down fromlast year by one-third, the leading eco-nomic indicators falling 3 months in arow, inflation running at 13 percent-and here we are proposing to raise taxrates some more in the belief that theresulting increase in unemployment isthe answer to inflation. It is being arguedin our budget policymaking circles thatif there are fewer people employed pro-ducing fewer goods, somehow the priceof those scarcer goods is going to stoprising. I for one cannot support a resolu-tion on the budget which rests on thefalse assumption that higher unemploy-ment and slower economic growth arethe answers to inflation.

I want to ask the chairman of theBudget Committee-and this is notmeant as a rhetorical question-what isthe budgetary cost of allowing unem-ployment to go up from 5.8 percent now,to 6.5 percent in fiscal year 1980? What

12565

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--HOUSE May 24, 1979

are the budgetary implications of put-ting almost 1 million people out of workby next year?

Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. KEMP. I will be glad to yield tomy friend from Connecticut.

Mr. GIAIMO. Unfortunately, I do nothave the benefit of operating on wrongeconomic assumptions, as the gentlemandoes.

Mr. KEMP. Can the gentleman tell uswhat the cost is to the budget of increas-ing by 1 million the number of unem-ployed people?

Mr. GIAIMO. Does the gentlemanwant an answer to his question?

Mr. KEMP. I want an answer to thequestion of how much 1 million peopleunemployed costs the budget deficit, inadded spending and revenue loss.

Mr. GIAIMO. It costs between $16billion to $20 billion. Let me say that if wewere to follow the gentleman's ad-vice--

Mr. KEMP. I will not yield further.Mr. GIAIMO. I should think the gen-

tleman would.Mr. KEMP. I do not think it is neces-

sary to debate economic theory rightnow. This budget raises tax rates and in-creases unemployment. The increase inthe deficit resulting from this increase inunemployment is $16 billion to $20 bil-lion. Whethter one is a Keynesian or amonetarist or a supply-side flscalist orsubscribes to any other economic theoryreally matters very little on this point.Raising tax rates and increasing unem-ployment to slow down the economy isnot going to reduce the deficit and is notgoing to reduce inflation. The Americanpeople and the people of my Buffalo areaand New York State do not want philoso-phy. They want jobs, rising real incomesand economic growth without inflation,and this budget does nothing but raisetaxes. This policy, practiced by both Re-publican and Democratic administra-tions in the past, has without exceptionhad tragic consequences for the econ-omy, for the American people, and forthe budget.

I say to my good friend from NewYork, Mr. SOLARZ, that as a result ofpolicies outlined in this resolution, NewYork City will lose 50,000 Jobs in theprivate economy. Are we supposed toswallow this loss of 50,000 jobs on thetheory that it will make it easier to per-suade this Congress in its beneficence togive New York back 4,000 countercyclicalCETA positions? How can 4,000 publicservice jobs possibly be a trade-off forputting 50,000 people out of their jobs,which also happen to constitute the taxbase? How can anyone suggest that rais-ing unemployment is going to help solvethe budget problems of either the Fed-eral Government or the State or city ofNew York?

This kind of thinking is only worsen-ing our condition, not improving it.

The only way to balance this budget isto restore the growth of the U.S. econ-omy, and we are not going to do it untilwe start removing the tremendous bar-riers to economic activity continued in

this resolution, one of which is lettingtax rates go up because inflation pusheseveryone into higher tax brackets. Wedo not dare permanently index the taxbrackets, which was done in 1978 by theWays and Means Committee only on aone-shot basis, and which I stronglysupported. We do not dare do anythingto lower tax rates to make up for anyof the past 15 years of all Americansbeing pushed into higher tax brackets.

I urge all Members of Congress, par-ticularly those on this side of the aisle,not to accept this budget or the short-sighted and counterproductive theoryon which it rests.

] 1110Mrs. HOLT. I thank the gentleman for

yielding.I think that we have pointed up in the

debate on this particular budget resolu-tion some of the very serious flaws in theBudget Act, and I hope that in this Con-gress the Committee on Rules will take along, hard look at it. We get into lineitems. We create all of the lobbying thattakes place. We should be dealing inmacroeconomies. It should be a two-step process. We should set fiscal policy.We should analyze our economic situa-tion, how much money we want to spend,and the Committee on the Budget thenshould state that aggregate decision. Ithink this is a most important revisionthat we have to make in the Budget Act.

As the gentleman from Mississippipointed out, we get into the jurisdictionof other committees. We make ourselvesthe laughingstock of the Congress.Everybody says it is not important whatwe are doing here because we are talkingabout things over which we have nocontrol at all. So I strongly urge thecommittee to do some revision and makesome improvements in the Budget Act.I think that then we can be meaningful.

Mr. CONABLE. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewomanfrom Maryland for her contribution. Sheis saying something that all of us believe,that we must review our budget process.There are some serious defects in the wayit is emerging. Many Members do notconsider it significant activity, largelybecause we have not made it a tool of fis-cal policy to the degree we should.

What we are dealing with today is es-sentially a majority solution to yester-day's majority problem. I note the reac-tion of the gentleman from Wisconsin tostatements that I made to the effect thatwe were thundering around in a herd,chasing symbols in yesterday's vote. I donot believe that today's measure is allthat different from yesterday.

Let me give you the numbers in budgetauthority which are significant to this de-bate. The President's original request foreducation was $14.3 billion. The House-passed level was at $15.2 billion. TheSenate-passed level originally was $14.3billion. The conference agreement was$14.7 billion, and the Senate offer by a72-to-17 vote yesterday was $15.1 billion.That is up $350 million from their orig-inal figure. The House-pased level is an

increase over the President's request of$861 million. I question whether this pro-cedure should be used, whether we shouldaccept a precedent that we seem to besetting in this kind of activity of permit-ting one interest group to come In hereand panic this whole body into retreat onwhat had been up to yesterday an orderlyprocess. I must say that since we aredealing in budget authority action, Iwonder whether we are not, as the gentle-man from Pennsylvania mentioned,simply mortgaging the future in this re-spect. I regret that we are not aware ofthe mental operations of all the partici-pants in this compromise as to exactlywhat this $350 million in additionalbudget authority is likely to achieve, butI would hope that the Members on thisside will keep their powder dry. Many ofthem yesterday, and myself included,supported the Chairman of the commit-tee in what appeared to be an assaults onthe budget process for reasons that weresomewhat uncertain in their motivations,and I think today's vote is another wholeissue before us that we may want to lookat quite carefully. I trust the majoritywill accept the responsibility for thepriorities that it is advancing today inthis measure. It is, in my view, important,as the gentlewoman from Maryland(Mrs. HOLT), has said that we review thebudget process and see where we areheaded, because, quite frankly, in myview anyway, the budget process is be-coming murkier and murkier and needssome review to be sur ae that we areachieving at least the fiscal goals thatwere in the minds of most of the Mem-bers when we adopted what we hopedwould be significant reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the re-mainder of my time.

Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Okla-homa (Mr. JONES).

Mr. JONES of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker,I appeal to my colleagues on both sides ofthe aisle to support this budget resolu-tion, and particularly I appeal to mod-erate and conservative Democrats andthose Republicans who earlier this yearfought for an amendment to balance thebudget in fiscal year 1981. I think theexercise we went through yesterday wasa symbolic one designed to show the edu-cation special interest groups that wehave support for some of their goals.

In my judgment, what really is impor-tant in this budget resolution is that weadopt for the first time in the budgetprocess a target, a symbol, a goal, and arealistic prospect that we will attain abalanced budget in fiscal year 1981 andfiscal year 1982. I would urge my col-leagues on both sides of the aisle for thefirst time to join in a bipartisan effort, asthey do in the other body, to preservethis budget process and to achieve thetarget of a balanced budget in 1981 and1982. There are a large number of sup-plemental appropriations backed up, andif we do not pass this budget resolutionthe pressure is going to be great to bypassthe budget process and to march downthe road through the appropriations

12566

May 24, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE

process. If this occurs, we will have lostour first real opportunity to write intolaw the fact that we mean business andwe are going to balance the budget infiscal year 1981 and 1982. The budgetpackage we have today is not perfect, butI am convinced it is the best budgettarget we can achieve today. As the gen-tlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. HOLT)said, it provides the precedent for settingaggregates first, at least for the fiscalyear 1981 and 1982, and I think we canachieve what we are all trying to do if wepass this budget resolution now.

Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, I move tothe previous question on the motion.

The previous question was ordered.The SPEAKER pro tempore. The ques-

tion is on the motion offered by the gen-tleman from Connecticut (Mr. GIAIMO).

The question was taken; and theSpeaker pro tempore announced that thenoes appeared to have it.

Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, I object tothe vote on the ground that a quorum isnot present and make the point of orderthat a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidentlya quorum is not present.

The Sergeant at Arms will notifyabsent Members.

The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were-yeas 202, nays196, not voting 36, as follows:

(Roll No. 1701

AkakaAlbostaAndrews, N.C.AnnunzioAnthonyAshleyAspinBaileyBaldusBarnardBeard, R.I.Beard, Tenn.BellensonBenjaminBennettBevlllBinghamBlanchardBoggsBolandBollingBonerBoniorBonkerBouquardBowenBrademasBreauxBrinkleyBrodheadBrooksBrown, Calif.BuchananBurlisonBurton, PhillipButlerByronCarterChisholmCoelhoConteCotterD'AmoursDaniel, DanDaniel, R. W.DanielsonDavis, S.C.de la GarzaDerrickDicksDonnellyDoughertyDowneyDuncan, Oreg.

YEAS-202Duncan, Tenn.EckhardtEdwards, Ala.EnglishEvans, Ga.FaryFasoellFazloFerraroFishFisherFlthianFilppoFloodFlorloFountainFowlerFrostFuquaGenhardtGlaimoGibbonsGinnGlickmanGonzalezGoreGrammGudgerHall, Tex.HanleyHarshaHefnerHeftelHightowerHinsonHollandHollenbeckHuttoIchordJenkinsJenretteJohnson, Calif.Jones, N.O.Jones, Okla.Jones, Tenn.KazenKildeeKogovsekLedererLehmanLevltasLloydLong, La.Long, Md.

LottLowryLundlneMcCloskeyMcCormackMcHughMcKayMcKinneyMarksMartinMatsuiMattoxMavroulesMazzoliMicaMichelMikvaMinetaMinishMonkleyMollohanMontgomeryMoorhead, Pa,Murphy, N.Y.MurthaMyers, Pa.NatcherNealNedziNelsonNicholsOakarOberstarObeyPanettaPattenPattersonPeasePepperPerkinsPicklePreyerPricePursellQuillenRahallRatchfordRhodesRobertsRobinsonRodinoRoeRoseRostenkowski

SaboSatterifeldScheuerShelby.SimonSkeltonSlackSmith, IowaSolarzSpenceSt GermainStackStaggersStanton

SteedStockmanStrattonSwiftTraxlerUdallUllmanVan DeerlinVanikVentoWatkinsWaxmanWhiteWhitehurst

NAYS-198

Abdnor GradisonAddabbo GrassleyAmbro GreenAnderson, Grlsham

Calif. GuariniAndrews, Guyer

N. Dak. HagedornApplegate Hall, OhioArcher HamiltonAshbrook Hammer-Atkinson schmidtAuColn HanceBadham HansenBafalis HarkinBarnes HarrisBauman HawkinsBedell HecklerBereuter HillisBroomfleld HoltBroyhill HoltzmanBurton, John HopkinsCampbell HortonCarney HowardCarr HuckabyCavanaugh HughcsChappell HvdeCheney IrelandClay JacobsCleveland JeffordsClinger JeffrlesColeman Johnson, Colo.Collins, 11. KastenmelerCollins, Tex. KellyConable KempCorcoran KindnessCoughlin KostmayerCourter KramerCrane, Daniel LagomarsinoCrane, Philip Leach, IowaDannemeyer Leach, La.Daschle LeeDavis, Mich. LelandDcckard LentDellums LewisDerwinski LivingstonDevine LoefilerDickinson LujanDixon LukenDodd LungronDornan McCloryDrinan McDadeEarly McDonaldEdgar McEwenEdwards, Calif. MadiganEdwards, Okla. MaguireEmery MarkeyErdahl MarleneeErlenborn MarriottErtel MikulsklEvans, Del. Miller. Calif.Evans, Ind. Miller, OhioFenwick Mitchell, Md.Findley Mitchell, N.Y.Ford, Tenn. MoffettGaydos MooreGilman Moorhead,Gingrlch Calif.Goodling Mottl

WhitleyWhittenWilliams, Mont.Wilson, BobWilson, Tex.WirthWolffWolpeWrightWyattZablockiZeferetti

Murphy, Ill.Murphy, Pa.Myers, Ind.NolanNowakO'BrienOttingerPashayanPaulPetriPeyserPritchardQuayleRallsbackRegulaRichmondRinaldoRosenthalRousselotRoybalRoyerRuddRussoSantiniSawyerSchroederSchulzeSebeliusSelberlingSensenbrennerShannonSharpShumwayShusterSmith, Nebr.SnoweSnyderSolomonSpellmanStangelandStarkStenholmStewartStuddsStumpTaukeTaylorThomasThompsonTreenVander JagtVolkmerWalgrenWalkerWeaverWeissWhittakerWilliams, OhioWinnWydlerWylieYatronYoung, Fla.Young, Mo.

NOT VOTING--3AlexanderAnderson, Ill.BethuneBlaggiBrown, OhioBurgenerClausenConyersCormanDiggsDingellFoley

Ford, Mich.ForsytheFrenzelGarciaGoldwaterGrayHubbardLaiFalcoLattaLeath, Tex.MathisRangel

ReussRitterRothRunnelsStokesSymmsSynarTribleWamplerWilson, C. H.YatesYoung, Alaska

0 1130The Clerk announced the following

pairs:On this vote:Mr. Corman for, with Mr. Rangel against.Mr. Foley for, with Mr. Garcia against.Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California for,

with Mr. Gray against.Mr. LaFalce for, with Mr. Latta against.Mr. Ford of Michigan for, with Mr. Leath

of Texas against.

Until further notice:Mr. Alexander with Mr. Anderson of Illi-

nols.Mr. Mathis with Mr. Frenzel.Mr. Diggs with Mr. Forsythe.Mr. Dingell with Mr. Symms.Mr. Runnels with Mr. Trible.Mr. Reuss with Mr. Wampler.Mr. Stokes with Mr. Young of Alaska.Mr. Yates with Mr. Brown of Ohio.Mr. Blaggi with Mr. Burgener.Mr. Synar with Mr. Clausen.Mr. Roth with Mr. Bethune.Mr. Ritter with Mr. Conyres.Mr. Goldwater with Mr. Hubbard.

So the motion was agreed to.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.A motion to reconsider was laid on the

table.

PROVIDING PROCEDURES DURINGFURTHER CONSIDERATION OF S.869, CLARIFICATION OF CONFLICTOF INTEREST RESTRICTIONS ONFORMER GOVERNMENT EMPLOY-EES

Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, by direc-tion of the Committee on Rules, I callup House Resolution 281 and ask for itsimmediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-lows:

H. RES. 281Resolved, That during the further consid-

eration of the bill (S. 869) to amend section207 of title 18, United States Code, germaneamendments to and affecting only subsection(b) of section 207 of title 18, United StatesCode, shall be in order, Including the amend-ments only to said subsection printed In theCongressional Record of May 22, 1979, byRepresentative Eckhardt. No amendments tothe bill affecting other than said subsectionshall be In order In the House or In the Com-mittee of the Whole, except the followingamendments, which amendments shall notbe subject to amendment except as specifiedherein but may be debated by the offering ofpro forma amendments, and all points oforder against said amendments for failureto comply with the provisions of clause 7, ruleXVI are hereby waived:

(1) the following amendment to the bill ifoffered by Representative Kindness:

Add the following section at the end of thebill:

"SEC. 2. Subsection (d) of such section 207Is amended by striking out paragraphs (2),(3), and (4) and Inserting in lieu thereof thefollowing:

"'(2) on active duty as a commissionedofficer of a uniformed service assigned to paygrade of 0-9 or above as described in section201 of title 37, United States Code; or

"'(3) in a position which involves signifi-cant policymaking or supervisory responsibil-ity, as designated under this paragraph bythe Director of the Office of GovernmentEthics after consultation with the depart-

12567

12568 CCment or agency concerned. Only positionsfor which the basic rate of pay is equal to orgreater than the basic rate of pay for 08-17of the General Schedu:e prescribed by section6332 of title 6, United States Code, or posi-tions which are established within the Sen-ior Executive Service pursuant to the CivilService Reform Act of 1978, or positions ofactive duty commissioned officers of the uni-formed services assigned to pay grade of 0-7or 0-8, as described in section 201 of title 37,United States Code, may be designated. Asto persons in positions designated under thisparagraph, the Director of the Office of Gov-ernment Ethics may limit the prohibitions ofsubsection (c) to appearances before or com-munications to specified offices or specifiedpositions, rather than to an entire depart-ment or ageny. On an annual basis, the Direc-tor of the Office of Government Ethics shallreview the designations and determinationsmade under this paragraph and, after con-sultation with the department or agency con-cerned, make such additions and deletions asare necessary.'";

(2) the following amendment if offered byRepresentative Eckhardt either as an amend-ment to the bill or as a substitute for theamendment designated numbered (1) above,if offered:

Page 1, lines 6 and 7, strike out "strike'concerning' and insert 'by personal presenceat' ".

Page 1, line 7, before "and in subpara-graph (3)" add "strike out 'concerning anyformal or informal appearances before-'and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"(a) in a matter involving technical,medical, scientific, or educational research,as determined by the Office of GovernmentEthics, by personal presence at any formalor informal appearance, before, or

"(b) in all matters, concerning any formalor informal appearance before-".

Add the following section at the end ofthe bill:

"SEC. 2. Subsection (d) of such section207 is amended by striking out paragraphs(2), (3), and (4) and inserting in lieu there-of the following:

"'(2) on active duty as a commissionedofficer of a uniformed service assigned to apay grade of 0-9 or above as described Insection 201 of title 37, United States Code;or

"'(3) in a position designated under thisparagraph by the department or agency con-cerned. Not later than July 1, 1980, eachdepartment or agency concerned shall, withthe concurrence of the Director of the Officeof Government Ethics, by rule designatedpositions as necessary to protect against theexercise of undue influence. Each depart-ment or agency concerned may also deter-mine by rule that the provisions of sub-section (c) of this section shall apply topersons formerly employed in positionsdesignated under this paragraph only in thecase of appearances before or communica-tions to specified offices, or persons in speci-fied positions, at the department or agency.On an annual basis, each department oragency concerned shall review those desig-nations and determinations made under thisparagraph, and, with the concurrence of theDirector of the Office of Government Ethics,by rule make such additions and deletionsas are necessary. No designation under thisparagraph shall become effective less thanninety days after the promulgation of therule making the designation.' ";

(3) the following amendment to the billif offered by Representative Kindness:

On page 2, following line 2, add the follow-ing new section to the bill:

NGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE

"SEC. . Section 207 of title 18, UnitedStates Code, is amended by adding the fol-lowing new subsection (e).

"'(e) The prohibition contained in sub-section (c) shall not apply with respect tothe representation by any person who Is anelected official or full-time employee of aState or local government, or any agency orInstrumentality thereof, or any institutionof higher education, as defined In section1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965,or any medical research or treatment facilityexempted under section 501(c) (3) of theInternal Revenue Code of 1954.' ".

Redesignate subsections (e) through (j)as subsections (f) through (k), respectively.

O 1140The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

LOWRY). The gentlemen from Missouri(Mr. BOLLING) is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30minutes to the gentleman from Missis-sippi (Mr. LOTT), pending which I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a unani-mous consent request to correct twotechnical printing errors in the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consentto change the word, "designated," ap-pearing on page 4, line 22, to the word,"designate," and to insert quotationmarks before the word, "Redesignate,"on page 6, line 3, and after the periodon page 6, line 4.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gentle-man from Missouri?

There was no objection.Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, this is a

most unusual rule. It is designed to makeit possible to pass in a timely fashionsome difficult amendments to the so-called ethics bill.

The matter has been intensely con-troversial, both in committee and on thefloor. There are those who do not wantanything done, and there are those whowant a great deal done.

We came down to a point where theCommittee on the Judiciary was able toagree within itself on both sides of theaisle that certain nongermane amend-ments should be allowed to be offered tothis very narrowly drawn bill. At first,I was very reluctant to have the Com-mittee on Rules used in this particularfashion, but when it was further agreedthat the gentleman from Texas (Mr.ECKHARDT), who had taken a great inter-est in this matter, should be allowed tooffer an amendment either to one of theKindness amendments or to the bill it-self, it seemed to me that there was afair situation here which would allow theHouse to work its will on a matter whichhas a very definite deadline.

There apparently are a number of ex-tremely useful, valuable people in a num-ber of different departments who, unlesssomething is done about this matter inthe immediate future, that is beforeJune 1, although the effective date ofthe implementation of the law is July 1,will be leaving the Government and wewill be depriving ourselves of the servicesof some extraordinarily able people.

The administration is interested in

May 24, 1979this legislation. As far as I can makeout, a number of Members on both sidesof the aisle on the Committee on theJudiciary are interested in this legisla-tion, and there are, of course, others whoare interested in it.

Mr. Speaker, this is hoped to be a wayin which we can resolve a difficult prob-lem promptly, and largely by agreementamong the parties most intimately in-volved in the legislation.

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. BOLLING. I will be glad to yieldto the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I riseas one member of the Committee on theJudiciary and as the one who has beeninstrumental, I think, In making somechanges in this law. In fact, I offered theamendment which has now beenadopted, because when it was first takenup to this bill, the committee amendmentwas adopted striking the provisionwhich increased the rank to 0-9 for mil-itary that came over from the Senate.The rule now makes that in order inboth Kindness and in Eckhardt, doingaway with that actually and replacingit with certain language.

The rule also, which I find objection-able, says that these amendments, whichare really made in order, would not bein order without the rule and cannot besubject to amendment. I find both inKindness and in Eckhardt provisionswhich I believe I could agree to if theHouse were permitted to work its will onthe amendments. In other words, I wouldbe willing to go along with the will ofthe House if the House saw fit to adoptthe amendment of the gentleman fromTexas (Mr. ECKHARDT) or if the Housesaw fit to adopt the amendment of thegentleman from Ohio (Mr. KINDNESS).But I wou'd first like for the House to beable to determine exactly, in the amend-ment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.ECKHARDT), the time period therein,whether it should be 6 months or a year.The gentleman from Texas says itshould be a year.

There is a year's delay in determiningwhat people would come under the pro-visions in his amendment, and that alsodesignates what people would be ex-empted.

There is also, between the two a pro-vision as to whether the department heador the agency head makes the initial de-termination or as to whether the Directorof the Office of Ethics makes the originaldetermination as to which one of theselower echelon people should come withinthe purview of the act or of these crim-inal penalties.

Under this rule, we are not able tomake that determination and fit it in.In other words, I personally would feelthat if the amendment of the gentlemanfrom Texas (Mr. ECKHARDT) went toJanuary 1, 1980, and if it took the Kind-ness position that says the Director ofthe Office of Ethics was the initial de-terminer and not the department heador agency head, I could understand that.