Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. My understanding is if an employee objects based on the curricula that is involved and the trainer that is involved, he essentially shuts down that process.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hobson substitute and in opposition to the Packard amendment. HIV-AIDS is now [[Page H 7208]] the leading killer of Americans ages 23 to 44, who are the core of our work force. Employees' fears about contracting HIV and working with HIV-positive employees undermine productivity in the workplace. That is why companies like RJR Nabisco and IBM provide AIDS education for their employees. However, the Packard amendment would essentially shut down AIDS education in the Federal Government. Under the Packard amendment, a single employee who found AIDS education to be offensive could shut down the program for all employees. I do not think any employee should have to sit through training they find offensive. That is why I support the Hobson substitute, which allows employees with a moral or religious objection to any training to receive an alternative which is acceptable to them. The Packard amendment limits HIV-AIDS training to the medical implications of HIV-AIDS and the workplace rights of HIV-positive employees. That means that educators cannot provide medically accurate, appropriate information about how HIV is and is not transmitted. Under the Packard amendment, all educators could do is to tell people the medical implications of HIV, how sick they will be if they catch the disease, and tell them not to discriminate against people with HIV. The effect of the amendment is to create more fear and discrimination and not less. If an employee asks ``Can I get AIDS from a telephone? Can I get AIDS from a hug? If my co-worker is bleeding to death, how can I help without getting sick?'' the Packard amendment would prohibit AIDS educators from answering these specific questions.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, talking about sexually transmitted diseases is never easy or comfortable, but this is a sexually transmitted disease. We cannot provide accurate information about this epidemic and how it is spread if we leave that information out. Properly trained experts can present that information.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and pay tribute to a celebrated community servant, Mr. G. Russell Bassett. On Friday, July 14, 1995, Russ, along with his friends and family, will celebrate his retirement from the Sheet Metal Workers Union Local No. 20. This retirement dinner will take place at the Radisson Hotel in Merrillville, IN. We are all fortunate to have dedicated people, like Russ, involved in the labor movement in Indiana's First Congressional District. Indeed, Russ personifies true selfless dedication. Russ embarked on his distinguished career in former Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 303, where in 1970, he began as a business manager. In 1983, local No. 303 merged with local No. 20, and in the following year, Russ began 8 years as a business representative for the new local. He retired on July 1, 1995, after nearly 12 years as a business representative of Sheet Metal Workers Union Local No. 20. In all, Russ contributed 39 years of his life to fight for labor rights for his union brothers and sisters. Russ strengthened the labor movement by contributing in several other capacities. For 25 years, Russ served locals Nos. 303 and 20 as a trustee for the health and welfare fund, the Gary area pension fund, and the joint apprenticeship committee. Moreover, Russ served for 3 years as vice president and executive board member for local No. 303. Outside of his professional career, Russ has devoted a large portion of his life to the betterment of northwest Indiana. Russ devoted 5 years of his life to the Portage Indiana Economic Development Commission on which he served as chairman, and another 5 years on the Indiana OSHA Safety Review Committee. As we have just celebrated the birthday of our Nation's independence, let us remember those who have worked hard to fulfill the American dream. I offer my heartfelt congratulations to Russ, who has worked arduously to make this dream possible for others. Russ has proven himself to be a distinguished advocate for the labor movement, and he has made northwest Indiana a better place in which to live and work. I sincerely wish Russ a long, happy, and productive retirement.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the conference report on the budget, because I want to balance the budget and I want to be fair. Although the language in the conference report is an improvement over the House budget resolution, it still contains a fatal flaw, $245 billion in tax cuts which will delay the benefit our constituents will get from deficit reduction. As someone who voted for both rescission bills this year, I do not believe that tax cuts are warranted until we have implemented tough spending decisions. Taxes today, and we should remember this, take out of the economy less than they did 25 years ago. When Richard Nixon was President in 1970, Federal taxes consumed 19.6 percent of the gross domestic product. Today the percentage is smaller, 19.2 percent. What is more, the Republican plan backloads deficit reduction until after the year 2000, but gives away an easy tax cut immediately. The tax cut increases the deficit in 1997, and hopes to pay for deficit reduction in the final 2 years.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to commend to you and my other colleagues a distinguished citizen of Indiana's First Congressional District, Mr. Robert Welsh, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of Welsh Oil, Inc. Bob, whose executive office is located in Merrillville, IN, has used his ``grow or go'' philosophy to make his business the success that it is today. While today Bob is the mainstay of Welsh Oil, Inc., his father founded the company on St. Patrick's Day in 1925 with a one-pump gas station located at 5th and Virginia in Gary, IN. Since then, the company has flourished, diversifying into convenience stores, four truck plazas, and an oil delivery service with a total of 57 locations in Indiana, Michigan, and Virginia. The Merrillville-based company grossed $151 million in sales last year. However, Bob gives credit for the success of his business to his dedicated, hardworking employees. As if running a multi-million dollar company were not enough, Bob has donated his time and money to numerous causes and community service groups. Last year, Welsh Oil solicited $84,700 from the individual Welsh Oil stations while corporate donations brought the total donation to $100,000. In addition, Bob is on the boards of NIPSCO Industries Inc., NBD Bank's Merrillville Region, the Northwest Indiana Forum, the Northwest Indiana Entrepreneurship Academy, Zollner Industries, Lakeshore Health Systems, and Catholic Charities. He is also on the Board of Regents of St. Mary's College in Notre Dame and has served as chairman of St. Mary's School of Finance and Investment Committee. As a result of Bob's charitable contributions to Northwest Indiana, Bob is one of three finalists for the Ernst & Young Illinois/Northwest Indiana ``Entrepreneur of the Year'' award that will be decided in December, 1995. To be considered for this distinguished award, one must be nominated by his colleagues or employees. This award recognizes entrepreneurs whose success is exemplified through their financial performance and personal commitment to their business or community. However, this is not the first time that Bob's hard work and achievements have been recognized. Previously, he was awarded the Entrepreneurial Lifetime Achievement Award for the Northwest Indiana Small Business Development Center, the Asian-American Medical Society's Crystal Globe Award, and the President's Medal from St. Mary's College. In between Bob's business and his community service, Bob has time to appreciate the finer things in life. Bob and I share a passion for the University of Notre Dame from which we both earned degrees. Bob is currently a trustee of the university and serves on three board of director committees. Notre Dame has recognized his contributions to the university by naming him Notre Dame's Man of the Year. Bob is truly a remarkable man. Along with his professional and civic responsibilities, he and his wife, Kay, have also raised a wonderful family. Indeed, their proudest accomplishments are their five children. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Bob for successfully achieving the ``American Dream.'' May the future continue to hold great things in store for this fine man.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to call your attention to the School City of Hammond Adult Education Program in Hammond, IN. This outstanding program has successfully taken on the immense job of tackling adult illiteracy. I would like to highlight for you and my other colleagues this impressive program and its many achievements. Under the direction of Dr. Gary Jones, assistant superintendent of curriculum for the School City of Hammond, and Dr. Steve Watson, director of adult education and extended services, the Hammond Adult Education Program has developed into one that should be used as a model for adult education programs throughout the country. The Hammond Adult Education Program uses several innovative approaches to fight adult illiteracy. Hammond adult basic programs and services include literacy training and life skills education, as well as GED preparation and English as a second language. Joblink 2000 Workforce Development and Instructional Programs, which are joint training programs developed by Hammond adult education, the Inland Steel Co., and the United Steelworkers of America Local 1010, provide academic instruction to steelworkers so that they can learn new skills and compete in a global market. Another initiative the Hammond adult education is most proud of is the continuing education program specifically designed for the Navy recruiting district of Chicago. This program, which is the first in the Nation to qualify GED graduates for acceptance into the U.S. Navy, was initiated 2 years ago and has proven to be very successful. The Hammond Adult Education Program has entered into cooperative agreements with 22 local agencies, institutions, and organizations to coordinate the planning and delivery of services to adults. Moreover, Hammond adult education exceeds both Federal and State averages relative to student attendance and retention. Again, this year, Hammond adult education joined with the city of Hammond and other educational institutions to sponsor a job fair. This year's fair, which attracted more than 600 participants, was held at the Hammond Area Career Center and featured educational provider booths, an assessment of learner skills follows up by guidance counseling, and displays by local employers. The Hammond Adult Education Program is already a nationally recognized leader in the field of adult education having received the U.S. Secretary of Education's Outstanding Adult Education Program in 1990. In addition, this distinguished program has received the following awards: 1994 Tri City Community Mental Health Center Community Service Award; 1990 Region V Outstanding Adult Education Program Award; 1990 Indiana Department of Education's nomination for Outstanding Adult Education Program Award; 1984 Governor's Indiana Adult Literacy Coalition's Exemplary Instruction Award; 1984 Citation in Effective Literacy Programs; and, in 1984, the Indiana Division of Adult Education Program Quality Award. The Hammond Adult Education Program functions as a true melting pot for all racial, ethnic, cultural, socio-economic, and religious groups in northwest Indiana. In May, I spoke to 231 graduates who received their GED diplomas from the Hammond Adult Education Program at the GED graduation and recognition ceremony. These fine graduates, along with the 2,000 other students enrolled in this program are to be commended for their dedication to improve themselves through continuing education. I enthusiastically applaud the Hammond Adult Education Program for successfully improving the quality of life for residents in northwest Indiana.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment. Mr. Speaker, as we debate a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration, the following questions must be answered. Do people have greater freedom in Communist China and Iraq, where protests that offend the government are crushed violently? Or do people in the United States have more freedom, where offensive political protest is constitutionally protected? In the United States, the flag flies on the mast of freedom and liberty. In China and Iraq, the flag flies on the mast of totalitarian oppression. In which country does the flag fly as a true symbol of national pride? Some people have said that the last election was a call for freedom from Government intrusion. According to this analysis, people across the Nation who felt that Government had become an oppressive force voted for less Government and more individual freedom. The constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the flag turns this analysis on its head. I am disgusted and offended by the act of burning the American flag. Burning or otherwise desecrating the flag is a stupid, mean, and reprehensible act. I cannot comprehend why anyone living in our great Nation would want to desecrate this beloved symbol of our country. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that burning the American flag is symbolic political speech, protected by the first amendment to the Constitution--the cornerstone of our freedoms. As Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute said, ``The principles at stake could not be more simple or clear. Indeed, they are the principles at the core of the American vision. The right of the individual to be free is the right to do what one wishes short of violating the rights of others. That includes the right to do or say what is popular, for sure. But it includes, as well, the right to do or say the unpopular. For it is then, when our actions give offense, that our freedom is put to the test. It is then, precisely, that we learn whether we are free or not.'' Pilon then quotes Sir Winston Churchill's observation that ``the United States is the land of free speech.'' When I was sworn into office, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That document and the principles it embodies have made our country the greatest in the history of the world. For more than 200 years, it has endured--through times of tranquility and tremendous crises. Through two world wars and a civil war bloodier and more costly to our country than both world wars combined, the Constitution has preserved our freedom. Through the Korean war and then through the long years of wrenching involvement in Vietnam, the Constitution has protected the freedom of the people from the oppression of Government. The U.S. Constitution has made ours a better country than any in the world because it has guaranteed that certain basic individual rights are more important than the powers of Government. The Constitution says that certain inalienable rights, such as liberty, cannot be invaded by Government-- Federal or State--no matter how well-meaning the Government might be. At times in our history, when we feared the Constitution was not strong enough to protect the rights of every citizen regardless of their situation in life, we amended it to provide greater protection of individual rights. For example, the 13th amendment prohibited slavery and the 19th amendment allowed women to vote. But never, never, in our history, not because of our greatest fears or in our darkest despair, never have we jeopardized our Bill of Rights. We may very well do that today. And for what terrible threat are we willing to risk our most fundamental constitutional right? Has there been an epidemic of flag desecration sweeping the Nation? Have any of any colleagues seen anyone desecrate the flag? Why, when we have been through such tough times and accomplished so much as a Nation, why would we let a few jerks who have desecrated the flag limit everyone's freedom. I have two sons, Tim and John. I would not be my father's son if I left my children--or any other American--with fewer freedoms than my father has given me. We are the greatest Nation on Earth in no small part because of the individual freedoms contained in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If the Constitution and Bill of Rights were good enough for Washington, Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin and good enough for our Nation to become the world's greatest, it is good enough for this Congress and this Nation.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding this time to me, and I rise in support of the legislation and to commend Chairman Callahan and the gentleman from Texas for the fine job they have done under very trying circumstances. I also rise to express my strong support for maintaining the integrity of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act which sanctions Azerbaijan for its blockade of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. I am extremely concerned about one provision--in this bill which would gut section 907. The purpose of section 907 is specifically to prohibit direct United States Government assistance to the Government of Azerbaijan until Azerbaijan ceases its blockade of Armenia. I want to be clear about this: Section 907 prohibits direct government to government aid. It does not deny United States humanitarian aid to Azerbaijan, as the bill's language would lead us to believe. As a matter of fact, as of March 31, 1995, Azerbaijan has received $61.8 million in incountry, United States humanitarian assistance through nongovernment organizations and private volunteer organizations. Section 907 states: United States Assistance under this or any other act (other than assistance under Title V of this act) may not be provided to the government of Azerbaijan until the President determines, and so reports to Congress, that the government of Azerbaijan is taking demonstrable steps to cease all blockades and other offensive uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. To date I am not aware that the President has filed a report with the Congress indicating that the blockade is being lifted. The Azerbaijan blockade against Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh is now in its 5th year and it has made Armenia the poorest of the 15 former Soviet Republics. According to United States AID's 1995 country profile of Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan continues to enforce a complete rail, road, and fuel blockade of Armenia throughout its territory, effectively cutting off fuel supplies and humanitarian supplies. As a result, the blockade has forced a shut-down of almost all Armenian industries. In fact, as many as one-third of Armenia's 3.6 million people have fled the country because the winters are unbearable and the factories stand idle. Lifting the ban now would only encourage Azerbaijan to resist a peaceful solution to the Karabagh conflict and keep their blockade in place. The effort in the bill to weaken United States law that restricts United States aid to Azerbaijan represents a retreat from the principal position adopted by this body in 1992 that Azerbaijan must make progress towards peace by lifting its blockade. Congress would send the wrong message now by moving to weaken this restriction when the Azerbaijan Government in more than 2 years has failed to act on the United States demands.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Browder amendment. As a member of the Military Construction Subcommittee I have a deep respect and support for the chair of the subcommittee, Mrs. Vucanovich. Along with ranking member Hefner, Chair Vucanovich has brought to the floor a well crafted and very fair bill. Most importantly, the bill takes a strong stand against the abhorrent living conditions forced upon many military families. The living conditions of our soldiers and their families are a problem that has been ignored by the Department of Defense and the executive branch for decades. It is a problem the Military Construction Subcommittee has historically championed. When Defense Secretary Perry recently asked to meet with subcommittee members on pressing housing needs, it was a breath of fresh air. Finally, someone at the Pentagon had woken up to the fact that the housing of our troops is woefully inadequate. There is a $3 billion backlog for family housing. The barracks deficit is $8.5 billion. The Pentagon says the Army's share of the barracks deficit will take 23 years to eliminate. And then, there are the children of those military families who must live in the housing we provide. When during subcommittee hearings, I asked the Army what they were doing for the adolescent children of military families. I was informed that, for this year, there will be an $8.5 million program to provide school aged children and adolescents with activities targeted to prevention of at-risk behaviors. The Army gave a glowing report of computer centers, and sports programs that were supported by this program. But there is always a last word. In this case, the final words were: ``However, due to limited resources, the Army is not currently funded to continue these programs in fiscal year 1996 and beyond.'' This was, and I repeat was, an $8.5 million program to help teens deal successfully with the unique problems they face as children of military personnel. This was a program the Army chose to highlight as a successful, unique program for troubled adolescents. But the Army's limited resources are forcing its closure. It is within this context that I support the Browder amendment and that I oppose the Army Museum project. The Department's request for the museum is $17 million. This request is for land acquisition only--for 7 acres only--that's $2.4 million an acre. Are these 7 acres plated in gold? How the Defense Department can with any clear conscience come to Congress and discuss with us the emergency of housing conditions, and at the same time request $17 million to purchase 7 acres for a museum, is beyond me. There are thousands of locations, where, at a cost more suited to this Nation's budget situation, the Army could put this museum. It is unfortunate that this project was included in the bill. To Chair Vucanovich's credit, the request was limited to $14 million. But it should be removed altogether. Every Member of Congress and every citizen of the United States holds great respect and appreciation for our soldiers in the Army. Every soldier makes a deep, personal sacrifice to protect our Nation's freedom. The Army's legacy deserves honor and respect. There should be a place for all Americans to go and remember, and to discover, the unique role the Army has played in this great Nation's history. But now is not the time for this project. Maybe at a different time and a less costly location, but now we face a real housing crisis. This crisis affects those who serve now, today. Programs to help the increasing population of adolescents are being eliminated. These kids are a part of the military family, and they are struggling right now. I urge my colleagues to support the Browder amendment and dedicate these funds to those serving in the Army today. There will be a time to support this project, but it is not now and it is not at this location.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, over the course of my years as a private citizen and public official, I have witnessed a great, unfolding story. This story is one of pride and principle, enterprise and excellence. It is the story of American workers given the chance to contribute to society, with the labor movement's guiding hand. Today, I would like to call attention to 16 young men who completed the sheet metal workers' apprenticeship program. On June 12, 1995, Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 20 in Gary, IN, initiated these men as journeymen sheet metal workers. The new members are: John Babe, John Bodish, Erik Burkhart, Shane Byers, Andy Cleland, Kevin Frazier, Sam Glover, Phil Grede, Christopher Jenness, Eugene L. Klimazewski, J. Patrick Knox, Duke Popa, Jerry Porter, Richard Sells, Christopher Shaffer, and Matthew Vanbuskirk. According to Mr. G. Russell Basset, who has almost 20 years of celebrated service as an elected official with Local No. 20, the apprentice program offers a broad overview of the sheet metal craft. Over a 5-year span, each apprentice must attend school once a week in Gary, IN. Moreover, the apprentice spends another 4 days a week working on sites and learning the various skills needed to make a successful and prosperous journeyman. These marketable skills include applied math, metal fabricating, welding, and architectural design as well as many others. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my other colleagues to join me in congratulating these fine individuals as they began their distinguished careers as journeymen sheet metal workers. Their futures promise to be successful as they use their intangible and tangible experiences from the apprentice program in their careers as well as their personal lives. May their careers be long and fruitful.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, as the 104th Congress considers changes to the unemployment compensation [UC] system, I would like to bring to your attention a recent speech by Leon Lynch, Vice President of the United Steelworkers of America. Mr. Lynch's views, which focus on the unemployment insurance reforms recommended by the Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation, were delivered to the National Foundation for Unemployment Compensation and Workers Compensation last month in Atlanta. These remarks provide an important viewpoint that should become part of the debate over UC reform. Remarks of Leon Lynch to the National Foundation for Unemployment Compensation and Workers Compensation The focus of my presentation today is unemployment insurance reforms recommended by the Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation. To date, the Council has issued two reports containing a number of recommendations to improve our unemployment insurance program. The Council's major recommendations are focused on bringing the unemployment insurance system more into line with the realities of the 1990s economy and labor market. I believe they deserve the support of business and labor, and I want to explain why. Since I joined the Advisory Council only late last summer, I did not directly participate in the adoption of the recommendations of the first report, which dealt mostly with the reform of the extended Benefits (EB) program. The second Council report, released in February 1995, focused broadly on the regular UI program. I was on board last year and I voted in favor of the recommendations of that report. The third and final report, due in February 1996, will focus on the administrative aspects of UI. In all honesty, I am continuing to learn about our unemployment compensation system from the testimony presented by witnesses at Advisory Council meetings, the briefing papers prepared by Advisory Council staff, discussions among the Advisory Council, and meetings such as this. I have enjoyed my participation in the work of the Advisory Council and I hope to work for the adoption of the Council's recommendations at both the federal and state levels. Having admitted that I am not an unemployment insurance expert, however, should not be taken as less than my full endorsement of the recommendations of the Advisory Council to date. You don't need a Ph.D to understand that our UI system is neither serving the needs of unemployed workers nor employers as well as it should. As a trade union leader, I have long understood the terrible human impact of the defects in our UI system. These defects are much clearer to close observers. If you haven't done so, I encourage you to review the Advisory Council reports. They contain many more facts supporting the Council's recommendations than I can cover today. I hope you will take the time to review the reports since even those who regularly deal with UI will find a fair and impartial review of all aspects of the UI program. I often hear employer representatives claim that our UI system isn't broken. I challenge you to read the reports with an open mind and come away with anything but a conclusion that, in key respects, our UI system can be improved and made to work better for all interested parties. I want to begin my discussion by pointing out some of the factual findings from the February 1995 Advisory Council report. Many of you may be generally aware of UI developments, but I think these particular findings deserve mention. First, there's been a serious erosion in the number of unemployed workers getting UI benefits. The ratio of insured unemployed workers (those that file a claim and have monetary eligibility) and the totally unemployed (those who are unemployed and actively seeking work) is widely used as an indicator of how many unemployed workers get UI benefits. In 1993, 32 of the 52 jurisdictions had an IU/TU ratio under 33 percent. Twelve states had a ratio of less than 25 percent. South Dakota had a ratio of 15.3 percent. In other words, the ratio of unemployed workers getting UI benefits was a third or less in a majority of the states, and less than 2 in 10 in South Dakota. Complaints about the declining proportion of unemployed workers getting UI have not been met with sympathy by employers. However, even so-called ``job losers'' are no longer getting UI benefits at past levels. Job losers fall in the unemployed workers category which is closest to the involuntarily unemployed workers who are supposed to get UI-- even according to most employers. The 1995 report finds a steep decline in receipt of UI benefits in the ``job losers'' category. In fact, the ratio of UI claimants to job losers has fallen nearly forty percent since 1970. The other reason cited for the reduced number of unemployed workers getting UI benefits is that eligible workers apparently aren't applying. While the research on non- applicants is not as clear as we might wish, on a practical level there are many things we can do to encourage potentially eligible UI claimants to apply for benefits. These include providing better UI claims information to workers at the time of layoff, permitting electronic and telephone claims, prohibiting employer retaliation, and continuing to improve the customer service aspects of agency claims handling. I believe that the Advisory Council will consider some of these administrative matters in the coming year. Analysts disagree about why the ratio of insured unemployed workers to totally unemployed workers has fallen, but all recent studies show that legislative restrictions on UI eligibility and disqualifications have contributed. The only argument among the experts is the weight assigned to federal and state UI law changes as compared to other factors. In fact, in most states, there are dollar estimates made on the amount of money to be ``saved'' when legislative restrictions on UI are passed. Since many of you have pushed for this so-called ``cost saving'' legislation to reduce the number of UI benefits recipients in your states, we should have few claims of innocence in this audience. We in organized labor are past the point of needing more studies concerning the reasons for the decline in receipt of UI benefits. We expect positive action to reverse the decline. Often, when government is slow to act or fails to act, we have to looked for solutions elsewhere. That's what we've done in the Steelworkers--in this and other areas, such as employment security, pensions and health care. For the unemployed, we have negotiated supplemental unemployment benefits--commonly known as SUB. The fair-minded employers we have contracts with recognize that unemployment compensation by itself--where it exists--is nowhere near sufficient to keep a family going. With SUB, however, circumstances improve substantially. When one of our members is laid off, SUB will provide benefits ranging from 70 percent to 90 percent of the worker's wages. And it provides these benefits for two years. When the worker is receiving UC, that amount is deducted from the SUB payment. When UC expires, SUB makes up the difference. The result is that no matter what the level of UC is, the worker receives the same percentage of wages. The rationale is simple: Workers should not suffer for events over which they have no control. SUB payments help them to survive until they are recalled to their former jobs, or until they find new employment. Even though we are proud of what we have done in this area, we feel this is an area that is properly the government's responsibility. Is any that with full knowledge of the atmosphere in Washington--an atmosphere with which I disagree completely. But that's a different story for a different time. The problem we are dealing with today has its own import, and I'm pleased that the Advisory Council report this year makes specific recommendations to reverse the decline experts can argue about the weight of factors that cause the decline. Let me discuss two recommendations which would start to move our UI system in a positive direction. First, the Advisory Council recommends that no state set its monetary eligibility requirement higher than the equivalent of 800 hours of work at the state's minimum wage, with the higher quarter wages requirement no more than 200 hours of minimum wage work. This should encourage states to resist the trend toward requiring more and more earnings to gain UI monetary eligibility. The factual basis for this recommendation was a staff study of the monetary eligibility provisions of all state UI laws. This study showed that lower wage workers and part-time workers with substantial labor market participation still failed to meet monetary eligibility requirements in some states. The 800 hour recommendation converts to roughly a fifteen hour week for a full-year worker. I do not think these workers have shown so little attachment to the labor market that we should exclude then entirely from the UI system and force them onto welfare and Food Stamps. Another recommendation would begin to move part-time and low wage workers back onto UI. It is the adoption of a moveable, or flexible, base period. Under a moveable base period, workers with insufficient earnings in the first four of the five completed calendar quarters, can use their ``lag'' quarter wages to meet the monetary eligibility. In Vermont, workers can even use the current, or ``filing'' quarter wages, to meet the monetary eligibility standard. At this time, eight states have some form of flexibility as to the period over which they measure monetary eligibility for UI benefits. Six states have a so-called moveable base period. Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. California and New York permit different periods of measurement as well. In 1997, Michigan will adopt a moveable base period as part of its conversion from a wage request state to a wage record state. The rest of the states define their base periods as the traditional first four of the last five completed quarters. As a result, wages can be as much as eighteen months old, depending on when the unemployed worker files and when she or he worked. A worker who needs his or her ``lag quarter'' wages to meet monetary eligibility standards must wait up to three months to obtain benefits under the traditional definition of base period. The moveable, or flexible, base period permits these workers to gain UI benefits much sooner, by counting the lag quarter wages toward monetary eligibility. The Advisory Council relives that workers needing the moveable base period to gain UI eligibility have demonstrated adequate labor market attachment, as defined by each state. They should not be denied UI benefits solely because of the distribution of their wages in their base periods. For this reason, all states should consider the Advisory Council's moveable base period recommendation. Especially those which are currently paying UI benefits to very low percentage of their unemployed workers. We also believe that the U.S. Department of Labor should encourage this action. Another important area of Advisory Council activity has been our examination of state UI trust fund solvency. Here, I believe the Advisory Council has made good progress toward increasing the solvency of the UI system, while maintaining a good deal of state flexibility. Analysis by the Council staff has shown clearly that states with lower reserves are much more likely to be forced to borrow from the feds, raise taxes, or cut UI benefits in a recession--or a combination of FUTA penalty taxes and interest payments. Both benefit cuts and increased taxes during recessions should be avoided. Workers need the benefits during any period of unemployment, but especially during a recession. And employers need the spending boost provided by UI benefits during a recession, and can least afford a tax increase during economic downturns. For this reason, the Advisory Council has recommended that States avoid so-called, ``pay as you go'' financing, and provide for forward funding of UI. In other words, during periods of economic recovery, the state should permit funds to accumulate in its trust fund for payment later during a recession. Rather than debating continuously over the exact level of reserves that are desirable, the Council compromised on a level somewhat lower than the 1.5 high cost multiple which has been historically defined as prudent. There was some feeling that requiring this level of reserves drew too much capital out of the economy and was less productive. Instead, the Council recommended that states maintain a reserve equal to one year of benefits at the average of the three years of highest payouts over the past 20 years. The innovative part of the Council's solvency recommendation was the suggested use of federal interest premiums on trust fund deposits over the desired level of reserve, and interest breaks for states forced to borrow despite having reached the desired level prior to the recession. In other words, the Council did not set a ``federal standard'' for solvency, but, set up a method of encouraging states to accumulate higher reserves prior to the next recession. The Advisory Council also made a number of recommendations related to the budgetary treatment of UI by the federal government. For years, both labor and employers have urged the removal of the UI trust funds from the budget. The Council recommended that all UI trust funds be removed from the federal unified budget. The inclusion of the UI trust funds causes a number of distortions. Dedicated UI revenues have been treated as offsets against the budget deficit allowing regular state UI benefit payments to be counted in federal spending. In addition, the tightening of administrative funding over the last several years, and the recent difficulty in getting supplemental appropriations for unexpected UI workload is a result of having the UI trust fund in the budget. We say this must end. Another result of having UI in the budget is to make it subject to cost cutting measures designed for budget balancing, rather than for UI policy. One example is the federal income taxation of UI benefits. This is nothing more than a federally imposed reduction in state weekly benefit amounts. The Council has recommended the repeal of income taxation on UI benefits. In the coming year, the Advisory Council will be looking at administrative financing of UI. Last year, the Council recommended that the state agencies collect the federal FUTA taxes used for administrative financing. Currently, the Internal Revenue Service assesses charges of up to $100 million a year to collect the FUTA revenue, and the states feel that they are in a position to collect FUTA taxes without using scare resources. I believe that administrative financing will be a matter for continued examination because proper levels of appropriations and proper use of the administrative funds are so critical to the UI system. As Bruce Springsteen has said, ``sooner or later, it all comes down to money''. Employer support for UI and ES will increase, if they feel that their FUTA taxes are wisely spent. State agency employees need and deserve adequate wages and benefits. State administrators need flexibility and better incentives for meeting UI program goals. The federal partner needs to better ensure that service improvements and efficiency are a product of its financing. And, unemployed workers need pleasant, accessible, and effective UI and ES offices. The Advisory Council often refers to the two traditional, and inter-related, national goals of the UI program. That is, adequate wage replacement for unemployed workers and economic stabilization. It is critical that both of these national goals be met, and that state and federal actions undercutting these goals be reversed. Wage replacement at an adequate level of benefits is of obvious interest to organized labor. But, in addition, organized labor recognizes that the overall level of workers getting UI benefits must also be improved. Otherwise, the UI programs are only a hollow shell, leaving many workers who have substantial labor market involvement without UI benefits. For these reasons, the Advisory Council should consider methods to encourage states to pay adequate levels of UI benefits to a higher proportion of unemployed workers in the coming years. Possible solutions include trust fund enhancements, administrative funding incentives, and federal goals for states in these areas. Let me close with some comments directed to the employer community and its approach to UI. I believe employers need to take a broader view of UI than what I usually hear from their representatives. The other side of the coin from adequate UI benefits is economic stabilization. This is the other national goal of UI, and it still deserves our combined support. It truly helps employers. UI benefits buy groceries, pay rent, keep the utilities connected, and purchase other necessities for unemployed workers and their families. In other words, all UI benefits are spent with employers--a fact that some employers have apparently forgotten. The unemployed worker's pocketbook is merely a way station for UI benefits on their way to an employer's bank account. Most employers are also on fairly thin ice on the cost issue. Nationally, state UI payroll taxes amounted to .9 percent of total payrolls in 1993. This is not insignificant, but it is near the historically lowest levels of the early 1970s, and well below the 1.4 percent level reached in the recession of 1982-1983. The federal FUTA tax rate is at historic low levels, amounting to only 36 percent of average wages. This has severely eroded the actual FUTA tax rate, which has fallen in relation to inflation since the federal taxable wage base was last increased in 1983. At that time, the FUTA payroll tax amounted to $81--today it's $56. So even with the much maligned .2 percent surcharge, FUTA taxes, in terms of real dollars, are at the same level as they were in 1970. In 1970, the net FUTA tax rate was .5 percent and the taxable wage base was still $3000. While each employer naturally concerns itself with its labor costs, employers as a group should recognize that UI benefits help maintain a stable economy and society. While $25 billion or so are paid in UI benefits in any given year, these 25 billion were also spent. And, unlike defense spending or social security benefits or highway construction funds, these UI dollars were mostly spent in areas where unemployment was higher and local employers most needed a spending boost. doesn't seem to have changed, even though the bad old days of higher UI taxes and lenient treatment of unemployed workers are long gone. Whatever the validity of the cost-cutting approach of the mid-1970s to mid-1980s period, employers, should rethink their ``cost above all else'' approach to UI. Especially in the current political climate, the views of employers are of paramount importance. Unless the policies advocated by employers change, the downward trend of the past fifteen or twenty years will continue, and this will have serious impacts on employers and the larger society--not just on unemployed workers. The developments of the last fifteen or twenty years have undercut the achievement of our national UI goals. This was mainly due to the effective elimination of the EB program in 1981, the spread of state restrictions on UI eligibility and the adoption of harsher disqualifications during the 1970s and 1980s. Meeting these national UI goals is important to workers and employers. For this reason, favorable action on the recommendations of the Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation is important to employers as well as the rest of our society. I hope that employers will review their UI policy positions in light of the Advisory Council's recommendations. This would be an important step in restoring the vitality of our UI system. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions following the remarks of Bob Mitchell.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, It gives me great pleasure to rise today and pay tribute to an outstanding citizen of Indiana's First Congressional District, Mr. Ambrose Joseph (Joe) Manley. On Friday, June 2, 1995, Joe, along with his friends and family, will celebrate his retirement from the Northwest Indiana District Council of Carpenters, Merrillville Union Local No. 1005. This testimonial dinner will take place at the Radisson Hotel celebrity ballroom in Merrillvile, IN. Joe has dedicated a substantial portion of his life to the betterment of union members and the community of northwest Indiana, as well as the entire State. Joe's distinguished career in the labor movement has made his community and Nation a better place in which to live. For the past 20 years, Joe has aspired as an important figure in Local No. 1005. Joe has held several position throughout his tenure, but none as important as business manager, a position from which he retired on Dec. 31, 1994. Moreover, Joe fought for union rights in several other capacities. Joe has been active as past president of the Indiana State Council of Carpenters and past vice-president of the State of Indiana AFL-CIO. These positions have allowed him to fully exercise his fight for labor rights. As a result of Joe's caring and nurturing nature, he has been spreading his goodwill throughout northwest Indiana by serving on several boards over the past years. Joe is well known in the Indiana State Democratic Party where he was once the vice chairman. During his reign as vice chairman, he was chosen to be a delegate for the State of Indiana to the 1992 National Democratic Convention. Furthermore, Joe served as a past Admiral of the Pirates for Tradewinds Rehabilitation Center. Currently, Joe is a board member for the Arthritis Foundation, Hoosier Boys Town, and the Northwest Indiana Forum, Inc. Joe also is a member of the Hammond Times editorial board. On this special day, I offer my heartfelt congratulations. Joe's large circle of family and friends can be proud of the contributions this prominent individual has made. His work in the labor movement has made America Work. Those in the movement will miss Joe's dedication and sincerity. Fortunately, the community as a whole will continue to profit from his unselfish involvement to make northwest Indiana a better place in which to live and work. I sincerely wish Joe a long, happy, and productive retirement.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic coalition substitute budget resolution, and in opposition to the Republican proposal. I believe that the time has come to balance the budget. This is what my constituents want because they know that the economic futures of their children and grandchildren depend on it. They want us to balance the budget in a way that is both fair and effective, and this is what the Democratic substitute would do. The Democratic substitute is fair because it asks everyone, regardless of age or circumstance in life, to share the sacrifice for the benefit of the common good. Unlike the Republican plan, it does not transfer funding for social programs, that benefit the old and poor, to subsidize tax cuts for the rich. Further, the Democratic coalition substitute will work. I am an original cosponsor of this measure because it takes a rational and responsible approach to balancing the budget. Not only does it restore sane spending priorities by adding back funding for education, health, and economic development programs, it also achieves a budget surplus in 2002 that is $500 million higher than that proposed in Mr. Kasich's plan. Less pain with more [[Page H5129]] gain--Why? Because this alternative resolution reaffirms the logic of achieving a balanced budget one step at a time. This means holding off on enacting expensive tax cuts, which require slashing vital programs, until we are well on our way to ensuring a healthy national economy that can be enjoyed by generations to come. I have serious concerns about the approach taken by the Republican budget resolution. For example, the proposed two-step reconciliation process would delay the consideration of painful spending cuts, until after politically popular tax cuts have been given away. If the Republican majority is truly serious about including tax cuts in their proposal, they should make sure they have the money to pay for these cuts up front, not after the fact. It seems the new Republican majority has forgotten the old Republican rallying cry--``Cut Spending First.'' Balancing the budget is like curing a cold, the longer you put off swallowing bad-tasting medicine, the longer it takes to return to good health. In addition, the Republican budget backloads deficit reduction until after the year 2000, when the spending cuts kick in and interest rates decline. In fact, nearly two-thirds of the deficit reduction in the Republican plan occurs in the final 3 years. This is an approach that was tested in the early 1980's under President Reagan and failed. When it came time to make the difficult cuts, they did not materialize. Remember, the 1980's was the decade when the debt tripled under Republican control of the White House. Therefore, as far as the effectiveness of the approach to deficit reduction is concerned, I would say, ``Been there, done that, let's not do it again.'' Finally, I am pleased that the coalition substitute includes enforcement language. In January, I supported a constitutional amendment to balance the budget for the first time because I finally lost faith that the President and the Congress have the resolve to balance the budget without a constitutional mandate. While this initiative failed, I still believe that we need to hold our feet to the fire and enforce our budgetary decisions. Earlier this year, I introduced the Balanced Budget Enforcement Act of 1995, H.R. 1516, along with our colleagues, Representatives Stenholm, Dooley, Barrett, Minge, and Poshard. This legislation, which I cosponsored in the 102d and 103d Congresses when introduced by our former colleagues, Leon Panetta and Tim Penny, respectively, would enact tough, new measures to reform the budget process and eliminate the Federal budget deficit by the year 2002. It would do so by setting spending caps and using across-the-board cuts if the targets, set and evaluated by a non-partisan Board of Estimates, aren't met. Yesterday, I asked the Rules Committee to allow me to offer sense-of-Congress language endorsing the approach embodied in H.R. 1516 as an amendment to the budget resolution. Unfortunately, this request was denied. In any event, I believe that this legislation needs to become central to debate on budget process reform later this year. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I believe that balancing the budget is our responsibility as Members of Congress. I have always supported a balanced budget, and the responsibility to achieve this is not one that I take lightly. Over the years, I have frequently taken the political road less traveled in the name of deficit reduction. When I am in northwest Indiana, I tell my constituents that I am opposed to cutting their taxes because it would undermine serious efforts to reduce the deficit. In March, I was one of only six Democrats to support the rescissions bill, H.R. 1158, because I believe we need to start making tough spending decisions now.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the arguments made by the chairman. First of all, the idea that a slush fund would be traded is simply not true. If you look at the total national fines that have been imposed by EPA and the courts, you are talking about $12 million in a year like 1989. You are talking about $28 million in a year like 1993. Second, that the moneys would be used to pay for citizens' suits is absolutely not true. I point out in the text of the amendment it states, ``Amounts in the fund shall be available, as provided in appropriations acts,'' that is your ultimate break on this system, ``to the administrator to carry out projects to restore and recover waters of the United States from damages resulting from violations of this act which are subject to enforcement actions under this section and similar damages resulting from the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States.'' Again, the control of this system is the appropriations process. They are subject to it, and they are only available to clean up polluted waterways in the United States. The final point the gentleman made, that this would encourage bureaucrats to run amok, again, the break on the process, just as the highway trust funds, the aviation trust funds and other funds are. So I do not think we have that encouragement. We are not changing the penalties. I would recommend the amendment to the Members' attention.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 961, which would help expedite the cleanup of our Nation's waters. My amendment would create a national clean water trust fund, establishe fines, penalties and other moneys collected through enforcement of the Clean Water Act to help alleviate the problems for which the enforcement actions were taken. This amendment would not in any way change the way in which enforcement actions were taken, the nature of the penalties or the manner in which the penalties were levied. I would want to make that very clear. A similar provision was included in last year's Clean Water Act reauthorization, H.R. 3948. Currently, there is no guarantee that fines or other moneys that result from violations of the Clean Water Act be used to correct water quality problems. Instead, some of the money goes into the general fund of the U.S. Treasury without any provision that it be used to improve the quality of our nation's water. The congressional district I represent is in northwest Indiana. It is home to abundant rivers and wetlands. It is also home to the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and five major steel facilities. A century of industrial development has created many toxic hot spots, constant threat to the health and safety of northwest Indiana residents. I am keenly aware of the need to balance between protecting the environment and encouraging economic growth. It would certainly be a step in the right direction to ensure that penalty moneys paid to the U.S. Treasury for violations of the act were used to clean up polluted water. Today I am concerned that EPA enforcement activities under which fines and other penalties are levied ignore the fundamental issue of how to pay for the cleanup of the water pollution problems for which the enforcement occurred. If we are really serious about ensuring the successful implementation of the act, we should put enforcement funds to work and actually clean up our nation's waters. It does not make sense for scarce resources to go into the bottomless pit of the Treasury's general fund especially if we fail to solve our serious water quality problems. Specifically my amendment would establish a National Clean Water Trust Fund within the U.S. Treasury for fines, penalties, and moneys including consent decrees obtained through enforcement of the act that would otherwise be placed into the Treasury's general fund. Under my proposal, the EPA Administrator would be authorized to prioritize and carry out projects to restore and recover waters of the United States using the funds collected from violations of the Clean Water Act. However, this amendment would not in any way preclude EPA's authority to undertake and complete supplemental environmental projects as part of settlements related to violations of the act and other legislation. I strongly support the use of SEPs to facilitate the cleanup of serious environmental problems which are particularly prevalent in districts such as mine. However, my bill would dedicate the cash payment to the Treasury, to the Clean Water Trust Fund. The amendment further specifies that remedial projects be within the same EPA region where enforcement action was taken. Northwest Indiana is in EPA Region 5, and there are 10 EPA regions throughout the United States. Under the proposal, any funds collected from enforcement of the Clean Water Act in Region 5 would remain in the trust fund for that region. The establishment of the trust fund is an innovative way in which to help improve the quality of our nation's waters by targeting funds accrued from enforcement of the act that would otherwise go into the Treasury. We can put scarce resources to work to facilitate the cleanup of the problem areas throughout not only the Great Lakes but this great country. I urge support of my amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 54.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to congratulate the Croatian Sons Lodge No. 170 of the Croatian Fraternal Union on the festive occasion of its 87th anniversary and 50-year-member banquet. This year, the Croatian Fraternal Union will hold this gala event at the beautifully renovated Croatian Center in Merrillville, IN. Traditionally, the anniversary ceremony includes a recognition of those members who have achieved 50 years of membership. Honorees who have pledged their allegiance include: Vincent Brebrich, Bessie Briski, Marko Buncich, Edward Carija, John William Carr, Vera Depa, Julia Farrenkopf, Rose Marie Franz, Helen Griffin, Peter Hecimovich, Mildred Kennedy, Helen Lucas, John Meznarick, Lubi Paligraf, Steve Paulich, Violet Plummer, Delores Roppolo, John Simunic, Frank Sostaric, Ann Stankovic, Marie Vucich, Anna Wilson, and Peter Yukich. These loyal and dedicated individuals share this prestigious honor with a total of 256 additional lodge members who have attained this status. This memorable day begins with Mass at St. Joseph the Worker Catholic Church in Gary, IN, officiated by the Reverend Father Benedict Benakovich. Croatian Fraternal Union national president, Bernard Luketich, will be this year's distinguished guest speaker. Festivities will be enriched by the music of the Croatian Glee Club, ``Preradovic,'' directed by Brother Dennis Barunica and by the Hoosier Hrvati Adult Tamburitza Orchestra, directed by Ed Sindicih. In addition, the Croatian Junior Tamburitzans will perform under the direction of Dennis Barunica. I am proud to commend lodge president, Elizabeth Morgavan, as well as every member of the Croatian Fraternal Union Lodge No. 170, for their loyalty and radiant display of passion for their ethnicity. It is my hope that this year will bring renewed hope and prosperity for all members of the Croatian community and their families.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's en bloc amendment to H.R. 1361. This amendment contains an important provision to ensure that the so-called Johnson Act does not interfere with riverboat gambling in Indiana. This noncontroversial measure, which has the bipartisan support of Transportation Committee members, is based upon legislation I introduced in April, H.R. 1419. I would like to clarify for my colleagues that this provision would not affect any other State, or State laws regarding gambling, since the Johnson Act exemption would apply only to Indiana riverboats operating within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Indiana. Indeed, my goal is to ensure that an outdated Federal statute does not prevent the State of Indiana from implementing its riverboat gambling legislation. In 1993, the Indiana General Assembly approved riverboat gambling legislation to allow gambling on Lake Michigan. However, as cities in northwest Indiana prepare to implement the Indiana Riverboat Gambling Act, concerns have been raised that the Johnson Act, passed in 1951 to prohibit the transportation of gambling devices on U.S.-flag ships in special maritime and territorial waters of the United States, may prohibit the use of casino gambling boats on Lake Michigan. The U.S. Department of Justice has not yet decided if the Johnson Act would actually prohibit the operation of riverboat casinos. This legislation would ensure smooth sailing regardless of the Justice Department's decision. It's better to be safe than sorry. The people of Indiana have spoken and I want to ensure that a section of an archaic law doesn't stand in the way of the people's will and continued efforts to create jobs and improve the economy in northwest Indiana. I would like to thank Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Shuster, ranking member Mineta, Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Coble, ranking member Traficant, and the Republican and Democratic committee and subcommittee staff for their cooperation and assistance.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution is just around the corner and it is time to put the money where our mouths are and actually balance the budget. Our deficits have left us with a debt of $4.7 trillion or $47,000 per taxpayer. Our yearly interest payments on the debt exceed $200 billion or $2,000 per taxpayer. This reduces wage rates, destroys jobs, and mortgages our future. To start balancing the budget today, Mr. Stenholm and I have introduced the Balanced Budget Enforcement Act. This bill will force us to make the tough decisions to balance the budget in 2002. Unlike past attempts to balance the budget, this bill holds everyone's feet to the fire. There are no loopholes. Everything's on- budget. And all smoke-and-mirror projections will be checked by a nonpartisan Board of Estimates at the beginning and end of the annual budgeting process. Mr. Speaker, everyone says they want to balance the budget, but we have not even come close. I have been in Washington long enough to know that the Balanced Budget Enforcement Act will work. If we are really serious about balancing the budget, the House will include this bill in the budget resolution.