C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We are trying to be honest with the Pentagon and honest with the troops and appropriate the money that we have directed the Pentagon to spend for pay increases.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I have to say to the gentleman that I disagree, that in our additions for readiness, we specifically mention the amount of money that would pay for the .6 percent of the pay raise that we did not fund. If we do not appropriate this money and fund that additional amount, then from somewhere else. If he takes it from somewhere else, it is going to be from the same O&M budget that we are trying to protect today.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. May I inquire of the Chair how much time we have remaining?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I can say that no one has a higher credibility in this House of Representatives than the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Missouri will let me finish what I have to say, and then if I have time, I will be glad to yield to him. He is a very strong proponent of the national defense, and we know that. Mr. Chairman, the question of housing has come up, housing for the soldiers. Dr. Hamre, the Comptroller of the Defense Department, came to our subcommittee last week and he told us in his closing statement that if we were to drive a college-aged student to a college dormitory that looks like so much of our military housing, we would not even let him unpack his suitcase, because you would not let your kid live there, but our kids serving in the military are having to live in substandard housing. We want to correct that, Mr. Chairman. We want to make the money available to pay for the 2.6-percent pay increase for members of the military. If Members will check with the commissaries and the bases where Members might reside, in their districts, find out how many young soldiers--sailors, airmen, marines, male or female--how many of them are coming with food stamps. Over 11,000 of our young troops are eligible for food stamps, because of their expenses and their low incomes. We provide in our package, our enhancement package, for the additional 0.6 percent of the pay raise. I made a commitment, as many of us have many times, that I would not vote to send an American soldier into combat or a hostile situation without knowing that I had done the very best to provide them with the best training and the best technology possible before sending them into a hostile situation. I am going to stick by that commitment and this bill that we consider today is a part of that commitment. I want to speak for some of these people who are going to be affected by this bill and their training, or their morale, their readiness, their quality of life. I want to speak in behalf of the Marine gunnery sergeant and all of his colleagues who are on the U.S.S. Essex off Somalia today. Or the wife and kids of the Army Special Forces lieutenant who are left behind in Fort Bragg, NC, while he works the countryside in Haiti. Or the Air Force reservist flying airlift missions in support of operations around Bosnia. The Navy families left behind in San Diego as their loved ones are deployed on the aircraft carrier Constellation in the Persian Gulf. The AWACS crews flying over Saudi Arabia checking on Saddam Hussein. The Marine F-18 pilot flying out of Aviano, Italy enforcing the no- fly zone over Bosnia in Operation Deny Flight. The Army personnel manning the Patriot missile battalion we sent to Korea because of the increased tensions there. The fighting unit at Twenty-nine Palms where they are forced to live in barracks that were damaged by the Joshua Tree earthquake and never repaired. The 10th Mountain Division from Fort Drum which has been deployed over the past 2\1/2\ years to Florida for Hurricane Andrew, then to Somalia twice and then to Haiti. The Marine pilot who has to curb his flying into Pendelton Air Field because the runway is crumbling due to lack of maintenance and the two floods which have put it underwater. Or the pilots who fly into Cherry Point to a runway which is even in worse shape than the runways at Pendleton. What I am saying is this bill is addressing those types of issues, and it is important that we pass this bill with its specifics and not take a pig in the poke as offered by the Obey substitute. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 668, the Criminal Alien Deportation Act. This legislation represents title VIII of the Taking Back Our Streets Act, one of the 10 points of the Republican Contract With America, and continues our efforts here in the House to address our Nation's crime problem. The legislation we consider today makes several amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act and other immigration laws to address the problem of aliens who commit serious crimes while they are in the United States, and gives federal law enforcement officials additional tools with which to combat organized immigration crime. The most significant provisions of H.R. 668 are intended to accomplish one or both of two broad goals. First, the bill strengthens the Government's ability to efficiently deport aliens who are convicted of serious crimes. Second, the legislation adds immigration crimes to those crimes that the Federal Government may investigate under the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization [RICO] law, and adds certain other crimes to the definition of ``aggravated felonies,'' thereby expanding the number of criminal aliens who can be deported. The bill makes it clear that expedited deportation procedures that currently apply to nonresident aliens also apply to aliens who have been conditionally granted permanent residence. Finally, in an effort to identify criminal aliens who may flee jurisdiction to avoid deportation, the bill directs the Criminal Alien Identification System, formerly the Criminal Alien Tracking Center created by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, to assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in identifying and locating criminal aliens who may be deported. Mr. Speaker, the passage of proposition 187 in California in 1994, was indicative of the frustration of the American people with the number of illegal aliens in this country. Ironically, under the California law, a 7- or 8-year-old child can be deported, yet the Federal Government still has difficulty deporting some criminal aliens. Under current law we may not deport aliens who have been convicted of forgery, perjury or bribery of a witness, or trafficking in stolen vehicles. In addition, aliens who have been sentenced to 5 or more years in prison, but have not served a full 5 years may not be deported. Sometimes they have been released early simply because of prison overcrowding. Furthermore, the INS may not initiate deportation proceedings against a criminal alien in prison until he has served 5 years, which means that sometimes, the criminal alien is released before the deportation order is ready and cannot be captured to be deported. The costs to States for incarcerating these criminal aliens is a serious matter for our consideration as well. Yesterday, the House, with my strong support, approved an important amendment which would reimburse States with large immigration populations for these costs. The provision, approved as part of our crime legislation, sets aside a total of $650 million annually for the next 5 years. My State of Florida houses over 5,500 criminal aliens within its correctional system. Consequently, criminal aliens are approximately 10 percent of the near 57,000 inmates in Florida's 50 correctional centers. Under this plan, Florida will be eligible to receive more than $80 million to offset these costs. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we took the first step in paying for the costs incurred by States to house criminal aliens. However, many aliens who commit serious crimes are released into American society before even serving out their sentences--where they continue to pose a threat to the American people. Today we provide our Nation with the means to remove these individuals from our society altogether, and I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 728, the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act. This legislation represents the final piece of the Taking Back Our Streets Act, 1 of the 10 points of the Republican Contract With America. Passage of today's bill marks the completion of this important legislation, and continues our efforts to radically rejuvenate our Nation's fight against crime. Today's legislation replaces major portions of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which set up a variety of poverty and prevent crime. Instead, the present bill establishes block grants to help units of local government improve public safety. Use of the funds can include, but is not limited to, hiring, training, and equipping law enforcement officers and support personnel; enhancing school security, and establishing crime prevention programs involving law enforcement officials. The grant money must not supplant State or local funds, but unlike last years legislation, the States and local governments are not required to provide matching funds. H.R. 728 authorizes $10 billion for law enforcement block grants over 5 years, with $2 billion to be distributed in each of fiscal year 1996 through 2000, and it specifies criteria for eligibility and distribution of the grants. In contrast to the 1994 Crime Control Act, H.R. 728 allows localities greater flexibility in responding to their own crime problems. Mr. Speaker, statistics paint a grim picture, illustrating clearly that the United States has failed to get a handle on its growing crime problem. According to the FBI, the rate of violent crime in the United States is worse than in any other Western developed country, with a murder occurring every 21 minutes, a rape every 5 minutes, a robbery every 46 seconds, and an aggravated assault every 29 seconds. Violent crime or property crime victimizes one in four U.S. households. Every year, nearly 5 million people are victims of murder, rape, robbery, or assault, and 19 million Americans fall victim to theft, burglary, or arson. Juvenile crime increased by 60 percent between 1981 and 1990, compared to an increase of 5 percent among adults, and the number of inmates convicted of drug offenses rose 14 percent from 1983 to 1989. On all fronts, the problem has become epidemic. This crime crisis is particularly severe among minorities and the poor. The U.S. homicide rate for black males between the ages of 15 and 24 is 283 times that of males homicide rates in 17 other nations. Homicide is now the leading cause of death for blacks aged 15 to 34. One expert has estimated that a 20-year-old black male stands a greater chance of being murdered on the streets than a soldier in World War II stood of dying in combat. These figures are frightening, and proof positive that the current approach to battling this epidemic is a dismal failure. Last year's crime bill did little to address the fundamental crime problem in our country. Relying on expensive ``Great Societyesque'' programs, the bill attempted to do what all other big government social programs have failed to do; make individuals responsible for their actions and instill a sense of right and wrong in those with a propensity to commit a crime. Mr. Speaker, the overwhelming incidence of crime occurs within State and local jurisdictions, so State and local authorities bear the primary responsibility for combating this mounting crisis. They need help and support from the Federal Government, but not mandated prevention programs. The best thing the Federal Government can do is to try to assist State and local crime-fighters without getting in their way. This legislation will go along way toward that goal and I urge its support.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 667, the Violent Criminal Incarceration Act. This legislation represents titles V and VII of H.R. 3, the Taking Back our Streets Act, 1 of the 10 points of the Republican Contract With America, and is the fourth of the six bills we will consider which compose this important crime legislation. Today's legislation boosts the State prison grants in the 1994 Crime Control Act from $8 to $10.5 billion over 5 years while increasing the incentives for States to curtail early parole for violent offenders. In addition, the bill places restrictions on the ability of prisoners to challenge the constitutionality of their confinement and limits remedies that may be granted in a prison conditions suit. Half of the funds available each year under this act would go to States that have worked to toughen their incarceration records over the years, while the other half goes to States that have enacted ``truth in sentencing'' and victim notification laws. The bill also amends the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act [CRIPA] to make maximum use of administrative rather than judicial procedures and to compel judges to dismiss frivolous, false, or weak lawsuits brought by inmates. H.R. 667 also limits the remedies that can be granted or enforced in prison conditions suits, and prevents judges from placing arbitrary caps on prison populations. Finally, in response to the rising tide of violence in our Nation's prisons, and the concern about inmates who spend their time simply strength training, H.R. 667 bars prisoners from engaging in physical activities designed to increase their strength or fighting ability, and orders the immediate removal of all exercise training equipment, except for those specifically authorized for medical reasons. Mr. Chairman, statistics indicate that a small percentage of criminals commit the vast majority of violent crimes. Just 7 percent of criminals commit two-thirds of all violent crime, including three- fourths of rapes and robberies, and virtually all murders. To make matters worse, many of these criminals either are never caught, or, if caught and found guilty, do not serve their entire prison sentence. Every year, more than 60,000 criminals convicted of a violent crime never serve time--for every 100 crimes reported only 3 criminals go to prison. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has found that only 45.4 percent of court-ordered confinement is served on average, and 51 percent of violent offenders sent to prison are released in 2 years or less. These numbers are even more telling in light of the fact that at least 30 percent of the murders in this country are committed by people on probation, parole, or bail. Faced with prison overcrowding, 17 States have begun emergency release programs. Overall, the risk of punishment has declined in the past 40 years while the annual number of serious crimes committed has skyrocketed. All this has led to public calls for ``truth in sentencing'' laws which require criminals to serve a significant percentage of their sentences without chance of parole, and ``three strikes, you're out'' statutes requiring life in prison for repeat offenders convicted of their third violent felony. Opponents of strict sentencing laws like these argue that locking people up does not address the problem of why crimes are committed in the first place. Evidence suggests, however, that there is a strong correlation between increased incarceration and lower crime rates. In fact, from 1990-91, States with the greatest increases in criminal incarceration rates experienced, on average, a 12.7-percent decrease in crime, while the 10 States with the weakest incarceration rates experienced an average 6.9-percent increase in crime. Mr. Chairman, the time for coddling the criminal has passed. The American people are crying out for us to put away--and keep away-- America's violent criminals. They have tasked us with putting an end to the frivolous inmate law suits and the seemingly pleasant treatment of murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and the like. We have made substantial efforts this week to help our police and prosecutors capture and prosecute these heinous individuals. Today we give them a place to put them the support of this important legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 729, the Effective Death Penalty Act. This legislation represents title I of the Taking Back Our Streets Act, 1 of the 10 points of the Republican Contract With America, and is the third of the six bills we will consider which compose this important crime legislation. Today's legislation changes the laws affecting the death penalty in an effort to create consistent and fair procedures for its application, and to streamline the current appeals process. The habeas corpus writ, originally designed as a remedy for imprisonment without trial, has become a tool of Federal and State defendants who have been convicted and have exhausted all direct appeals. Most of the petitions are totally lacking in merit, clog the Federal district court dockets, and allow prisoners on death row to almost indefinitely delay their punishment. The bill before us today will help put an end to this travesty of justice. Specifically, H.R. 729 establishes a 1-year limitation period for filing a Federal habeas corpus petition contesting a State court conviction and a 2-year limitation period for a Federal conviction. This measure limits the granting of stays when prisoners have failed to file a timely appeal, and imposes a 60- and 90-day deadline for district courts and appeals courts respectively to decide an appeal. Finally, the bill authorizes funds to help States defend their convictions against these appeals and allows juries far greater latitude in deciding whether to apply the death penalty. Under current law, there are virtually no limits or restrictions on when prisoners can file habeas corpus appeals. Thanks to last year's so-called crime bill at least two lawyers must be appointed to represent the defendant at every stage of the process, and a defendant can appeal anytime there is a change in the law or a new Supreme Court ruling. In this environment it is not surprising that delays of up to 14 years are not uncommon. This abuse of the system is the most significant factor in States' inability to implement credible death penalties. Mr. Chairman, the death penalty is now unworkable and must be reformed. It is encumbered with nearly endless--and often frivolous-- appeals that delay punishment. The Effective Death Penalty Act upholds a simple rule of law--those who kill must be prepared to pay with their own life, and I urge its support.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 665, the Victim Restitution Act. This legislation represents title III of the Taking Back Our Streets Act, one of the 10 points of the Republican Contract With America, and begins our efforts here in the House to address our Nation's crime problem. The bill before us today embodies one of the most fundamental tenants of our Nation's justice system--that criminals pay for the consequences of their crimes. H.R. 665 mandates that those convicted of a Federal crime provide full restitution to their victims for damages caused as a result of the crime. The court may determine the amount of restitution based on the victim's situation and regardless of the economic resources of the criminal. Mr. Speaker, our Nation faces a crime problem of epidemic proportion. Each year, one in four U.S. households fall victim to violent or property crime. That translates into nearly 5 million victims of murder, rape, robbery, and assault, and 19 million victims of arson, theft, and burglary. According to the Department of Justice, in the past two decades more than 36 million people in the United States were injured as a result of violent crime. In addition to the physical and emotional costs of these crimes there are substantial economic costs as well. In fact, in 1991 alone, crime against people and households cost an estimated $19 billion. Each year crime-related injuries force Americans to spend 700,000 days in the hospital. Today's legislation will help the victims of these crimes recoup the costs of these recoveries, and I strongly support its passage.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 666, the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act. This legislation represents title VI of the Taking Back our Streets Act, one of the 10 points of the Republican Contract With America, and continues our efforts here in the House to address our Nation's crime problem. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have already completed work on the Victim Restitution Act. Mr. Speaker, the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure of their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Under current law, if a court finds that evidence was obtained in violation of this amendment, that evidence cannot be used by the Government in its case against the defendant and is to be excluded at trial. Unfortunately, this exclusionary rule has been manipulated by skillful defense attorneys to protect murderers, drug dealers, rapists, and robbers. In one instance, more than 250 pounds of cocaine found in a car during a routine traffic stop were ruled inadmissible at trial because the officer did not have a warrant to search the car. This strict interpretation too often leads to the acquittal of many who are obviously guilty. In 1984, the Supreme Court modified the exclusionary rule to permit the introduction of evidence that was obtained in good faith reliance on a search warrant that was later found to be invalid. H.R. 666 codifies this decision into law. However, as the above example makes clear there is a need for a similar good faith exemption in cases where police officers, acting in good faith, conduct a search or seizure without a warrant. Today's legislation creates such an exemption by allowing evidence to be admissible so long as the law enforcement officials who gather the evidence held an objectively reasonable belief that their action conformed to the requirements of the fourth amendment. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 666 strikes the proper balance between the rights of Americans against unreasonable search and seizure, and the rights of society to be free of criminal threat. It will help to protect America's citizens and put away America's criminals, and I urge its support.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2, the Line-Item Veto Act, which I have cosponsored in this 104th Congress and in the six previous Congresses. With the passage of this legislation, we fulfill our commitment made in the Fiscal Responsibility Act, the first legislative item in our Contract With America. We completed the first half of this act last month with the passage of the balanced budget amendment. Tonight we send the Senate legislation giving current and future Presidents the line-item veto authority already available to 43 Governors. The American people have made clear their desire to eliminate wasteful Federal spending and this powerful tool gives the President a way to eliminate programs he deems wasteful without having to veto an entire appropriations bill or other major legislation that may also contain many important and timely programs. Under current law, wasteful or questionable projects or programs often find their way into law because the President cannot afford to veto the important overall legislation in which they are included. Today's line-item veto legislation will change that procedure by allowing the President to single out specific projects and force Congress to vote on each of them individually. This makes both Congress and the President more accountable to the American taxpayers for every dollar in the Federal budget, and injects greater honesty and openness into the budgetary process, another important goal of the Contract With America. More than any other provision of our Contract With America, our support for this bill indicates Republicans' deep commitment to cut the budget deficit, balance the Federal budget, and restore fiscal sanity to the Federal Government. In the past, Democrat-controlled Congresses not only refused to give this authority to Republican Presidents, they also failed to give it to Presidents of their own party. The Republican Contract With America puts the welfare of the country above partisan differences, and will not only give future Presidents of any party a greater ability to keep the size and scope of the Federal Government under control, but this legislation, when enacted, will give President Clinton a line-item veto authority the day he signs it into law. By granting Presidents greater power to control spending, Congress also places upon them a responsibility to use this tool to cut waste as demanded by the American taxpayers. The line-item veto creates a bias in the Federal Government in favor of saving tax dollars, not spending them. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important governmental reform to take another step toward getting our Nation's fiscal house in order.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. The message from last November's elections is that the American people want a smaller, less intrusive Federal Government. The election was a ringing endorsement of our Republican Contract With America, which under the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act promises significant government reforms and the elimination of unfunded Federal mandates passed on to State and local governments. On the first day of this 104th Congress, we delivered on our commitment in the contract to reduce the cost of running our own House, eliminate the number of congressional committees and staff, and make our daily business more open and representative of those we are elected to serve. Later in January we enacted the Congressional Accountability Act to ensure that the Congress lives under the same laws that are imposed on all other Americans. And last week we approved and sent to the Senate a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, a cornerstone of the contract that will force the Federal Government to balance its revenues and expenditures. After more than 3 weeks of open debate and the consideration of 150 amendments, we fulfill another contract pledge. That is to end the growing practice of Congress passing mandates onto State and local governments without passing along the required Federal funding to carry out these mandates. Congress, with increasing frequency has passed more and more legislation that takes power away from the people and concentrates it in the hands of Federal bureaucrats in Washington who promulgate countless new regulations and requirements. When the cost of this big government started to become too expensive, Congress continued to enact burdensome legislation but dumped the cost in the laps of State and local governments. The balanced budget amendment we passed last month will protect tomorrow's generation from paying for today's government. The legislation we consider today protects the taxpayers of our States from having to do the same. It is estimated that the unfunded Federal mandates passed during past sessions of Congress will cost our States and cities hundreds of billions of dollars unless Congress acts. In Florida, mandates in certain Medicaid regulations, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the National Voter Registration Act, and others, cost our State taxpayers almost $1 billion a year. In fact, in 1993 alone, State and local governments in Florida were forced to pay almost $900 million to illegal aliens as a direct result of the Federal Government's shoddy implementation of its contradictory immigration laws. By passing the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, we answer the call of Americans wanting less bureaucracy, less regulation, and more fairness in their lives. Through legislation I have supported, our Nation has made great strides in protecting our environment, expanding access to public facilities to those with disabilities, increasing workplace safety, and educating our children. The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act does not prohibit Congress from considering future legislation with equally noble goals, it simply will alert our colleagues in the House and the Governors and State Legislators of our States of the impact it will have on the States and on State treasuries. Certainly when Congress chooses to act on an issue worthy of Federal law and national attention, it should also provide the funding to implement the policy, not pass the buck to the States. Our colleagues in the other body have already acted to lift the net of Federal regulation that has covered our country. It is my hope this House will do the same, and that the President will keep his promise to sign comprehensive mandate reform legislation into law. Congress must respond to the people's call for a smaller, less intrusive government, and restore balance and fairness to our unique Federal system. Fairness dictates that Congress cover the cost of implementing the laws it passes by prohibiting the shifting of those costs to State and local governments.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget constitutional amendment. It is always with reluctance that I support legislation to amend the Constitution of the United States, the greatest document of democracy the world has ever known. Its greatness is measured by the fact that it has been amended so few times before in our Nation's history. However, Congress after Congress has proven that it lacks the fiscal discipline necessary to balance the Federal budget and begin to reduce the growing national debt, which approaches $5 trillion. Gimmick after budgetary gimmick has failed to get our Nation's fiscal house in order. Without a willingness to cast the tough vote after tough vote required to bring Federal revenues and expenditures in line, a constitutional amendment is the only means left to instill in future Congresses the discipline necessary to bring about a balanced Federal budget. Three times this decade we have fought this battle to amend the Constitution, and three times we were defeated by those refusing to face up to our current bleak fiscal plight. In 1990, we failed by just 11 votes to pass a balanced budget amendment at the same time our national debt reached $3 trillion. Two years later, we failed by just 10 votes to pass this constitutional amendment, as the national debt passed $4 trillion. Last year we tried again, but fell 19 votes short as the national debt climbed to $4.7 trillion. Our Nation cannot afford for this House to fail again today. With the passage of this amendment, we can look forward to the day when we begin to retire the national debt, not add to it. One of the demands of the American people last November 8 was that Congress force the Federal Government to live within its means. This is the first of 10 legislative promises we made to the American people in our Contract With America. Already we have delivered on our commitment to reduce the cost of running our own House, eliminate the number of congressional committees and staff, and make our proceedings more open and representative of those we are elected to serve. Earlier this month, we also enacted the Congressional Accountability Act, legislation that is now the law of the land which forces Congress to live under the same laws as every other American. With the passage of the balanced budget amendment tonight, we will tell the American people that we are serious about reversing the tide of red ink that threatens to cripple our economy under the weight of an annual mortgage payment on our national debt that will exceed $339 billion this fiscal year. This is just the interest alone we pay on the national debt we have accumulated since the birth of our Nation. The enactment of a balanced budget amendment would leave Congress with no choice but to begin the difficult task of cutting Federal spending which is the secret to eliminating deficit spending. It was my hope that the amendment requiring a three-fifth's super-majority for passage of any future increases in taxes would have passed to insert greater fiscal discipline on Congress by reducing the incentive to raise more revenue rather than cut spending. It should be obvious to all that the Federal Government does not tax too little, it spends too much. Annual deficits of $300 billion should also make it obvious that Congress always spends whatever revenue it raises and a whole lot more. Unfortunately, the amendment we consider tonight that affords us the greatest chance at passage requires a supermajority vote to spend more than we take in any one year and to raise the debt ceiling, but only requires a simple majority vote to raise taxes. Still, the balanced budget amendment is a strong enough tool, as we have seen in each of the States that requires their annual budgets to be balanced, to restore order to our budgetary proceedings. It is my hope that our colleagues in the other body will act as expeditiously as we have in the first month of this 104th Congress to send to the President and untlimately the States this constitutional amendment that is supported by a large majority of the American citizens. In the meantime, it is time for this House to turn its attention to making the hard choices and cast the tough vote after vote that will get us on track to deliver to the American people a balanced Federal budget. My colleagues and I on the Appropriations Committee have already begun the task of scouring the 1995 Federal budget for savings we can return to the Federal Treasury and programs that we can eliminate to reap future savings. Mr. Chairman, it will take a two-thirds vote tonight to pass this constitutional amendment. It is my hope that we are successful in passing this important plank in our Contract With America. We need to remember that the tough votes to cut Federal spending begin in just a few weeks and will continue for month after month, and year after year until we succeed in our goal to achieve a balanced Federal ledger. All that is required, however, is a simply majority of this House to have the courage to make these votes that will turn our fiscal tide. Tonight will be more than a symbolic victory. It will be the launching of a long and difficult but very necessary campaign to begin chipping away at our national debt and at the same time restoring the faith of the American people in their elected representatives. We must be up to the task this night and every day and night until our job is complete and future generations are relieved of the burden placed on them by past generations of unchecked Government spending.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as one who has protected the fiscal integrity of Social Security Program as vigorously as any Member in this House, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Social Security is a self-financing program where the payroll taxes paid by employees and employers go into a separate, actuarially sound trust fund and can only be use to pay retirement benefits to retired and disabled workers and their families. The Social Security trust funds cannot be used to provide for our national security, to pay for health care, or to build roads or bridges or anything else--except-- Social Security. They can only be used to pay the benefits promised to retired workers. This resolution expresses the sense of this Congress that in implementing a constitutional amendment providing for a balanced Federal budget, the Social Security Program and trust fund should be off limits. It reaffirms what I have long said and supported that in reducing the Federal budget deficit we should look to cutting spending in those areas which are driving our Nation deeper into debt. That certainly is not the Social Security trust fund which actually runs an annual surplus, last year which totaled $61 billion. The passage of this legislation prior to the general debate on the balanced budget amendment reaffirms our commitment to protect our Nation's Social Security recipients from attempts to balance the Federal budget at their expense. Instead, with the passage of the balance budget amendment, Congress will be forced to make the tough choices to reduce Government spending, the kind of votes I have made time after time in this House, instead of succumbing to the temptation to raid the Social Security trust funds. As a Member who probably represents more Social Security beneficiaries than any Member of this House, I am well aware of the tactics that have been used by those who want to kill the balanced budget amendment by scaring older Americans into believing that it will have a severe impact on the Social Security program. As I said time after time, I believe a balanced budget amendment actually ensures the financial security of the Social Security trust fund and benefits for current and future retirees. Without the fiscal discipline imposed by a balanced budget amendment, Congress will allow the national debt to continue its upward spiral, driving our Nation deeper into debt as the annual interest payment to finance our deficit spending continues to be the fastest growing component of the Federal budget. These rising interest payments, estimated to be $339.1 billion in the current fiscal year, coupled with the past inability of Congress to set fiscal priorities and make the tough decisions about which programs to fund and which programs to eliminate, are the real threat to older Americans, not the balanced budget amendment. Rather than cast the tough votes to cut spending and reduce the reach of the Federal Government required to get our fiscal house in order, Congress has continued to spend now and worry about the deficit later. The day of reckoning, however, that I have long warned about has arrived as our Nation faces a rising mortgage payment on our Nation's debt. The discipline imposed on Congress by a balanced budget amendment will force the House and Government can no longer afford, to permanently reduce spending and bring the Federal budget into balance. This relieves the future threat to the Social Security Program because Congress will wean the Federal Government off American tax dollars by cutting spending on programs, rather than by cutting Social Security benefits or raising Social Security payroll taxes. There are those who say that the balanced budget amendment should include a reference to the Social Security trust fund. Just the opposite is true, however. By writing into the Constitution an exemption for the Social Security Program, Congress will leave a loophole to shelter a whole host of other programs for scrutiny. Congress could later move program after program under the veil of the Social Security trust fund to provide protection from the reach of the balanced budget amendment. In the end, the fiscal integrity and independence of the Social Security Program would be violated, not protected. Equally important, Congress would once again avoid casting the tough votes on those programs that are the cause for our rising national debt. s the founder and chairman of the bipartisan Social Security Caucus, I have long led the battle to preserve the long-term financial stability of the Social Security trust fund and ensure that the promised retirement benefits will be available to current and future generations of American workers. A constitutional amendment to require a balanced Federal budget will remove any incentives for Congress to tamper with Social Security benefits, by finally forcing Congress to make the tough decisions required to address the threat posed to all of us by an ever-increasing national debt. Social Security is not the cause of our Nation's growing debt. It certainly should not be and will not be a part of the solution as long as this Member serves in the House. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation today to reaffirm the commitment of this Congress to protect the Social Security Program while at the same time taking definitive action to eliminate Federal deficit spending with the enactment of a balanced budget constitutional amendment. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this momentous occasion to speak to this House and the American people about the events that have unfolded since the historic November 8 election, and to celebrate the reforms we will enact today. What a difference a day makes. As a Republican, my entire service as a Member of Congress has been in a House controlled by Democrats. In this time I have watched as House proceedings became more and more partisan, and decisions which could effect every American became more secretive and exclusive. I watched the number of committee staff nearly triple while the committees became dominated by special interests and unable to respond to public desires. Republican efforts to reform the system, open up the deliberation process, and clean up the sloppy internal management and corruption were met each time by Democratic arrogance and obstinacy. On November 8, an overwhelming majority of Americans throughout our Nation rallied behind principles included in a Republican Contract with America, and demanded that reforms making Congress more accountable and effective be implemented. In the wake of that election day, the American people sent a new majority to Washington, a Republican majority, to answer that demand. I rise today to tell the American people we have heard your call. As we promised in our contract, today we begin to deliver. While many of the provisions in today's reform package are changes Republicans have been promoting for decades, much of our proposal is the product of several weeks of hard work which began immediately after the election. In fact, the Republican Transition Team, on which I was proud to have served, began work almost immediately on changes to the structure and operations of the House. Under the Republican Open House proposal which we released in December, and is included in this package, major changes in the House's administrative operations will be adopted today. These include broadening the powers and staff of the House inspector general, and providing him authority to refer any possible violations to the House Ethics Committee, abolishing the Office of the Doorkeeper which is loaded with hundreds of patronage employees; and ensuring congressional compliance with Federal laws. A major accounting firm will also be hired to conduct a comprehensive audit of the House's finances which will be made public upon completion. Requiring that Congress complies with the same Federal laws and regulations that apply to the private workplace has long been a goal of mine. In fact, last Congress I was an original cosponsor of legislation, the Congressional Accountability Act, identical to that included in today's resolution. The House passed a version of this act near the end of the 103d Congress, but the measure died because the other body failed to consider it. Passage of this act underscores that no American should be immune from law or receive special treatment in its application. In addition, this act encourages all of us as legislators to continue to review the burdens that Federal laws place upon us as citizens. The laws which we apply to Congress today include the Civil Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the United States Code on fair labor management relations. Reducing the amount of congressional staff is also a cornerstone of our reform efforts today. As the ranking Republican of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee during the past Congress, I worked to substantially reduce the number of people in the Congress' employ. Unfortunately, Democratic intransigence prevented us from enacting anything more than a 4-percent reduction over 2 years. Today's resolution reduces the number of committee staff personnel alone by one-third, a total of 622, with a potential savings to the taxpayer of $70 million over the next 2 years. How's that for a change. Another cost-cutting measure included in today's package eliminates legislative service organizations. These Member caucuses which represent special interests cost the taxpayer $5 million a year and take up a large amount of office space. In fact, elimination of the LSO's and their 97 staff positions along with the committee staff reductions may free up enough space so that we can sell off an entire House office building. The Republican reform package we consider today also makes substantial changes to the present committee system by cutting three House committees and 25 subcommittees, limiting the terms of committee chairs and banning proxy, or ghost, voting. Not since 1947 has a standing committee of the House been eliminated. We'll take three, and if Members wish to vote on legislation in committee, they will have to be present. No longer will baron committee chairs wield the proxies of absent individuals who feel they have better things to do, defeating the efforts of committee members who do their work and care. Finally, committee meetings will be open to the public, ensuring fairness and accountability. We can all recall the day when Democrats in the House Ways and Means Committee voted for the controversial retroactive tax increases in the Clinton budget behind closed doors, barring the press and the public from their proceedings. Passage of this package will put an end to those shameful days. Under the Republican majority, the sun will shine in. In the context of truth and accountability, Republicans have also included in their reform proposal a truth-in-budgeting requirement which will have an enormous impact on the public's understanding of Federal spending. Under past budget rules, an increase in spending was often called a budget cut if it wasn't more than inflation and other specified increases would cause. That's like saying we are reducing spending by not spending more than we already spend. The new House rule stipulates that if you spend more money in one year than you spent the year before, it is an increase. Spending may rise because of an increase in inflation, but the fact is that it will be recognized as an increase. There will be no more Mickey Mouse budgeting. In this Congress, the truth will be told and the public will know. The final provision of today's historic House reform package is one that will positively affect the lives of every American by making tax hikes more difficult. This Congress will require a three-fifths vote of the House to pass any income tax rate increase and will prohibit retroactive taxation of income. This supermajority requirement is quite similar to restrictions voters have imposed on numerous State legislators, and stands in stark contrast to past Democrat rules which require a supermajority to cut taxes. Another beneficial aspect of this new rule is that any future Congress seeking to get around it would have to change or waive the rule, providing a warning sign of impending tax boosts. Mr. Speaker, with this past election we saw the results of an American public outraged with the business-as-usual attitude of a Congress controlled by Democrats for 40 years. The message from an electorate tired of false messages and empty promises was clear--no more. Today's actions are the first step in fulfilling the promises made in our Contract with America, and represent more congressional reform than the public has seen in decades. They are not an end, but a beginning of a Congress more open, more accountable, and more responsible than ever. A Congress which will listen to the people, speak frankly in response, and spend no more than it needs to serve the people it represents.