Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, May 2, 1990 TAG: 9005020227
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Los Angeles Times
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
Republican leaders claimed the Democratic resolution would do "irreparable harm" to the military, and not a single Republican voted for the measure, which carried by a 218-208 vote.
All of Virginia's Democratic congressmen voted for it.
At the same time, Republican leaders dropped plans to force a vote on Bush's January budget request, prompting ridicule from Democrats.
"This is, in effect, a quiet, if secret, repudiation of the president's proposals . . . so that there would not be the embarrassment of a very, very low vote on the minority side," House Speaker Thomas Foley, D-Wash., declared.
Rep. Bill Frenzel, R-Minn., senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, retorted that the president's budget was withdrawn because changing economic conditions had made both it and the Democratic alternative incapable of complying with the Gramm-Rudman deficit-reduction law.
"It seemed ridiculous to allow members to delude themselves that they can get away with minimum sacrifices called for under both budgets," Frenzel said. "We're going to have to stop eating cream puffs and begin biting bullets if we're going to get anywhere."
The House-passed measure, which must be reconciled with a Senate version still being drafted, calls for slashing Bush's defense request by $7.8 billion as part of a scheme to reduce the federal deficit by $36 billion in fiscal 1991.
The resolution sketches a way for Congress to ensure by Oct. 1 that the deficit will be lowered to $64 billion over the next 12 months, as required by the Gramm-Rudman statute. If the target is missed, however, across-the-board spending cuts will take effect automatically, preventing Congress and the administration from tailoring reductions to program needs.
As suggested by Frenzel, a growing number of economists believe the House plan may be obsolete already. As much as $20 billion more in savings could be needed to comply with Gramm-Rudman because of higher interest rates and a slowed economy, according to White House budget director Richard Darman.
Thus, the House measure is likely to be only the Democrats' opening bid in eventual negotiations with the administration to avoid automatic spending cuts. Increasingly, key members of both Congress and the administration are calling for "summit" talks to forge a deficit-reduction compromise outside the cumbersome congressional budget process.
The resolution calls for 1991 defense outlays of $295.5 billion, or $7.8 billion below Bush's request. The measure also recommends that long-term spending commitments, known as "budget authority," be held to $283 billion - $23.9 billion less than Bush proposed. The two figures suggest that a "peace dividend" would be small at first but very large in later years.
The House plan calls for using half the dividend to lower the deficit and half to expand spending on health, education and other domestic programs that were cut sharply in the last decade.
by CNB