Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, that is not the position of the State of Hawaii, that this is a good thing. What is trying to be determined now is what is imperative based on the Hawaii State Constitution. As for the recitation about the Lambda Defense Fund, the Lambda Defense Fund turned down the people in Hawaii. They did not want to participate in this.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to point out with respect to the constant allusions to other States being forced to do what may be decided in Hawaii that the case in Hawaii is based on the Hawaii State Constitution, which has an expansive provision for the right of privacy and a provision against sex discrimination, which by definition of the attorneys in the case is stated as only being implied at best in the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, they are not making any such claim.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, as long as Hawaii has this incredible power to be able to mandate whatever it decides on the rest of the Nation, I wan thinking that perhaps we could mandate the Hawaii health care system for the other 49 States, so that we would not have to worry about national health care, and we would mandate the weather, if we could, but I think that is even beyond our powers. There is a serious note to be engaged in here, because the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has to do with the definition. If Members are in fact intending to define marriage nationally in the terms that have been related in the debate so far, they have indicated it is an institution in which we have a secular, sacred duty to maintain the union between a man and a woman. If that is the case, and Members really intend to do this, and we are sincere about covering this as a national definition of marriage, then why do Members not have a national divorce clause in here as well, forbidding it? Where are the criminal penalties associated with adultery? I have heard a continuous drumbeat from some Members here about this union of a man and a woman. If that is the case, I presume, then, Members are going to forbid divorce and most certainly impose penalties with adultery. But I do not see it in here. There appear to be circumstances in which this union of a man and woman can take place in the context of marriage again and again and again. I am not quite sure how the transition is made in Members' definitions, but that is what takes place, all of this within the context that this deficition has to be made in a national context, because of what may or may not happen in Hawaii. But what is left out of this is that the Federal law over and over again, as stated as recently as 1992, and I am quoting the Supreme Court, ``Without exceptions, domestic relations have been a matter of State, not Federal, concern and control since the founding of the Republic.'' In this particular instance, it is the State constitution in Hawaii that is the grounds for the suit in Hawaii. The State constitution in Hawaii has particular references to the right of privacy and equal protection that are not found in other constitutions in other States. Therefore, it does not apply. Members should vote for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] because even if there is a ruling in Hawaii, it does not therefore follow that Pennsylvania or Florida or Illinois or any of the other States have to follow it at all, unless there are similar provisions, and there are judges that would make decisions based on similar interpretations of similar provisions in Members' own State constitutions. The attorneys for the coules that came into court in Hawaii have stated again and again that it is the particular provisions of the Hawaii State Constitution that they are refering to, so it is disingenuous at best for those who want to maintain that this amendment is something that should be voted for to indicate that unless we have this bill today, and unless we defeat the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], Members are going to be forced to accept what was a result of a court decision in Hawaii, if it happens to go that way. The State is disputing this at the present time, and may prevail. So unless someone who is in favor of the bill can tell me how the U.S. Constitution reflects the specific provisions in the Hawaii State Constitution, which extend beyond the Federal Constitution the right of privacy and the equal protection based on gender, unless they can explain that, I do not see how Members can deny the validity of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. I would yield to anybody who can explain to me how the U.S. Constitution, which only deals by implication with the Hawaii State Constitution, will somebody please tell me how the U.S. Constitution and the Hawaii State Constitution are comparable in these two respects, which is the basis for the suit in Hawaii? There are constitutional experts. Do not look puzzled. Members know perfectly well what I am talking about. There is a right to privacy in Hawaii, there is no discrimination based on gender in the Hawaii State Constitution, which does not appear in the U.S. Constitution except by implication, if Members make the argument. In other words, I get no response.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Colorado, inasmuch as he continues to invoke the name of Hawaii, to at least try to be accurate. I understand the gentleman has his political duty that he is going to do today here, at least as he conceives it. I do not object to that. I do object to his, I must say, making statements like ``Hawaii mandating its wishes on the rest of the Nation''; his constant invocation of what Hawaii intends to do or not do. I daresay that there are not five people in this House of Representatives that have the slightest clue as to what is taking place legislatively or judicially or personally in Hawaii with respect to this issue. I can tell the Members that the individuals involved are constituents of mine, two of whom I know personally. I know that the kind of rhetoric that has been utilized with respect to this issue does not reflect either their wishes or their motivations. I find it at best a question that needs to be answered as to our definition with respect to marriage. I will not use the word hypocritical, but I think others might certainly question the motivation of people who want to define marriage when this Defense of Marriage Act might better be characterized as defense of marriages. If we intend to say that marriage, and we are writing a national marriage law, which is what we want to do here, is between one man and one women, does that mean that we will now write a national divorce law? Because I understand some of the people who are sponsoring this bill are on their second or third marriages. I wonder which one they are defending. I do not object to that. I think people are entitled to make their private relationships what they will and to seek such happiness in this life as they are able to achieve, but I think that when we move into the area of the private relationships of other people, that we at least ought to show some respect for the human context. When the gentleman from Colorado and others speak so glibly of Hawaii and the people who are involved in the legal proceedings there, they forget these are human beings, some human beings that I know personally. All they are trying to do is conduct their lives as reasonable, sober, responsible people seeking their measure of happiness and tranquility in this life, and to try to bring as much as they can into their lives of the values that we cherish in Hawaii, of kindness and responsibility. Mr. Speaker, amendments will be offered to this bill, because this is more than the defense of marriage. It also gets into the question of benefits. We contend and I certainly contend that nothing that is proceeding today in Hawaii and in the courts of Hawaii affects in any way what any other State does. It is quite clear, and I can cite at great length, and I do not have the time obviously now, the fact that other States are able to establish already what they recognize or do not recognize with respect to marriage. The full faith and credit clause has been invoked in our Nation's history very few times, less than half a dozen times, and it involves the custody of children, the protection of children, the interstate capacity to enforce child support laws. That is the kind of thing we have dealt with, serious issues. I do not doubt that it is a serious issue for individuals here as to what constitutes marriage, but to try to utilize Hawaii for some political agenda having to do with, I guess, the elections in November is something that I find nothing less than reprehensible. We can define marriage any way we want in the States right now. This bill has nothing to do with that. Hawaii certainly is not challenging it. In fact, I would like to hear from the gentleman from Colorado or anybody else any indication that the State of Hawaii has ever indicated in any way, shape, or form that it intends to, as the gentleman put it, mandate its wishes on the rest of the Nation. I do not think this is the case, and I do not think this is the bill to do this kind of thing, and certainly not to malign Hawaii in the process.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak against H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act. The title of the bill is puzzling. What are we defending marriage against: divorce, domestic violence, adultery? Can anyone name a single married couple whose union would be strengthened or defended against harm by this legislation? With all the unresolved burning issues facing this institution, it is nothing short of incredible that we would be diverting time and energy away from questions like Medicare, the environment, and the economy on this matter. Supporters of the bill point to what they claim is the danger of same-gender marriage. They say that if a court in Hawaii rules in favor of same-gender couples, other States will then have to give ``full faith and credit'' to the resulting marriages. I'm going to take this opportunity to concentrate on the traditions of our Nation, in particularly the rights of States and the Constitution of the United States. H.R. 3396 is an unnecessary intrusion into the State domain of family law. It tears at the fabric of our Constitution. Historically, States have the primary authority to regulate marriage based upon the 10th amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has supported this constitutional right. In Aukenbrandt versus Richards, 1992, the Court rules that ``without exception, domestic relations has been a matter of state, not federal concern and control since the founding of the Republic.'' It is also interesting to note that questions concerning the validity of an out-of-state marriage are generally resolved without reference to the ``full faith and credit'' clause of the U.S. Constitution. States traditionally recognize out-of-state marriages unless they have statutes prohibiting such a union. For example, polygamy is illegal in all States, and in most states certain incestuous marriages are illegal too. States can declare an out-of-state marriage void if it is against the state's public policy or if entered into with the intent to evade the law of the State. Congress has invoked the ``full faith and credit'' clause only five times since the founding of the Republic. The three most recent instances have required each State to give child custody, child support, and protection orders of other States the same faith and credit it gives its own such orders. The Defense of Marriage Act differs in one critical aspect from the legislative enactment passed by the Congress under it full faith and credit power: H.R. 3396 permits sister States to give no effect to the laws of other States. This is a novel and unconstitutional interpretation of the clause. According to a leading constitutional law scholar, Laurence H. Tribe, ``the Constitution delegates to the United States no power to create categorical exceptions to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.'' The Supreme Court just recently struck down a Colorado law that targeted gay and lesbians in Romer versus Colorado, This case suggests that the Supreme Court will rule legislation motivated by animus against gays and lesbians unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment unless the legislative classification bears a rational relationship to a legitimate State purpose. In other words, since H.R. 3396 targets a group of people due to their--in the words of Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council--``dangerous lifestyle and behavior,'' it is likely to be struck down by the courts. There is no dire urgency or compelling public interest to pass this measure, which is not only unnecessary but also likely to be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In addition, I find it hard to believe how many of my colleagues can justify their support of H.R. 3396 when they are also cosponsors of H.R. 2270. At least 37 Members of the House are cosponsors of both bills. H.R. 2270 would require the Congress to specify the source of authority under the U.S. Constitution for the enactment of laws. Where in article I or anywhere else in the Constitution is the Congress given authority to write a national marriage law? Maybe the sponsors of both bills don't see the contradiction. Maybe they just don't care. Many on the other side of the aisle have been vocal and unceasing in their support for reversing the flow of power away from Washington and back to the States. Well, the laws governing marriage are traditionally and constitutionally under the authority of the States. If there is any area of law to which States can lay a claim to exclusive authority, it is the field of family relations. How can someone reconcile being for States rights while at the same time taking away a basic, constitutional right given to States by the Framers of our Constitution? I strongly encourage my colleagues to allow the States to continue exercising their constitutional rights and not fan the flames of intolerance. As William Eskeridge, Law Professor at Georgetown University, simply stated, ``the reasons to hesitate before adopting this legislation are conservative ones: federalism, original intent and tradition.'' Let us remember that the United States draws its strength from the enormous diversity to be found within the borders of our great Nation. Vote against The Defense of Marriage Act.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak out against granting most-favored-nation status to China. Many of my colleagues have discussed the various aspects of China's MFN status; I am going to concentrate on the issue of exporting forced labor manufactured products to the United States. The Chinese Government has not complied with the memorandum of understanding on prison labor between the United States and China also known as the MOU. In the MOU, the Chinese acknowledged that exporting forced labor products to the United States is illegal. Key provisions of the MOU state that China will promptly investigate companies or enterprises suspected of violating relevant regulations; they will furnish available evidence and information regarding suspected violations; and they will allow United States officials to visit the respective enterprises or companies. This violation should be important to any working American. Importing products made by convicted, forced or indentured labor in Chinese prison camps takes jobs away from Americans. The United States should not continue granting MFN status to China while it is exporting prison labor products. There are many examples of Chinese and United States companies deliberately violating the law. For example, the Customs Bulletin and Decisions published in the Federal Register on April 23, 1996, reports that certain iron pipe fittings are made using prison labor at the Tianjin Malleable Iron Factory also known as the Tianjin Tongbao Fittings Co., also known as the Tianjin No. 2 Malleable Iron Plant, also known as the Tianjin Secondary Mugging Factory, also known as the Tainajin No. 2 Prison. I'm sure you noticed that the prison goes by many names and is only one example of how the Chinese Government tries to mislead companies and countries on where exported manufactured products are being made. The March 1996 State Department report entitled ``China Human Rights Practices,'' states that cooperation with United States officials has stalled since mid-1995. ``As of the end of 1995, the authorities had not granted access to a prison labor facility since April 30th. * * * As in many Chinese workplaces, safety is a low priority. There are no available figures for casualties in prison industry.'' Another example of exported prison labor can be found by examining the Chinese expandable graphite exports. The only mine in China which produces expandable graphite for export is a forced labor camp called the Beishu Laogai Detachment, also known as the Shandong Province Beishu Prison, the Shandong Province Beishu Shengjian Graphite Mine, the Beishu Graphite Mine, and recently the Qingdao Graphite Mine. Producing expandable graphite is dangerous because it involves the extensive use of sulfuric and chromic acid. Shipping records from 1992 to 1995 show that two major customers of the expandable graphite in the United States were the Asbury Graphite Company and China Enterprises. Let me refresh some of my colleagues' memories in the case they don't remember watching the June 1995 Tom Brokaw interview with Steven Riddle, CEO of the Asbury Graphite Co. in New Jersey. During the interview, Mr. Riddle admitted that his company was purchasing expandable graphite from Qingdao Mines, a forced labor camp. In addition, Mr. Riddle admitted that he sometimes worried that his company, Asbury Graphite was violating the law, but ``everybody tends to look the other way.'' We need to stop looking the other way. United States companies should not feel comfortable purchasing forced labor products from China. The U.S. Customs Agency needs to put its foot down and enforce the law. An interesting side note: The Beishu Laogai Detachment was unexpectedly visited on Christmas Day, 1994, by a reporter from the London Sunday Times, named Nick Rufford. He reported that ``Evidence of the use of forced labor was abundant. Inmates marched in double file. Trucks with `Beishu prison' stenciled on the sides in Chinese characters were parked inside the factory gates. Behind the plant stood a walled compound with watchtowers and guards.'' Mr. Rufford reported 3,500 tons of graphite from the mine was shipped to Britain last year. As many of my colleagues know, Amnesty International and other sources have provided ample documentation of the cruel and abusive practices common in Chinese prisons. That abuse, the restricted journals clearly show, is translated directly into hard currency earned in the export trade. For example, in a journal whose readership is restricted to prison officials, a writer laid out the brutal logic of using prison labor for export production: ``Prisoners have become commodity producers. they are cheap and concentrated. They produce labor intensive products.'' It is precisely the goods which fall into the labor intensive category that form the bulk of Chinese exports to the United States. The article also shows that it is common practice in China to forcibly retain so-called labor reform prisoners for indefinite periods beyond the expiration of their terms. the industrial advantages are explained clearly to prison administrators: ``Prisoners retained for in-camp employment * * * can not join labor unions, do not enjoy retirement benefits when they become old, and their wages and living standards are low.'' These abuses seal the case against granting China MFN status. China does not play by the rules. China does not reciprocate the trade benefits we grant to them. Despite the fact that over one-third of China's exports are sold into the United States market, China's high tariffs and non tariff barriers limit access to the Chinese market for United States goods and services. Only 2 percent of United States exports are allowed into China. The result is a $34 billion United States trade deficit with China in 1995. This doesn't include any of the stolen intellectual property of the illegally smuggled guns. I strongly urge my colleagues that we no longer reward China's constant violations of agreements. Vote against granting MFN status to China.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today there was a ceremony commemorating the 51st birthday of Aung San Suu Kyi, the rightful leader of Burma. It highlighted the continuing repression occurring in Burma. As you know, Burma is ruled by a brutal military dictatorship which rejects the mandate of the democratic elections of 1990. Although Aung San Suu Kyi is no longer under house arrest, the military regime has been stepping up its repressive measures against her and her party, the National League for Democracy. As the sixth anniversary of the democratic election approached, over 200 people were arrested. Recently, the regime released half of the detainees. These arrests were the latest example of the egregious human rights situation in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi and members of the National League for Democracy did not give in to the fear of retribution. They held rallies these past two weekends and will continue to meet. I say to Anug San Suu Kyi, thank you for your courage and devotion to principle, you inspire all of us. You are a very courageous woman, who has endured uncomprehensible hardships. We will continue to help restore you and the rightfully elected parliament to power in Burma and end the horrendous human rights violations.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with other concerned Members of Congress to introduce legislation which amends the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to prohibit the licensing of a permanent or interim nuclear waste storage facility outside the 50 States. Specifically, this bill would preclude the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from issuing a license for the storage of radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel in any of the U.S. territories. Senator Daniel Akaka has already introduced a companion bill, S. 1878, in the U.S. Senate. I have grown increasingly troubled by statements and presentations that have been made by a New York City investment firm, KVR, Inc., that earlier this year made an offer for Palmyra Island, an atoll of more than 40 islets 1,000 miles south of Hawaii. Initially, it was reported that KVR. Inc. talked about using Palmyra for scientific research and hotel development of some kind. However, recent events make it evident that KVR, Inc. wants to use Palmyra for a repository of radioactive waste. KVR, Inc. has been circulating draft legislation among the administration and Members of Congress to locate a radioactive waste site on a Pacific atoll. According to representative from KVR, Inc. Palmyra is on a short list of candidate sites being considered. I want to state for the record that I am unequivocally against this initiative. In order to locate the site at Palmyra the draft legislation waives compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act in regard to the preparation of the environmental impact statement and the Clean Water Act to dredging. Siting a radioactive waste facility is a serious matter. The environmental consequences cannot be ignored. For too long the Pacific community has been used as a nuclear dumping ground. The United States tested nuclear devices in the Marshall Islands, and we are all having to deal with the enormous costs associated with these tests. More recently, the Government of France conducted a series of nuclear tests at the Moruroa and Fangatauga atolls in the South Pacific, which was opposed by over 160 nations. Mr. Speaker, my bill is preemptive strike against proposals to designate a radioactive waste site in the Pacific. KVR, Inc. attempts to achieve a laudable goal but at an enormous cost. I want to advise my colleagues that any attempt to go forward with the KVR, Inc. proposal will be vigorously and vehemently opposed.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak out against granting China the most-favored-nation [MFN] status. For many years I have followed the human rights and business violations occurring in China. This past year we have once again seen many problems arise with China. As my colleagues know, last month the United States customs agents arrested suspects in the United States with ties to China's state-owned munitions companies for smuggling AK-47's and other dangerous weapons into the United States. These same companies are selling nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan and advanced missile technology to Iran. Many people claim that if we don't grant MFN status to China that American business will be hurt. That's not true. American businesses are hurt by the Chinese Government allowing piracy of copyrighted American goods. These pirated copies are made in factories with the full knowledge of the Chinese Government. Everyone here is aware that a trade war was barely averted yesterday because the United States and China came to an agreement that is designed to crack down on Chinese piracy of compact discs and computer software. Unfortunately, I don't think the Chinese understand that we are serious about protecting our copyrighted goods. Once again, the Chinese have only been slapped on the wrist for not abiding by agreements made. In the past, MFN status has been granted in hopes that the Chinese Government was going to crack down on the piracy problems and human rights violations. This has not happened yet. Granting MFN to China does not encourage the Chinese Government to correct their human rights violations. Despite China's robust economy and economic reforms, there continues to be widespread human rights abuses. China still places severe restrictions on freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, religion, privacy, movement and worker rights. In Sunday's Post, it was noted that China's priority for the next 15 years would be to discredit Tibet's exiled religious leader, his Holiness, the Dalai Lama. I ask my colleagues to ask themselves--Why would we want to grant MFN status to a country that continues to ignores human rights violations, continues to replicate American copyrighted goods, smuggles guns into our country, and has given nuclear technology to rogue nations? I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against MFN for China.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, last night, I voted against Mr. Burton's amendment that reduced the development assistance available to the Government of India. Previously, I have supported amendments linking foreign aid to India's human rights record. In fact, I have consistently supported human rights in the Punjab and Kashimir states. However, this amendment provides no such connection. I am concerned about the human rights violations occurring in India. And, yes violations are still occurring, but the amendment is not the best way to address the current situation in India. This amendment would damage the progress in addressing human rights violations in India, its growing economy, and United States relations with India. I admire Mr. Burton's intent, but I could not support the amendment.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I am not an advocate of term limits. It all depends on whether you and I are here or not. But for some people who are advocating a balanced budget and have been castigating one side or the other over the lack of a balanced budget and who say they are for term limits, they want to pass this budget, they will be gone out of the Congress. And suddenly, 2005 will be here and they will say, it is not my fault, I had nothing to do with it. Is it not our responsibility, if we are telling people that this is a balanced budget and there will be a balanced budget in 2002, that that be meaningful, that that not reflect an illusion, reflect borrowing for which there is no payback plan? You and I cannot borrow. If we say we should run the Government more like a business or the general illusions, we should at least be honest about our borrowing. You and I could not borrow money and not have a payback plan, could we?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for us to yield back and forth inasmuch as we have eye contact. I think we can do this, with the Chair's permission, carry on a conversation, because this is a colloquy and a conversation. Would the gentleman agree then that there is no plan stated that I could find in this budget document, I have gone through all 450 plus pages, including the dissenting opinions, that provides a plan for repayment of the money that is borrowed to achieve this balancing of the budget in the year 2002, at least on paper?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That year?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I had not gotten to that, but as Mr. Smith knows from our previous discussion, that is where in fact the money comes from. We borrow the money to mask the deficit, do we not?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say it was a pleasure to be here today, but I intend to discuss the 1997 budget today. Mr. Speaker, you may recall that I analyzed the 1996 budget activity in the context of an extended debate that took place on this floor, and in the other body, and you may recall, Mr. Speaker, that I invoked Members from the other body, like Mr. Hollings and Mr. Dorgan, covering the full range of opinions certainly in the Democratic Party. I indicated in that discussion that I had in conjunction with the Congressional Record in 1996 that there was no such thing as a balanced budget being prepared, let alone put forward in 1996, and we have the same situation today. Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt that it is very important for Mr. Dole to resign from the Senate to run as citizen and/or candidate Dole, because I do not think that in his role as Senator, let alone majority leader, that he would have the opportunity to have much credibility in the way of putting forward a balanced budget amendment, let alone putting forward a balanced budget for 1997. My fundamental point, Mr. Speaker, is that the budget that will be presented to us shortly, possibly this week, and be dispatched as quickly as possible, as opposed to 1996, dispatched as quickly as possible because it is not a balanced budget. Now, my good friend, my good and dear friend I would say, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], will come down, and he is an engaging individual. When I state my affection and friendship for him, Mr. Speaker, you know that it is a feeling that is genuine on my part. I value his friendship and I have genuine affection for him as an individual, but he has an impossible task. I grant he is probably the best one to try to put it forward. As you know, Mr. Speaker, he is an avuncular person, even as yourself, and he will come down on the floor, and with his engaging smile and his wit and rhetoric, we will put the best possible face on the fact that this is not a balanced budget document. It is not balanced for 1997, it most certainly is not going to be balanced for the year 2002. The reason I am taking the special order time, Mr. Speaker, with the budget, is that given the rules of the House it is virtually impossible to have any kind of lengthy discussion that would illuminate for the public and for the Members exactly what the budget is all about. Most of this takes place in a hearing room, in the Committee on the Budget hearings, and in staff work that is being done, discussions between the House and the other body with respect to a conference on the budget. Suffice to say, and I will for the Record, and would be happy to engage, as I did previously when we discussed the 1996 budget, be happy to engage anyone from the Republican side or from the Democratic side, because the budget being prepared from the Democratic side does not balance either. The difference is that we can count, I can count. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the budget deficit disappear, but I think we should take a much longer period of time to do it so that we do not endanger the economy. I think that, interestingly enough, considering the labels that are put out about liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans or conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, whatever these labels are, that I think the Federal Reserve, Mr. Greenspan's approach has been that the economy should be prevented from slipping into either recession or depression or slipping into a phase of inflation or hyperinflation. I think the stock market reflects this. The fact is that the growth in the economy is such that with a judicious approach to deficit cutting, we could keep the economy robust and reduce the deficit. This is, in fact, what President Clinton has accomplished. I know this is a source of great distress to those who predicted disaster with the Clinton budget, as presented in 1992 and 1993, but the fact is that the deficit has been cut considerably both in percentage terms and in real dollars for 3 years running now, something which has not happened since the end of World War II. So the President, not having the benefit of a Congress which is supportive of him in the majority; that is to say, a Republican Congress before him, has accepted the admonition of the majority to utilize the Congressional Budget Office figures in order to present to the public the idea of what would constitute numbers sufficient to have a balanced budget. In that role; that is to say, of a President who is faced with a Congress that wants to balance the budget utilizing the Congressional Budget Office figures, he accepted that ultimately in 1996. His priorities were different. As a result of the priorities within those priorities were, the President vetoed various elements of the budget and the budget was ultimately settled in a series of confrontations, a series of recriminations and arguments back and forth as to who was doing what and why. In the course of events, the Government was closed on various occasions and generally it was seen as a kind of sorry affair all the way around. Nonetheless, my point here is recounting that today is that we will not see that again, apparently, in 1997. We will go through the same series of illusions, using somewhat different numbers, but we will come to a much more rapid conclusion. The reason we will come to the more rapid conclusion is that we will not have the opportunity this year to go through--if the gentleman from Michigan would step to the microphone, I will be happy to yield at an appropriate point. Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Smith will grant me just a moment or two more to make the fundamental of my case, then I will be happy to yield to him. Always a pleasure to see him. In fact, he was one of the few people, as I mentioned previously, Mr. Speaker, who was willing to engage in a dialog and a colloquy on the question of the budget, and I value his input and exchange. As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, in 1996, if you will recall, we went through weeks actually, not just hours or days of discussion but weeks of discussion, and in the course of that discussion I was on the floor reviewing the budget, and I will do so again for 1997. My fundamental premise is this, that just as there was only the illusion of a balanced budget proposal, whether single year or multiyear, in 1996, there will be only the illusion presented this year. It will be strictly for political consumption and will not amount to anything worth the paper that it is written on in such elaborate fashion. I have here, Mr. Speaker, in my hand, and I will not have extensive charts down on the floor, I think the report speaks for itself, it is the concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal year 1997, a report of the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives to accompany the Congressional Resolution 178 setting forth the congressional budget of the United States Government for the fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and it has additional minority and dissenting views. Now, this document runs some 450-plus pagers, 455 pages or so, and it is a very interesting document. It takes 44 pages, which is the first 44, takes 44 pages to get to the actual budget, when we actually get to the fiscal year budget for 1997. It is preceded on the page 43 with the end of politics as usual. This, I take it, is not exactly an attempt at humor on the part of the Committee on the Budget, the Committee on the Budget not being known for its sense of humor, other than in the person of, as I said, the aforementioned chair of the Committee on the Budget, but in the end of politics as usual, functions by function description, it says, ``The discussions that follow describe the budget resolution's recommended priorities for the fiscal years 1997 through 2002.'' Now, it took us 44 pages to get there. We went through everything, including attacking corporate subsidies, economic assumptions of the budget resolution, the Clinton crunch, Americans' anxiety about their economic future, quite a rhetorical set-to in the first 44 pages. But what do we have then on page 44? Well, it says at the end of each function, ``Additional provisions with budgetary effects are mentioned.'' Mentioned, Mr. Speaker. I am going to get into a little more detail. The discussions that follow reflect the assumptions underlying the House Committee on the Budget's recommendations concerning the funding priorities for programs in each function. The actual changes for the programs fall under the authority of the authorizing and appropriating committees with jurisdiction over the programs. Let me explain very briefly, for those Members who may not be fully familiar with the budget process and those members of the public which may follow the Congressional Record on this who may not be totally familiar with it, once the Committee on the Budget makes its recommendations, it provides through that recommendation a kind of game plan for us in the House and the other body, a game plan for the Congress. Then the various committees in the Congress, whether they are authorizing committees or whether they are appropriating committees, authorizing meaning the program committees, the subject matter committees, and the Committee on Appropriations and its subcommittees, those who provide the money for the functions that are approved and authorized, they put the actual numbers and programs behind the Committee on the Budget recommendations. So with that in mind, what do we get to? We hear from Mr. Dole, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Kasich, Mr. Sabo, heartfelt and I will say totally sincere admonitions to us to arrive at a balanced budget. Well, as I indicated, I think that can be done. I think it will take a lot longer period than 1997 to 2002, and I need only look at the actual budget document itself to come up with proof of that. Let us examine what it actually says on page 44 of the budget resolution. Fiscal year 1997 through 2002, the deficit starting in 1997 will be--and these are estimates, they could go up or down. We realize that, but this is the best guess. And it is an informed guess by the Committee on the Budget and utilizing the congressional budget figures, and I take them at their word on this. And for conversation's sake, I will agree that these are the numbers that are under discussion and upon which we will vote--$163 billion deficit in 1995; 1996, it was $150 billion. The 1995 figure was down from the figures previous to that. You may recall during the last years of Mr. Bush's administration, the figures were 250 and above, between 250 and 300 billion. The number 163 then was progress. It may be too high for some people but unless you want to literally amputate the economy in order to achieve a balanced budget, this is certainly within the range of acceptability. It certainly has been reflected, that acceptability has been reflected in the conservative bodies, if you will, of financial opinion in this country as manifested in the policies of the Federal Reserve and the response of the stock exchange. So we had 163 billion, down considerably from the 250 to 290 billion plus of previous years; 1996, 150; 1997, the estimate is 147. This is a deficit I am citing. It is not something I am making up. I am taking this directly from page 44 under the column line deficit/ surplus. Either it is a deficit or a surplus. This is the deficit. We get deficits in 1998, 1999, the year 2000, 2001, going from 147 to 142 to 114 to 87 to 39, certainly progress, then suddenly, as if by magic, Mr. Speaker, in the year 2002, we get a plus 3 billion, $3.185 billion. To me it is like watching a television show I saw recently, I think it was called the Wonderful World of Magic. This is the wonderful world of congressional budgeting. When someone is sawed in half, I saw this again, that is one of the oldest tricks, sawing a, generally a young woman in half, we do not really saw her in half. You have the illusion of her being sawed in half. She waves from one end, and the box is split in half and the feet are wiggling at the other end. Then the box is brought back together again and magically she reappears. That knife that went through that body apparently was an illusion. Well, the deficit cutting knife that is going through the deficit here between the years 1997 and 2002 is an illusion. Because suddenly, she is whole, the budget is whole, the budget has been balanced in 2002. Yet what happens then between 1997 and the year 2002, we have had an accumulated deficit of 528 billion. But magically, after that 528 billion in increasing deficit has occurred, suddenly, 528 billion later we achieve a $3 billion surplus for that 1 year. After that the deficit explodes again. Mr. Speaker, surely you can see and surely Members can see and surely the public, upon reading this document, will see that this is a game that is being played, a ballet with the books, a budget that is in name, a budget balancing act which is in name only, an act, yes, but certainly not balanced. I see the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] has taken the rostrum down on the floor and I presume would like to have some discussion. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Both budgets depend on balloon payments?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman agree that what is called back loading in the last 2 years is not limited to the President's budget, that it is also reflected in this budget put forward by the majority in the House?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would you agree that it is very convenient for the Committee on the Budget then to be able to cite the so-called surplus in the Social Security fund as a source of providing the funds for balancing the budget?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to state that the gentleman in the well, Mr. Shays is well known for his sober consideration of these issues and his comity with other Members with respect to their discussion, and I will be pleased to listen to his presentation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield a moment?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. As usual, Mr. Smith has been very forthright in his presentation, and I am appreciative of that. However, I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you would consider what has been said during this colloquy, which I hope was at least informative, if not illuminating, and in the process then think about what Mr. Smith said. We know what he would prefer. He would prefer the deficit to disappear more quickly, and the reason that I find the notion amusing is I would prefer to be able to dunk a basketball, but I probably would have to pay a lot more in taxes. But I do not think that is going to happen. I mean it is an interesting thing to think about. In fact, I thought about it a lot in my life. I look at that basket up there, and I think, you know, it would be interesting to be able to dunk the ball. But it is a fantasy, and the difference between, I think, a sane person and someone who is steeped in illusion is to know the difference between fantasy and reality. It is a fantasy, and by Mr. Smith's own calculations it is a fantasy, to believe that we are really going to balance the budget in 5 years' time, or 7 years' time, because we have not taken into account where we borrowed the money to be able to put the numbers on the page to pretend that we were balancing the budget. Or we have imagined savings that somehow are going to take place like a balloon payment. You notice I mentioned the phrase balloon payment because I think that is as close as the average person would come to be able to relate their own budget, say their own mortgage, to what is taking place here in the Congress. I take no pleasure in going through this. On the contrary. I am glad Mr. Smith was down here so that it does not look at if it is just something I am conjuring up in order to take up time or to try and make some remarks that can be seen as very smart and sophisticated and dismissive of the genuine problem that exists with respect to the deficit. On the contrary. I would take what Mr. Smith said very much to heart. If you recall, if I recall correctly, he stated something: We should do it more gradually. Well, say 7 years was gradually to him. Well, maybe it would take 17. After all, we take 30 years to pay a mortgage on a home. In many instances we take 5 or 6 years to pay a car, we take some months or even years to pay off an appliance. It seems to me that if we are talking about the economic stability of the United States of America, to put a 30-year timetable or a 15-year timetable on paying down our deficit so that our economy stays stable, in fact stays robust and growing, that inflation stays in check, and interest rates remain low, and confidence high, that that would be an excellent use of our time vis-a-vis the growth capacity and possibilities of the U.S. economy. So there is no need to go through this kind of a charade with the budget unless we are trying to score political points and not deal realistically with the question of the budget and balancing it. Let me further state then at this point a subject that we got into very briefly; that is to say Mr. Smith and I got into it very briefly: How do you balance the budget when you are borrowing against Social Security, the so-called surplus in Social Security? And parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, let me say that that is not really a surplus. What we are doing now is what the average person thinks about when they put their savings together. They save now in order to be able to draw upon it in the future when it is needed. Now, the rough parallel to that is the Social Security System. We are paying into Social Security more than we take out presently because we know that in the future those funds will be called upon to be paid out. More people will be drawing upon Social Security with less people paying into it, we will have to make adjustments at some point in order to take that into account. Now, presumably the economy will grow, the percentage that may be taken in your Social Security tax, your payroll tax, et cetera, may increase in absolute numbers because the economy grows. All of those things can be guessed at, taken into account, but nonetheless the general proposition is, is that the Social Security trust fund must take in more money than it pays out as it goes along in order to be able to meet the requirements that Social Security will have to meet sometime in the next century in the early part of the century. If that is the case, and we are borrowing from Social Security trust fund and other trust funds, principally Social Security, if we are borrowing from them and have no plan to pay it back, because I think Mr. Smith agreed that nowhere in the 1997 budget projections through the next 5 years is there a plan to pay back Social Security, now, Mr. Speaker, if you and I borrowed money from ourselves and had no plan to pay it back, I do not think either of us would feel that that money somehow would magically appear in the year 2002. All that being said, Mr. Speaker, the borrowing, the deficit rising, no plan to pay it back to the Social Security System, how then is it possible to claim that the budget will be balanced in 2002? How is that possible and at the same time have a tax cut that will take revenues out of the system? Does it not make sense to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you are borrowing money in order in order to mask a deficit, that if you have a tax cut, which in fact increases the amount of money that will not be going to the Treasury, in addition to what you are borrowing, you are actually increasing the deficit? you are actually increasing the deficit even more. This is why I oppose this idea of cutting taxes while you say you are balancing the budget. I have no objection to a tax cut if the tax cut is not couched in terms of balancing the budget. Surely we have been through this before. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to tax cuts as such. Quite the opposite. I would like to see tax incentives. I would like to see, for example, and I think it is well known, I believe that we should have a business meal entertainment deduction increase. I would like to see it at 100 percent. I have no objection to supply-side economics, as such, when we can justify it, deliberate it, and discuss it on an issue-by- issue basis. I think that I could make a case that the business meal entertainment deduction is a job provider, is a job generator; that we could find labor and management on the same side of the table on that. I think the spousal deduction for travel ought to be put forward as an incentive to boosting the economy. I think we will find, Mr. Speaker, in our home States that tourism, entertainment, and travel constitute one of the top three business endeavors in our States. Tourism, travel, and entertainment is the top money producer and job generator in some 13 States, and it is one of the top three in 30-plus States. I am willing, Mr. Speaker, not only willing but eager, to have a discussion about where we can have tax incentives and tax breaks, and discuss what constitutes, as I said with the gentleman from Michigan previously, what constitutes welfare. Welfare is not just something that comes with a single mother and children. Welfare can come to corporations, too. I notice that Mr. Trump was not hurting for people to come to his aid and rescue when he needed all the benefits of corporate welfare, when he was running through his various real estate machinations in New York and Atlantic City and elsewhere. Business has these incentives and breaks all the time. I think individuals ought to be able to finance their education. We cannot exist in the 21st century without a good education, and I think that would be a good investment, if we can find a way to provide tax incentives and breaks to accomplish that. I think we would benefit from that. The argument against that is the immediate consequences of some incentives and cuts and breaks, whatever we want to call them, may be a drop in the Treasury. I would argue that. We would have to determine whether or not, for example, with business meal entertainment deductions and the spousal travel deduction, if we were able to increase that, I think more business would be done, and I could make an argument that revenues would increase. This is essentially the supply- side argument that took place in the 1980's. However, if we take it in such a broad brush that it is to cover everything, then I think we run into the trouble that this budget runs into, that we cannot make the numbers add up. That is where I think the difficulty occurs here. I would like to think, and I certainly hope that I am a reasonable person who takes his oath as seriously as anyone does in all of the Congress, and I believe every one of my colleagues and yourself, Mr. Speaker, takes himself or herself quite seriously when it comes to carrying out their duty under their oath of office. As a result of that, I would like to think that while we may have disagreements as to the precise way in which we can accomplish our goals, that nonetheless, the discussion as to how to arrive at that is not only very valuable, but crucial to determining whether or not we are actually going to accomplish the goal. The goal here is ultimately to balance the budget while keeping the economy robust, and to see to it that the average American throughout the spectrum of opportunity and individual capacities and abilities does the very best that they can nationwide. That is what we do. Mr. Speaker, it used to be a point of pride in this country that people earned a good living, that they could end up better than where they started. Now we seem to see an ethos developing of cost-cutting, which means people-cutting. People are being rewarded at the top of the corporate hierarchy for being able to cut jobs out, and to see to it that people are maligned simply for trying to get an increase in the minimum wage. I do not think this is the atmosphere in which we want to discuss something like balancing the budget, because if the only way to balance the budget is to take it on the backs of children or on people trying to better themselves in life, that is no solution. To me, that runs counter to my understanding of what the American dream is all about. So in that context, then, it seems to me that what is very important here is that we discuss what is actually happening. What actually is happening is that the budget is gradually being balanced, as it should be, without endangering the economy. The deficit declines for the fourth consecutive year in 1996. This is the first time it has happened since the Truman administration. I am going over some of the elements that I have cited before in a little more detail. The traditional Congressional Budget Office baseline projections include discretionary spending at caps established in 1993 and show the deficit rising after 1996 and reaching $210 billion in 2002. This is $18 billion lower than the December projection of this year, and $80 billion lower than April of 1995. In other words, these numbers can change with the wind, but the wind has to be blowing in the right direction. The direction of the budgetary wind is this: That we have a prudent understanding of what it takes to have the budget balance. To simply do it arbitrarily, as is done in this 1997 budget, and to think about the idea of cutting taxes at the same time that you are trying to achieve a balance in the budget and a reduction of the deficit, more than a reduction, the balancing of deficit spending, I think is beyond credibility. I would indicate, Mr. Speaker, because I have had some considerable time to discuss it, and perhaps not all of our colleagues have heard the whole discussion, the hypothesis that I am putting forward, the thesis that I am putting forward, is that if you have as the budget, and the document I am referring to is the budget of the majority, the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives, if we have, as the Committee on the Budget indicates, deficits for every year from 1997 through 2001, and then suddenly find a surplus in the year 2002, it is just not credible. Try and sell that in Ravenswood, WV. I talked with friends there today. I said I was going to make a presentation today. They were interested in what I was going to say, what my premises were going to be. I just asked whether or not this sounded credible, that you could have deficits, declining as they might be right up to 2001, and suddenly come up with a surplus in 2002, and then from 2003 on just watch the deficit expand again. I hope that we are not going to be subject, Mr. Speaker, to Member after Member coming to the well of the House and regaling us with stories about their children and their grandchildren and all this mawkish, overblown rhetoric about how they are so concerned with their children and grandchildren, presumably none of the rest of us are, which I find a little bit farfetched, but rather, if we are so concerned about children and grandchildren, maybe we should be a little more honest with them right now. My fundamental point is this budget does not balance. The budget in 1998 does not balance. The budget in 1999 does not balance. The budget in 2000, 2001, it does not balance. How is it going to balance in 2002? Even if it does on paper, how long is it going to last? Merely the time it takes to say it: ``Oh, the budget is balanced''? Well, it was balanced, because it was balanced when I said it, but now we are 3 seconds beyond that time and it is not balanced anymore. But we balanced it for that moment, on paper, just to go through that allusion. I do not think it is worthy of this Congress to do it. So, Mr. Speaker, I think if we look at 1996 and what we went through, we did not have a balanced budget but we did manage to cut the deficit. We did manage to cut the rate of the deficit. We did hold inflation down. We held steady on interest rates. I think on the whole, then, the President's priorities were met. The majority ultimately voted for a budget that was more in line with the President's priorities, so the President is entitled to credit for sticking to a position with respect to the rate of the deficit reduction under the premises established by the majority in the Congress, the Republican majority, and it worked. Now the President is coming forward again, saying that he would like to see these priorities carried forward on education, on Medicare, on Medicaid and the environment, and that he has certain standards that he desires to maintain under pain of exercising his veto. That is his constitutional right. In fact, it is his obligation as President, even as President Bush and President Reagan before him exercised the veto dozens and dozens of times, most of which we were unable to overcome when we were the majority here in the House of Representatives or the majority in the Senate. They prevailed. That is our constitutional system. It is supposed to be hard to pass legislation in the United States of America. What many people call gridlock is the wheels of government turning precisely the way the Framers of the Constitution intended for them to turn. The Congress of the United States makes policy, yes, but only if it achieve the approbation of the executive. The executive can prevail against the legislative body only if the executive can be sustained in the legislative body. We have the judicial side to see to it that we both keep a proper balance. That is our system. Mr. Speaker, I do not find it regrettable in the least that it is difficult to pass items like the budget. What I find regrettable is that we seem to be passing it so easily this week, Mr. Speaker. That is what bothers me. This is the single most important document with respect to the legislative business and what follows from it that we will have before us this year. It certainly is the most important piece of legislation before the election which is to take place in November. As a result, it seems to me we should be devoting considerable time to it. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] came down and was willing to spend some time discussing it. I think the import of the arguments that he made essentially supports my position. Of course, I can make that statement now because he has left the floor and cannot taken an opposing position to that, but I think I can extract from what he said at least a reasonable basis for saying, as I have, and indicate again to you at this moment, that we need to be much more gradual about it. To that degree, the President seems to be taking the right approach. He has accepted the will of the majority with respect to the premises upon which it bases its balanced budget projections, the Congressional Budget Office. It is not necessary for me to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, what the Congressional Budget Office is. Suffice it to say that every legislative body relies upon individuals, experts in their field, to make recommendations and to draw upon statistics and information made available to them from their various professional fields and backgrounds in order to complete a picture. In this instance, it is a picture of what the economy is like and what we can expect. This does not mean they are going to be absolutely correct in every instance, but all individual families, all companies, all businesses, all organizations, in fact, all nations, have to utilize the best brains that they have available, accumulate the most knowledge that they can, and try to draw reasonable conclusions as to what the future might bring so they can make decisions. That is all the Congressional Budget Office does with respect to the budget. It makes the best estimate that it can based upon the premises that are agreed upon. In this instance, Mr. Speaker, we have agreed upon premises which, by definition of the budget, do no add up to a balance. I have no objection to passing this budget, Mr. Speaker, with the admonition that we should take up the President's disagreement with respect to the priorities. I voted for the budget previously, and despite my own misgivings, so it is not a question of whether we should vote on a budget, it is question of what the priorities should be. I have no objection to saying that this could be a step in the direction of balancing the budget, if we have the President's priorities involved in it. I do object to us indicating to the American people that somehow this is going to lead to a balanced budget, just as I object to the idea of going through this illusion and farce, which apparently is going to take place in the other body, about passing a balanced budget amendment. The balanced budget amendment will no more achieve a balanced budget than this document does. This does not achieve a balanced budget, and neither does passing the balanced budget amendment accomplish anything of the kind, any more than vows in a marriage guarantee that there will be happiness and prosperity in it. You can have the intention, but unless you put behind it the activity which will ensure that happy consequence, then you cannot claim that it will happen. What I am saying here is if we put forward a budget that says, yes, we will cut spending and we will cut spending in a way that will continue to reduce the deficit over time and we hope at some point then to be able to reach balance, then that is all right. Not only is it all right, but that is the right way to do it. I mentioned a mortgage before. Let me draw the analogy for my colleagues here and for those who may be interested in the record. Just as you are not expected to have cash on hand to buy your house but, rather, you are expected to be able to make your payments, be able to meet your obligations over a period of time, then you can go forward with the purchase of that home and say that you own it. Do you actually own it? No. Because the bank owns it. We are going to have a mortgage- burning ceremony perhaps in 30 years. But that bank is making a bet. That bank is betting that you have the capability and the capacity to make those payments for that period of time. Think about it. Twelve times a month for 13 years. That is pretty good guessing. Perhaps it bespeaks a knowledge of finance and general economic trends that is fairly reliable. Now, that being the case, I think we need to do the same thing with this budget. Let us not con the American people into thinking for a moment that this document is moving toward balancing the budget in the year 2002. It is not true. It is not going to happen. That is irrefutable. Mr. Smith certainly did not refute it. On the contrary, he agreed with my premise. It is not going to be balanced because we do not take into account how we are going to pay for all of the money that we borrowed to presumably create the illusion of balancing this budget. What we can do is create over time an ability to pay, a robust economy that will enable us to gradually draw down the amount of the deficit with prudent spending, with a clear understanding of what programs we want to support and why we want to support them and how they benefit the American people, and over that lengthy period of time accomplish this goal. There is nothing not only wrong with that, that is the sensible, practical, reasonable way to do it, because it maximizes the opportunity for the great mass of American people to join in the prosperity, to be able to better themselves in what they want to accomplish for themselves and their family. So I stand here today, Mr. Speaker, I do not think a lonely voice or a single voice. I think I stand here enunciating fairly clearly for the American people, and I hope for my colleagues, most certainly, the idea that we should not utilize the budget process for political purposes merely because there is an election, but we should utilize our opportunity with this budget process to begin to make progress towards reducing the deficit, coming into balance, having the economy grow and seeing a robust, prosperous economy for all. Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as there is only a minute left, I want to thank you for your courtesy today in allowing me to speak and for sharing this time with me. I hope that I have made some contribution today. I intend to, in the future, towards reviewing the 1997 budget and reviewing the whole question of the budget deficit, the budget balance proposition, and seeing to it that all Americans now and in the future are able to enjoy a prosperous future.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I do not ask you that in a pejorative fashion. I am just trying to take the figure that is here in the budget because--that is presented by your party, by the majority party--because, as I understand this budget, they anticipate over the next 5 years a deficit of $528 billion. So it seemed to me that you would have to come up, if we are to balance the budget according to the--and I accept your premises; I mean I do not think they can be accomplished, but I accept that you mean these premises and you are putting them forward in good faith. What that would mean in any estimation is that you would have to come up with a plan, not you personally necessarily, but the majority would have to come up with a plan for saving or cutting $528 billion and most certainly probably could not have a tax cut----

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, either you do the cuts--can you come up with $528 billion?