[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5701-H5710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 67, CONCURRENT 
               RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 1996

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 67) setting 
forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal 
years 1996, 1997, [[Page H5702]] 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, with 
a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree 
to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.


            motion to instruct conferees offered by mr. sabo

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Sabo moves that the House conferees on H. Con. Res. 67, 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002, be instructed to agree to revenue levels 
     (within the scope of the conference) that exclude the revenue 
     effects of the Contract With America Tax Relief Act (H.R. 
     1215), and to insist on the House position regarding the 
     Earned Income Tax Credit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is debatable for 1 hour.
  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] will be recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, who has the right to close on this motion?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has 
the right to close.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, the motion to instruct is relatively simple. 
To my colleagues on the Republican side, one segment of it simply 
endorses something you did and the Republicans in the Senate did not 
do, and that is not make cuts in the earned income tax credit. We 
commend you for it and urge you to retain that decision in conference.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, it is rather difficult to find a motion to 
instruct when you have two very bad resolutions before us.
  But, Mr. Speaker and Members, as we begin this process of evolving a 
budget for 1995 and the next 7 years, we should not start that process 
of trying to achieve a balanced budget by simply digging the hole 
deeper with a tax cut aimed primarily at the most affluent in this 
country.
  Over 50 percent of the benefits of this tax cut flow to people with 
incomes over $100,000 a year. What is the impact of that decision?
  I might add that while the Senate does not do that, they do the 
opposite. They increase taxes for millions of hard-working Americans 
with the lowest
 incomes in our country.

  Mr. Speaker, the impact of what the House has done and what the 
Senate is doing is to force deep cuts in a whole host of programs that 
substantially impact the American public.
  Where are the biggest impacts felt? Clearly, in the health area. What 
we have in the House is a budget resolution that, by the year 2002, 
would cut Medicare by $86 billion a year, while at the same time the 
tax cut is costing $90 billion a year, deep and significant cuts in 
Medicaid, a program that provides health care for the most vulnerable 
in our society, the poor, elderly, and disabled.
  By 2002, the Republican House proposal would have growth in that 
program at less than 2 percent, when projected caseload is 3 to 4 
percent. Clearly, it either means significant numbers of American 
people would not have health care or else we are transferring 
significant costs to State and local governments.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, what we have before us in the House and 
Senate budget resolutions are attempts to reward the most affluent in 
our society, those people who have benefited the most by growth and 
income over the last 15-20 years. We have had a revolution where income 
flows to the most affluent in our country. The proposed bill that comes 
from the House would reward those folks with a significant tax cut 
while we substantially cut the funding for a variety of health care 
programs like Medicare, Medicaid, substantially cut back on veterans' 
health care, scale back training for education, whether it be loan 
programs for college students, whether it be basic education and 
training to make sure that our workforce is equipped for the 21st 
century.

                              {time}  1115

  So, Mr. Speaker and Members, as we go to conference, let us not begin 
by digging a hole deeper that forces unconscionable cuts in health care 
programs like Medicare, Medicaid, makes our education and training 
programs such that there would be thousands of students who could not 
afford to go on to college and to cut programs that train our workforce 
so they are equipped for the 21st century.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
for yielding, and I would like to address some of the concerns that 
were raised from the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on 
this Budget.
  These tax reductions that we have in the budget plan are part of a 
total package, and let me explain to my colleagues how that works. We 
have looked very hard in the Committee on the Budget on the subsidies 
that business receives, whether it is agriculture, small business, 
dealing with housing, or whether it is even airports; that is in the 
entitlement and mandatory spending area. We said, Look, if you're going 
to lean less on the shoulders of government, we have got to give you an 
opportunity to retain more of your earnings within your business.
  I say to my colleagues, Let's take, for example, agriculture. There 
have been reductions in the agricultural program since 1986, gone from 
$26 billion down to somewhere around $11 or $12 billion, where we are 
today, and farmers and ranchers are saying that we have to have 
regulatory relief. We're willing to step back as far as the subsidies, 
but give us regulatory relief, give us some breaks on the tax side.
  This is not wealthy people. These are hard-working Americans that 
have gone back on a year-to-year basis and accumulated some wealth in 
their business, whether it is a small businessman or an agricultural 
person, and then, when they get around to that stage in their life when 
they want to retire, then they have all of this income that comes in in 
1 year, but it is income that is accumulated over years and years of 
hard work, and in each individual year that has not amounted to an 
awful lot, but over a period of 20 to 30 years it amounts to their 
whole retirement.
  So, Mr. Speaker, that is why it is important that we have something 
like a reduction in capital gains. That is why it is important that we 
do something with the inheritance tax so that these particular 
businesses can pass on and remain in the family.
  If we want to continue to say that the individual in this country has 
got to take responsibilities for his own actions, save for his 
retirement, provide for his own family, we have got to say that the 
Government takes less and we let the individual keep more, and that is 
what we are talking about, less Government. That is what the Republican 
budget is about. As the opposition will say, they want more Government. 
They think the answer is here in Washington. This is not where the real 
answers are. The answers are back in our districts, back with families, 
back with local elected officials.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make one simple 
fundamental point. We can do better than a budget that takes health 
care from the elderly to pay for tax breaks for the privileged few. I 
say to my colleagues, ``If you ask me, this budget is not just reckless 
public policy. It's a repudiation of everything this country stands for 
and every purpose that we came here to serve.''
  Mr. Speaker, tax cuts for the privileged few and budget cuts for the 
middle class is the most egregious redistribution of income from 
workers to the wealthy since Republicans ruled the White House, and I 
suppose this should not come as a surprise because that is what 
trickle-down economics is really all about, survival of the richest 
[[Page H5703]] and feeding everybody else to the economic wolves. The 
last time the Republicans tried it in the high rolling 1980's, two-
thirds of all the new wealth went to the top 1 percent of Americans. 
The most privileged of the privileged, the decent, hard-working, 
middle-income families who are the strength and soul of this country, 
barely got a dime.
  And now the Republicans are saying that after a decade and a half of 
economic disaster and decline for the middle income people it is time 
to try it all over again. It is time to ravage health care for the 
elderly and disabled, rob people's pensions, and pass a back-door tax 
increase. It is time to slash the earned income credit, which nearly 40 
percent of all families with children depend upon sometime in the 
decade to keep themselves out of poverty. It is time to cut education, 
and increase the cost of student loans and eliminate summer jobs for 
worthy young people.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a dark moment in the history of our House. This 
budget is so unfair, so extreme, so reckless in redistribution, my 
guess is that many on the other side even find it offensive. That is 
why we are offering this motion to instruct. That is why we want this 
opportunity to build a better budget and a fairer budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to turn aside trickle-down economics 
not out of partisanship, but out of an abiding sense of justice, and 
fairness, and decency and what is right. Vote for this motion. Let us 
put an end to tax breaks for the privileged few and budget cuts for the 
middle class. We can and we must do better for the people of this 
country.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson].
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, let me state one simple fact. The Democrats 
have no budget proposal. We worked long and hard on a budget, and let 
me state it again.
  At no time did the Democrats come forth with any budget proposal from 
the House. The President had a budget, yes, but did he take the 
trouble? No, he left us with $200 billion in the hole. He did not offer 
any response to the problems with Medicare or Medicaid, no proposals at 
all. So the President punted, just as the House Democrats punted in the 
Committee on the Budget, and now they have the audacity to come out 
here when we have proposals to help people for the future of our 
country, for our grandchildren and our children, and the middle income 
people in this country, they come out with a motion like this. I think 
it takes a lot of gall to come out and, while proposing nothing 
positive throughout this whole process, to come forth and say, ``We 
want to go a different direction now.''
  What we are saying, ``Let's get on board, let's go in a direction for 
the future of our country, for our children.'' Greenspan says, if we 
want to have the same kind of life for our children, our grandchildren, 
we better get about balancing this budget.
  Defeat this motion to instruct.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I obviously rise in opposition to the motion to instruct 
because I think we have been able to show that we can, in fact, balance 
the budget, downsize the Government, and give people tax relief.
  As my colleagues know, the amazing thing about the budget document 
that we passed on the House floor is that it is described in Washington 
as a revolutionary document. But, if we were to take this document and 
put it on the tables of American families for discussion as they sit 
down Sunday morning for breakfast, it would not be viewed as 
revolutionary. Frankly it would be viewed as common sense. The fact is 
that we are going to grow over the next 7 years from $9 trillion in 
spending at the Federal level to $11 trillion in spending.
  Now some would have us grow with 13 trillion. That is what would 
happen if we put the Government on automatic pilot. If we were to 
actually sit down with families at the breakfast table on Sunday 
morning and explain that the Federal budget--considering the fact that 
we are running a national debt of almost $5 trillion, is going to grow 
from $9 to $11 trillion, their question would not be, ``Why isn't it 
going up to $12 or $13 trillion?'' They would be saying ``Well, wait a 
minute. If the country is in trouble, if we got these financial 
difficulties, why should it go up $2 trillion over the next 7 years?''
  Well, it is because we tried to put together a document that we 
thought met the priorities of our country, and had a reasonable chance 
of being accepted and accommodated the needs of people who depend on 
entitlement programs. That is essentially it, and we believe that this 
document, described as revolutionary in this town because anything that 
does represent change is revolutionary in this town, is nothing more 
than common sense.
  Now we have been dancing around the mulberry bush here since--well, I 
guess since September when people said it was the ``couldn't, wouldn't, 
shouldn't'' argument. Well, there is no way that we could balance the 
budget and provide tax relief to Americans.
  Well then, after we showed that we could do it, then the argument 
was, ``Well, the Republicans, they wouldn't do it. There is no way that 
they will propose a budget that will cut spending and provide
 tax relief.'' And now the argument is they ``shouldn't'' do it.

  Well, the ``couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't'' crowd is going to lose 
this fight because we are, in fact, going to balance the budget, and we 
are, in fact, going, as we downsize Government, to give people some of 
their money back.
  Now let us kind of talk about the taxes just for a second. Capital 
gains. I think we could get some amazing studies on this floor that 
would show how the capital gains argument has evolved to the point 
where the people say the rich benefit. As my colleagues know amazingly, 
there are a great number of Americans, for example a husband and a wife 
who reach the age of 80 who sell a farm. All of a sudden guess what? 
Their income has gone from $50,000 or $60,000 to about $300,000 because 
they are selling their assets. Now these are not rich people. These are 
people who have saved and invested wisely.
  I say to my colleagues, I mean they could be your next-door neighbor, 
if you live in middle or lower income areas. I mean it's very possible, 
and in many cases likely, but capital gains, as I pointed out before, 
is--we have the highest capital gains tax in the world. I mean we 
penalize people to invest. We don't want to penalize people to invest. 
We want to give people incentives to invest because, as they invest, 
they create economic activity, and then people get jobs, poor people 
can get jobs, and then the poor people can get rich, and then they can 
become the bosses of the investors.
  I mean I think the goal in our country and who I focus on every day--
the person I focus on every day is the person that gets up, and goes to 
work, and tries to raise the kids, and saves money--I do not focus on 
the rich; I am focusing on the person that needs the opportunity to 
become rich. I do not think we ought to have certain advantages in our 
society that protect rich people. On the other hand, we should not 
punish rich people, but what we should do is keep in mind the fact that 
we need to have an economy that allows people to have maximum amount of 
opportunity, and capital gains is nothing more than giving people 
incentives to create economic growth.
  Now in terms of the earned income tax credit, and I want to say to 
the gentleman from Minnesota in regard to the earned income tax credit, 
I am concerned about what happened in the Senate on the earned income 
tax credit. What I would tell the gentleman is that there are two 
things that trouble me in this area. One is the argument that has been 
coming to the fore lately about the fact that people have been scamming 
this EITC. If, in fact, there are scams going on in EITC, we got to 
clean that up. The other argument is, and I am going to commend; in 
fact with unanimous consent I will enter into the Record a study by a 
guy named Edgar Browning who talks about the effects of the earned 
income tax credit on income and welfare; and I want to say to the 
gentleman that the earned income tax credit I think was a Republican 
creation. It was designed to say that, if you're on welfare, we are 
going to give you a way to work and not lose all your benefits. I mean 
I think everybody is for that, but we don't want to create an earned 
income credit system that creates marginal rates that provide 
disincentives for people to work. [[Page H5704]] 
  So I would say to the gentleman that the idea that we ought to go in 
and start doing major surgery on the earned income tax credit in order 
to get deficit reduction, I would share the gentleman's concern on that 
because I am not really excited about the prospect of doing that.
                              {time}  1130

  But if in fact there are scams going on in the EITC, or if in effect 
the earned income tax credit, like many Government programs, has grown 
so quickly that it is starting to provide disincentives for work, I 
want to focus on that as well. But the concept of the earned income tax 
credit, where working Americans can have an opportunity to earn more 
and not be penalized, I favor. I do not want to pick on people who may 
not have a lobbyist in this town because we can somehow go and raise 
some revenue. That is not my interest. I want to do an intellectually 
honest look at EITC. So I share some of the concerns that the gentleman 
has.
  But I would say in closing that we, of course, want to defeat this 
motion to instruct because it is the same debate again. I think we have 
a reasonable bill to cut spending. In fact, it is a positive bill to 
cut spending that makes some necessary structural changes in this 
Government, and we are able as we downsize Government to give people 
some of their money back. That is all very, very positive.
  I am paying attention to the gentleman's concerns about the earned 
income tax credit. It is a legitimate point. I share his concerns. I 
want to note that for the record. But I would ask the Members to come 
to the floor, to defeat the motion to instruct, and to move forward 
with the appointment of conferees and get this conference committee 
meeting and get the issues resolved.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. McDermott].
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I come to this floor to support this 
motion because I cannot imagine a proposal more devastating to the 
health care system of this country than the $340 billion tax cut to the 
well-off which is proposed in the Republican budget.
  The greatest travesty of this tax cut is that it is being paid for 
overwhelmingly by cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, cuts that total almost 
$500 billion. The Republicans cut $280 billion from Medicaid alone. 
Every senior citizen will experience an average increase of $1,000 per 
year in health care costs as a result of the Republican Medicare cuts. 
Cost of living increases in Social Security will be applied directly to 
increased health care costs. The effect on senior citizens will be a 50 
percent decrease in Social Security COLA's to pay for the tax cut that 
will give 1 million Americans an average tax break of $20,000 a year.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, Medicare and Medicaid are not bloated Government 
programs. They are health insurance for approximately 70 million 
Americans, and they have been pared down and pared down, and the 
benefits have been pared down each year. Medicare spends less than 3 
percent of its budget on administration, compared to 30 percent by the 
private insurance industry.
  The Medicare cuts in the Republican budget go to the bone, the 
muscle, and the artery of the senior citizens' health care system, but 
they do not effect only senior citizens. As older parents and 
grandparents are unable to pay these increased costs, the effect of 
those cuts will spill over onto young families, young families who have 
had stagnant incomes for the last 10 years as they face the need to 
educate their own children. It is the young families who will be hit 
hard by these unnecessary, and I say unnecessary, cuts: $288 billion in 
Medicare cuts to pay for $344 billion of tax breaks for the rich. It is 
an even exchange. Take it from senior citizens and give it to the rich.
  Now, young families will have to come up with the money to maintain 
their parents' medical care. If they do not, their parents will lose 
the insurance coverage they have now under Medicare and they will lose 
access to the hospitals and physicians that they have always used. The 
reality is that the Republican tax cuts will force families to take on 
the medical expenses of their elderly parents, something that has not 
happened in this country in 30 years.
  The Medicaid cuts, on the other hand, to pay for the rest of the tax 
cuts, will make this problem even worse. There is a myth in this 
country: Medicaid is not primarily a program for the poorest of the 
poor women and children. Two-thirds of the money from Medicaid goes to 
pay for senior citizens' nursing home care. Those Medicare fund cuts 
will mean that families will no longer have the long-term safety net 
that they have come to expect, and they will have to either cough up 
the money or leave their jobs to take care of people in their family 
who need senior citizen care.
  Now, if this was not bad enough, I just left the Committee on Ways 
and Means, where the Republicans are preparing to get rid of the 
progressive income tax and shift the costs all down onto the middle 
class and the lower class. This is a two-pronged approach to shift all 
the costs onto the middle class.
  I urge you to support this motion, because it is a protection not 
only for senior citizens, but for the middle class, the baby boomers in 
this country, who are going to get hit with a back door punch they do 
not see coming. I urge the support of this motion.
  Nursing homes cost $40,000 per year. Before these cuts, American 
families could be secure that if grandma's savings were used up in 
paying for nursing home care, the Medicaid Program would be there to 
assure that her care could continue without also bankrupting her 
children.
  With these cuts, that guarantee is gone.
  The financial impact is not the only cost American families will 
feel. Medicare and Medicaid are the main structural beams supporting 
the rural health delivery system, our Nation's teaching hospitals, 
urban hospitals, and children's hospitals.
  With these cuts, many rural hospitals and children's hospitals will 
simply close. Teaching hospitals will not be able to continue to train 
at the same level the next generation of doctors or continue to provide 
our most sophisticated care. Most hospitals will have to reduce 
services to everyone and limit nursing care to absorb the dramatic 
impact of these cuts.
  Most hospitals will have to reduce the amount of uncompensated care 
they give to people without health insurance--a number that is growing 
every day.
  And for what? To improve Medicare? To make our families more secure? 
To get health insurance to more people? To improve the quality of care?
  The answer to all those questions is No, No, No and No. These cuts 
will not make Medicare more secure or save it for the next generation 
or make health care better. They will do only one thing. They will pay 
for tax cuts to the rich while everyone else will pay through the nose 
for health care for their loved ones.
  These tax cuts paid for with Medicare and Medicaid cuts are a 
devastating attack on the economic and health security of American 
middle class families. I urge that they be reconsidered under the 
reasoned light of public responsibility, not the glare of tax cut 
politics. I urge the adoption of this motion.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
instruct. The effect by excluding the revenue effects of the Contract 
With America is to deny the tax relief that we give in this 
legislation. What we have heard this morning from several of the 
speakers on the other side is the usual class warfare; the idea of it 
is going to be the rich that benefit, and it is the poor and the middle 
class that get cut.
  It is not an argument with validity, but we have heard it over and 
over again. And the idea of trying to create this kind of class 
division in our society is a tired, old argument that I do not think 
sells anymore.
  There are two points I want to make with regard to this, about why we 
have tax relief in this budget and why I think it is so critical. The 
first is one that I am asked very frequently when I am home, and I 
think my colleagues get as well, and it is a legitimate question from 
our constituents: Why, if the deficit is so important, why are you 
giving tax relief now? Why do you not just focus on getting the deficit 
down?
  I think I have an answer to that. I think the answer is in the action 
that [[Page H5705]] the Senate took on their budget resolution, because 
the Senate budget resolution gets to a balanced budget in the same time 
that we do, no sooner, in 7 years. But it does not give any kind of tax 
relief.
  If there are going to be painful cuts in all of this, why should not 
the people get something back from it? It does not get us any faster to 
a balanced budget to give no tax relief, so why do we not give some tax 
relief?
  The second is the point that my colleague the distinguished chairman 
of the committee made earlier, that people deserve to have some of this 
back. This was brought home to me in a very poignant way by a letter I 
received this week from a friend of mine. He was a Navy buddy. We 
correspond at Christmas card time, but this is the first letter I have 
had from him I think in 20 or 25 years. He lives in New Jersey. He is 
writing to me, I think out of frustration as much as anything else, 
telling me why in this last election for the first time he became a 
Republican.
  He says:

       My concern is the same as others I know. We obey laws, pay 
     taxes--I had to borrow $8,000 to pay an increase in my 1993 
     income tax as my employer graduate tuition reimbursement 
     payments were taxed as regular income--practice good 
     citizenship and still recognize our future is increasingly 
     less certain despite how hard we try to prepare. My mortgage 
     with interest payments, property tax and tuition for Karen's 
     education exceed my after tax income. I now have my own 
     deficit to deal with. Barbara's income has to cover my rent 
     and living expenses so I may work in Massachusetts. 
     Automobile, property, and personal casualty insurance exceeds 
     $5,000 annually. And my home has lost 25 percent valuation 
     since 1988. I have difficulty believing that the inadequate 
     and at times inappropriate work by government in regulations, 
     crime and the legal systems has not contributed significantly 
     to those costs. I absolutely resent the incompetence and 
     mishandling of public funds by Government. I dislike the 
     arrogance of some public officials and those politicians who 
     act out their fantasies or beliefs with seemingly total 
     disregard to the consequences we have to live with as they 
     proceed to intrude in our lives and create unreasonable and 
     unfair barriers to opportunity. For too long government has 
     been disconnected from the day-to-day reality that average 
     Americans share and experience.

  Mr. Speaker, this letter came to me unsolicited. I cannot think of 
any words more eloquent than these, anything that has been spoken on 
the floor of this House during this entire debate, that says it more 
eloquently as to why we are doing what we are doing, why we are trying 
to give back to the American taxpayers, to the overburdened, oppressed 
American taxpayers, some of what they have given. It is time that 
Americans took back some of what Government takes from them. That is 
what this budget resolution is about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am going to urge the House to vote for this 
motion to instruct. It simply says we ought to drop the tax cuts for 
the rich in the House bill and drop the tax hikes in the Senate bill on 
the working poor because of the changes in the earned income tax 
credit.
  It simply says: ``Don't make war on education, don't make war on 
Medicare, in order to give the wealthy and the super-rich another big 
tax cut.''
  The Federal Reserve has done a new study which has shown what has 
happened to the Nation's wealth during most of the eighties. It showed 
that the richest one-half million families, who in 1983 had 24 percent 
of the Nation's wealth and had $2.5 trillion in wealth, had their 
wealth doubled to $5 trillion over a 6 year period in the eighties 
alone, and that their share of the Nation's total wealth went up from 
24 to 31 percent.
  That means that the richest one-half million families in this country 
saw their net worths increase by two-and-a-half times as much as the 
public debt went up during that same period. That increase came because 
the profitability of their business holdings exploded at the expense of 
their workers.
  During the same period that workers' productivity went up by 15 
percent, their wages went down by 10 percent, and that gap between 
increased productivity and lower wages went right into the pockets of 
the economic elite of this country. That is the same elite that asked 
us to pass NAFTA; it is the same elite that asked to pass GATT. But it 
is also the same elite that refuses to support even table scraps for 
workers by providing for an increase in the minimum wage and still 
insists that we cut education opportunities for the kids of those 
workers and cut Medicare for the parents of those workers and cut 
Social Security COLAs for the parents of those workers in order to give 
another break to the people whose average net worth rose from $2.5 
million per family to over $5 million per family.
  The previous speaker in the well said, ``Oh, don't engage in this 
class warfare. Tut, tut, tut, terrible thing.'' Well, I have news for 
you. We have had class warfare in this country for the past 15 years, 
and the working class has lost. That is what has happened.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote for this motion to recommit.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to 
instruct conferees, encouraging a budget conference agreement that does 
not allow for the tax cuts included in the House-passed budget but does 
include the House position on the earned income tax credit provisions.
  I think there should be no doubt in anyone's mind how strongly I fee 
about balancing our budget. I am committed to finding a bipartisan 
answer, a bipartisan solution to our deficit problem, a reasonable and 
responsible path toward a balanced budget.
  In my opinion, today the biggest obstacle to these goals is an 
immediate and enormous tax cut. I am personally committed to the 
spending cuts required to get to a balanced budget by the year 2002. I 
am not prepared at this time to vote for the additional spending cuts 
until I know more about that they are going to do to programs like 
Medicare and Medicaid, until we know more about the resolve of 218 
Members of this body on the policies required before we vote the tax 
cuts, the easy part of it.
  The additional spending cut burden created by the loss of current 
revenues assumed in the House-passed
 budget resolution fails to meet the test of being reasonable and 
responsible. I am extremely concerned by the strains which would be 
created in the areas of agriculture, health care, and education, as a 
result of paying for the immediate tax cuts. I give credit to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] because his budget is very credible in 
specifying where these cuts could come. What I am afraid is, he does 
not have the troops behind him.

  I fear that as the reality of spending cuts of the magnitude required 
to pay for these tax cuts become more evident over the next few years, 
commitment to deficit reduction will be abandoned. Meanwhile the 
politically easy policy changes, the tax cuts already will have been 
made. Once again, future generations forced to bear even greater debt 
burdens will be the victims of our irresponsibility.
  This dismal scenario is not what inevitably must happen. We have the 
opportunity to redeem ourselves with those future generations. The 
conference committee should start by making the difficult spending 
choices in a responsible way, postponing tax cuts until a balanced 
budget is first achieved. If such as approach is pursued, I believe 
there is a much greater likelihood of bipartisan support both of the 
budget resolution and ultimately of reconciliation.
  We have a great opportunity to pass the first balanced budget this 
Congress has approved for decades. Let us do it the right way. Support 
the motion to instruct. Let us get the conference off on the right 
foot.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct 
conferees on this year's budget resolution. I take the floor not to 
oppose deficit reduction or even a balanced budget, but to debate 
budget priorities. Government can be reduced. Spending can 
[[Page H5706]] be cut. But we legislators have a responsibility to make 
spending reductions in a manner that is fair, strategic, and 
economically wise.
  The House Republican budget proposal fails miserably on these counts. 
First, the tax policy contained in the Republican budget is backwards. 
This budget reduces taxes by $350 billion over 7 years. At least one-
half of the benefits of these tax breaks will go to families earning 
over $100,000. This is, indeed, class warfare.
  Families earning between $100,000 and $200,000 will receive a tax cut 
of almost $2,500 per year under this budget. Those families earning 
over $200,000 would do better yet. They would receive $11,266 in yearly 
tax relief under the House budget plan. This is, indeed, class warfare.
  Amazingly, at the same time the same budget increases taxes on 
millions of working poor people. It does this by reducing the earned 
income tax credit. The earned income tax credit makes work pay. The 
earned income tax credit only goes to working families. The earned 
income tax credit increases people's economic incentive to leave 
welfare. I cannot imagine the rationale for lowering taxes on Americans 
who are doing well, who are doing the best, while at the same time 
raising taxes on Americans who are struggling.
  We have heard a lot of rhetoric about welfare reform in this Chamber. 
The earned income tax credit is among the best work programs for low 
income Americans there is. It is an outrage that the Republican budget 
would cut that program back. This is, indeed, class warfare.
  On the spending side, the Republicans have made seniors, the 
disabled, the sick, students, and the poor the sacrificial lambs in 
their campaign to reach a balanced budget. The simple fact is this, 
Medicare is being reduced. It is being reduced to pay for a tax cut 
which would benefit mostly rich Americans.
  Nearly $500 billion will be cut from Medicaid and Medicare over 7 
years. Seniors and the poor must not and should not be punished by this 
Congress. We must cut wisely, not indiscriminately.
  A budget reflects our national priorities. Unfortunately, I am afraid 
this budget establishes a set of priorities that are mean spirited, 
shortsighted and economically foolish. Support the motion to instruct 
the conferees. Bring families and proper priorities to this budget.
  Stop the class warfare. Discontinue this budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I think we should remind 
ourselves what we are after. We are not just after changes in the way 
the Federal Government keeps its books. Our goal is to make the United 
States a better place to live and work and raise our families.
  How do we get there? We get there, No. 1, by increasing savings. That 
will help us achieve more and better jobs. I would like to suggest that 
the biggest cost over the next 10 years of the tax decreases is a bill 
that I have been supporting for the last 2\1/2\ years called neutral 
cost recovery.
  What this bill does is to say to businesses that--when they buy new 
machinery or equipment, they can consider that a business expense and 
can deduct it from the tax base before you figure out how much taxes 
you owe.
  Guess what the economists say is going to happen if you allow 
businesses to deduct the price of the cost of the machinery and 
equipment and the facilities that they purchase in the year that they 
buy it? What is going to happen is, it is going to in effect reduce the 
price of that equipment by 16 percent and businesses are going to buy 
more of it. And if we want the great American work force to have better 
tools, then we are going to have to have some motivation, some 
incentive to get those tools in the hands of the best work force in the 
world. And the way we do that is tax policy.
  We are dealing with a tax increase 2 years ago that was $252 billion. 
Our conference got together, said, do we want to have an offset to that 
$250 billion tax increase? The answer was yes. And we said, How do we 
want to do it? We want to do it in a way that is going to encourage 
savings and that is going to encourage capital investment. That is what 
we did in this tax bill. So to have an amendment that says, do away 
with the incentives that are going to expand business and jobs by 
putting better tools in the hands of the American workers, I think, is 
very shortsighted. As we look at the poor people that need help, our 
goal has got to be offering those people better jobs.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct 
which at its heart reaches a balanced budget, directs conferees to 
reach a balanced budget by 2002 by dropping the tax cuts for the 
privileged and knocking out the tax increases for the poor.
  The chairman, I think, raised a good point. He said we ought to quit 
talking about this in terms of the formal budget jargon. Let us put it 
in the context of a couple at the breakfast table. I liked that idea.
  I imagine myself talking about this with a couple back in North 
Dakota at the Sunday breakfast table. I think they would agree that the 
budget is out of balance, that we ought to do something about it. I 
would have to agree with them, and I would in fact commend the majority 
for their efforts to reach a balanced budget.
  But how do we get there? I would have to tell them that the House 
budget starts the road to the balanced budget by a deep tax cut. I 
think they would ask questions at that point. They would say, that 
sounds a little bit like digging the hole deeper before you start to 
fill it up. Like taking a trip on your credit cards before you begin to 
get your household finances in order. It just does not make sense.
  But they might ask a question, intrigued by tax cuts like we all are, 
who gets it? At this point I would have to tell them, well, if you are 
an average North Dakotan making $30,000 a year, you will get about 25 
bucks a month. But it you are a doctor or someone making over $200,000 
a year, you are going to get $1,000 a month: $25 a month for the 
average guy; $1,000 a month if you make over $200,000 a year.
  At that point I believe this couple at the breakfast table would 
start to say, wait a minute. This thing is stacked against the average 
working family. This is not fair.
  They might also wonder, how are you going to balance that budget and 
pass the tax cut? Well, I would have to tell them that the House budget 
plan makes deep, deep, painful cuts in programs as important to North 
Dakota as Medicare, student loans, the farm program. In fact, I would 
have to tell them if they were on Medicare they would be looking at 
paying maybe 2,500 bucks more in out-of-pocket costs than they would 
have otherwise.
  At this point in time, this couple at the breakfast table might say, 
there has got to be a better way of getting to a balanced budget than 
that House plan which savages these programs and gives tax cuts which 
benefit disproportionately the rich. I would have to say there is.
  In fact, the Senate Republicans passed a plan that did not have those 
tax cuts for the most privileged. In fact, the Senate rejected that 
idea entirely. As we construct a budget, we ought to recognize that the 
Senate took the better course.
  One thing the Senate did that was very objectionable is they added 
tax increase, one that falls on the poorest working families. That 
ought to come out. The House did not have it in its plan. And our 
motion to instruct directs conferees not to impose the tax increase on 
working families like they did.
  What this motion is about is establishing a modest degree of fairness 
between two flawed budget proposals.
  One thing is clear, there is nothing more unfair than the House 
version, which passes tax cuts for the most privileged, funded by deep 
cuts in programs important to working families.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg], a member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, the last time I rose on this floor to speak 
about the issue of tax cuts, I said that my colleagues on the other 
side simply do not get it. Well, in the time that has intervened, they 
have not learned anything. They still do not get it. [[Page H5707]] 
  The answer is that American people are not taxed too little. They are 
taxed too much. In 1950, the year after I was born, the average 
American family with children paid $1 out of $50 to the Federal 
Government in taxes. Today that family with children pays $1 out of $4. 
That is a 1,200-percent increase.
  They say it is a tax cut for the rich. I say they are wrong. But let 
us hear the argument. If they believe it is a tax cut for the rich and 
if they understand that we have had a 1,200-percent increase in taxes 
in America to the Federal Government alone, why are they not proposing 
that we cut taxes for people below the level, that we cut them further 
for the people they say are the poor and the needy? The answer is, they 
do not believe in tax cuts. The answer is, they are addicted to 
spending. The answer is that over the past 40 years they created this 
deficit and now they said, we could not balance the budget and cut 
taxes. Well, guess what? We proved them wrong.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], made the point. 
We not only balanced the budget, but we lifted the tax burden off the 
American people at the same time. We must do that. Get it straight. 
This is not our money. We are not giving back our money. We are letting 
the working people of America keep their money.
  That is the fundamental difference. If a 1,200-percent increase is 
not enough, what would make you happy? Would it make you happy if we 
had a 2,000-percent increase in the Federal tax burden or a 20,000-
percent increase. If from 1950 to 1994, we went from $1 out of $40 to 
$1 out of $4, how soon will it be that we are at $1 out of $2. Would it 
be enough if we took from the average American taxpayer $1 out of every 
$2 that they earned?
  I tell my colleagues, this is the right budget. It is a historic 
budget. I urge its support.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to 
instruct conferees. I particularly want to speak to the instruction on 
the earned income tax credit.
  Not along ago, we in this House had a very necessary debate about 
welfare reform. During that debate we could agree on two things. One is 
that we had to reform the welfare system. The other point that Members 
on both sides of the aisle consistently agreed on was that we ought to 
encourage and reward work. This is precisely what the earned income tax 
credit does. It helps people who work hard for low wages. It rewards 
them for their efforts, and it makes it possible for them to support 
themselves, take care of their families, and stay off welfare.
  In fact, the earned income tax credit, the reason for it, was the 
first step in welfare reform, so people who work, work at the minimum 
wage, have children, can keep enough of their money, and as this 
gentleman said, it is their money, keep their money and stay off 
welfare.
  Mr. Speaker, I notice that the budget chairman, the gentleman from 
Ohio, said that he understood what the Senate did was not the right 
thing. I was very heartened to hear that, because he will fight for us, 
as this side of the aisle wants to fight, to keep the earned income tax 
credit.
  He also said that the earned income tax credit was a Republican idea. 
In fact, he is half right. The earned income tax credit was a 
bipartisan idea which we agreed on in the Reagan years and the Bush 
years. When President Clinton became President he embraced the idea and 
funded it to the point that it became a very potent program.
  Just yesterday we read that the earned income tax credit works. 
People do not go on the program and stay on it and keep getting the 
earned income tax credit. It helps them through rough patches in life. 
It helps them to keep working, keeps them off welfare, and lets them 
have dignity.
  I find it appalling that the Senate would look to this program that 
helps working people to pay for other things. I urge conferees on both 
sides of the aisle to keep this a bipartisan issue, to keep the earned 
income tax credit, and really back up the idea that people should be 
able to work and keep their money.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], a very valued member of the 
committee.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this motion to instruct is flawed. It could have 
been made a motion that I could have liked if it had said to lower some 
of the taxes, if it had said eliminate one or two of them, if it had 
said make one or two of them more income-sensitive, particularly the 
child tax credit. In that case I would have supported it.
  If it had said ``Make some changes to the Earned Income Tax Credit, 
but do not do what they are doing,'' it would have had some merit. What 
this does is basically say under no circumstance should we have any 
reduction in taxes. That is an interesting argument and may have some 
validity, but let us recognize what we are talking about. We are saying 
that we should not consider a child tax credit. That is a tax credit of 
$500 per child.
  Mr. Speaker, when my mom and dad were raising their four sons, they 
were allowed to take in today's dollars what amounts to $7,000 per 
child off the bottom line of their income. If my parents in today's 
income made $50,000, they would have been able to take $28,000 off 
their total income. That is what we did for families in the 1940's and 
in the 1950's.
  Today what we allow families to deduct are slightly over $2,000 per 
child, so we are giving a $500 tax credit per child. When I hear the 
speakers talk about who will benefit, I am thinking that they must 
think that everyone who pays taxes is wealthy, because they are going 
to benefit. I am thinking that there have to be middle class families, 
middle class families that have children. I am thinking that these 
middle-class families may have, in some cases, more than one child; 
maybe two maybe three, maybe four, maybe five. If they have four 
children, they get to deduct a significant sum of money. They get an 
actual tax credit of $500 per child. With five children, they will get 
a significant sum of money back. They are not wealthy, but they are 
going to benefit. Under this instruction, they would not.
  There is a marriage penalty, to make sure married couples do not get 
penalized. There is a super IRA that allows families to deduct for 
health care tax-free, and to use it for college and medical expenses 
and so on. There is even a tax credit for adoption. We want to 
encourage families to adopt, and we allow a $500 credit. We have an 
elderly care credit, if you take care of someone who is elderly. Then 
we have also a capital gains tax exemption.
  The capital gains tax exemption, under almost anybody's definition, 
is going to generate economic activity. However, to listen to Democrats 
describe the benefits, they say only the wealthy. This is their logic. 
If we have a family who makes $40,000 a year in what we call earned 
income, and they have a one-time capital gains exemption of $100,000 to 
sell their home, they are saying that person is wealthy. They are 
saying they make $140,000.
  Wrong, they make $40,000. One year they had a slight increase, a 
significant increase in capital gain, probably most of it due to 
inflation, and we are saying they should not have to pay a significant 
gain on what really is inflation. We are not talking, in many cases, 
about wealthy people.
  Mr. Speaker, the child tax credit, 75 percent of it goes to families 
who earn less than $75,000. All of that would disappear if we were to 
adopt this.
  Mr. Speaker, then they get to the angle of talking to Medicare and 
Medicaid, as if we are going to solve the problem by going forward with 
their motion. Their motion says ``Do not provide these tax credits and
 these tax cuts that are paid for, that would generate economic 
activity and help families.'' Then they are saying that we should not 
control the growth of Medicare and Medicaid. We should not save it.

  Mr. Speaker, if we want to put everyone out of work who works for the 
health care industry, particularly at hospitals, if we want to tell 
them to retire in 7 years, if we want to tell people on Medicare after 
7 years that the money is going to disappear, because that is what is 
going to happen unless [[Page H5708]] we deal with Medicare, the bottom 
line is we want to save Medicare. We want to preserve it, we want to 
protect it, and we want to strengthen Medicare.
  Why would we want to do that? Why does it need to be strengthened? 
Because we have the President's own administration, the Board of 
Trustees of the Federal hospital insurance trust fund, they are the 
ones responsible for all the money that goes into Medicare part A. Who 
are these people? Robert Rubin, Secretary of Treasury; the Secretary of 
Labor; the Secretary of HHS; the Commissioner of Social Security; the 
Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration, all 
President Clinton's appointees. They are five out of the seven.
  What did this Board say to us? What the Board said was very direct. 
They said ``Based on the financial projections developed for this 
report, the Trustees apply an explicit test of short-range financial 
adequacy. The HI trust fund fails this test by a wide margin. In 
particular, the trust fund is projected to become insolvent,'' that 
means bankrupt, ``within the next 6 to 11 years under all three sets of 
assumptions.''
  What they say in the next page, they say ``Under the Trustees' 
immediate assumptions, the present financing schedule''--for the fund, 
the program--``is sufficient to ensure the payment of benefits only 
over the next 7 years.'' We want to save Medicare by controlling its 
growth. We want it to grow about 5 percent a year. We want to take 
Medicaid and we want to say to it, it will grow at 36 percent a year. 
We want to spend $324 billion more in Medicaid in the next 7 years. 
Then we have Medicare part A going bankrupt. It goes bankrupt in 7 
years. It starts next year. We want to save that. We are going to save 
it by allowing Medicare to grow at 45 percent in the 7th year, to spend 
over $659 billion more during the next 7 years than we did in the last 
7 years.
  We hear the word ``cut'' as it applies to Medicare and Medicaid. 
Wrong. We are not cutting, we are going to spend more. We are going to 
spend $659 billion more in the next 7 years. Only in Washington, when 
you spend more money, do people call it a cut. We are going to spend 
more.
  Then people say ``Well, you are going to spend more, but what about 
the beneficiaries? You are not going to increase what the beneficiaries 
get under Medicare.'' We are going to save Medicare and we are going to 
spend 32 percent more per beneficiary in the 7th year. It is going to 
go from $4,800 to $6,300.'' Under any test, we are going to save 
Medicare. We are going to strengthen it and preserve it. We pay for our 
tax cuts.
  Most of the tax cuts go to help families. I am sorry, my assumption 
is that families have children, and half of our tax cuts go to 
children. I am thinking to myself, that is wrong? Under the 
instructions, there will be no $500 tax credit per family. Under the 
instructions, there will be no capital gains exemption.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this motion and to allow 
the committee to proceed in order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time on the majority side has expired.
  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] controls 4\1/2\ minutes, and 
has the right to close.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, like most Members, I had the chance to go home last 
week. And when I was home, I met with students. I met with senior 
citizens. I met with working families.
  And all of them asked me the same exact question: Why are Republicans 
cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and student loans in order to pay for tax 
breaks for the wealthy?
  Why are we cutting programs that help the middle class in order to 
pay for tax breaks for the privileged few? That is what they wanted to 
know.
  Mr. Speaker, these are good people. They work hard for every dollar 
they make.
  They know the budget deficit is a problem. They know we have to make 
tough choices as a nation. And they are more than willing to take 
responsibility and do their fair share.
  But is it not fair to cut Medicare and Social Security in order to 
give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our society?
  Is it fair to cut student loans and school lunches in order to give 
tax breaks to wealthy corporations?
  Is it fair to target the middle class when we are not even willing to 
close a loophole that lets billionaires renounce their citizenship to 
avoid paying taxes?
  Are these the values we believe in as a nation? The people back home 
do not think so.
  They do not think students should be forced to pay an additional 40 
percent for school loans just so a few wealthy corporations can pay no 
taxes at all.
  They do not think seniors should be forced to pay an additional 
$3,500 for Medicare just so we can give tax breaks to wealthy 
investors. Only in Republican Washington can you take $3,500 out of the 
pockets of seniors and then call it an increase.
  Only in Republican Washington can you increase premiums, ration care, 
and limit the choice of doctors and then say you are strengthening the 
system.
  Mr. Speaker, these tax breaks are so outrageous that even the Senate 
rejected them by a huge bipartisan majority.
  So outrageous that 106 members of your own caucus signed a letter 
that said these were tax breaks for the wealthy.
  So outrageous that even the Wall Street Journal urged wealthy 
investors to ``start salivating.''
  So do not come here today and lecture us about how you strengthened 
Medicare or cutting the deficit. Because we all know you are cutting 
Medicare for one reason and one reason only: to pay for tax breaks for 
the wealthy.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not what the American people voted for last 
fall.
  I urge my colleagues: Vote ``yes'' on the motion to instruct. Drop 
this tax break for the wealthy. And stand up for the middle class for a 
change.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in my comments today. I 
want to express my disappointment in the budgets we are considering. I 
am concerned the budget resolution passed by the House Budget Committee 
and adopted by the full House, while potentially successful in reducing 
the deficit, is irresponsible fiscal policy. I did not support the 
House budget resolution which gives enormous tax breaks to the wealthy 
while cutting critical Government programs--including a virtual assault 
on Medicare. And I cannot support a compromise crafted here which 
furthers these priorities which are inconsistent with the priorities of 
the majority of my constituents.
  I fully support getting to a balanced budget. In fact, I have voted 
for an amendment to the Constitution mandating a balanced Federal 
budget. I believe we must end the continued policy of running billion-
dollar deficits which add to the national debt that must be paid by our 
children and grandchildren. The budget resolutions for fiscal year 
1996, however, cut crucial programs at a time when our Federal belt-
tightening will mandate a greater need for certain programs. I am 
especially concerned about the deep cuts in education, health, and 
infrastructure.
  This budget is too extreme. It is unfair, and it asks too much of the 
majority of Americans. I firmly believe we must continue on a serious 
path toward real deficit reduction. Our $4.7 trillion dollar debt is 
not a legacy I, in good conscience, can leave to my children and 
grandchildren which I why I think we cannot afford a tax cut until we 
reach a balanced budget. However, as we reduce Government services we 
must protect those who will be hardest hit by such reductions.
  I believe if we get rid of the $340 billion tax cut for the wealthy 
and used those funds to help keep Medicare solvent; if we ask the very 
wealthy instead to pay their fair share; restore some funding for some 
of our most needed initiatives, such as student loans; and do not 
tamper with Social Security, we could reach our common goal of a 
balanced budget and a healthy economy and a prosperous and bright 
future for all of our Nation's citizens.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, now is not the time for massive tax 
increases. We desperately need to reduce the growing Federal deficit. 
The House budget plan's tax cut would reduce Federal receipts by $190 
billion over 5 years, $350 billion over 7 years, and more than $650 
billion over 10 years. These tax cuts are forcing deep, irresponsible 
cuts in Medicare and Medicaid--as well as other important Federal 
programs like student loans and nutrition programs.
  On another front, the House Ways and Means Committee is holding 
hearings today [[Page H5709]] on replacing the Federal income tax 
within the next 2 or 3 years. Frequent changes in the Tax Code create 
uncertainty that hinders financial decisions and reduces economic 
growth. If we are seriously considering making major changes to the Tax 
Code in the near future, we shouldn't make dramatic changes in the Tax 
Code now.
  The most responsible policy we could adopt at this time would be no 
tax cut, but if that is not an option, then the Senate position is 
preferable. If we are serious about the budget, we shouldn't be 
enacting tax cuts with revenue losses that explode after the year 2000. 
In addition, the tax cuts are distributionally unfair--many working 
class families won't see a penny out of them. If we want to reduce the 
tax burden on the hard-pressed middle class, we should rethink our 
approach. In short, for many compelling reasons, I urge the House to 
instruct the conferees to eliminate the House tax cuts in conference.
  One tax provision in particular deserves special attention--the 
earned income tax credit. The Senate bill would reduce the EITC. The 
House version--perhaps due to its brutal cuts in welfare, nutrition 
programs, and Medicaid--would leave the EITC untouched. The conference 
committee should--in this one case--follow the House's lead and leave 
the EITC alone.
  Hard work should be rewarded, and the EITC ``makes work pay''--it 
offsets the burden of Social Security and other payroll taxes, and it 
ensures that a household with an adult working full-time will have a 
higher income than a family on welfare.
  The purchasing power of low-income wages has declined substantially 
since the EITC was created 20 years--for example, the proportion of 
full-time year-round workers paid a wage too low to lift a family of 
four up to the poverty level rose from 12 percent in 1979 to 16 percent 
in 1993. The EITC restores some of that purchasing power. It is wrong 
to pay for tax cuts for families with incomes over $100,000 by 
increasing taxes on working families with incomes below $27,000. Honest 
working families that often hold down several jobs--and yet still 
struggle to make ends meet--need tax relief a lot more than America's 
most affluent families.
  Republicans from Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon to Robert Dole and 
Pete Domenici have praised the EITC as the best antipoverty program in 
existence. Granted, Republicans have often supported the credit in 
order to resist increases in the minimum wage or to counteract the 
disincentives created by Government welfare programs; but now that they 
are in control of Congress and have gutted Federal welfare programs, 
the need to maintain the credit at its current level is that much 
greater.
  In short, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct 
conferees. It's not too late to produce a budget that cuts the deficit 
responsibly without stabbing hard-working middle-class families and the 
elderly in the back.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
conferees offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SABO. 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.
  This will be a 17-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 183, 
nays 233, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 361]

                               YEAS--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     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
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                               NAYS--233

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     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, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     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
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Baesler
     Bonilla
     Chapman
     Dicks
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Harman
     Johnson (CT)
     Kleczka
     Laughlin
     Lofgren
     Montgomery
     Oberstar
     Peterson (FL)
     Spratt
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Yates

                              {time}  1235

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Oberstar for, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut against.
       Mr. Yates for, Mr. Wicker against.

  Mrs. FOWLER, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. PALLONE, and Mr. PORTER changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page H5710]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Kasich, Hobson, Walker, Kolbe, Shays, 
Herger, Allard, Franks of New Jersey, and Largent, Mrs. Myrick, Messrs. 
Parker, Sabo, Stenholm, Ms. Slaughter, Messrs. Coyne, Mollohan, 
Costello, and Johnston of Florida, and Mrs. Mink of Hawaii.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________