Amo Houghton

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. We will not touch the population or environment or economic development funds. We will not even touch the basic education. The problem is that with taking any amount of money out of any one of these categories, we are going to be separating those amounts of money, the $14 million, putting it in a different category, but the same amount of money would have been spent, in any event.

Mr. HOUGHTON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Reclaiming my time, just let me go for the basic numbers. It was $840 million for this entire category with four subsections. It is now $669 million. We want to bring it down to $665 million. The only change is that the money which already would have been spent in that $669 million, the $14 million, is going to be pushed aside to make sure it is spent on basic education. None of the rest of the moneys, according to their plan, would be affected at all.

Mr. HOUGHTON. It lowers it in a total sense. In terms of a practical allocation, it does not affect those other three categories, because they were going to spend $14 million anyway out of the $669 million.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Transfer what already we spent to another category, to make sure that small amount of money of the $669 million is going to be spent on basic education.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, rather than exercising my right to speak for 2 minutes, maybe I can handle this through a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOUGHTON. I thank the Chair. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].

Mr. HOUGHTON. Am I right that this is a revote on the Fazio amendment, amended by me yesterday?

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to respond a minute. This is a rather new argument, and it comes about because of the absorption of the costs. I, myself, have also talked to Dr. Billington. I explained our situation. I think he understood. I cannot speak for him, but I thought he did. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate both the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]. This is not a new idea. Others have expressed this. I think they have done a wonderful job over the years. I think particularly the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has been sensitive to the overall issues we are dealing with today. I just want to make one plea, and I want to follow up and thank the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] for what he has said. Budgeting is not an across-the-board process. It is never done well that way. We have never done it that way. Therefore, it is a selective, it is not a meat cleaver approach, it is a surgical approach. One of the things I worry about here is that the committee bill zeros out the Office of Technology Assessment. Why do I worry about it? It is not a political issue, It is not something which affects many of us back in our districts, but long-term it affects this country. We should not go blind into the 21st century thinking about a whole variety of things, not understanding science. There are only 3 scientists in this body. Most people do not consider the scientific implications here. They are critically important. I have been involved as a businessman, before I came here, in cutting, cutting, cutting all my life. That is the nature of what business does. Never once did we cut the research, because it not only affects the cost but particularly it affects the revenues. If we are going to go into this next century and our major war will be economic rather than military, we must know what our legislative body can do and what other people are going to do in the world around us. Therefore, I plead either to support the Fazio amendment or my particular amendment in terms of preserving an element of scientific understanding without which I think we are going to be in terrible trouble.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will speak briefly because other Members want to express themselves. I have spoken earlier on the floor regarding the OTA. I believe it is critically important for this Nation to know what is going on in the business of technology and science into the 21st century. This is the only unit we have to advise this Congress, to work hand in hand with the scientists of this country and know what is there, and if we eliminate it, we go blindfolded, and I think that is wrong. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], who also is a member of the OTA Board, who would like to express himself. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am joined today by several of my colleagues, including Mr. McNulty, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Volkmer, and Mr. Shaw, in introducing legislation to exclude Length of Service Award Programs [LOSAP's] for volunteers performing firefighting or prevention services, emergency medical services or ambulance services from section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code. Likewise, the legislation would exempt the LOSAP's from FICA and Medicare taxation. This corrective legislation would support the important role that volunteer firefighters and rescue personnel play in small towns and rural areas across the United States. There are approximately 150,000 volunteer firefighters in about 37 States, who receive nominal awards, about $250 per year on average, under LOSAP's from their governmental or tax-exempt fire districts. Volunteers earn awards under a LOSAP while they are performing volunteer services, on the basis of their years of service. However, the awards are not actually paid to volunteers in cash until after they have retired as volunteers. There are similar award programs for volunteers performing other emergency medical services, such as rescue personnel and ambulance drivers. These nonqualified plans are covered by section 457. Participants under a section 457 plan normally report for tax purposes any compensation deferred and any income attributable to the amounts when it is actually received, similar to so-called qualified pension plans. However, one of the requirements for delayed taxation under section 457 is to limit such deferred amounts to a percentage of compensation paid. Of course, with most volunteer fire and rescue personnel, there is no regular pay, or only nominal amounts to cover expenses. Section 457 is in the Code to prevent governmental and tax-exempt entities from setting aside excessive amounts of tax-deferred income for the highly compensated employees, while at the same time being able to avoid the nondiscrimination rules that are applicable to qualified plans. Volunteers are far from being highly compensated, so our proposal does not undermine this policy. However, the result of the current limitations may be to tax the volunteer with zero or minimal pay, on the amounts set aside as LOSAP's for retirement, at the time the amounts vest with the volunteer; that is, there are no restrictions on the receipt other than the passage of time. This could result even though it may be years before the volunteer will actually receive any funds. The proposal would provide that the LOSAP's are excluded from the provisions of section 457. The result would be deferral of taxation until the LOSAP awards are paid. It would also exempt the amounts awarded under the LOSAP's from FICA and Medicare payroll taxes. The latter provision is similar to other areas of the tax law, such as exempting Peace Corp allowances paid to volunteers, as well as other plans established by the Government for deferral of compensation. The proposal would promote volunteerism in the United States. There are strong public policy reasons for promoting volunteerism, and programs such as LOSAP's are important in doing this. In many areas of the country it is not economically or geographically feasible to provide these fire protection and emergency medical services through paid career personnel. We urge our colleagues to support this sensible and important legislation.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a minute to make a few remarks in recognition of a very special lady. Dorothy Brownell is a remarkable woman. She has a wonderful blend of energy, wit, and commitment. She keeps everyone around her on their toes. A former school dental hygienist, she officially retired in 1976. I got to know her during her second career--as a volunteer. For more than 7 years, she has been the cornerstone of our Jamestown district office. She could write the book on volunteerism--that is, if she ever slowed down long enough to put pen to paper. Let me recap just a few of her interests. She has dished up food at a local food bank; is an officer with the local chapter of the American Association of Retired Persons, Foster Grandparents Program, and the United Senior Council; worked with the United Way; has been an ombudsman for long-term care at an area nursing home, and worked on the county Veterans' Listing Program. You'll have to take my word for it-- this litany only scratches the surface. Other activities have been sandwiched between trips to Ireland, Italy, and any number of our own States. Dorothy has been recognized for her efforts. She received the New York State Legislative Achievement Award; was named United Senior Council's 1990 Senior Citizen of the year; received a Certificate of Achievement from Manor Oak Nursing Home and another for her work with Catholic Charities Outreach for the Aging. On top of that, Dorothy took a silver medal for swimming in the 1990 Senior Olympics. What prompts my remarks today is that Dorothy, at the tender age of 77, is calling it quits. She's launching her second retirement with a train trip across Canada and following up with courses at Elderhostels. To record that she'll be missed is an understatement--but this little lady with the great big heart deserves the very best life has to offer.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am joined today by several of my colleagues, including Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Crane, Mrs. Kennelly, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Herger, Mr. Bunning, Mr. McCrery, and Mr. Neal, in introducing legislation to permanently extend the 10-year grandfather for publicly traded partnerships [PTP's]. This provision applies to those PTP's that were in existence at the time the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 was passed. Publicly traded partnerships, sometimes called master limited partnerships, were first created in the early 1980's. PTP's combined the traditional limited partnership form with the ability to have the partnership units freely traded on a stock exchange or over the counter. In the 1987 act, Congress enacted section 7704 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 7704 provides that PTP's generally will be taxed as corporations. Section 7704 does not apply, however, to PTP's where 90 percent or more of their income is qualifying income, such as from timber, oil and gas, and real estate. In addition, other PTP's in existence when section 7704 was enacted were grandfathered, but only for 10 years, through 1997. Our bill would extend this grandfather provision permanently. appropriateness of the 10-year grandfather We believe the 10-year limit on the grandfather for existing PTP's was inappropriate and unnecessary given the purpose for which section 7704 was enacted. According to the committee reports accompanying the 1987 act, section 7704 was intended to stop the ``long-term erosion of the corporate tax base.'' Generally, the concern was that much of corporate America would convert to PTP's, thereby causing corporate tax revenues to decline. There appears to have been no serious debate in 1987 over whether limiting the duration of the grandfather was necessary to address these concerns. There is no question that our purpose in enacting section 7704 was fully achieved by prospective application of that section. The movement toward use of PTP's had barely begun by 1987; there were only approximately 120 in existence at that time. It was the snowball effect of future conversions that we sought to prevent. Prospective application of section 7704 stopped that snowball effect dead in its tracks. Permanently grandfathering all existing PTP's would have had no effect on this goal whatsoever. Conversely, limiting the duration of the grandfather to 10 years was unnecessary to achieve our purpose. Since prospective application of section 7704 achieved our purpose, we believe Congress erred in 1987 by limiting the grandfather to 10 years. Unless we reverse that decision before it takes effect in 1998, those PTP's still in existence and their owners will face serious hardships with no corresponding benefit to the Government or the tax system. Our bill merely asks Congress to rethink its decision before any damage is done. I can foresee that some people might view this proposal as special interest legislation. I strongly disagree. Had we chosen in 1987 to provide a permanent grandfather for existing PTP's, no one would have batted an eye. Instead, a permanent grandfather in 1987 would have been an appropriate decision for Congress to make based on the extent to which existing PTP's relied on the law that was in effect when they were created. The fact that the decision was initially made in 1987 should not stop us from revisiting the issue so long as the original decision has not yet taken effect. We in Congress are called on to make decisions about appropriate transition relief in virtually every tax bill. Indeed, these types of decisions are ones that are particularly suited for the Members of Congress to make, since they generally involve the balancing of competing interests rather than technicalities of tax law. Our proposal is different only because it is separate in time from the 1987 act. On the other hand, the proposal is generic in scope, applying to any PTP fitting the criteria. We believe that it is fair, before the 10-year grandfather expires, to determine whether that decision was the proper one or whether a permanent rule would be better. Generally, Congress does not place time limits on grandfather provisions, other than what might be called project-specific provisions. The reasoning behind this policy is that if taxpayers were justified in relying on the law in effect at the time the taxpayer took action, then the taxpayers deserve relief from the change in the law, not just for a limited period but as long as the taxpayer's circumstances do not change. reasons for a permanent grandfather Some may wonder why these PTP's should be permanently grandfathered. After all, if they were taking advantage of so large a loophole that Congress had to shut it down, why should they benefit merely because they got in under the wire? The truth is that these PTP's did not take advantage of an egregious loophole. PTP's are structured no differently from other types of limited partnerships. They merely combined that basic limited partnership structure with the ability for the units to be readily traded. The problem was thus not a loophole in the tax code that needed to be closed retroactively. These PTP's relied on the law in effect before passage of the 1987 act, and that reliance was completely reasonable. The first proposal directed toward PTP's surfaced in 1984, but President Reagan chose not to forward it to Congress in his tax reform recommendations and we did not independently take up the idea in 1986. It was only when Treasury proposed section 7704 in mid-1987 as part of a list of acceptable revenue raisers that the proposal received any official endorsement. By that time, most of the affected PTP's were already in existence. This raises what I believe is the most important issue in this debate: fairness to the PTP's and, more importantly, their owners. The process of converting from a corporation to a PTP is a costly and time- consuming one, easily taking over 1 year. The conversion process involved consultation with investment bankers, appraisals, planning by corporate finance, securities and tax lawyers, multiple filings with the SEC and State securities agencies, proxy statements and shareholder votes, etc. This process would not have been started or completed had there been any reasonable prospect that a change in the tax law would have applied retroactively or after a limited period of time. To make matters worse, many of these same costs will be incurred once again if the 10-year grandfather is not made permanent. Grandfathered PTP's will be forced to convert to corporate form on January 1998. To do so, however, will require lengthy planning, and the same investment banking advice, appraisals, and attorney fees. The need for extensive, advance planning makes it essential that the matter be resolved this year. More important is the effect that loss of the grandfather will have on PTP investors. It is a virtual certainty that the value of PTP units will be affected adversely if the grandfather expires. So it will be the investors that suffer most. And who are these investors? Most are average, middle-class taxpayers who have invested in PTP units because of their high yield, many before the 1987 act was passed. We do not achieve any tax policy goal by retaining the 10-year grandfather. That goal was fully achieved by making section 7704 apply prospectively. Instead, all we would accomplish by retaining the 10- year grandfather would be harm to these PTP's and their investors. There is no doubt what our decision should be. In conclusion I want to note the diversity of the PTP's that would benefit from permanent extension of the grandfather. The PTP's affected are involved in a wide variety of industries, from motels and restaurants to chemicals, financial advising, and macadamia nuts. Undoubtedly, these businesses operate in many of our districts. Of course, our districts are the homes to the individual investors in these PTP's. The most recent count indicates that there are well over 300,000 individual investors. The 10-year grandfather hangs like a sword of Damocles over each one of these PTP's. We in Congress have the ability to remove that sword and there is no reason why we should not do so. We urge our colleagues to join with us to support this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am joined today by Mr. Rangel, and Mrs. Maloney, in introducing legislation to provide an exclusion for employer-provided housing for academic health centers the same as provided to other educational institutions. In the 1986 Tax Reform Act, Congress enacted a safe harbor provision for college and university- owned housing provided to certain faculty and staff. Under the safe harbor provision, the difference between the fair market value and the actual rent for campus housing provided to employees of an educational institution is excluded from gross income to the employees. In the 1986 Act, academic health centers were not included in the safe harbor provision. The legislation that is being introduced today would afford the same safe harbor provision to academic health centers, and place them on equal footing with colleges and universities. I believe that academic health centers are important national resources that provide significant contributions to the Nation's understanding and treatment of diseases afflicting our citizens. The arguments that applied to the safe harbor provision for colleges and universities in the 1986 tax law are the same arguments that apply to an academic health center. The benefits of providing faculty and staff housing enables the center to attract and retain a full-time faculty and staff to fulfill the mission of the institution. For institutions located in high rent areas such as New York City, this provision is essential for the institution to carry out its missions of patient care, education, and research. Second, many of the tenants of academic center-owned housing are pursuing advanced degrees and training at the center and usually at substantial financial hardship. In addition, the faculty and staff of an academic health center are often living in the same building as faculty and staff of a neighboring university. Our bill would amend the definition of ``educational institution'' under section 119(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. The amendment would ensure that academic health centers, which are not part of a college or university, but nevertheless are teaching institutions, would qualify for the section 119(d) special valuation rule. This change would correct the anomalous situation under current law where a qualified educational institution can use the rule and an academic health center cannot, even though the two institutions must hire and compete for the same highly qualified employees. The proposed amendment narrowly defines ``academic health center'' to focus only on rectifying the competitive problem that I've described. Under the proposed amendment, the academic health center must: First, qualify as a tax exempt hospital or medical research organization eligible to receive charitable contributions, second, receive graduate medical education Federal funding, and third, engage in and teach basic and clinical medical science and research with the organization's own standing faculty. We believe that the legislation will allow for a fair and equitable competitive market for these skilled and qualified employees.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to extend my congratulations to the workers at the West Valley demonstration project in the 31st District of New York. They have completed 1 full year--over 2 million work hours--without losing 1 day due to a work related accident. The West Valley demonstration project, created in 1980, is addressing both a local and national need for radioactive waste management technology. At the project, the Department of Energy is developing and implementing technology to safely solidify the liquid high-level radioactive waste that is currently stored at the site. When the project started in 1982, a team of 50 employees began building the team that has developed, installed, tested, and is now preparing for fully remote operation of a unique vitrification system. By 1996, the system will begin solidifying the liquid high-level waste at the site into durable, solid glass suitable for safe storage and disposal. West Valley's safety and technology achievements are a real tribute to western New York workers, and their dedication to quality and performance. I join many others in congratulating the employees of the West Valley demonstration project for a job will done.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am joined today by my colleague, Mr. Levin, in introducing legislation which will create a process by which the Congress can act to ensure that the new World Trade Organization dispute settlement system is not abused by our trading partners to undermine U.S. interests. Late last year, in consecutive special sessions, both Houses of Congress passed legislation implementing the new GATT agreement. That agreement establishes a new international body to oversee trade disputes, the WTO, and gives it unprecedented authority to enforce the decisions of its dispute settlement panels. During the period leading up to the vote, many Americans voiced their concerns that this new international organization would undermine U.S. sovereignty and might harm rather than help U.S. interests in global trade. I spent a great deal of time and effort in developing the implementing legislation that ensures that U.S. industries and their workers would continue to have remedies available in U.S. law to protect against foreign unfair trade practices like dumping and subsidies. While it was not perfect, I supported the final version of the bill because I believed that on balance it served the interests of the United States. But this does not mean we can now ignore the legitimate concerns raised last year about the WTO and its new dispute settlement process. We must carefully scrutinize the actions of the WTO and its dispute settlement mechanism in order to ensure that our trade laws are not undermined through improper WTO decisions. Under the WTO, as under the old GATT, trade disputes will be submitted to international panels for review. However, unlike the old GATT system, no WTO member nation will have the right to block the adoption of a panel report, even if that nation considers the panel report to be fundamentally flawed in its analysis. Thus, no WTO member nation will be able to ignore the findings of a dispute settlement panel without paying a price: international condemnation, weakened international respect for the trading rules, and possible internationally sanctioned retaliation against its goods. The enhanced power of the dispute settlement panels requires that this process be used prudently and administered wisely for the sake of the world trading system in general and American national commercial interests in particular. The bill we are introducing establishes the WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission composed of five Federal appellate judges, appointed by the President in consultation with Congress. The Commission will be empowered to review every decision adverse to the United States by a WTO dispute settlement panel. In cases where the dispute settlement panels adhered to the proper standard of review, and where they did not exceed or abuse their authority, no further action will be taken. But if the Review Commission determines that a panel reached an inappropriate result that amounts to abuse of its mandate, the Commission would transmit that determination to Congress. Any Member of Congress would then be permitted to introduce a privileged resolution and, if such resolution were enacted, the U.S. Trade Representative would be required to enter into negotiations to amend the WTO dispute settlement rules. After three determinations of inappropriate decisions by dispute settlement panels, any Member could introduce a privileged resolution and, if such resolution were enacted, the United States would be required to withdraw from the WTO. This bill is very similar to legislation already introduced in the other body by Senator Dole to implement an agreement he reached last year with the administration to protect against just such a threat to U.S. sovereignty by the WTO. It differs only in that it clarifies that it is the U.S. Trade Representative who is responsible for negotiations to amend the WTO rules if a joint resolution is approved by Congress. It is a farsighted proposal that permits the United States to exercise international leadership. Through the careful review of WTO decisions by the Review Commission, we will be able to prevent countries who engage in unfair trade practices from abusing the role of the WTO dispute settlement panels. The United States will be in a position to oversee the operation of these panels to ensure that any such abuse does not adversely affect U.S. trade laws and ultimately, American national commercial interests. Another important feature of this bill is the provision permitting the participation of U.S. private parties in the consultations and panel proceedings. If a U.S. private party with a direct economic interest in a WTO proceeding supports the U.S. Government's position, then the USTR must permit the party to participate in the WTO panel process. The USTR must consult in advance with the party before submitting written briefs to a panel, include the party as an advisory member of the U.S. delegation dealing with the dispute, and in certain instances, permit the party to appear before the panel hearing the case. Private party participation is a key aspect of this bill. Because the dispute settlement decisions will be binding, it is imperative that American interests be properly represented. Given the USTR's active schedule in representing the United States in a variety of trade matters, the assistance private parties can provide will be crucial. We welcome the support of our colleagues in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am joined today by my colleague, Mr. Gibbons, in introducing legislation to address a problem that international organizations. This same legislation was introduced in the 103d Congress by Congressman Gibbons. We understand that the estate tax rules, as amended by the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 [TAMRA], are producing a serious and probably unintentional tax burden on certain employees of the World Bank and other international organizations. The employees affected are those who are neither U.S. citizens nor permanent resident aliens, but who come to the United States temporarily for purposes of their employment at an international organization. In addition, nonresidents who are not U.S. citizens may also be affected. These individuals are normally exempt from U.S. individual income taxes. The problem involves the restrictions on the use of a marital deduction in the estates of these individuals. These restrictions may result in an unwarranted U.S. estate tax burden because the individuals happen to die while in the United States, when their purpose for being here is employment with an international organization. This bill addresses these problems by providing for a limited marital transfer credit. The bill would apply to a holder of a G-4 international organization employee visa on the date of death. Normally, a resident employee and the spouse would each be entitled to a unified estate and gift tax credit, which under current law is equivalent to an exemption of $600,000 or a total of $1,200,000. However, if the employee dies the spouse would normally return to the country of citizenship. In that case, the surviving spouse would not utilize his or her unified credit. The bill would provide for a limited marital transfer credit, which again would be the equivalent of $600,000. Thus, in a deceased employee's estate, there would be available the unified estate and gift tax credit for bequests to any beneficiaries selected by the deceased, as well as a maximum marital transfer credit equivalent to $600,000, the latter limited for use to marital transfers. A similar provision would apply to nonresident individuals who are not U.S. citizens; however, the unified credit equivalent of $60,000 would be substituted for the $600,000. We believe this change would appropriately address the problem that currently exists. We welcome the support of our colleagues in enacting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, there is not much time. I want to get to the point. And the point is that I believe in the concept of term limits, and I believe in the McCollum amendment. Let me tell you why. I understand the arguments of brilliant orators like the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and others who feel very strongly about this issue. I understand there will be an overreliance on staff. People will not be able to understand the trends and how to get around here. There will be an absence of understanding of the silent language that takes place in every profession. Let me tell you something, that I come from an area of business, and the CEO's of companies do not stay very long. College presidents do not stay very long. There is a concept now, because of the pressure of things, they must turn over and change and give it to new and different people. Furthermore, if I as a businessman or I as a doctor or a farmer or a college professor or whatever want to get in, I must be able to plan, because right in the middle of my career I am not sure when that person will get out. It is a good idea. Let us support it. Its time has come.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, there is much appeal to the Deal amendment, and I have great respect for Mr. Deal himself in terms of changes in the trend in the current welfare plan, States requiring participation, a whole variety of things like that, but it seems to me the basic weakness comes down to two things. First, there is continued cash payments, and I know I am being repetitive here. Second, there is an open-ended entitlement concept, and I say to my colleagues, if you're going to change welfare, I don't know how you do it with cash payments and open-ended entitlement. It's absolutely contrary to what we're trying to do, and I frankly think the Republican bill here, what we're approaching, is humane, and yet it has an element of discipline and reality to it.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say this: that I have been in business for 40 years, and business is a cost-cutting process. I have cut and I have cut, but the one thing you do not cut is those things that are quintessential to the very essence of the community in which you live. Everything tends to drag us down to the lowest common denominator. Please do not cut the National Endowment.