Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5107-H5117]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 67,
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 1996

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 149 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 149

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 67) setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for the
fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.
The first reading of the concurrent resolution shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against the concurrent
resolution and against its consideration are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the congressional budget and
shall not exceed six hours (including one hour on the subject
of economic goals and policies) equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Budget. After general debate the concurrent
resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. The amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. The concurrent resolution, as amended, shall be
considered as read. No further amendment shall be in order
except those designated in section 2 of this resolution. Each
amendment may be offered only in the order designated, may be
offered only by a Member designated, shall be considered as
read, shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be
subject to amendment. All points of order against the
amendments designated in section 2 are waived except that the
adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall
constitute the
conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for
amendment. After the conclusion of consideration of the
concurrent resolution for amendment, and a final period of
general debate, which shall not exceed ten minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Budget, the
Committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution
to the House with such amendment as may have been adopted.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to final
adoption without intervening motion except amendments
offered by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical consistency. The
concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question of its adoption.
Sec. 2. The following amendments are in order pursuant to
the first section of this resolution:
(1) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by
Representative Gephardt of Missouri printed not later than
May 16, 1995, in the portion of the Congressional Record
designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII, if
proposing a Congressional budget in which total outlays for
the fiscal year 2002 do not exceed total receipts for that
fiscal year.
(2) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by
Representative Neumann of Wisconsin or Representative Solomon
of New York consisting of the text of House Concurrent
Resolution 66.
(3) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by
Representative Payne of New Jersey or Representative Owens of
New York printed by Representative Payne on May 16, 1995, in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.
(4) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by the
minority leader or a designee printed by him not later than
May 17, 1995, in the portion of the Congressional Record
designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII, if
proposing a Congressional budget based on a revised budget
submission by the President to the Congress in which total
outlays for the fiscal year 2002 do not exceed total receipts
for that fiscal year.
Sec. 3. Rule XLIX shall not apply with respect to the
adoption by the Congress of a conference report to accompany
a concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional
budget for the United States Government for the fiscal years
1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from New York
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield
myself such time as I might consume. During consideration of the
resolution all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include therein extraneous material.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, today is a truly historic day in this
Chamber and one that I personally have waited for for a long time,
because this will be the first time that this Congress will actually
debate how to balance a budget instead of whether we will balance the
budget at all.
Why is this so? Because we have written the rules of this debate so
that only four alternatives can be offered, and all four alternatives,
ladies and gentlemen, balance the budget. Can you believe that? That,
ladies and gentlemen, is truly historic. So much so that I am so
excited I really can hardly stand it.
Mr. Speaker, let me get to the text of the rule itself, and Members
should listen because it is a complicated, complex rule.
House Resolution 149 is a modified closed rule providing for the
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 67, the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal years 1996 through the year 2002.
The rule provides for 6 hours of general debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Budget, including 1 hour of debate on the so-called Humphrey-Hawkins
legislation economic goals and policies. All points of order are waived
against the budget resolution and its consideration.
This rule provides for the adoption in the House and in the Committee
of the Whole of an amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report
relating to spending on agriculture programs, and for those Members who
might not come from agricultural districts, they might listen to this
too. This is a sense-of-Congress provision to reconsider spending
reductions in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 if certain conditions are not
met. This amendment is language worked out between the Committee on
Agriculture chairman and the leadership to ensure that spending
reductions for agricultural programs do not have an adverse impact on
the farm economy, and that is very important.
This rule makes in order four amendments in the nature of
substitutes, subject to 1 hour of debate each, and waives points of
order against them, except that it does not allow for the consideration
of subsequent substitutes if any one substitute is adopted.
Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, this is the most important part
of my statement, Mr.
Speaker, that provision in the rule means quite simply that there are
no free votes on this budget resolution coming up. The adoption of any
substitute will bring the House to a vote on final adoption of the
budget resolution as amended, immediately.

This is the old-fashioned amendment process, it is not a king-of-the-
hill or so-called queen-of-the-hill process. The four substitutes in
their order of consideration are important, because if any one of these
pass, then the debate immediately ceases and we go right to final
passage. The first substitute to be offered will be an amendment by
Representative Gephardt printed in yesterday's Congressional Record
which is the text of the so-called coalition budget. That is the first
substitute before us.
Second, a substitute to be offered by Representatives Neumann and
Solomon, that is myself, consisting of House Concurrent Resolution 66,
which you all have before you. This achieves a balanced budget by the
fiscal year 2000, that is within 5 years.
Third, a substitute by Representative Payne of New Jersey and
Representative Owens of my State of New York printed in yesterday's
Record, that is the Black Caucus budget.
And fourth, and this is important, an amendment printed in the Record
by [[Page H5108]] today by the minority leader or his designee
consisting of a revised Presidential budget, if it achieves a balanced
budget by the year 2002. We give the President of the United States 7
years to bring our deficits into balance, and we are waiting with
anticipation for the President to join in this debate and offer that
amendment.
Following the disposition of amendments, the rule allows for an
additional 10 minutes of debate divided between the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. Finally, and
this is also important to Members of the House, the rule suspends for 1
year the application of House Rule XLIX, the so-called Gephardt rule on
the debt limit.
What that means is that this House will be forced to conduct a
separate vote on raising the debt limit later this year rather than
having it automatically adopted upon the adoption of the budget
resolution's conference report. There is no free ride there, Mr.
Speaker, we are going to have to put our name on the line.
This is a fair rule that provides ample opportunity for the major
alternatives to be debated and voted on. While we did not make in order
all of the amendments presented to the Committee on Rules, I think most
objective observers, including the press, will agree we have allowed
for the debate to be framed in a very fair and open manner that allows
for the most serious alternatives having substantial support to be
offered and voted on.
{time} 1230

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I commend the minority
leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], for agreeing to
offer a major substitute even though he does not support it, according
to this morning's papers. It was not offered by him or by the majority
of his caucus. Nevertheless, it is a Democrat position, and it will be
interesting to see where the votes fall on that.
It was our feeling that, as important as the budget resolution is,
and it clearly is one of the most defining acts of a political party,
that the rule should allow for a leadership-backed alternative from
both sides of the aisle. Where do we stand on the issues? That is what
needs to be debated on this floor today.
In addition, we have given the President, as I said, an additional 2
days beyond our Monday deadline to submit a revised budget plan that
would achieve a balanced budget.
Now, Members of the House, you may recall that back on May 9 I wrote
to the President's chief of staff, Mr. Panetta, the former chairman of
the Committee on the Budget, inviting him on behalf of the Republican
leadership, to submit a balanced budget to the Committee on Rules by
last Monday, and we would make it in order. Even though Mr. Clinton
promised early in his Presidential campaign, and we have got the quotes
from his campaign which we will read to you today during the debate, to
balance the budget, his latest budget shows deficits remaining at the
$200 billion mark into the next century. I ask you, what kind of
balancing act is that? One trillion dollars added to the deficit over
the next 7 years.
Now, we hear Mr. Panetta in this morning's paper and on ``Good
Morning, America,'' this morning criticizing us for establishing an
arbitrary date of fiscal year 2002 for balancing the budget. And yet
last January we voted on six constitutional amendments requiring
balanced budgets, four by Democrats and two by Republicans. The
Committee on Rules did not require that they provide for a balanced
budget by 2002. We did not set any arbitrary date, and yet every one of
those amendments that came to this floor, Democrat or Republican, did
just that. Of the four Democrat substitutes, the Owens of New York
Democrat substitute was supported by 62 Democrats. You ought to add up
these numbers as I read them off to you. The Wise of West Virginia
substitute, another Democrat substitute, was supported by 136
Democrats. The Conyers Democrat substitute was backed by 112 Democrats.
And then finally, the Gephardt/Bonior substitute was favored by 130
Democrats.
Moreover, on final passage of the constitutional amendment, 72
Democrats voted in favor of it, and the vote was 300 to 132. Nearly 70
percent of this House voted for that date certain--the year 2002.
Mr. Speaker, when you add up all the Democrats who supported one
substitute or another and called for a balanced budget by 2002, you
find that 187 Democrats, or 92 percent of those on their side of the
aisle, voted for a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002.
That is what is on the floor today, and yet the President and his
chief of staff would have us believe that there is something arbitrary,
something unrealistic about setting a fiscal year 2002 deadline for
balancing this budget.
Even the Senate minority leader has said the President is wrong on
that account. That was Mr. Daschle over in the other body, on ``Good
Morning, America.'' Go and replay it back and see what he had to say.
Mr. Speaker, one of the Democrat Members suggested at our hearing
yesterday that I smiled to myself when I consider how things have
shifted in just the last year toward support for a real balanced budget
in this Congress and in this country. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I can
say that I really am proud to smile publicly that we have come so far
in such a short, short time. The American people have spoken, and we
are listening, finally, to their cries to save this country and to save
our children and to save our grandchildren from economic and financial
ruin, because that is where we have been going.
We witnessed a tidal wave for change at the polls last November, and,
Mr. Speaker, if we do not follow through by keeping our commitment to
bringing this Government and this country back into the black, then we
will drown in another tidal wave. It will be a tidal wave of red ink
that will engulf us and future generations to come. It will destroy
this Nation.
Last January, 187 Democrats and 228 Republicans voted for at least
one of the constitutional amendments offered that called for balancing
the budget by fiscal year 2002. That is a total of 415 Members out of
435 Members of this House. Think about that, 95 percent of the Members
of this House of Representatives supporting a balanced budget.
Today that support for a lofty and noble goal confronts the reality
of making the tough choices to achieve the goal of restoring this
country to a condition of fiscal sanity, of soundness and stability.
Members, we will have the good intentions of last January tested by our
willingness, indeed by our intestinal and political fortitude, to vote
for the balanced budget we said was needed 4 months ago. Today is your
opportunity, Mr. Speaker and Members. We can either follow through on
our commitment to setting things straight and right, or we can cave, we
can crumble at the sound of Chicken Little clucking, he who would have
us believe that the world is going to come to an end if we dare to do
what the American people have to do, what business and industry have to
do, and that is to live within our means.
Mr. Speaker, today is the defining moment for this Congress and this
country as we face the 21st century. It is right around the corner. We
may never have another moment like this if we cling to the past, if we
deny our children, if we deny our grandchildren and those not even born
yet a promising and prosperous future.
We must put an end to this terrible debt burden that is dragging us
down and denying us the opportunity to confront the new century with
renewed hope, with renewed opportunity.
Confronting and conquering great challenges is what this country is
all about and what we as Representatives of the people should be all
about. Let us not shrink from that challenge.
I want Members to support this rule. I want Members to support a
balanced budget plan that will bring a brighter tomorrow, regardless of
which one of these four balanced budgets comes to a final vote. That is
the one we have got to vote for in the end. We have got to do it for
America.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the following document for the Record:

[[Page H5109]]
DEBATE & AMENDMENTS ON HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTIONS, 1989-1994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total time
Year Budget res. Rule number General debate Amendments Vote on rule consumed\1\
time (hours) allowed (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989... H. Con. Res. 106. H. Res. 145\2\... 5-hours (2 HH).. 5 (3-D; 2-R).... Adopted: voice.. 12\1/2\
1990... H. Con. Res. 310. H. Res. 382\3\... 6-hours (3 HH).. 4 (1-D; 3-R).... Adopted: voice.. 13
1991... H. Con. Res. 121. H. Res. 123\4\... 5-hours (2 HH).. 4 (1-D; 3-R).... Adopted: 392-9.. 11
1992... H. Con. Res. 287. H. Res. 386\5\... 3-hours (1 HH).. 3 (1-D; 2-R).... Adopted: 239-182 13\1/2\
1993... H. Con. Res. 64.. H. Res. 131...... 10-hours (4 HH). ................ Adopted: voice.. 16
H. Res. 133\6\... 4 (2-D; 2-R).... Adopted: 251-172
1994... H. Con. Res. 218. H. Res. 384\7\... 4-hours (1 HH).. 5 (3-D; 2-R).... Adopted: 245-171 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes hour on rule, general debate time, and debate time on all amendments, but does not include time
taken on rollcall votes and walking-around time.
\2\Of the 5 amendments, one was an amendment by the Chairman of the Budget Committee (30-minutes), followed by 4
substitutes under king-of-the-hill procedure: Dannemeyer (1-hr.); Dellums (3-hrs.); Kasich (1-hr.); Gephardt
(1-hr.)
\3\General debate began on April 25th under a unanimous consent request agreed to on April 24th. Four substitute
amendments were allowed under king-of-the-hill procedures: Kasich (1-hr.); Dannemeyer (1-hr.); Dellums (2-
hrs.); and Frenzel (2-hrs.).
\4\Of the 4 amendments allowed, one was a perfecting amendment by Rep. Ford of Michigan (1-hr.), followed by 3
substitutes under king-of-the-hill: Dannemeyer (1-hr.); Kasich (1-hr): and Gradison (2-hrs.).
\5\Three substitutes were allowed under king-of-the-hill: Dannemeyer (30-mins.); Gradison (1-hr.); and Towns-
Dellums (8-hrs.).
\6\Of the 10-hours of general debate, 2-hours were allocated to the Budget Committee; 4-hours for Humphrey-
Hawkins; 2-hours to discuss the Mfume substitute; and 1-hour to discuss the Solomon substitute. This was
followed by 4 substitutes under king-of-the-hill: Kasich (2-hrs.); Solomon (1-hr.); Mfume (1-hr.); and Sabo
(identical to base resolution, 1-hr.).
\7\In addition to the hour on Humphrey-Hawkins, Reps. Kasich and Mfume each were given one hour of general
debate to discuss their substitutes. Five substitutes were allowed under king-of-the-hill subject to one-hour
of debate each, with the last being identical to the reported budget resolution.

Source: Rules Committee Calendars (Note: HH stands for Humphrey-Hawkins debate).

TIMING OF HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTIONS, 1989-1994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Date
Year Budget res. ordered report Date rule Date House Days report
reported filed granted took-up BR available\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989... H. Con. Res. 106......................... 4/27/89 5/2/89 5/2/89 5/3/89 1
1990... H. Con. Res. 310......................... 4/19/90 4/23/90 4/25/90 \2\4/25/90 2
1991... H. Con. Res. 121......................... 4/9/91 4/12/91 4/15/91 4/16/91 4
1992... H. Con. Res. 287......................... 2/27/92 3/2/92 3/3/92 3/4/92 2
1993... H. Con. Res. 64.......................... 3/10/93 3/15/93 3/16/93 3/17/93 2
1994... H. Con. Res. 218......................... 3/3/94 3/8/94 3/9/94 3/10/94 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Days of report availability assumes report was available on the day after it was filed and includes the day
on which the budget resolution was taken up by the House.
\2\General debate begun by unanimous consent; rule was adopted the following day.

Sources: House Calendars; H.I.S.; Congressional Quarterly Almanacs.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the consideration of this budget resolution shows the
American people that Republicans can offer balanced budgets. The debate
we are beginning here in the House today is not whether we balance the
Federal budget, but rather, how. And it is how Republicans want to
balance the budget that should be the focus of our debate today.
Mr. Speaker, this proposal to balance the Federal budget contains
$350 billion in tax cuts. These tax cuts will amount to $20,000 per
person for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. At the same time this
budget is handing the most fortunate in our society a sizeable tax
break, the Republican budget is asking the rest of the country to
swallow unnecessarily large cuts in programs such as Medicare and
student loans.
In order to make these cuts and to finance this subsidy for the
wealthiest of our citizens, Medicare recipients will pay an additional
$1,000 a year more for their health care by the year 2002. When we
think of that extra $1,000, we should remember that 83 percent of
Medicare benefits go to seniors with incomes of $25,000 or less.
Not only will Medicare recipients pay more, hospitals will bear an
unfair burden. The President and CEO of the Navarro Regional Hospital
in my congressional district, Harvey Fishero, wrote to me this week to
express his deep concerns about Medicare and Medicaid cuts envisioned
in the Republican budget. He said, and I quote, ``Medicare and Medicaid
targets set by the Budget Committee are unacceptable, unsustainable and
must be lowered. These reductions are much too severe and are
implemented too fast for the Medicare system to handle.'' He says that
by the year 2000, Medicare PPS operating margins would fall to -20.6
percent and hospitals would lose $1,300 in PPS payments for every
Medicare recipient.
Republicans will try to deny that young Americans may be forced to
forgo the dream of a college education because this budget will
increase the costs of college loans. It is estimated that because of
the elimination of the in-school interest subsidy envisioned in the
Republican budget, students may pay up to $5,000 more for their college
loans. And, when we think of recipients of guaranteed student loans, we
should remember that the average family income of students receiving
these subsidies is $35,000.
But, Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget is right here in black and
white. Glib explanations of slowing growth and block grants and saving
programs cannot explain away $350 billion in tax cuts. Those
explanations cannot make what is printed on these pages go away. They
cannot explain why this budget asks those who are least able to
contribute the most.
Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues spent a good deal of their time
in the Rules Committee yesterday asking for alternatives. They were
asking for these alternatives while three alternatives had already been
submitted for the committee's consideration. One of those alternatives,
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] and the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Owens], on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus,
was made in order by this resolution. Another, offered by the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], was not. Both of those proposals presented
the committee with serious policy alternatives to the Republican
budget.
A third alternative was also submitted to the Rules Committee, That
proposal was developed on behalf of the conservative wing of the
Democratic party by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] and the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. That proposal presented the
committee with a very viable alternative to the Republican budget. The
major difference between the Orton-Stenholm budget and the Republican
budget goes back to the basic question of how do we balance the Federal
budget. The Orton-Stenholm proposal recognizes that cutting taxes and
balancing the budget might present a fundamental conflict. Yet, it
seemed for much of the
day yesterday this alternative would not be made in order.

This alternative will, however, be considered by the House. But it
will be considered only because the Democratic leader, Mr. Gephardt
will offer it, not because its authors were given the opportunity to
offer their proposal in their own right. Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear
that had Mr. Gephardt not agreed to put his name on this alternative,
the House would have been denied the opportunity to consider a very
responsible Democratic budget alternative.
Mr. Speaker, I have many requests for time today, so I will conclude.
But, I must register my opposition to this rule. Mr. Orton and Mr.
Stenholm have been shortchanged by this rule as has Mr. Dingell. And,
because they have been shortchanged, so have the American people. I
believe the American people want and deserve better than what this
resolution gives them.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H5110]]

Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. I would just say I think the gentleman knows I have a
good working relationship with the Democrat coalition. I have been
negotiating with them several days. Much of what you said, though, just
is not true because the gentleman does not know the details of the
negotiations that went on. I assure you that we would have taken care
of them. We just wanted the Democrat leadership to present an
alternative that he would vote for. It will be interesting to see if he
does.
I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr.
Goss], one of the very distinguished members of the Committee on Rules;
he has been invaluable in developing the balanced budget concept for
many years on this floor, and he is one of the most respected Members.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules for yielding me this time. I commend him for this
extraordinarily fair rule on this vital issue, and, of course, I also
have to commend him for his brilliant substitute with the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] that we will be discussing.
By sticking to the announced parameters that the only substitutes
allowed will be those that bring the budget into balance by 2002, this
rule ensures that we move beyond the question of if we balance our
books within 7 years to how we will reach that goal. And that is truly
a remarkable turnabout from the years past.
Still, of course, we have the liberal naysayers who seem to prefer
the status quo. The impact of the status quo is really letting the ship
of state sail full speed ahead into the rocky cliffs of certain
bankruptcy for certain programs, as we know, and, I believe, fiscal
calamity for our children and grandchildren, and as a grandfather, that
is not responsible.

{time} 1245

As a grandfather, that is not responsible. I am still amazed that the
President has refused to join this effort and has abdicated all
responsibility for mapping out a strategy to bring our budget into
balance within the specified period of time. This rule does offer the
President a final chance, and it is fair. It is a place holder, in case
he has a change of heart in this crucial issue and decides he was to be
relevant to the debate after all.
In addition, this rule allows three other proposals to be offered
under the standing procedure of the House, including a proposal I am
proud to cosponsor offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Neumann] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] that charts a
path to a balanced budget within 5 years instead of 7.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that doing nothing really is
disaster. We have a moral responsibility in our country to bring this
budget into balance. The mess we are in certainly did not come about
overnight. It took decades to accumulate nearly $5 trillion in debt. By
the way, that is still growing today, as we speak, under the Clinton
budget. Cleaning up the mess will not be easy, but it must be done, and
the first step lies, obviously, in balancing the annual budget.
I am proud of the extraordinary effort of the gentleman from Ohio,
Chairman Kasich, and his Committee on the Budget. They have
demonstrated that we can indeed have a balanced budget by 2002. They
have attacked waste and fraud; they have attacked abuse, reviewing
every program in the Federal budget to set priorities.
I am gratified that they have included many of my discretionary
spending suggestions totaling more than $30 billion it seems in savings
over 5 years as we proceed through the processes. I would note to
Members that they can review the rest of my list of 75 proposed cuts
that save $275 billion over 5 years if there are specific discretionary
cuts suggested in the Kasich budget they strongly oppose and they would
like to replace them in months ahead.
Equally important, the Committee on the Budget has acted to save
Medicare, a program headed for collapse, unless we do something. Again,
doing nothing is disaster for Medicare. This is a program that is in
fact going broke, part A.
Let it be clear to you: Under the budget blueprint before us today,
per capita Medicare spending is set to increase by more than 33 percent
in the next 7 years. Only in the minds of status quo Washington
liberals would that be translated into a cut. I know the increase in
Medicare is good for seniors. I am one. I am also a grandfather, as I
said, and I think I have responsibility to both seniors and to my
children and grandchildren.
Sure, it is going to get hot in this kitchen. But to my friends on
the other side of the aisle who seem more interested in hot and hateful
rhetoric about the rich and in the cool comfort of the status quo, I
say if you cannot stand the heat, then find a door and exit the
kitchen, and let those of us willing to take the risk, to meet the
challenge, to get on with the recipe for saving the American dream for
our children and grandchildren.
Vote for this rule, please, and for the Kasich balanced budget as
well.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the ranking member and former chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing me this
time to speak.
Mr. Speaker, why are Republicans cutting Medicare to pay a tax break
for the very, very rich? I cannot for the life of me figure it out why
my Republican colleagues would want to give a big fat tax break to the
very rich, so badly, that they would slash Medicare to the point that
by the year 2002 every senior citizen will have to pay an additional
$1,000 a year out of his pocket. But I did not sign that contract on
America, Mr. Speaker, so there are things that I really do not
understand about it.
But I am glad I did not, because this budget inspired by the contract
will cut money from student loans, medical research, and LIHEAP. And,
because of this budget, Boston teaching hospitals alone stand to lose
over $700 million during the next 7 years, 20,000 Boston families will
not have heat in the winter, and the cost of a college education will
go up $5,000 per student.
Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends say that this budget represents
tough choices. It does. But I ask, tough on whom? It certainly is not
tough on anyone in this Chamber, and it is certainly not tough on
anyone earning over $200,000 per year. But let me tell you who it is
tough on. It is tough on those struggling families who will not be able
to send their kids to college. It is tough on those American senior
citizens who may have to go without heat in the winter and who will
definitely be paying higher medical bills. And it is tough on the most
vulnerable in our society.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the interests of seniors, in the
interest of students, to oppose this Republican budget, and give up the
idea of a tax break for the very, very rich. Let us come up with a real
budget bill, Mr. Speaker, that does not harm the people who need help,
and not help the people who do not need it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Atlanta, GA [Mr. Linder], another very distinguished member of the
Committee on Rules, who has been a real asset to this body since he
came here.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for House
Resolution 142, the rule which allows for the consideration of several
balanced budget proposals. Only 7 months ago it would have been
impossible to imagine debating a bill to actually balance the budget by
the year 2002.
Under the rule the House will have a historic opportunity tomorrow to
fully debate and consider four balanced budget resolutions. In fact,
the rule allows for a fifth balanced budget proposal, one from the
President of the United States. While I am pleased the rule provides
him with that opportunity, it appears that the President has decided to
forfeit any leadership on the issue of America's financial stability.
In February I watched as President Clinton and House and Senate
Democrats refused to support the balanced budget amendment. I now
realize that [[Page H5111]] they are incapable of curbing their
irresponsible spending habits, so they have decided to play politics
with our Nation's future.
Americans understand the fiscal trouble the Nation is in and the
tough measures required to fix the mess. We must do something about the
deficit and the debt now. We are out of tomorrows. The debt and deficit
costs all of us money in the form of higher taxes, higher interest
rates, and a slower economy. Moreover, it is immoral for this
generation to leave our children the bill for our excesses.
Our current financial crisis is as much a threat to our Nation's
children and grandchildren as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were to
children half a century ago. House Republicans have pledged to balance
the budget in 7 years. The generation of World War II saved the world
in less time, but we need a united front on this too.
The change in the size of the Federal Government we propose will
affect all Americans in some way. If we are incapable of sticking
together to get control of our fiscal affairs, America will collapse
from within. America is capable of solving problems. I believe we will
rally together to do it again. I believe the American people are up to
this challenge.
All around us Americans are discovering better ways to do everything.
Yet the Federal Government remains the least-changed institution in
America society and the President and his party seem satisfied with
that. In times of crisis, Americans pull together. We can no longer
skirt the issue, although administration officials Tyson and Panetta
have tried to.
As in World War II, we need the talents and skills of every
individual. This notion is not too romantic for us to conceive that
with the help of the American people, we will balance the budget,
provide a safe and prosperous future for our children, and save our
country.
The rule under discussion gives House Members the opportunity to vote
on legislation to require the Federal Government to live under the same
budget constraints that every American family lives under. We are
running out of chances. We are running out of choices. I urge my
colleagues to support the rule that will allow this historic debate.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], a member of the committee.
(Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and to
the budget resolution, as reported by the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the rule, and to the
budget resolution, as reported by the Budget Committee.
Mr. Speaker, we are opposing this rule because of our objections to
the way the majority has treated the minority in developing this rule.
There was no valid reason for the majority members of the Rules
Committee to deny the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] the opportunity to present to the
House, under their own names, a budget plan that they themselves
authored.
The Stenholm-Orton plan, which under this rule would be offered by
the minority leader, is a far more sensible and equitable alternative
than the Budget Committee's plan. It offers a way of reaching the same
goal as the Budget Committee's plan--a balanced budget in 7 years--
through spending cuts that are much more modest and reasonable.
Among other things, the Stenholm-Orton alternative would cut Medicare
by over $100 billion less over 7 years than the Budget Committee plan.
In fact, it would cut all entitlement programs--programs that provide
much-needed income for millions of Americans--by over $200 billion less
than the Budget Committee's plan. And, it
would provide $35 billion more for education and training, $11 billion
more for health, and $60 billion less for defense than the Budget
Committee's plan.

The Stenholm-Orton plan achieves the goal of a balanced budget in 7
years through less extreme cuts primarily by excluding the ill-advised,
$350 billion tax cut that the Budget Committee plan includes--a tax cut
which mostly benefits the very wealthiest Americans, and which is paid
for by cutting benefits for the most vulnerable Americans--the poor,
the elderly, and children.
As the Stenholm-Orton plan, and the other two plans that will be
offered under this rule--the Payne-Owens substitute and the Neumann-
Solomon substitute--demonstrate, there are different ways to reach a
balanced budget over a 7-year time period. That is why few of us
objected to the ground rules for this debate--that all substitutes
offered as alternatives to the Budget Committee's plan would also need
to achieve a balanced budget by 2002.
The question we have to ask in considering each alternative is: Does
this plan provide a fair and equitable way to balance the budget?
The answer, in the case of the Budget Committee's plan, quite
clearly, is no.
With its $350 billion tax cut, that benefits the wealthy, and its
preservation of corporate tax breaks--and its extreme cuts in Medicare
and in dozens of other programs which benefit average Americans, the
Budget Committee's plan provides for a huge transfer of resources from
the poor, from children, from the elderly, to the rich. It is a plan
that hurts those who need the most help from Government, and helps
those who needs it the least. In terms of social policy, it makes no
sense whatsoever.
What is more, the claim that this budget favors children is
debatable. It is true, of course, that it would be a good thing for our
children to inherit less debt from us. But what kind of country are we
leaving for them if we cut education and job training and highways and
mass transit and environmental protection programs and energy research
and development and health research and public broadcasting? What kind
of opportunities will they have if college loans become unaffordable
and vocational training unavailable?
Many people speak of the Federal Government these days as though it
is completely disconnected from the American people when, in fact, our
Government is a very important part of almost every American's life.
Nearly everyone has a family member who is receiving Social Security
and Medicare. Millions of middle-class American families depend on the
Student Loan Program to educate their children. Millions of moderate-
income working Americans depend on the earned income tax credit to make
ends meet. Millions of Americans depend on
support from the Federal Government through all kinds of programs.

We should be spending less on some of these programs, but it is wrong
to cut them so that we can reduce taxes for wealthy Americans--those
who have already reaped the greatest economic rewards in recent years.
There should be shared sacrifice in our goal to reach a balanced
budget; instead, if the Budget Committee's plan is adopted, there will
be definite winners and losers. And, unfortunately, those who already
have the most will be the winners; those with the least will be the
losers.
Mr. Speaker, the Budget Committee's plan is flawed not only because
it is unfair, but also because it also raises serious doubts about
whether its promised reductions in deficits are achievable.
For one thing, by splitting the reconciliation process into two
separate measures--one for Medicare cuts, which are to be reported by
the Ways and Means and Commerce Committees by mid-September, and all
other cuts, which are to be reported by the appropriate committees by
mid-July--the Budget Committee plan increases the likelihood that the
$282 billion in Medicare cuts required by the plan will not be
achieved. The Republican leadership is likely to find that it is far
more difficult to enact these extremely deep cuts in Medicare if they
are not part of a larger deficit-reduction plan that applies to more
than one group of Americans.
In addition, the Budget Committee plan relies on extremely optimistic
economic assumptions to achieve a balanced budget by 2002. This is
particularly true with respect to the plan's projected interest rates,
which many nonpartisan economists have said are unrealistically low.
The level of interest rates, of course, has a tremendous bearing on the
amount the Federal Government will need to spend on interest payments
on the national debt.
Mr. Speaker, again, we do not object to considering a plan to balance
the budget over the next 7 years. In fact, many of us--particularly
those of us who have spent many years struggling with the deficit
problem--are very pleased that the debate, as many Members have pointed
out recently, has moved from whether we should balance the budget over
the 7 years, to how we should do it. The Republican leadership, and in
particular, the chairman of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], deserves a great deal of credit for that change.
However, as I said earlier, we do object to the way in which the rule
treats the Stenholm-Orton plan, and I urge a no vote on the rule for
that reason. I also urge our colleagues to vote no on the Budget
Committee's budget plan.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, this debate comes down to one very simple
question: Do you think we should cut [[Page H5112]] Medicare, Medicaid,
and Social Security in order to pay for tax cuts for the privileged
few?
In the next 2 days, we are going to see a lot of charts and numbers
on this floor.
But this debate is not just about numbers. It is about people.
People like Margaret Leslie--who I have a picture of here today.
Today, Margaret is a lovely lady and proud senior citizen who lives
in my district.
But 51 years ago she was known to her friends as ``Margie the
Riveter.''
When she was young, she answered the call of this country--and helped
build the B-20's that helped the Allies win World War II.
Like most people of her generation, today Margaret lives on Social
Security.
After paying for her rent, her medicine, her Medicare premium, and
her MediGap premium she's left with about $130 each month to pay for
food, bills, heat, and everything else.
And she struggles to make ends meet.
But instead of trying to make Margaret's life easier today this
Republican budget is going to make her life harder.
The budget before us today will take $240 out of Margaret's Social
Security check.
And over the next 7 years, it will force her to pay an additional
$3,500 for Medicare.
Not to balance the budget. Not to cut the deficit.
The Republicans are cutting Medicare for one reason and one reason
only: To pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest people and the
wealthiest corporations in our country.
The Wall Street Journal calls this plan the biggest tax-saving
bonanza in years for upper income Americans. And if you're a wealthy
corporation you might not have to pay any taxes at all.
The last time Republicans were in power, 130 of the top 250
corporations paid no taxes at all for at least 1 year. We changed that
law, but this budget changes it right back.
Now did the Republicans target the $200 billion we dole out in
corporate tax breaks each year? No.
Did the Republicans target billionaires who get $3.6 billion in tax
breaks for renouncing their American citizenship? No.
Instead, they targeted senior citizens and working families. And
don't just take my word for it.
Last week, the New York Times revealed the contents of a secret
Republican memo.
Under the Republican plan Medicare deductibles will double, premiums
will go up by 50 percent, copayments will increase, care will be
rationed, and the choice of doctors will be limited.
Mr. Speaker, this won't just affect seniors.
How is the average working family going to pay for the cost of caring
for their parents and their grandparents?
And don't come to this floor today and tell us you're trying to save
the Medicare system. As Margaret Leslie says, ``Republicans haven't
cared about Medicare for 30 years. We're not about to believe you
now.''
Mr. Speaker, this debate is not just about numbers. It's about basic
dignity.
People like Margaret Leslie stood by this country in time of war and
peace. And we must stand by them today. That is the sacred promise we
made on Medicare--and it's time we live up to that promise.
But this budget is a broken promise.
And at the end of the day, senior citizens and working families
throughout this country will be asking one question: why are
Republicans cutting Medicare and cutting Social Security in order to
give tax breaks to the wealthiest people and the wealthiest
corporations in this country?
I urge my colleagues to say no to this rule. And say no to this
budget.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. I read in the same paper, though, that Speaker Gingrich
promises that while these cuts are big, they will be painless. Will
they be painless for Margaret Leslie?
Mr. BONIOR. Reclaiming my time, they clearly are not painless. People
like Margaret Leslie who stood by the country in the time of war and
peace deserve a much better break than what Speaker Gingrich and the
Republicans are offering in the way of higher deductibles and premiums
in this particular bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to my dear friend,
the chairman of the Committee on Rules, one of the most gentlemanly,
courteous, gracious, and most well-liked Members of this body. He has
always figures, however, how we could come up with closed rules which
appear to be open rules.
Now, with all affection and all respect for my good friend, I had a
little amendment which I appeared before the Committee on Rules with. I
received the same gracious attention I always do up there, and I want
the gentleman to know how grateful I am for both his friendship and the
kind way he treated me.

{time} 1300

He did not treat me kindly enough because he did not allow the
offering of the amendment. And the amendment offers a really good
choice, something which the gentleman from New York and the Committee
on Rules have denied this House again.
So I am compelled now to call my dear friend ``closed rule Solomon''
because he presents us these wonderful rules which in fact do not
permit the House to have a fair exposition of the business before it or
to engage in a proper discussion of all the important questions.
The amendment that I would have offered was specifically designed to
address the problems associated with the policy direction that many in
the House are moving with respect to block grants. It would have
allowed the return of Medicaid and four welfare block grants to the
States over a 5-year phaseout period. Better than $539 billion in
savings would have been generated. I would have taken as a base text
the language of my Republican colleagues' bill. It would have restored
$282 billion. It would have permitted $18 billion to be returned to
graduated student loans, and it would have allowed $50 billion to go to
the middle-income people in forms of a tax cut which would have
redistributed the moneys in a way which would not only have been fairer
but could have contributed more greatly and speedily to the well-being
of this country and to the assistance of the middle class.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. I just want to tell the gentleman that there are two
Democrat alternatives, two Republicans. The gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Gephardt] was given the choice between you and the other one. He
could have made that choice. If the gentleman would see Mr. Gephardt, I
think that would solve his problem.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, that is a very artful point that the
gentleman makes. I want to commend his for it. As a dialectician, he
has few peers. However, the hard fact of the matter is that to say we
are going to give us two choices and give you two choices does not
allow a real debate. All giving two choices is is it limits the choices
before the House to four questions.
It does not allow us to specifically address whether or not we are,
for example, cutting Medicare, which, in fact, we are. Nor does it
allow us to properly address the cuts in Medicaid or student loans or
school lunches or title I education funding or veterans' medical care
or low-income heating assistance, all of which proposals are being
savaged by the Republican budget. It does not give us time to debate
them. It does not give the House an opportunity to consider amendments
dealing with these different points.
I love the gentleman from New York. He is one of the finest men
around here. I enjoy my little skirmishes with him up in the Committee
on Rules more than I can say, but the hard fact of the matter is, even
with his charm and skill, the distinguished gentleman from New York
cannot deny that, in fact, this is a gag rule which is going to
foreclose the House from proper consideration of some of the most
important [[Page H5113]] questions, not only for this year but for the
7 years which follow.
I again express my respect for my good friend, ``closed rule
Solomon.''
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, why are the Republicans cutting Medicare to
pay for a tax break for the rich? And two of the people who want to
know more about this are in the Kierklewski family in Austin, TX. Louis
is 94 years young; his son Ed is 62. They are among millions of
American citizens who will suffer from the broken promises contained in
this budget resolution. Louis and Ed were among 200 senior citizens and
people that were concerned with them in Austin, TX, last Saturday who
came together to express their great concern about the broken promises
that are composed in this Republican budget.
Louis Kierklewski has devoted his life to hard work. He repaired
looms in a textile factory until that job gave out. Then he went to
work at the church as a janitor. And now all he has for economic
sustenance is a $549 Social Security check and his Medicare. And he
already has to spend out of that $195 just for prescriptions because
Medicare, as important as it is, does not cover prescriptions.
And Ed--Ed worked 20 years defending this country in the U.S. Air
Force. Now he is working as a custodian, moving towards retirement. And
he and his wife are worried, and they have good reason to worry about
this Republican budget.
The Republicans propose to double, and they did not bother telling us
about this in the Committee on the Budget but we found out later
through their secret memos, to double the deductible that Louis so
going to have to pay and that in a couple years Ed is going to have to
pay and then keep raising the deductible after they have doubled it
year after year after year.
Now, if in fact Louis needs to go to the lab, he is going to have to
pay extra money under the Republican plan. And if Ed decides that he
needs home health care, he will have to pay extra money for that.
If Ed or Louis had the audacity to say, we want the same doctor we
have always had, well, the Republicans are going to charge them $20
each per month to claim their own doctor. And meanwhile, their premiums
will go up month after month, year after year under this Republican
plan. That is why the AARP, the retired persons group, calls this
Republican plan a sick tax on the most frail and vulnerable seniors in
our society.
I guess the problem is that the Republicans had old Captain Crunch
over there with the number crunchers at the Committee on the Budget,
crunching away at the budget, but what they forgot about is that when
you crunch numbers in a budget, sometimes you crunch human beings like
Louis and Ed Kierklewski, the kind of people who built this into the
greatest Nation in the world.
When the Republicans crunch the numbers this time they are really
crushing every American who is dependent on Medicare or hopes to be in
the future.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
(Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule,
although I do so somewhat reluctantly.
When I joined with 23 of my conservative Democratic colleagues to
form the coalition, I did so in an effort to help lift the debate on
important issues before the House above petty partisan politics. So far
this Congress, members of the coalition have succeeded in avoiding
petty partisan maneuvering.
Congressmen Orton, Stenholm, Browder, Peterson, and myself authored a
budget proposal that we feel a majority of Americans will support. We
feel it approaches a balanced budget in a more common sense, less
painful approach than does the Kasich proposal.
However, when we went to the Rules Committee to ask that our proposal
be allowed time on the floor, we were met by opposition. The Republican
controlled committee, under pressure from their leadership, did not
want to allow our proposal floor time. I do not know why--maybe they
are worried that our proposal is the one that a majority of Congress,
including Republicans, would support.
The Democratic leadership has risen above the partisan maneuvering
and has allowed the coalition to offer our plan in the slot normally
reserved for the minority leadership's proposal. As it turns out, this
gesture by the Democratic leadership, was the only chance for our plan
to be heard on the floor.
I am glad my party's leadership has chosen to rise above the petty
partisan politics of today. I only hope that in the future, the
Republican leadership will also choose to abandon the old ways of
partisan maneuvering and provide equal opportunity for all voices to be
heard.
Mr. Speaker, because of Leader Gephardt's offer of floor time, I urge
my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce]. She is one of the new members of the
Committee on Rules and an outstanding Member of this body.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of
this rule. By adopting this rule, we will debate and then pass a plan
to balance the Federal budget within 7 years. That statement could not
have been made in this Chamber a year ago. But things have changed, and
after the November elections there should be no question about the will
of the American people.
They expect us to be courageous enough to make the difficult choices
that some naysayers in this body have been avoiding for decades now.
But thinking in terms of the future is not always easy. There is
comfort in the status quo and there are those who will use almost any
tactic to preserve it. We have already seen this morning the Committee
on the Budget's good work portrayed as attacks on seniors and children.
We have heard actual increases in spending being called cuts. But
despite these scare tactics and blatant misuse of the English language,
I am confident that our seniors will appreciate the steps we are taking
to preserve and protect and improve Medicare, a program which would be
bankrupt in 7 short years if we do not act.
The plan crafted by the Committee on the Budget offers solutions no
more complicated or profound than those employed every day by hard
working, responsible families who play by the rules, pay the bills and
make ends meet.
This is a fair and balanced rule. It calls for honest debate on four
very different proposals to bring the budget into balance. Two
Democratic ones and two Republican ones, and we are still holding
things open for the President's plan. I hope we see it.
But I encourage every Member to watch this debate closely.
Substitutes will be considered under the regular order of the House.
Nothing fancy, nothing tricky. This rule was not designed to give
political cover. Every vote counts.
So, Mr. Speaker, on this historic day, I urge my colleagues to adopt
this reasonable rule and get on with the task ahead. Anything less
would deprive America's children of their potential, the kind of safe
and prosperous future they deserve.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, why are Republicans cutting Medicare to pay
for tax breaks for the privileged few?
That's what my constituents Julius and Dottie Ruskin of West Haven,
CT, who are pictured here, want to know.
The Republicans have promised tax giveaways to the most well-off in
our society, and now they have to pay for those promises by taking away
from the most vulnerable among us--senior citizens on Medicare like
Julius and Dottie.
The Republicans claim that their budget plan demands fair shared
sacrifice to balance the budget. But where's the sacrifice from people
making more than $350,000, they get a $20,000 tax break under the
Republican plan. Where's the sacrifice from all the beneficiaries of
corporate welfare, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee refuses to close their special interest loopholes. The
primary sacrifice demanded by the Republicans is from seniors like
Julius and Dottie Ruskin who depend on Medicare. [[Page H5114]]
This sacrifice isn't fair, and it isn't shared.
The Republican plan would cut Medicare by $288 billion. The average
senior in Connecticut would pay $1,167 more a year in out-of-pocket
expenses by the year 2002. The Republican plan means that the Ruskins
will pay more every time they go to the doctor.
This plan will increase the annual deductible seniors must pay for
doctor's services from $100 to $150. It will nearly double the monthly
premium from $46 to $84 by the year 2002, an increase of $456 a year
for seniors. It will add a 20-percent sick tax for home health care and
laboratory tests.
Let me tell you about the Ruskins. Julius and Dottie live on Social
Security and his Armstrong/Pirelli Tire Co. pension for a total annual
income of about $14,000 per year. Just last month his doctor visits and
medication costs totaled $10,000.
But their biggest concern is that the Republican plan may force them
into an HMO and limit their choice of doctors. Julius sees six doctors,
most of them specialists, and Dottie sees three doctors, and it is
important to them to maintain these special relationships. The
Republican plan threatens this trusted care that they now receive.
The Republicans may be keeping their promises to the privileged few.
But they're breaking our Nation's historic promise to seniors like
Julius and Dottie Ruskin.

{time} 1315

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Ms. DeLAURO. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I notice that the former Republican
Secretary of HEW has warned the Republicans not to go down in history
as the party that destroyed Medicare. I wonder whether these cuts will
destroy Medicare for this family.
Ms. DeLAURO. For Dottie and Julius, their lives would be destroyed by
the cuts that are in the Republican plan to cut Medicare. Make no bones
about it, these are cuts and the Republicans need to face up to that.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, while the photograph is still up there, I think the
gentlewoman has our plan mixed up with the President's health care plan
last year. That would have forced couples into HMO's; nor our plan.
Second, that same couple now receive $400 in Medicare benefits. Under
our plan it will go to $12,600. That is quite a difference. That couple
is going to be lucky if our plan passes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished and
outstanding gentlewoman from Salt Lake City, UT [Mrs. Waldholtz], a new
member of the Committee on Rules.
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, today we begin the most critical debate
this Congress will undertake. This debate is critical, it is about how
to balance the Federal budget, not whether we are going to do it, and
how to stop piling up debt for services and programs that we use now
but that our children are going to have to pay for.
Mr. Speaker, I said how we balance the budget, not whether we balance
the budget, because we have already had the easy part of this debate.
Earlier this year, 300 Members of this House voted in favor of a
balanced budget amendment, and we only need 218 votes to actually pass
a balanced budget. It is easy to say we should balance the budget in
the abstract. It takes courage and commitment, Mr. Speaker, to set
priorities and make the difficult decisions that will actually balance
this budget and preserve our Nation's future. In the next 48 hours, the
American people will see who is willing to balance this budget and who
is willing just to talk about it.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Rules, let me say I am
very proud of the committee's decision to only allow out onto this
floor budgets that balance in 7 years. This requirement was clearly
communicated, not only to every Member of the House, but also to the
President. I think it is very regrettable that the President chose not
to participate in this critical turning point for our Nation, and did
not provide us with a balanced budget that reflects his priorities and
ideas as to how to end the financial calamity we face as a Nation.
However, this debate is not just about our children, as critical and
important as that is. My parents are 75 years old. They just celebrated
their golden wedding anniversary. Now, after a lifetime of work and
sacrifice for their family and for their country, the Medicare trustees
tell them that in 7 years there will be no money for their hospital
care, no money for their home health care when they will need it the
most.
This Republican budget plan will preserve and protect Medicare, not
stand by and criticize and hope that no one holds us accountable when
senior citizens lose their health care in 7 years.
Mr. Speaker, I am also proud of the fact that this rule does not use
the old king-of-the-hill process used in prior Congresses that allowed
Members to vote for amendments they knew would never become law, but
that provided them political cover at home.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for a fair, honest debate on how we
balance the budget. It is time to do it for our children, it is time to
do it for our parents. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and
end decade of lack of responsibility and balance the budget.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, this morning if Members watched ``Good Morning America''
or other news shows, they talked about American heroes in Oklahoma
City, and our heart goes out to these wonderful men and women who
sacrificed so much, and at many times put their own lives in peril, to
help others.
I want to introduce Members to another American hero, a person who is
listening to this debate today very carefully, a person who wants to
know what this House of Representatives feels about Medicare and
Medicaid.
The person I want to introduce Members to is Mr. Solon Blundell of
Huntsville, AL. Here is an American hero. Mr. Blundell, 72 years old,
spent 20 years caring for his mother-in-law who had suffered a series
of strokes and was paralyzed. When he wanted to retire from his job as
an engineer, he was forced to work an additional 4 years so he could
have adequate funds and medical coverage to take care of his mother-in-
law.
If fate had not dealt him that tough card alone, it turns out that
his daughter Becky, suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease and now on a
respirator, must depend on Medicaid to make sure that her medical bills
are paid for. Mr. Blundell, in Huntsville, AL, and his wife are real
heroes and heroines, working across America as so many seniors do to
try to get by, to try to care for others.
Therefore, we have to ask ourselves this fundamental question. If
these people need this basic program of Medicare to provide help for
themselves and for others, why are the Republicans coming today to cut
Medicare under the Republican budget resolution?
They will tell us they are going to spend more money in a few years
on Medicare. That is true. What they do not tell us is that the actual
cost of Medicare is going to go up even higher than the money they are
providing. What they do not tell us is that more seniors will qualify
for Medicare, and they will not have the funds to provide it.
What does it mean to Mr. Blundell and so many other families across
America? It means more money out of pocket, it means more premiums, it
means more coinsurance payments, it means the loss of some Medicare
services. It leads to possible rationing. It could lead to eliminating
his family's choice of the doctor that they want.
Is that the vision of America that we want to see? In this debate on
a balanced budget, let us focus on why we are making these cuts. The
reasons the Republicans are cutting Medicare almost $300 billion is
because they need almost $300 billion to pay for tax cuts for the
wealthy.
Their plan that they put forward in this Chamber, which carried in
large part by Republican votes, gave tax breaks to wealthy individuals
making over $100,000 a year, and the most profitable corporations in
America. To plug that hole in the Treasury, where do they turn? The
program Mr. Blundell turns to every day to make sure that his mother-
in-law and now his daughter have adequate medical care. [[Page H5115]]
Mr. Speaker, I hope we will think twice. This debate is not about
statistics, it is not about a toteboard running in the background, it
is about real people and real American heroes.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I will take just a moment to correct the last speaker
that suggested that benefits for Medicare would go down. Actually,
under these proposals, individual, per person benefits increase from
$4,700 per person to $6,300 per person, so I would like to clear that
up.
I just want to compliment the Committee on Rules on turning out a
rule that is going to go down in the history books, if we are
successful, in getting on the glide path toward a balanced budget.
I was particularly concerned with what we have been living with for
the last 16 years, the so-called Gephardt rule that says ``Let us sort
of sneakily hide a vote to increase the debt ceiling within the rule
IL, that says `When you finally pass a budget resolution, you
automatically pass a bill that increases the debt ceiling to
accommodate the next fiscal year.''' I think this is a great rule. Let
us vote for it. Let us move on toward a balanced budget.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Jonesville, WI [Mr. Neumann], one of the freshmen Members of this
body who has brought a great deal of experience from the private
sector, especially about knowing how to balance a budget.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to sit her and watch
some of the pictures that were brought down here from the other side of
the aisle today, because when we talk about balancing the budget, this
is really about the future of a nation. It is not about numbers, it is
not about a lot of the things we hear the rhetoric about, it is about
the future of a nation. It is about the responsibility of this 104th
Congress to do what is right for the future of our country, both the
senior citizens, the people that are currently in the work force, and
for our children. That is really what it is all about.
I commend the Committee on Rules for bringing forth a balanced budget
proposal, the Neumann-Solomon proposal, that will actually balance the
budget in 5 years, with the family tax cuts fully implemented. It also
does something that we did not hear much about out here in this
Congress when I came. That is it also contains a detailed plan on how
to go about paying off that awful $4.8 trillion debt. We do it over the
next 30 years.
The third thing our plan does that is very significant is that it
does not use the surplus funds collected in the Social Security system
to reduce the deficit, or in balancing the budget. It is very
significant for our senior citizens to know that we do have a proposal
out here on the floor of the House to be voted on tomorrow that
literally sets aside the surplus funds for the Social Security system,
so the Social Security system is solvent to the year 2030.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, this plan is very, very versatile, and will also
allow a lot of input from both sides of the aisle, as well as the
American people, in that it does not spell out specifically the
reductions that are needed, but rather, lists the reductions that are
needed to get to a balanced budget, and $70 billion in addition, so we
can debate them over the course of the summer.
I urge my colleagues to do what is right for the future of our
country: support the rule, support the Neumann-Solomon amendment
tomorrow.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Morris, IL [Mr. Weller], another distinguished Member of this body.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support
of living within our means. For over a generation, the tax-and-spend
liberals who ran this Congress for over 40 years have stiffed our kids
and our families with a massive national debt now totaling $4.8
trillion. That is $18,000 for every man, woman, and child in this room
and throughout our country.
The tax-and-spend liberals in the Democratic Party have behaved like
a drunk out on the town with someone else's credit card. The children
are the ones who will suffer, because liberals always leave someone
else to pay the tab.
This budget is our contract with our Nation's children. We will
balance this budget to ensure that our children have a future free of
debt and full of economic opportunity. We will balance the budget by
cutting spending first. We will eliminate bureaucracy, wasteful
spending, and programs that simply are not working. We will return
power to families, communities, and States.
We are providing tax relief for families. It is time for leadership.
It is time to live within our means. It is time to protect Medicare and
protect Social Security. Republicans are keeping our promise. I rise in
support of the rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to a very distinguished
Member, the gentleman from Ocala, FL [Mr. Stearns].
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to commend the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon] for this rule. I want to say one thing.
Every term I have been here in Congress I have been trying to repeal
the Gephardt rule which was put in in 1976, that says we can go ahead
and increase the debt around here without a vote.
I see in this rule, the gentleman has taken the courageous step to go
forward and say ``no, sir, we are going to have to vote on increasing
the debt.'' I commend the gentleman for that. I think all the Members
in Congress should recognize that we have changed history in this
matter. I would like to see the same action in the following years, as
well as Congress in the future.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Florida,
we have accomplished that because of him.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, in order to close, I yield my remaining time
to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt]
is recognized for 4 minutes.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge Republicans and
Democrats alike to defeat this rule, and give this Congress an honest
and open debate about this Republican budget and its consequences for
hardworking American families.
The fact is the Republicans want to force this budget through the
Congress without adequate debate. This budget was produced in the
Committee on the Budget, and a vote was had on it the same day, an
unprecedented rush to bring it through the committee before anyone
could even know what was in it. If this rule passes, we cannot even
consider all of the Democratic alternatives to the Republican budget.
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] has an alternative that he
wanted to bring. It is not in order. The gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Stenholm] and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] wanted to bring a
budget. They were not allowed to do it. They were told they had to do
it through me.
This is one of the most important changes in the budget we have ever
had, and we are in such a rush to get it done before, I guess, anyone
can find out really what is in it, that we are not having an open,
small d, democratic process, which this country deserves.
The people deserve to know what is in this budget. We need to
consider every alternative, because if the American people are given a
moment to consider it, they will find the Republican budget is so much
more reckless, so much more extreme than any budget that has come
before, it really belongs in Guiness' Book of World Records.
{time} 1330

The largest Medicare cuts in history, slashing seniors' benefits by
more than $1,000 a year. And we can talk all day about what is a cut. I
will tell you what is a cut. A cut is what a senior citizen has to
face. They are going to face higher copays and higher deductibles and
higher premiums to buy the health insurance they have under Medicare
today. [[Page H5116]]
Further than that, a back-door cut in Social Security, in the
pension. Republicans took the oath. They made a hollow campaign promise
to protect America's retirement program. What did they do? The promise
is broken in this budget. There will be an annual cut in the cost of
living escalator in Social Security.
We heard it was off the table. It is on the table. So I guess we are
in a rush to get it done before anybody can find out what happened.
Social Security should not be on this budget. It was never expected
to be in this budget. It is in this budget. People deserve to know
about it before their Representatives have to vote on it.
Unprecedented cuts in student loans. The most important investment we
will ever make in the future of this country is student loans. But yet
we are going to have a cut that will shut millions of young people out
of their ability to get an education.
Mr. Speaker, these programs are not waste, fraud and abuse. They are
the backbone of the American dream. They are counted on by millions of
working families.
To make it worse, what is all this for? It is for a tax cut that
lavishes the most on those who have the most. The million richest
Americans walk away with a $20,000 average tax cut, while we are taking
$1,000 out of the pockets of senior citizens, or we are adding $5,000
to the cost of a student loan.
These are not American values. This is a redistribution from the
middle class of this country, and the people who are struggling to get
into the middle class, to the people who have it made.
We all want to get rich. Everybody should be able to live the
American dream, but this is not the way to do it. I urge Members to
vote against this rule.
Let's have every alternative on the table. Let's have a longer debate
than 6 hours over a budget that is going to decimate the middle class
of this country to help the richest people in the country. It is wrong,
and we need a full debate so the American people can see the wrongness
of this decision.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we would be glad to make those amendments
in order. If the President would give us his balanced budget, if the
previous speaker would give us his balanced budget, we will put it on
this floor. They have none. That is why it is not available.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from
Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier], a very distinguished member of the
Committee on Rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from
California is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. That
is what we have been getting from the other side of the aisle. Only in
Washington, DC., can an increase of from $4,700 to $6,300 for Medicare
recipients over a 7-year period be labeled a Draconian cut. Nowhere
else in the world would it possibly be considered that except on the
floor of this Congress.
This is a very fair and balanced rule.
Last year they gave us 4 hours for general debate. This year we are
providing 6 hours of general debate, a 50 percent increase over the
allotted time from last year.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen many of our colleagues come to the aisle
over the past few minutes with pictures of individuals who they claim
will be victimized by this budget. Yet virtually every single one of
them who stood in the well on January 26 of this year voted in favor of
one of the balanced budget amendments that would have, by the year
2002, brought us to a balanced budget. They talk about it and yet they
will not recognize that we have to make some modifications without
hurting those individuals if we are in fact going to get to a balanced
budget.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important vote. This is a very important
time for us as a Congress to step up to the plate and do the
responsible thing. We are not going to be hurting those students. We
are not going to be hurting senior citizens. It is nothing but
rhetoric. We have to look at the facts. As we proceed with the next 6
hours of general debate, we will be doing just that.
We are waiting for the Democrats' budget plan. A copy of it, in fact,
is being held by the chairman of the Committee on Rules. It is empty.
They are not stepping up to the plate. We are. We are simply
encouraging them to join us so in a bipartisan way we should vote for
the previous question, for this very fair and balanced rule, and move
ahead toward our glide path of a balanced budget by the year 2002.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous resolution on the
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 252,
nays 170, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 339]

YEAS--252

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NAYS--170

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta [[Page H5117]]
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--12

Berman
Bono
Chapman
Collins (IL)
Fattah
Flake
Hayes
Hoyer
Kleczka
Schumer
Vucanovich
Wilson

{time} 1356

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Bono for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.

Mr. BEVILL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 255,
noes 168, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 340]

AYES--255

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zimmer

NOES--168

Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--11

Abercrombie
Berman
Bono
Chapman
Collins (IL)
Flake
Hayes
Hoyer
Kleczka
Schumer
Zeliff

{time} 1415

On this vote:

Mr. Beno for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________