[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 108 (Thursday, June 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6561-H6583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CONFERENCE REPORT ON HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 67, CONCURRENT 
          RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEARS 1996-2002

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 175 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 175

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. 
     All points of order against the conference report and against 
     its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. 
     The provisions in section 2 of this resolution shall be 
     effective upon the adoption by the Congress of House 
     Concurrent Resolution 67.

     SEC. 2. HOUSE CONFORMING CHANGES.

       (a) Revenue Instruction in the House.--For the purposes of 
     the compliance with reconciliation directions in the House 
     under subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 310 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, subclause (II) of section 
     105(a)(2)(B)(xii) of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget 
     for Fiscal Year 1996 shall be deemed to read as follows:
       ``(II) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction such that the total 
     level of revenues for that committee for fiscal year 2002 is 
     not less than $1,295,840,000,000 and for fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002 is not less than $7,896,813,000,000.''.
       (b) House Certification Procedure.--Section 205 of the 
     Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1996 
     shall not apply with respect to the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 30 
minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 175 provides for consideration of House 
Congressional Resolution 67, the conference report to accompany the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal years 1996 thru 3002. 
The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration. The rule also provides 1 hour of debate on 
the conference report, divided equally between the 

[[Page H 6562]]
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Finally, the rule provides that the provisions in section 2 of the 
rule shall be effective upon the adoption of the budget resolution by 
the Congress. Section 2 of the rule clarifies the interpretation of two 
procedures as they apply to the House. First, the rule clarifies the 
House procedures for certifying a balanced budget are contained in 
section 210 of the conference report. Second, the rule provides the 
correct numbers for the level of revenue reconciled to the House 
Committee on Ways and Means. The numbers in the rule are consistent 
with the aggregate levels in the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is consistent with the precedent set by the 
rules utilized for conference reports for 7 of the last 8 years. It 
will allow for a fair and reasonable debate on the substance of this 
important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, today is truly a historic day.
  Today we will consider the conference report on the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal years 1996 through 2002, in 
layman's terms our Nation's detailed fiscal path back to a sound 
financial footing.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House will approve a balanced budget, 
something the naysayers and the protectors of the status quo said could 
not be done. Well, I stand here on the floor of the House today with 
all of my Republican colleagues to say we have done it, without raising 
taxes, without cutting Social Security, and without cutting veterans 
earned benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, as all of us well know, formulating this historic 
package has not been easy. It has actually been very difficult, and 
quite frankly, in many parts of this country, has not even been totally 
popular but it has been the right thing to do.
  But regardless of whether we agree with the results--and I personally 
do agree--of this effort, we all must commend those involved, for a 
sincere, upfront and realistic approach to dealing with this real 
fundamental problem of governing. In recognition of this I personally 
want to publicly commend, again, my colleagues on the Budget Committees 
of both Houses for their dedicated work. Specifically, I must also 
commend the leadership of John Kasich on this vital issue. With the 
help of his committee, he has brought the immediacy of this issue into 
every home, business, and farm. He has fostered a complicated consensus 
of ideas--a consensus that will garner a majority vote in both Houses 
of the people's Congress.
  As a result, this conference report represents the utilization of our 
cherished democratic process in resolving a serious national problem. 
This is how the process was intended to work.
  In reference to the details of the conference report I must say that 
I personally am pleased with the outcome. The agreement of the House 
and Senate represents a reorganization of our Nation's limited fiscal 
priorities in a way most conducive to the principles of federalism.
  We all have our personal refinements that we would like to make to 
the agreement. I personally would have liked this bill to contain more 
money for defense and more department eliminations. Most of you also 
know that I would prefer to balance the budget sooner than 2002. 
However, the beauty of democracy is that it is premised on the need for 
consensus.
  This conference report represents a consensus.
  Consequently, I am proud to be part of this Republican Congress which 
has stuck to its promises, and stood by its convictions by presenting 
this balanced budget to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, with that I urge my colleagues to support this rule and 
the final passage of this historic balanced budget resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle has properly described this rule. It is a simple one which waives 
all points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration. It also provides for 1 hour of debate time equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on the Budget, Finally, the rule provides clarifying 
procedural language and the correct revenue amounts for reconciliation 
in section 2 of this rule which shall be effective upon final action on 
the budget resolution by Congress.
  This is not an unusual rule for a conference report and I do plan to 
support it. However, Mr. Speaker, I have grave misgivings about the 
content of this budget resolution.
  Although this resolution simply sets spending ceilings, and the 
implementing legislation, in many areas will come later, this 
resolution assumes cuts that many of us believe are simply to severe. 
You can look at this budget and see numbers--numbers in the millions, 
billions, and trillions. Yet there are faces behind those numbers. 
There are seniors, and working class families, and the poor. These are 
the people who will be hurt under this budget.
  This resolution calls for a balanced budget by the year 2002, a 
laudable goal. Yet in order to get to this goal, this budget calls for 
cuts of $270 billion in Medicare; $180 billion in Medicaid; $10 billion 
in student loans; and a 31-percent cut in nondiscretionary programs by 
the year 2002, including highway construction, air traffic control, 
meat inspection, and numerous education and training programs. I do not 
think the American people are aware of the impact these kind of cuts 
will have on their everyday lives in 1, 2, or even 3 years.
  The Medicare and Medicaid cuts alone account for more than one-third 
of the cuts in this bill. Yet last year's debate on health care reform 
pointed out the complexities of changing seniors' health care coverage. 
Medicare recipients, by and large, have worked hard their entire lives 
and they want the right to choose their own doctors. This budget takes 
a meat ax to the Medicare budget and seniors will suffer under it, as 
well as poor families and the disabled.
  One of the most troubling aspects of this piece of legislation is the 
$245 billion tax cut for the wealthy and large corporations. To ask 
seniors and middle-class families to take the kind of hits they are 
going to get under this bill, and to then turn around and pass out tax 
breaks to corporations and those making over $200,000 is simply 
ludicrous. If we are going to balance the budget we should at least try 
to do it in a responsible way. While the special interests have gotten 
a good deal under this package, the American public has not. The $500 
children's tax credit my colleagues on the other side like to talk 
about does not
 even touch really poor families, those making less than $23,000. 
Middle-class families, making under $100,000, will barely benefit from 
it. And the $354 billion tax cut package already passed in the House, 
which I opposed, already offends this budget which calls for a $245 
billion cut for the wealthy.

  The student aid cuts under this budget bill are too extreme. The 
average income of a family receiving student loans is $35,000. 
Eliminating the interest subsidy, as called for in this budget, 
increases a student's indebtedness by 20 percent. This means an average 
student will pay $5,000 more per student loan.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot stand here today without expressing my 
disappointment over the dismantling of the child nutrition programs 
which occurred in the so-called welfare reform bill passed earlier in 
the year. This budget resolution assumes the enactment of the final 
package. Unless our colleagues in the other body correct the block 
granting of school lunch and other programs, millions of school 
children across the country will lose their school lunches.
  For these reasons and others, I will be opposing this budget 
resolution when we have a chance to vote, and I urge my colleagues to 
take a very close look at its impact on middle-class Americans and the 
poor. However, as I indicated earlier, I have no objection to the rule 
which sets the terms of debate and I will be supporting it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], a member of the Committee on 

[[Page H 6563]]
Rules, a very valuable Member of this body who has done more to bring 
about this balanced budget than many people that I know. He is a very 
valuable Member.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Glens Falls, our 
distinguished Chairman, for yielding me this time and I rise in strong 
support of this rule, a very good and very special rule. Mr. Speaker, 
with this rule we will bring to the floor the central feature of the 
new majority's promise to the American people: a balanced Federal 
budget. We cannot forget the importance of this budget blueprint--every 
year since 1969 the Federal Government has spent more money than it had 
available in its coffers. Our total debt is now in the neighborhood of 
$5 trillion, almost $20,000 for every man, woman, and child. So it is 
an incredible feat that for the first time in over a quarter of a 
century, we have made a hard commitment to a balanced budget. And we 
have done this in spite of the lack of a balanced budget amendment, and 
in spite of a budget process that, at best, makes it extremely 
difficult to bring the budget into balance and at worst actually 
hinders the process of cutting waste and overspending.
  Mr. Speaker, having served on the Blue Ribbon Bipartisan Entitlement 
Commission, known as the Kerry Commission, I have seen firsthand the 
problems that are lurking just around the corner if we do not fulfill 
our promise of balancing the budget. Asking the American people to put 
up with continued budget deficits is like asking them to paddle over 
Niagara Falls in a canoe, a predictably unpleasant outcome. Without 
serious reforms in all areas of the budget--including discretionary 
programs, including entitlements--we are setting the stage for certain 
tragedy.
  Many people talk about the impact that the national debt and annual 
deficit will have on future generations, but the threat is actually 
much more immediate. Take Medicare for example: the trustees 
responsible for reporting on the state of this vital health program 
have said, plainly and simply, that Medicare will be broke in 2002--we 
are not talking about our children or grandchildren--this will have a 
direct impact on everyone from current retirees on down. This budget 
resolution addresses this crisis head on, and provides a platform to 
prevent a disaster--in Medicare and all other truly vital programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee, John 
Kasich of Ohio, for his tireless work in bringing this budget agreement 
to the floor. As he told us in committee, it is very important that we 
pass this conference report expeditiously, so that the various 
authorizing committees can fulfill their reconciliation goals and 
further us on the path to a balanced budget in 7 years. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and the budget.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, there are many of us who oppose this budget 
resolution that is before us, but support moving toward a balanced 
budget within 7 years.
  Let me remind the House of the coalition budget, which is one example 
that was on the floor that would have provided for a balanced budget 
within 7 years with less borrowing than this budget resolution provides 
and would do it without the draconian cuts in our Medicare system or 
cuts in student financial assistance.
  we can do that if we would only give up the tax breaks that are in 
the budget resolution that provide $245 billion of relief to our 
wealthiest people. We can have a balanced budget without jeopardizing 
our Medicare system and without jeopardizing our students' ability for 
financial assistance. We can do better.
  We should not put tax breaks for the wealthy ahead of a health care 
system for our seniors or the need for student assistance.
  We can do better. We should do better. Let us defeat this budget 
resolution; let us bring out one that would not jeopardize senior 
health care and our students.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Muncie, IN [Mr. McIntosh], an outstanding new freshman Member of this 
body who has already made his mark.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule.
  I think that a lot of us in the freshman class and a lot of us in the 
Republican conference supported the Contract With America and promised 
the American taxpayers that we would have tax cuts in this new 
Congress, and in the Contract we passed numerous tax cuts. We provided 
the family with a $500 tax credit. We provided the elderly with a tax 
cut, repealing President Clinton's tax increase on Social Security. We 
provided small business men and investors a greater return on their 
capital investments, which will also stimulate the economy and create 
jobs.
  Those promises were central to our effort last fall to go to the 
American people and explain to them why we needed a new majority in 
Congress.
  I am proud to say that in the negotiations on this conference report, 
we were able to keep the bulk of those tax cuts. We were not able to 
keep all of them. Now, my preference would have been to keep every 
single one of them.
  But I am here to say that I think this is a good step forward. I 
think we should support the conference report, but we should consider 
it to be a floor. This is the lowest amount the tax cuts that we can 
expect, and the freshman class and the conservatives in the conference 
and the Republican Party will be continuing to work for even more tax 
cuts so that we can be assured that we do repeal the Social Security 
tax increase, we do give every family in America a full $500 credit for 
every child, and we do give the full amount of capital gains tax cut. 
That is the standard that we will hold as we move toward 
reconciliation, and that is where we will be pursuing our efforts to 
fight on behalf of the American taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good compromise and a good conference report. 
I rise in favor of the rule and the conference report.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, we all support a balanced budget. So why do I 
oppose this balanced budget proposal? Because I do not support 
balancing the Federal budget while you unbalance the budget of millions 
of American families. In West Virginia, for instance, 300,000 senior 
citizens will see their Medicare cut, that is right, cut, because when 
you pay over $3,000 more out of pocket over a 7-year period, that is a 
cut.
  We know that in West Virginia 35,000 students depend upon student 
loans, and there are student loan cuts in here as well that restrict 
growth and opportunity for the middle-income.
  Because there is a tax cut for the wealthy in here at a time you are 
trying to balance the budget, to give two-thirds of West Virginia 
families $90 or less, you are going to give 1 to 2 percent $2,400 back 
in tax cuts. In other words, so that 1 or 2 percent over $100,000 a 
year get $2,400, you are going to cut 100 percent of senior citizens 
and their Medicare.
  What happens is middle-income families lose the programs that are 
important to them.
  I cannot support a balanced budget proposal that cuts Medicare, cuts 
economic growth and unbalances the family budget.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Appleton, WI [Mr. Roth], a truly outstanding Member with whom I came to 
this body 17 years ago.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  The budget resolution before us today will affect our trade and our 
budget policies, and this is very important to us.
  Did you see this morning's paper? I know we have been in session all 
night long. I want you to read this morning's paper. It is the same old 
story: ``The U.S. blows a lot of smoke, huffing and puffing and 
bluffing, and Japan walks away with all the dollars.'' I was somewhat 
surprised. I thought that President Clinton would stand strong. I 
really did. I was wrong.
  The President came in weak, and he got weaker. The problem is last 
year we had a $150 billion trade deficit. My friends, I want you to 
remember this number: This year our trade deficit is projected to be 
$200 billion.

[[Page H 6564]]

  Do you know what that is going to do to our economy and to our 
workers? We just cannot keep going this way. We cannot keep doing that 
to our economy and to our workers.
  It seems to me all too often people are only concerned about 
themselves and their group and no one is any longer thinking about our 
country. We cannot continue this way.
  The President pulled a gun on Japan, and it turned out to be a water 
pistol, and the Japanese are laughing all the way back to Tokyo. We 
cannot keep going in this way. No one respects America anymore, and our 
other trading partners are laughing also.
  This is a shell of an agreement. Read this. This is a shell of an 
agreement. It is not an agreement. It is an agreement for an 
agreement's sake. Our trade negotiator climbed way out on a limb, and 
the Japanese came along and sawed it off.
  This agreement makes America weak, and, just as bad, it makes America 
look weak.
  As the paper said this morning, the Clinton administration assault 
right here is a classic, notable for bellicose U.S. threats, not for 
significant results. Translated: American leadership is just hot air. 
Translated: What they are telling us is that American leadership is 
just a lot of hot air. That is not what American leadership should be 
and what we can expect from our administration.
  On this resolution, instead of arguing back and forth like we have 
all night long, let us address this, not as Democrats and as 
Republicans, but as Americans. This is a big problem. Let us address 
it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Beilenson], a very trusted and distinguished 
colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of the rule and in opposition to the conference 
report that it makes in order.
  Although the spending cuts and the tax cuts provided for by the 
conference report are not quite so extreme as in the House-passed 
version of the budget resolution, this plan still represents a massive 
transfer of resources from poor and middle-income Americans and from 
children and the elderly to the wealthiest Americans. This is a plan 
that hurts those who need the most help from Government and helps those 
who need it the least.
  It is a blueprint for shifting budget priorities in a way we do not 
believe the majority of the people of our country support. We do not 
believe the people support cutting Medicare and Medicaid by $452 
billion. We do not believe that people support cutting domestic 
spending on a host of programs that represent investment in our Nation 
and that improve the quality of our lives, spending in such areas as 
education, job training, transportation, environmental protection, 
science and health research. Those programs would be cut by nearly $200 
billion, or by nearly one-third in real terms from current levels.
  We do not believe people support cutting all of these programs by 
such massive amounts Just so the wealthiest Americans can benefit from 
a tax cut, particularly before we know whether we have actually 
achieved a balanced budget.
  Many of us who will be voting against this conference report share 
the desire of the majority to balance the budget over the next 7 years, 
but we feel strongly there are far more fair and equitable ways to 
balance the budget than the one before us now.
                              {time}  1200

  For example, as Members recall, when the House considered the budget 
resolution last month, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] offered a plan that would also have 
balanced the budget by 2002. However, that plan would have avoided 
about $140 billion of the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid that this 
conference report contains. It also would have protected many other 
important domestic programs, including education programs, from the 
extreme cuts contained in this budget plan.
  There are two key reasons why the Stenholm-Orton plan was able to 
produce a balanced budget by the year 2002 without making such severe 
cuts. Unlike the majority's budget plan, it would not have cut taxes, 
and it would not have increased defense spending.
  The contingent $245 billion tax cut contained in this bill is one of 
the most troubling features of this plan. Although the details of the 
cuts are yet to be determined, most of the benefits of the tax cuts 
would likely go to the wealthiest families and corporations.
  In addition, the tax cut is supposed to occur only if we cut spending 
enough to balance the budget. The fact is, however, the tax cut is not 
contingent upon reaching a balanced budget, as the Senate wanted, but 
upon a projection that a balanced budget will be achieved by 2002.
  That projection would be based on highly questionable assumptions. 
One is that Congress will stay on the spending-cut path laid out by 
this resolution. Yet the cuts in this plan are so draconian that it is 
doubtful that they can be sustained over the next 7 years.
  The contingency plan also assumes that there will be a $170 billion 
so-called economic dividend--positive trends in interest rates, 
unemployment rates, and other economic indicators that will produce 
higher revenues and less spending. Yet, as we all know, even minor 
changes in such trends can produce huge budgetary differences.
  If the objective of the majority was to provide a tax cut as a reward 
for balancing the budget, then a more honest and realistic approach 
would be to wait until we actually achieve a balanced budget, rather 
than relying on a projection of a balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I want to emphasize that many of us who will be 
voting against the conference report strongly support efforts to 
balance the budget over the next several years. In fact, many of us--
particularly those of us who have spent many years fighting to bring 
our Nation's deficit problem under control--are pleased that this year, 
the debate has moved from whether we should balance the budget, to when 
and how it should be done. 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 unfair and 
inequitable manner in which this budget resolution seeks to achieve 
that goal. For that reason, when the time comes to vote on the 
conference report itself, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the 
conference report.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, obviously my friend and distinguished 
colleague, member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson], for whom I have genuine affection and great 
respect, has pointed out there are many ways to balance the budget. I 
guess the debate is that we have found a way to do it and, under the 
leadership of the other party from the 40 years, we seldom have done it 
so we think we are making progress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Pryce]. I would have to say that Ohio's loss of a jurist has 
been the Committee on Rule's very tremendous gain.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, let me first express my strong support for 
this very straightforward rule and acknowledge the hard work and 
dedication of Chairman Solomon in pursuing relentlessly this concept.
  Second, I would like to commend my good friend and colleague from 
Ohio, John Kasich, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, 
for his hard work and dedication in this effort. Like so many other 
pursuits, Chairman Kasich approaches the budget debate with passion and 
dogged determination.
  He is guided by a clear sense of doing what is right for the American 
people, even if it means challenging the status quo with ideas or 
policies which some around here might consider politically unthinkable.
  But doing the unthinkable, the politically difficult, is precisely 
what this budget debate is all about, Mr. Speaker.
  After years of unbalanced budgets and reckless spending, we have the 
opportunity today, by adopting this conference agreement, to set a bold 
new course toward balancing the budget, limiting the size and scope of 
Government, and creating a meaningful future for all Americans. 

[[Page H 6565]]

  Now, we have all heard the criticisms aimed at this very responsible 
budget plan. We have seen actual spending increases being called cuts, 
and the Budget Committee's good-faith efforts being portrayed as 
attacks on senior citizens and children.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this budget agreement offers 
solutions no more complicated or profound than those offered by 
responsible American families who, everyday, play by the rules, pay the 
bills, and make ends meet.
  So, this debate really comes down to a simple choice. Do we continue 
following the old ways of doing business and piling up more debt? Or do 
we recognize that things have to change, and that the status quo is 
simply unacceptable if America expects to have any future.
  I believe the will of the American people is clear: They want us to 
be bold, and to have the courage to make the difficult choices so that 
future generations of Americans will enjoy the good fortune and 
prosperity they deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come to reassure the American people that 
this Congress is serious about reducing the deficit and cutting 
spending. I urge my colleagues to adopt this responsible rule, and to 
pass this bold plan for securing America's future.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are going to see a lot of charts and numbers on 
this floor.
  But this debate is not just about numbers. It's about people.
  It is about the real effects these massive cuts to Medicare and 
Medicaid will have on real people.
  People like Margaret Leslie.
  Some of you will remember--last month I stood on this floor to talk 
about Margaret.
  Today, Margaret is a 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-29's that helped this country win the war.
  Like most people of her generation, today Margaret lives on Social 
Security.
  And after paying for her rent, her medicine, and her MediGap and 
Medicare premiums, 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 her life easier, this budget before us 
today will make her life harder.
  The budget before us today takes us one step closer, a $240 bite out 
of her Social Security check.
  It takes us one step closer to the day when she has to pay an 
additional $3,500 out of her pocket for Medicare.
  It takes us one step closer to the day when her family will be forced 
to pay the bills that she can't.
  Mr. Speaker, is this what we are all about as a nation?
  Are these the values we hold dear?
  Is this the message we're trying to pass along to our children and 
grandchildren?
  Don't we have a responsibility to those who sacrificed so much for 
us?
  Those of us who stand up for senior citizens and their families have 
been called fearmongers, with no vision of the future.
  That is an insult to the senior citizens of this country.
  Their concerns are real and need to be addressed.
  The Gingrich Republicans keep saying they are making these cuts to 
save Medicare, to save the system, and I wish I could believe that.
  But then I recall that 30 years ago, Bob Dole voted against the very 
creation of Medicare.
  I recall that 20 years ago, the majority leader campaigned on the 
theme of abolishing Social Security.
  I recall that last January, the Speaker himself proposed abolishing 
Medicare and replacing it with a private system. That in February, the 
lead editorial in the Speaker's think newsletter read: ``For Freedom's 
Sake . . . Eliminate Social Security.''
  And then I read just the other day that the majority leader's new 
book proposes to abolish Medicare and replace it with a private system.
  So I say to my colleagues following the Gingrich revolution: don't 
come to this floor today and tell us that you're cutting Medicare to 
save Medicare, because all you've talked about the past 20 years is how 
we should abolish Medicare.
  We wouldn't be in the Medicare situation we're in today if you hadn't 
come to this floor just 3 months ago and passed a bill that took $87 
billion out of the Medicare trust fund.
  Where was your concern then? Where was your concern for saving the 
system then?
  Let us be honest: You took money out of the trust fund then for the 
same exact reason you are cutting Medicare today: to pay for tax breaks 
for the wealthiest people and the wealthiest corporations in our 
society.
  We say the American people deserve better. People like Margaret 
Leslie stood by this country in times of war and peace. And we have a 
responsibility to stand by them today.
  That is the sacred promise we made on Medicare, and it's time we live 
up to that promise.
  I urge my colleagues: say no to this rule. And say no to this 
terrible budget.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Linder] a hard-working and energetic member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the previous 
speaker, the minority whip of the House, who in the second-to-the-last 
second in his peroration mentioned the rule. We are here to talk about 
the rule. It is a fair rule and a good rule. It is a rule that we 
should have had last night, when we had a wide open rule, and we 
watched petulant people, being like my children did when they were 
adolescents. I am embarrassed for our House, and I am embarrassed for 
what our country saw on television.
  I would like to talk about the bill, just like the previous speaker 
did. We are here to balance the budget. For the first time since 1969, 
we think it is important to balance the budget. We are not balancing 
this budget to create tax cuts for the rich. People on Social Security 
with a $40,000 income are not the wealthy but they are going to be 
benefited.
  The 25-year-old couple with four children hoping to buy a home and 
save money for college, they are going to be benefited. The senior 
citizen who wants to sell an asset, wants to sell a home, wants to sell 
a business they built all of their lives, they are going to be 
benefited.
  Then we are told that cuts are too deep. How deep? How long? When? 
When will you propose that we take this burden off the backs of our 
children and grandchildren?
  The whole direction of what the previous speaker called the Gingrich 
revolution was to simply say that our children and our grandchildren 
are real people, too. I am delighted to meet Margie the Riveter. I 
think it is a wonderful story. But if you go to Margie the Riveter and 
say, we want your grandchildren to pay for your health care and the 
bills you have run up, she would not like that either.
  The typical person on Medicare pays 24 percent of its costs over a 
lifetime. They do not want our grandchildren to pay for their care. For 
30 years, for 30 years this Nation has voted itself wishes and dreams 
over needs and passed the bill onto our grandchildren. And that is, Mr. 
Speaker, immoral; $5 trillion later, that is immoral.
  I have got one grandson and I have another grandchild on the way. 
When that grandchild comes in November, if we do not do this, if we 
continue on the path of the last 30 years, that new grandchild will 
enter the world and during the course of his or her lifetime will pay 
$187,000 just in interest on the debt. That is immoral. That is what we 
are about. When you see all the pictures up here and all the sob 
stories, remember this, America: Your children and grandchildren are 
real people, too.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], vice chairman of the Democratic 
Caucus.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Today 
we will 

[[Page H 6566]]
vote on a budget that would reduce Medicare spending by $270 billion 
over 7 years. That is three times larger than any cut ever enacted in 
the history of Medicare. Let's not hide the facts. The magnitude of 
these cuts could decimate the only universal, portable health coverage 
we have in this country. When combining these cuts with steep 
reductions in Medicaid's coverage for nursing homes, the budget offers 
seniors a bitter pill to swallow.
  Some have said that these cuts are needed to save Medicare. America 
knows better. The same budget that cuts Medicare by $270 billion would 
also enact a $245 billion tax break for the wealthy. This is not a fair 
trade for our Nation's seniors.
  Let's not destroy Medicare in the name of saving it. I urge Members 
to think twice before they vote for a plan that breaks America's 
contract with Medicare beneficiaries.
  This is not a fair trade for our seniors. We should not say we are 
going to take Medicare and change it as we know it today, a program 
that works, and we are going to save it in the process. The magnitude 
of these cuts goes much further.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I found it curious that the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut spoke so much about the tax on the seniors situation. The 
Republican platform, of course, does have a tax break for seniors. That 
has been much discussed and that means a lot to me, because I represent 
a lot of seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Salt Lake City, UT. [Mrs. Waldholtz].
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, this rule that we are discussing will 
enable us to pass a budget document that irrevocably sets us on the 
road to a balanced budget. As a new Member of the House, I am proud to 
be part of this historic occasion, to be the first Congress in almost 
30 years to pass a balanced budget.
  For too long Congress has failed to balance the budget and, in so 
doing, we have failed the American people. This budget agreement is an 
important step toward restoring the budget's confidence and trust in 
our ability to lead this country toward a better future for our 
children, free of debt, full of opportunity, and we do it without 
raising taxes. In fact, we are going to reduce taxes on working 
families and we do not touch Social Security.
  This budget will end business as usual in Washington. We eliminate 
loaded bureaucracies. We cut the waste out of Federal programs. We 
abolish programs that no longer work, and in doing so, we empower 
families and States and communities instead of Washington.
  Importantly, this budget works to preserve and protect Medicare for 
current and future seniors, to stave off a looming bankruptcy in 2002 
that would leave our seniors with no way to pay for their 
hospitalization.
  The rule accompanying this resolution provides for fair consideration 
of these critical issues by granting the traditional time given for 
debate on the budget conference agreement. None of us like every 
provision in the budget resolution, but it is time to move forward and 
allow this process to move forward.
  Throughout the summer and throughout the budget process, we will 
continue to debate these issues and we will work out a solution that 
will keep us on course to a balanced budget and at the same time help 
us create a better future for every American family.
  We owe the people who sent us here an honest debate, one where we do 
not call spending increases cuts, where we face the Medicare bankruptcy 
crisis head on and solve it instead of sitting on the side lines and 
criticizing and hoping no one notices that we do not offer solutions 
and where we stop trying to frighten the most vulnerable people in our 
population for political gain and truly work to help them improve their 
lives instead of frightening them for the future.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to balance the budget and stop running up the 
debt that our children will pay for what we are enjoying now. It is 
time for us to agree on the framework to balance the budget and reduce 
the deficit.
  I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the budget 
resolution.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm.]
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, much 
less than a straightforward rule. I have been around here over 16 years 
now, and I have had a chance to see and to hear a lot of things, but 
this rule is truly an amazing document.
  I am having a hard time understanding how a conference report signed 
by the conferees of both bodies can be two different bills in the 
bodies when it is being considered. It first came to my attention when 
I realized that the Senate Republicans and the House Republicans seemed 
to be talking about two different bills, at least when it came to the 
treatment of the tax cuts.
  I understand how political spin works, how one person can talk about 
the trunk, the other about the tail, and both are talking about the 
elephant. But the differences here go beyond spin, and it all comes 
down to the rule we are considering.
  Initially I was encouraged when I heard that the conference committee 
had agreed to postpone consideration of tax cuts until CBO reviewed the 
spending cuts and certified that the reconciliation bill will result in 
a credible path toward a balanced budget in 2002. That was what I heard 
my friend, Senator Pete Domenici, talking about. Despite my reservation 
about his health, agriculture, and education cuts, I suspect that if I 
were in the other body today, Pete might persuade me to vote for this 
rule and this bill.
  But here in the House I read a different story, as I read this rule. 
This rule includes a self-executing provision that means it includes 
policy substance, not just procedure, which states, ``section 205 of 
the concurrent resolution on the budget shall not apply with respect to 
the House.''
  Let me make sure everyone understands that. This rule starts our 
debate by saying, sure, we know we have a conference agreement, but 
even though the House agreed to it, we do not really have to abide by 
it. And just what is this section 205 that does not apply to the House? 
Well, it is the section that includes the requirement that CBO certify 
we put together a credible plan to balance the budget before we 
consider tax cuts. Instead, the House will be covered by a much weaker 
provision which allows tax cuts to be placed in the reconciliation bill 
before CBO has reviewed the package.
  Even more disturbing, CBO is ordered how to do its business. CBO must 
give the House credit for the full economic bonus that results from a 
legitimate, steady, balanced budget plan. CBO itself has warned that 
the estimates of this economic bonus assume that the budget would be 
balanced smoothly over the next 7 years and would occur only if 
reductions are deemed credible. Does this plan meet those requirements 
necessary to earn the bonus? Well, it does not even begin a downward 
path until the third year.
  All of these great and wonderful statements about this plan balancing 
the budget, oh, how I wish we were doing it credibly. But since CBO 
will be ordered to give the credit, the numbers will offer promises 
highly unlikely to be met.
  Unfortunately, I have to encourage a no vote on this rule. Bring back 
a straightforward rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would just simply refer the gentleman from 
Texas who is leaving the well to section 210 which is entitled ``Tax 
Reduction Contingent on Balanced Budget in the House of 
Representatives,'' which I think will satisfy his needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier] vice chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Sanibel for yielding 
time to me.
  I rise in strong support of this rule. Clearly, this day is a very 
important one, not just the fact that we have stayed up all night here 
but the fact that we are bringing about a conference report that has 
been agreed to by both the House and the Senate, that is going to put 
us on that glide path toward a balanced budget.
  Earlier several of my colleagues have been trying to tragically, once 
again, engage in this class warfare argument which we have been 
listening to for 

[[Page H 6567]]
such a long period of time. The ``us versus them'' case that they make 
really does not hold water, because I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that 
an overwhelming number of the American people realize that we are in 
this together. We need both Democrats and Republicans alike, if we are 
going to move toward a balanced budget.
  The President of the United States has, in response to our passage of 
a balanced budget, said that within 10 years he could balanced the 
budget, angering many Members of his own party by pointing out some of 
the tough decisions that will have to be made. Unfortunately, our 
friends here in the House have continued to try and pit one group of 
Americans against another. I believe that this is very sad.
  They have called us mean spirited, coldhearted. We have been accused 
of taking food from the mouths of babes. As we look at some of the 
programs that we have addressed in the first 6 months of the 104th 
Congress, it is very apparent, very apparent that only in Washington, 
DC, can a 4.5 percent increase, as we have put in the school nutrition 
program, be labeled a draconian cut. That is exactly what they have 
done with that issue. They have tried to do that with Medicare and a 
wide range of other things.
  We desperately want to ensure that no American is hurt by this, but 
we also recognize that if we are going to have a balanced budget by the 
year 2002, tough decisions have to be made. That is exactly what 
happened in this conference report.
  I am particularly gratified with the fact that this conference report 
is geared toward economic growth. I represent the state of California, 
which has an economy that is still going through a very very great 
difficulty, as it has for the past several years.
  I believe that issues like the capital gains tax rate reduction will 
do more to create jobs, spur economic growth and not be a tax cut for 
the rich but help middle-income wage earners than virtually any 
Government program that we could put into place.
  It seems to me that as this debate has proceeded, many Members have 
so often forgotten the fact that we want to do what we can to allow 
working Americans to keep some of their own hard-earned dollars. This 
is a very good conference report, and it is very fair rule. I support 
it strongly and thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  As the gentleman from California has noted,this House has been in 
session around the clock until just about an hour and a half ago. I 
just want to say that when it comes to protecting Medicare, when it 
comes to standing up for America's middle class, if we have to be here 
around the clock another few days, the fight has only begun from the 
Democratic side, because we are not going to be bullied.
  We are not going to permit committees to be stacked to implement this 
budget resolution by placing all the burden on Medicare recipients, by 
not doing anything about corporate welfare. We are going to stand up 
and tell the American people what is happening, and propose reasonable 
alternatives to that.
  Mr. Speaker, what is happening with reference to Medicare? We have 
one new piece of the agenda since this rule was proposed by one of the 
Members of the Republican leadership. We have been concerned in the 
past debate of this budget that they were simply going to reduce 
benefits and increase out-of-pocket costs. That is the most likely 
thing to happen.
  Now we are told there is a proposal that one of the ways this budget 
resolution, which is silent on the subject, will be implemented, one of 
the possibilities is to simply eliminate Medicare entirely for those 
Americans who are 65 or 66, and raise the eligibility age for medicare, 
not lower it to cover more Americans, but to cut out of whole age 
bracket of people that are turning 65 and 66, as a solution to this 
proposal.
  This particular budget is a day late and a dollar short. it is 2\1/2\ 
months late. It should have been approved April 15. They should not 
balance the budget on the backs of America's seniors.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to yield 3 minutes to the well-
known gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennyslvania [Mr. Walker], the 
distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in 
this rules debate and the budget debate that is about to follow. Mr. 
Speaker, I think this is a very, very important day for the House of 
Representatives, because we are now going to finalize a budget document 
that has been agreed on by the House and Senate that balances the 
budget in 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, it is kind of interesting that we got here despite the 
words of the critics over the last several weeks and months. We might 
call them the ``couldn't, wouldn't shouldn't'' critics along the way. 
First of all, what they said was that we couldn't produce the fortitude 
to come up with a balanced budget. It simply would not happen. It did. 
A few weeks ago we brought to the House floor a balanced budget 
document.
  Then the critics all said, ``Well, maybe they could do it, but they 
wouldn't do it for real, because after all, when it got to the Senate, 
it was simply not going to happen.'' But, lo and behold, the Senate and 
the House have met now and there is a budget document that balances the 
budget in 7 years, and does so by beginning the process of downsizing 
the Federal Government.
  The American people said clearly last year, ``Government is too big. 
It spends too much.'' We now have a budget that reflects the priority 
of Government being too big and spending too much, and we begin the 
process of reform, restructuring, and relooking at the whole mechanism.
  Now what do we hear from the critics? Listen to them out here today. 
Now they say we should not do it. First they said we couldn't, then 
they said we wouldn't, now they say we shouldn't. Why shouldn't we do 
it? Because they have all of these horror stories by people they say 
will be hurt by the budget. Of course, they have contributed nothing, 
nothing toward the reform. They have contributed nothing to the 
process.
  In fact, what they have done throughout the process is peddled kind 
of fear and smear about the whole idea. They have tried to peddle fear 
as a way of telling people they should not be able to watch this budget 
process. Then they have tried to smear the whole process by suggesting 
there was something wrong with it from the beginning.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that just as they were wrong when they 
said we couldn't do it, just as they were wrong when they said we 
would't do it, they are also wrong when they say we shouldn't do it, 
because the fact is here is an opportunity, unlike any opportunity we 
have had for many, many years in this country, an opportunity to truly 
move toward a balanced budget and do so in a reasonable, responsible 
way, in a way that reforms the Government structures.
  It is a shame. It is a shame that the forces of the status quo, it is 
a shame that the interest groups, are so intent upon keeping in place 
those things that they have built in the Federal Government structure 
that they now say we couldn't do it, we would't do it, and now they are 
saying we shouldn't do it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, I would say you can't, you won't, and you didn't do 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this budget 
resolution. As we approach the vote on the budget resolution, I feel 
there is a lemming-like atmosphere in this Chamber. Many are ready and 
willing to take the plunge without questioning the consequences.
  I think we can all agree reducing the deficit is our No. 1 priority. 
However, we differ on the approach to reach this goal. The budget 
resolution before us today is a new version of survival of the fittest 
and many of my constituents will not survive without being bruised and 
battered.
  To achieve deficit reduction, this resolution is slashing several 
valuable 

[[Page H 6568]]
programs such as the earned income tax credit. By the time we finish 
with budget reconciliation, the earned income tax could be dramatically 
changed. The amount of the earned income tax may be kept at the same 
level and fully phased in and this could result in over 18,000 of my 
constituents paying a tax increase. This resolution will limit the 
earned income tax credit, but includes a large tax cut which will most 
likely include a capital gains tax cut indexed for inflation which will 
help the wealthy.
  This resolution calls for large cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. These 
cuts are too deep. We cannot refuse to help the elderly and poor when 
they are sick.
  This resolution contains a sizable decrease in spending on education. 
Education is integrally linked to our future. Many of my constituents 
worry about the rising costs of a college education.
  It is time to reduce the deficit, but we have to proceed in an 
efficient and cautious manner. There are many points both sides of the 
aisle can agree upon. We should use these as our starting point and go 
back to the drawing board.
  The resolution before us today paints a bleak future for many. We can 
and should do better.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I wonder what has happened 
to the idea of a caring and compassionate Nation. The people of this 
country have stood up through so many challenges throughout our 
history, and yet now, when we face a major financial crisis, instead of 
standing up to Star Wars and the B-2 bomber, instead of standing up to 
corporate welfare, we put our gunsights on the poor.
  We say to senior citizens that we are going to cut the health care 
programs that they depend on. We say we are going to eliminate the fuel 
assistance program, we are going to cut the student aid programs, we 
are going to eliminate our capability of having a country that invests 
in our own people.
  We tell little children that are going to be abused that we no longer 
have enough money to provide foster care, we do not have enough money 
to find them a hot lunch, but my goodness, when it comes to providing a 
big tax cut for the wealthiest people in this country, we can come up 
with $245 billion. Maybe it is time that we look at ourselves and where 
we are headed in this country, and whether or not we want to just glad-
hand votes around here, going out to the American people and telling 
them we can have a tax cut, and eliminate the deficit at the same time; 
or maybe we ought to be talking about real leadership, how this country 
is going to enter the 21st century, providing good jobs for the 
American people that are going to require an education, that are going 
to require serious job training, to be able to get us to the high-
skilled jobs that are going to go either to the Germans or Japanese or 
to the American people. Those are the challenges we need to accept as a 
people.
  If those challenges were reflected in this budget, I would vote for 
it. They are not, and therefore, I urge a no vote on this resolution.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair advise me how much 
time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes, the remaining 
time, to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I, too, like many others, rise strongly in 
objection to this rule and to the conference report, which I know will 
follow, because the majority has the votes. They will pass the previous 
question and they will pass the rule and they will pass the conference 
report.
  However, Mr. Speaker, we all know that this conference report, as the 
gentleman from Texas pointed out, is really not a complete agreement 
between the House and Senate; that there are differences between the 
House and Senate still remaining as far as taxes and revenues are 
concerned. There are differences between the two bodies. As far as 
other provisions, there are still differences.
  It is common knowledge, the House is to do one thing and the Senate 
is to do another, and I guess somewhere down the road, later on this 
year or next year or the following year, they might meet and come 
together. It is not a complete conference agreement, as we have always 
known in this House, in the past history of this House, ever since we 
have had the statutory budgetary law. This is the first time that I 
know of, at least in the 19 years, 19 budgets that I have been here to 
vote on, it is the first time that I have ever seen one that is not 
really an agreement, but they have agreed basically to disagree.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote against the previous 
question, to vote against the rule, and then to vote against the 
conference report. It is not only those things that are bad about this 
conference report, but it is what the implementing legislation needs to 
do in order to meet the targets that are in the conference report in 
the budget.
  In the first place, it has been pointed out, again by the gentleman 
from Texas, that there are really not that many cuts in many of the 
programs in the initial couple of years, so when we look at it, it is 
just a questionable thing whether after 7 years they are really going 
to get a balanced budget. There are assumptions in this conference 
report that no one knows are going to happen. Mr. Speaker, this is not 
a conference report for a balanced budget.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following 
document regarding floor procedure.
  The document referred to is as follows:

                FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Process used for floor      Amendments in
        Bill No.                  Title            Resolution No.           consideration              order    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*................  Compliance.............  H. Res. 6         Closed......................            None
H. Res. 6..............  Opening Day Rules        H. Res. 5         Closed; contained a closed              None
                          Package.                                   rule on H.R. 1 within the                  
                                                                     closed rule.                               
H.R. 5*................  Unfunded Mandates......  H. Res. 38        Restrictive; Motion adopted              N/A
                                                                     over Democratic objection                  
                                                                     in the Committee of the                    
                                                                     Whole to limit debate on                   
                                                                     section 4; Pre-printing                    
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.J. Res. 2*...........  Balanced Budget........  H. Res. 44        Restrictive; only certain             2R; 4D
                                                                     substitutes.                               
H. Res. 43.............  Committee Hearings       H. Res. 43 (OJ)   Restrictive; considered in               N/A
                          Scheduling.                                House no amendments.                       
H.R. 2*................  Line Item Veto.........  H. Res. 55        Open; Pre-printing gets                  N/A
                                                                     preference.                                
H.R. 665*..............  Victim Restitution Act   H. Res. 61        Open; Pre-printing gets                  N/A
                          of 1995.                                   preference.                                
H.R. 666*..............  Exclusionary Rule        H. Res. 60        Open; Pre-printing gets                  N/A
                          Reform Act of 1995.                        preference.                                
H.R. 667*..............  Violent Criminal         H. Res. 63        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap             N/A
                          Incarceration Act of                       on amendments.                             
                          1995.                                                                                 
H.R. 668*..............  The Criminal Alien       H. Res. 69        Open; Pre-printing gets                  N/A
                          Deportation                                preference; Contains self-                 
                          Improvement Act.                           executing provision.                       
H.R. 728*..............  Local Government Law     H. Res. 79        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap             N/A
                          Enforcement Block                          on amendments; Pre-printing                
                          Grants.                                    gets preference.                           
H.R. 7*................  National Security        H. Res. 83        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap             N/A
                          Revitalization Act.                        on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.R. 729*..............  Death Penalty/Habeas...  N/A               Restrictive; brought up                  N/A
                                                                     under UC with a 6 hr. time                 
                                                                     cap on amendments.                         
S. 2...................  Senate Compliance......  N/A               Closed; Put on Suspension               None
                                                                     Calendar over Democratic                   
                                                                     objection.                                 
H.R. 831...............  To Permanently Extend    H. Res. 88        Restrictive; makes in order               1D
                          the Health Insurance                       only the Gibbons amendment;                
                          Deduction for the Self-                    waives all points of order;                
                          Employed.                                  Contains self-executing                    
                                                                     provision.                                 
H.R. 830*..............  The Paperwork Reduction  H. Res. 91        Open........................             N/A
                          Act.                                                                                  
H.R. 889...............  Emergency Supplemental/  H. Res. 92        Restrictive; makes in order               1D
                          Rescinding Certain                         only the Obey substitute.                  
                          Budget Authority.                                                                     
H.R. 450*..............  Regulatory Moratorium..  H. Res. 93        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap             N/A
                                                                     on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.R. 1022*.............  Risk Assessment........  H. Res. 96        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap             N/A
                                                                     on amendments.                             
H.R. 926*..............  Regulatory Flexibility.  H. Res. 100       Open........................             N/A
H.R. 925*..............  Private Property         H. Res. 101       Restrictive; 12 hr. time cap              1D
                          Protection Act.                            on amendments; Requires                    
                                                                     Members to pre-print their                 
                                                                     amendments in the Record                   
                                                                     prior to the bill's                        
                                                                     consideration for                          
                                                                     amendment, waives                          
                                                                     germaneness and budget act                 
                                                                     points of order as well as                 
                                                                     points of order concerning                 
                                                                     appropriating on a                         
                                                                     legislative bill against                   
                                                                     the committee substitute                   
                                                                     used as base text.                         

[[Page H 6569]]
                                                                                                                
H.R. 1058*.............  Securities Litigation    H. Res. 105       Restrictive; 8 hr. time cap               1D
                          Reform Act.                                on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference; Makes in                  
                                                                     order the Wyden amendment                  
                                                                     and waives germaneness                     
                                                                     against it.                                
H.R. 988*..............  The Attorney             H. Res. 104       Restrictive; 7 hr. time cap              N/A
                          Accountability Act of                      on amendments; Pre-printing                
                          1995.                                      gets preference.                           
H.R. 956*..............  Product Liability and    H. Res. 109       Restrictive; makes in order           8D; 7R
                          Legal Reform Act.                          only 15 germane amendments                 
                                                                     and denies 64 germane                      
                                                                     amendments from being                      
                                                                     considered.                                
H.R. 1158..............  Making Emergency         H. Res. 115       Restrictive; Combines                    N/A
                          Supplemental                               emergency H.R. 1158 &                      
                          Appropriations and                         nonemergency 1159 and                      
                          Rescissions.                               strikes the abortion                       
                                                                     provision; makes in order                  
                                                                     only pre-printed amendments                
                                                                     that include offsets within                
                                                                     the same chapter (deeper                   
                                                                     cuts in programs already                   
                                                                     cut); waives points of                     
                                                                     order against three                        
                                                                     amendments; waives cl 2 of                 
                                                                     rule XXI against the bill,                 
                                                                     cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of rule                 
                                                                     XVI against the substitute;                
                                                                     waives cl 2(e) od rule XXI                 
                                                                     against the amendments in                  
                                                                     the Record; 10 hr time cap                 
                                                                     on amendments. 30 minutes                  
                                                                     debate on each amendment.                  
H.J. Res. 73*..........  Term Limits............  H. Res. 116       Restrictive; Makes in order           1D; 3R
                                                                     only 4 amendments                          
                                                                     considered under a ``Queen                 
                                                                     of the Hill'' procedure and                
                                                                     denies 21 germane                          
                                                                     amendments from being                      
                                                                     considered.                                
H.R. 4*................  Welfare Reform.........  H. Res. 119       Restrictive; Makes in order          5D; 26R
                                                                     only 31 perfecting                         
                                                                     amendments and two                         
                                                                     substitutes; Denies 130                    
                                                                     germane amendments from                    
                                                                     being considered; The                      
                                                                     substitutes are to be                      
                                                                     considered under a ``Queen                 
                                                                     of the Hill'' procedure;                   
                                                                     All points of order are                    
                                                                     waived against the                         
                                                                     amendments.                                
H.R. 1271*.............  Family Privacy Act.....  H. Res. 125       Open........................             N/A
H.R. 660*..............  Housing for Older        H. Res. 126       Open........................             N/A
                          Persons Act.                                                                          
H.R. 1215*.............  The Contract With        H. Res. 129       Restrictive; Self Executes                1D
                          America Tax Relief Act                     language that makes tax                    
                          of 1995.                                   cuts contingent on the                     
                                                                     adoption of a balanced                     
                                                                     budget plan and strikes                    
                                                                     section 3006. Makes in                     
                                                                     order only one substitute.                 
                                                                     Waives all points of order                 
                                                                     against the bill,                          
                                                                     substitute made in order as                
                                                                     original text and Gephardt                 
                                                                     substitute.                                
H.R. 483...............  Medicare Select          H. Res. 130       Restrictive; waives cl                    1D
                          Extension.                                 2(1)(6) of rule XI against                 
                                                                     the bill; makes H.R. 1391                  
                                                                     in order as original text;                 
                                                                     makes in order only the                    
                                                                     Dingell substitute; allows                 
                                                                     Commerce Committee to file                 
                                                                     a report on the bill at any                
                                                                     time.                                      
H.R. 655...............  Hydrogen Future Act....  H. Res. 136       Open........................             N/A
H.R. 1361..............  Coast Guard              H. Res. 139       Open; waives sections 302(f)             N/A
                          Authorization.                             and 308(a) of the                          
                                                                     Congressional Budget Act                   
                                                                     against the bill's                         
                                                                     consideration and the                      
                                                                     committee substitute;                      
                                                                     waives c1 5(a) of rule XXI                 
                                                                     against the committee                      
                                                                     substitute.                                
H.R. 961...............  Clean Water Act........  H. Res. 140       Open; pre-printing gets                  N/A
                                                                     preference; waives sections                
                                                                     302(f) and 602(b) of the                   
                                                                     Budget Act against the                     
                                                                     bill's consideration;                      
                                                                     waives c1 7 of rule XVI, c1                
                                                                     5(a) of rule XXI and                       
                                                                     section 302(f) of the                      
                                                                     Budget Act against the                     
                                                                     committee substitute. Makes                
                                                                     in order Shuster substitute                
                                                                     as first order of business.                
H.R. 535...............  Corning National Fish    H. Res. 144       Open........................             N/A
                          Hatchery Conveyance                                                                   
                          Act.                                                                                  
H.R. 584...............  Conveyance of the        H. Res. 145       Open........................             N/A
                          Fairport National Fish                                                                
                          Hatchery of the State                                                                 
                          of Iowa.                                                                              
H.R. 614...............  Conveyance of the New    H. Res. 146       Open........................             N/A
                          London National Fish                                                                  
                          Hatchery Production                                                                   
                          Facility.                                                                             
H. Con. Res. 67........  Budget Resolution......  H. Res. 149       Restrictive; Makes in order            3D;1R
                                                                     4 substitutes under regular                
                                                                     order; Gephardt, Neumann/                  
                                                                     Solomon, Payne/Owens,                      
                                                                     President's Budget if                      
                                                                     printed in Record on 5/17/                 
                                                                     95; waives all points of                   
                                                                     order against substitutes                  
                                                                     and concurrent resolution;                 
                                                                     suspends application of                    
                                                                     Rule XLIX with respect to                  
                                                                     the resolution; self-                      
                                                                     executes Agriculture                       
                                                                     language.                                  
H.R. 1561..............  American Overseas        H. Res. 155       Restrictive; Requires                    N/A
                          Interests Act of 1995.                     amendments to be printed in                
                                                                     the Record prior to their                  
                                                                     consideration; 10 hr. time                 
                                                                     cap; waives cl 2(1)(6) of                  
                                                                     rule XI against the bill's                 
                                                                     consideration; Also waives                 
                                                                     sections 302(f), 303(a),                   
                                                                     308(a) and 402(a) against                  
                                                                     the bill's consideration                   
                                                                     and the committee amendment                
                                                                     in order as original text;                 
                                                                     waives cl 5(a) of rule XXI                 
                                                                     against the amendment;                     
                                                                     amendment consideration is                 
                                                                     closed at 2:30 p.m. on May                 
                                                                     25, 1995. Self-executes                    
                                                                     provision which removes                    
                                                                     section 2210 from the bill.                
                                                                     This was done at the                       
                                                                     request of the Budget                      
                                                                     Committee.                                 
H.R. 1530..............  National Defense         H. Res. 164       Restrictive; Makes in order      36R; 18D; 2
                          Authorization Act FY                       only the amendments printed      Bipartisan
                          1996.                                      in the report; waives all                  
                                                                     points of order against the                
                                                                     bill, substitute and                       
                                                                     amendments printed in the                  
                                                                     report. Gives the Chairman                 
                                                                     en bloc authority. Self-                   
                                                                     executes a provision which                 
                                                                     strikes section 807 of the                 
                                                                     bill; provides for an                      
                                                                     additional 30 min. of                      
                                                                     debate on Nunn-Lugar                       
                                                                     section; Allows Mr. Clinger                
                                                                     to offer a modification of                 
                                                                     his amendment with the                     
                                                                     concurrence of Ms. Collins.                
H.R. 1817..............  Military Construction    H. Res. 167       Open; waives cl. 2 and cl. 6  ..............
                          Appropriations; FY                         of rule XXI against the                    
                          1996.                                      bill; 1 hr. general debate;                
                                                                     Uses House passed budget                   
                                                                     numbers as threshold for                   
                                                                     spending amounts pending                   
                                                                     passage of Budget.                         
H.R. 1854..............  Legislative Branch       H. Res. 169       Restrictive; Makes in order        5R; 4D; 2
                          Appropriations.                            only 11 amendments; waivers      Bipartisan
                                                                     sections 302(f) and 308(a)                 
                                                                     of the Budget Act against                  
                                                                     the bill and cl. 2 and cl.                 
                                                                     6 of rule XXI against the                  
                                                                     bill. All points of order                  
                                                                     are waived against the                     
                                                                     amendments.                                
H.R. 1868..............  Foreign Operations       H. Res. 170       Open; waives cl. 2, cl.                  N/A
                          Appropriations.                            5(b), and cl. 6 of rule XXI                
                                                                     against the bill; makes in                 
                                                                     order the Gilman amendments                
                                                                     as first order of business;                
                                                                     waives all points of order                 
                                                                     against the amendments; if                 
                                                                     adopted they will be                       
                                                                     considered as original                     
                                                                     text; waives cl. 2 of rule                 
                                                                     XXI against the amendments                 
                                                                     printed in the report. Pre-                
                                                                     printing gets priority                     
                                                                     (Hall) (Menendez) (Goss)                   
                                                                     (Smith, NJ).                               
H.R. 1905..............  Energy & Water           H. Res. 171       Open; waives cl. 2 and cl. 6             N/A
                          Appropriations.                            of rule XXI against the                    
                                                                     bill; makes in order the                   
                                                                     Shuster amendment as the                   
                                                                     first order of business;                   
                                                                     waives all points of order                 
                                                                     against the amendment; if                  
                                                                     adopted it will be                         
                                                                     considered as original                     
                                                                     text. Pre-printing gets                    
                                                                     priority.                                  
H.J. Res. 79...........  Constitutional           H. Res. XXX       Closed; provides one hour of             N/A
                          Amendment to Permit                        general debate and one                     
                          Congress and States to                     motion to recommit with or                 
                          Prohibit the Physical                      without instructions; if                   
                          Desecration of the                         there are instructions, the                
                          American Flag.                             MO is debatable for 1 hr.                  
H.R. 1944..............  Recissions Bill........  H. Res. 175       Restrictive; Provides for                N/A
                                                                     consideration of the bill                  
                                                                     in the House; Permits the                  
                                                                     Chairman of the                            
                                                                     Appropriations Committee to                
                                                                     offer one amendment which                  
                                                                     is unamendable; waives all                 
                                                                     points of order against the                
                                                                     amendment.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation, 63% restrictive; 37% open. **** Restrictive    
  rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so called modified open
  and modified closed rules as well as completely closed rules and rules providing for consideration in the     
  House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of restrictive rule is taken from the         
  Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules Committee in the 103rd Congress. **** Not included in 
  this chart are three bills which should have been placed on the Suspension Calendar. H.R. 101, H.R. 400, H.R. 
  440.                                                                                                          


  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on the understanding that this is the closing 
minute, I would just like to make a couple of quick remarks. There was 
some comment from the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] that maybe 
the House and Senate have not got it exactly fitted together. They 
certainly have it exactly fitted together a whole lot better than the 
Clinton administration does.
  The budget that has been set up here by the President was a 
nonstarter, and I remember the President, in a place in an approximate 
position next to the gentleman in the Chair, as he was addressing the 
joint session said, ``It is the CBO who will make the judgment,'' and 
the CBO made the judgment and his budget was found wanting, seriously 
wanting and out of balance.
  We have been just told that we can expect some dilatory tactics, more 
effort to obfuscate and interfere with the proper business of the 
people of this country being done in an efficient way by the majority 
party.
  Mr. Speaker, I would invite our colleagues in the minority on the 
other side to put as much effort as they are putting into the rhetoric 
on this issue, I would ask them to give that much energy into working 
in cooperation with the majority, so that every American has a better 
quality of life. The way to start that is to vote for this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. 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.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 181, not voting 20, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 451]

                               YEAS--233

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)

[[Page H 6570]]

     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     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
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     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
     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
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     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
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--181

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

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bliley
     Canady
     Condit
     Cox
     Cubin
     Fattah
     Houghton
     Kaptur
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Seastrand
     Skaggs
     Stokes
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Waters

                              {time}  1304

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Houghton for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Messrs. BAESLER, MATSUI, and MORAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the previous question was ordered.


                 motion to table offered by mr. castle

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on 
the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] to lay on the table 
the motion to reconsider offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236, 
noes 183, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 452]

                               AYES--236

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Coyne
     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)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     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
     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
     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 (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley

[[Page H 6571]]

     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bliley
     Canady
     Condit
     Fattah
     Houghton
     Kaptur
     McKinney
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Stokes
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Waters

                              {time}  1323

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Houghton for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Mr. MINGE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. 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.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 180, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 453]

                               YEAS--234

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     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)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     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
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     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 (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     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--180

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Bliley
     Canady
     Condit
     Fattah
     Houghton
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     McKinney
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Scott
     Stokes
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Vucanovich
     Waters

                              {time}  1333

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Houghton for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
this resolution, House Resolution 175, was adopted.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair notes that the gentleman from Ohio 
did vote in favor of the resolution and is qualified to make the 
motion.


                motion to table offered by Mr. Whitfield

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on 
the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield] to lay on the table the motion 
to reconsider offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore, announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236, 
noes 182, not voting 16, as follows:

[[Page H 6572]]


                             [Roll No. 454]

                               AYES--236

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     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
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     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
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     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
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     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 (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--182

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

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Ballenger
     Condit
     Emerson
     Fattah
     Houghton
     Kaptur
     McKinney
     Moakley
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Scott
     Stokes
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Waters
                              {time}  1352

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Houghton for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Mr. POMEROY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 175, I call up 
the conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 67), 
setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the 
fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Pursuant to House Resolution 
175, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
June 26, 1995, at page H6273.)


                             general leave

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks, and to include extraneous matter, on the conference report on 
House Concurrent Resolution 67.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, today truly is an historic day as we come to this floor 
after a long and difficult, contentious night. This is an opportunity, 
however, to deliver on our promises, to keep our word, and we will be 
doing it today on a bipartisan basis. We will be out here with Members 
on the other side of the aisle, recognizing the fact that balancing the 
budget and giving people some of their money back as we downsize 
Government is what the American people have asked for.
  Mr. Speaker, a lot of people were skeptical about the ability of 
Republicans and our Democrat friends to be able to put a plan together 
that in fact could balance the budget over 7 years and to provide that 
tax relief, but we come here today not with rhetoric. We come here 
today with specifics, and we come here today with a commitment to see 
this job done through the year 2002 and to keep our word.
  Obviously this has been something that politicians have talked about 
for an awful long time, but it is wonderful that today politicians come 
here not just with rhetoric, but the deeds that back up the language 
they have been using. I think it is a great day for our country.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 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 rise in strong opposition to this 
conference report. Like the many seniors who have contacted me, I was 
shocked to learn that the Republican budget slashes Medicare by $270 
billion. And as if that were not enough, the Republicans slash another 
$180 billion from Medicaid. In my State of Michigan, close to two-
thirds of Medicaid is spent on the elderly poor.
  This is an attack, plain and simple, on America's senior citizens and 
on the working parents who are being squeezed between love for their 
own parents and grandparents, on the one hand, and their children on 
the other. That is the cruel choice being imposed on the average 
American by the Republican budget.
  Sadly, the Republicans are playing ``hide the ball'' with their plans 
for reforming Medicare and Medicaid. The current legislative schedule 
allows for only 9 days in September to introduce, review, and vote on 
the proposed changes. If the Republicans have such wonderful ideas for 
ensuring the solvency of Medicare, turning Medicaid over to the States, 
and still protecting the health of our seniors, why are they keeping 
them a secret? What are they afraid of?

[[Page H 6573]]

  It appears that they trying to sneak their radical and extreme cuts 
past the American public. I can understand why they would be inclined 
to do so, given the fact that they are also pushing a $245 billion tax 
cut that primarily benefits the rich.
  Seniors have a right to know what is in store for Medicare and 
Medicaid, especially if they are being asked to bear skyrocketing 
premiums and limited access to quality care to help finance tax breaks 
for the wealthy. Working families have a right to know whether the 
Republicans expect them to bear even more of the costs of caring for 
their aging parents and grandparents so that the richest few in America 
can pay lower taxes.
  At present, the Republican leadership appears content to continue 
operating in the dark, carefully avoiding the bright light of public 
scrutiny. I call upon them to deliver a full and open debate on how 
best to strengthen and improve Medicare, Medicaid, and the country's 
public health system. And in the meantime, I urge my colleagues to join 
me in performing emergency surgery on this Republican budget resolution 
by defeating the conference report.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate my friend, the chairman of the 
Budget Committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] for what in his 
point of view has to be an outstanding job of negotiation. The 
gentleman has worked very hard, and I have fundamental problems with 
this budget resolution, as I will explain, but the gentleman did an 
exceptional job in representing the position of the majority in the 
House and negotiations with the Senate. I say to the gentleman, ``You 
took them to the cleaners, my friend, and as an observer of the 
process, I admire the skill with which you represented your point of 
view and the point of view of the majority in the House. You were 
exceptionally skillful.''
  Mr. Speaker, a budget represents much more than simply numbers on 
paper. It is a statement about what we stand for as a government and 
what we value as Americans. it is real things to real people.
  At its best, it sets out our priorities, addresses our problems and 
helps create opportunity where none existed before.
  Today, as we consider the conference agreement fashioned by our 
Republican colleagues, we have to look at what it stands for: Its 
values, its priorities, and what it means for the future of our 
country.
  When I do that, I see a budget that fails the test of fairness, and I 
see a document that slams the door of opportunity in the face of 
millions of working Americans.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, when I look at this budget, the rich get 
richer. Millions of struggling working Americans and poor folks will 
simply find that the struggle gets more difficult.
  It also affects communities. Those communities in our country that 
are in declining urban areas or in poorer rural areas with declining 
population and economic base will find it much more difficult to 
reverse that decline.
  This budget will escalate what has become a central problem in our 
economy and our society: the expanding income gap between the richest 
and poorest Americans.
  In the last 20 years, the rich have gotten richer, while most working 
families have seen their incomes stagnate or decline. This budget will 
intensify that trend and all the problems it brings to our society.
  This conference agreement expresses the wrong priorities for our 
country. When it cuts health care by $450 billion and Medicare and 
Medicaid for the poorest, most vulnerable in our society to pay for 
billions in new tax breaks for the most affluent, the massive tax 
breaks for the affluent will also force draconian cuts in needed 
Federal spending.
                              {time}  1400

  The $189 billion in cuts from nondefense discretionary programs, will 
seriously erode national support for transportation, housing, 
communication, education and training, basic science, community 
development, energy, and the environment. At a time when the world 
economy is becoming more competitive, this budget abandons the 
traditional Federal commitment to help American businesses, farmers, 
and citizens to compete around the globe.
  Mr. Speaker, the last time we tried to balance the budget by starting 
with a big tax cut was in 1981, and we are still suffering from the 
disastrous deficits that package cost. This budget risks repeating that 
history all over again. It is not only unfair, it is fiscally 
imprudent.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the misplaced priorities and the 
fundamental unfairness in the Republican budget. Vote ``no,'' my 
friends.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson], a member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, the budget conference report we are voting 
on today is truly an extraordinary document that speaks well of the 
commitment this U.S. Congress has had of the goal of balancing the 
Federal budget by the year 2002 and preserving the economic health of 
our Nation for our next generation.
  Last month I stood in this Chamber holding my granddaughter, Katy, 
while I cast my vote for the House's balanced budget resolution. I have 
kept Katy in my mind and the children of her generation as we worked to 
forge the budget resolution, and then worked as a member of the Budget 
Committee conference committee. Katy and the children of her age are 
why we are here doing this today, preserving the future of young 
Americans is our underlying goal.
  Like my fellow conference committee members, I went to the conference 
committee committed to balanced the Federal budget and seeing the 
provisions of the House budget were implemented. I am proud to say that 
our Senate colleagues shared our commitment to a balanced budget and 
agreed with many of the key points of our plan. Each side in the 
conference was miles apart when we started on many issues, most 
noticeably the tax cut plan. However, these differences of opinion were 
not the stumbling block many critics thought they would be. We found 
agreement on most important issues and reached a compromise on others.
  Overall, however, I believe the principles laid out in the House plan 
were respected by the Senate, and our priorities received the attention 
they needed. This conference report is a testament to the spirit of 
cooperation and proof of what can happen when the good of the American 
people is kept as the leading priority. The report is fair and it is 
balanced. I encourage my colleagues to support it. We are keeping our 
promises to the American people.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the distinguished vice chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, the chairman of the Committee on Science, and 
a 1995 academy award winner.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, I think.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the first balanced budget that has been produced 
for real, in about 25 years, and we have actually done it. After all 
the years of hearing on the floor that it takes courage to balance 
budgets, we finally have seen a group come together that actually had 
the courage to produce a balanced budget, and we have proven all the 
naysayers wrong. We followed through on the promises that we made that 
this could actually be done.
  In this particular budget it is balanced by the year 2002. While we 
do that, we provide a $245-billion tax cut, while the Federal 
Government continues to grow, albeit slower than it would have grown 
otherwise.
  I am amused when I hear the ranking member of the committee come to 
the floor and talk about all these rich people that are going to get 
the tax breaks. Yes, these are the people that the Democrats regard as 
rich. They are the $50,000-a-year working family, the $30,000-a-year 
working family. They are the people they regard as so rich they do not 
deserve a tax cut, because those are the people who benefit most from 
the $500-per-child tax credit. In fact, the capital gains tax cut goes 
mostly to people who make working-family wages. Democrats regard them 
as rich; always have. That is the reason why they are always raising 
their taxes. We are lowering the taxes for those people.

[[Page H 6574]]

  In our budget we save Medicare. We terminate the Department of 
Commerce, and will continue to pursue separately from the Senate the 
terminations of other departments and agencies of the Government.
  In the science area, where I am familiar as being speaker of the 
committee, I am happy to say that the conference has accepted the House 
position on the need for supporting basic research. The House numbers 
were acceded to on everything except NASA, and on NASA we did accept a 
number that was $2 billion higher, because we found out that NASA has 
been doing double counting on the figures that the administration sent 
up here for us on their management plan. We did not want to do 
something totally unrealistic, so those numbers are adjusted.
  This shows that the careful work of the House Committee on the Budget 
was recognized as being completely appropriate, and was a thoughtful 
way of reprioritizing basic research in science.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and am delighted to support the 
budget. Vote ``yes.''
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, over half the cuts in the Republican tax bill 
go to people with incomes over $100,000.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], who has done more in support of 
the balanced budget than any other Member of the House.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I regretfully rise in opposition to House 
Concurrent Resolution 67, laying out the Federal budget for 1996.
  I have had high hopes all year long about the possibility of actually 
voting for a balanced budget this year. I did offer and vote for one 
balanced budget that I believed in a month ago and, with a sense of 
incurable optimism, I expect to vote for a balanced budget 
reconciliation bill before this year is over. But this conference 
agreement before us is not a budget I can vote for.
  First and foremost, I cannot vote for it because I am not convinced 
it will in fact reach balance. The deficit reduction does not even come 
until the third year out. The tax cuts, of course, come immediately and 
with the rule we passed just now, the budget doesn't even have to meet 
an honest CBO test as has been advertised.
  Second, I cannot vote for this budget because I honestly don't 
understand it. The conference report tells us what outlays, revenues 
and the deficit will be, but it does not tell us what reductions must 
be made. I will use Agriculture as an example because that is the 
subject I know best but still I cannot understand the requirements on 
ag in this conference agreement.
  The report instructs the Committee on Agriculture to ``report changes 
in laws within its jurisdiction'' such that outlays do not exceed $10.5 
billion in fiscal year 1996, $44.7 billion from fiscal year 1996-2000, 
and $59.2 billion from fiscal year 1996-2002 for direct spending 
programs other than food stamps. Does this mean the Committee on 
Agriculture is to rewrite all direct spending legislation, whether it 
is being reduced or not? This is a tall--many would say impossible--
order to accomplish before September 22.
  Or, are we to infer some reduction from baseline spending--a 
reduction which cannot be calculated from this conference report? Or, 
is there a far greater reduction than the $1 billion reduction in 
fiscal year 1996 and $8.5 billion reduction over 5 years that we've 
been told this budget requires?
  Mandatory spending other than food stamps for the Agriculture 
Committee totals $26.9 billion in fiscal year 1996 and $136.4 billion 
through fiscal year 2002, according to Congressional Budget Office 
computer runs. That means this budget will force a reduction of $16.4 
billion in fiscal year 1996 and $91.7 billion over 5 years--numbers 
which are wildly off from the cuts stated by Republicans. I would love 
to have clarification from the chairman about the task my committee 
will have before us, as I am sure all other committees would like as 
well.
  Third, I cannot vote for this budget because I cannot accept the 
level of reductions in Medicaid, Medicare, Education, and Agriculture 
which are required to meet the demands of the tax cut included.
  And finally, I cannot vote for this budget because I believe this 
budget is a political statement, not realistic policy. Absolutely 
everyone knows that a reconciliation bill which follows the guidelines 
included in this budget cannot possibly be signed into law. That means 
we are just here playing a political game, making a political statement 
to be used at the polls. Reconciliation will be passed, the President 
will veto it, the veto will be sustained, and
 then everyone, having made their political statements, will finally 
get down to business. Why do we have to play that game? Why can't we 
just get down to making policy for the good of our country from the 
start? If it takes a budget summit, let's get one started. But for the 
sake of our country, let us get beyond statements and into doing the 
right thing.

  Unfortunately, I must urge my colleagues to vote no on this budget so 
that we can get to work on the ultimate real budget that everyone knows 
must be agreed to.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young] the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget for yielding the time. I would like to speak to 
the area of national defense for just a few minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, for the last 10 years, we have seen a substantial 
reduction in each of the 10 years in our national defense budget. The 
President's budget request for fiscal year 1996 would have been the 
11th year that there would have been a decline in our defense budget, 
at the same time that our deployments are increasing. The President 
just today announced another $50 million worth of commitment to a rapid 
reaction force for Bosnia. I just want to tell my colleagues. That we 
cannot continue to do more with less.
  We had hoped to make a strong turn in the direction of our national 
defense this year, and thanks to Speaker Gingrich, and chairman Kasich 
we are going to be able to do that. We are going to make that change. 
During the discussion and debate with the other body and the budgeteers 
there, Speaker Gingrich was very persuasive and argued strongly for 
keeping a strong national defense number.
  But I think our colleagues need to know that the 602(b) allocation 
that my subcommittee had under the
 original budget resolution was about $2.5 billion under what you 
included in the authorizing bill a few weeks ago. And we anticipate 
that our new 602(b) number will be, based on this conference report, 
will be $2.5 billion less than that, or a total of $5 billion less than 
what we voted in the authorization bill here just a few weeks ago.

  The point is that a lot of things that Members would like to do and 
see included in the defense appropriations bill are not going to be 
done, because the money is just not going to be there under this budget 
resolution.
  I am going to vote for it, because it does make the change in the 
direction. So this will not be an 11th year decline.
  But Members need to be aware, there is just not going to be as much 
defense money out there to spend as many of our colleagues believe that 
there will be.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me. I 
compliment the gentleman and the Speaker for the good job they have 
done in helping to hold the defense number in conference as well as 
they did.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
  (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, today we will consider the short-sighted conference 
report on the 1996 federal budget resolution.
  One of its many misjudgments is its failure to invest in the census 
and related statistics-gathering programs.
  Yesterday, the Appropriations Committee cut the budget request for 
the Census Bureau by almost 25 percent--a cut that would severely 
damage the chance for an accurate census in the year 2000.
  Mr. Speaker, in the realm of statistics, what you measure is what you 
get. By failing to provide adequate funding for the census, this budget 
resolution ensures that we will get an 

[[Page H 6575]]
inaccurate portrait of our Nation in the year 2000. Those inaccuracies 
will affect the many national decisions that are based on census data--
from deciding where to build roads, schools, and hospitals, to deciding 
how to shape the very districts we represent, an issue of particular 
currency in light of this morning's Supreme Court decision.
  Mr. Speaker, 1996 will be a pivotal year for the Census Bureau, as it 
moves from the planning stage into the operational mode for the 2000 
enumeration. In 1996, the Census Bureau must design the next census, 
and procure the new technologies to carry it out. Moreover, in 1996, 
the Census Bureau must evaluate the data gathered this year from three 
test Census sites around the country, where the Bureau has conducted 
surveys that will help refine the census process for the nationwide 
enumeration at the turn of the century. Mr. Speaker, this under-funding 
of the census is just one of the many areas where the Republican budget 
plan would enforce misguided priorities. And it is just one of the many 
reasons that I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting ``No'' on 
this conference report.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Slaughter], one of the senior members of our committee, an 
outstanding member of the Committee on the Budget and a good friend.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we are really embarking on a crusade here 
today of sorts. Unfortunately, we do not know what the results are 
going to be.
  Mr. Speaker, do senior citizens understand that that Republican 
budget resolution conference report means higher out-of-pocket health 
care costs for millions of seniors on fixed incomes? It's true; the 
average senior will pay between $2,500 and $3,500 more each year. And 
senior citizens' traditional rights under Medicare to choose their own 
doctor could also be threatened.
  Do middle-class families understand what $10 billion in cuts to the 
Student Loan Program could mean to their efforts to educate their sons 
and daughters?
  The Republicans are telling the American people that Medicare is 
being protected by these cutbacks. But people have to wonder how this 
can be, when Medicare will be left with barely enough funding to keep 
up with inflation. There will not be enough money to keep pace with 
higher medical inflation; or with the cost of new, life-saving 
technologies; or with the growth in Medicare population numbers. And 
that means either benefits will be cut back, or seniors will have to 
pay more.
  Do Americans understand where these dramatic cuts to health, 
education, research, and development are going? The answer is simple: 
The extra $100 billion is going to subsidize Republican tax breaks for 
big business and the wealthy.
  The American people are bound to ask themselves, ``Where were the 
Republicans in 1993?''--when not a single one voted for the tough OBRA 
1993 plan that both protected Medicare's solvency through the end of 
the decade, and produced nearly one-half trillion dollars in deficit 
reduction?
  That is why it is all the more ironic that today, the Republicans are 
demanding that we slash the heart out of Medicare; cut $10 billion from 
the Student Loan Program; cut one-third of Federal funding for 
nondefense research and development; and keep the National Institutes 
of Health from expanding its research on women's health, breast cancer, 
heart disease, and prostate cancer. All this is supposed to be 
necessary in order to help protect our future.
  Don't you believe it. Don't let the Republicans make Medicare, 
student loans, and other valuable investment programs into a cash cow, 
simply in order to fulfill their campaign promises. The American people 
will understand what we do here today, and they will thank us for 
voting ``no'' on this misguided budget resolution.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], a distinguished member of the Appropriations 
Committee and a member of the Committee on the Budget.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I might just add, parenthetically at the outset of my remarks, the 
comments that were made by the chairman and ranking member about each 
other and about the work of this committee I think is perhaps a lesson 
that all of us, considering the last 24 hours in this body, might take 
to heart. We can have differences; we can have good philosophical 
discussions about those differences, but we can do it in the context of 
advancing the agenda for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1996 budget 
resolution conference report--a historic agreement that establishes a 
7-year balanced budget framework.
  This conference report provides much-needed tax relief to America's 
families by allowing them to keep more of their hard-earned money in 
their pockets. It encourages economic growth by reducing Government 
regulation and eliminating inefficient programs. It protects and 
preserves Medicare--a system that will go broke in 7 years. And it puts 
our States and the American people--not the Federal Government--back in 
the driver's seat where they belong. Simply put, this agreement is more 
than a fiscal strategy for 1996-2002. It is a document that conveys an 
underlying philosophy about limiting Government's role in America's 
future.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans took their lead from the November elections 
and set out early this year to offer the American people a vision for 
our children's future. We asked ourselves fundamental questions about 
what role the Federal Government ought to play in our lives because, 
clearly, it had overstepped its bounds. The result of months of review 
and discussions is the document before us today--which makes 
fundamental, systemic reforms that gets the Federal Government back to 
living within its means.
  Make no mistake, this blueprint reflects decisions that were both 
sensible and painstaking. And as expected, reaction has been both 
supportive and critical. Critics are welcome to challenge this plan, in 
its scope or its detail; that is part of the needed debate. But in 
fairness, a principle set down by the President in 1993 ought to be 
followed: Those who would criticize this plan should be required to 
offer their own alternative--with the same level of comprehensiveness 
and specificity--to balance the Federal budget by 2002. That didn't 
occur--at least not until the process was so advanced that the 
President's proposal was meaningless.
  If you believe in lifting the yoke of dependency fashioned by the 
welfare state and replacing it with an opportunity society; if you 
believe in restoring freedom by ending centralized bureaucratic 
micromanagement; if you believe in enhancing prosperity, economic 
growth, and take-home pay by reducing taxes, litigation, and 
regulation; then vote for this conference report.
  The pursuit of a balanced budget is much more than a numbers game. It 
is a catalyst for reevaluating the Government down to its core and 
getting Government back to living within its means. This conference 
report achieves this goal. And while passage of this conference 
agreement is just one step in a long process, it moves us one step 
closer to accountability--fiscal accountability--which has evaded 
Congress for far too long.
  I urge my colleagues to support this budget resolution conference 
agreement.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Orton], the new father in our caucus, the person who does not put 
Will to sleep by singing lullabies but by giving him a lecture on the 
budget process. And it works.
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report. I oppose this resolution for the simple reason that it makes no 
progress in reducing the deficit over the next 2 years. This budget is 
a clear triumph of rhetoric over achievement.
  The official numbers released to the press show modest deficit 
reduction over the next few years. However, these numbers do not 
include the effect of the $245 billion in tax cuts contained in the 
budget. This understates the projected deficits by at least $75 
billion. Worse, if the CBO economic bonus never materializes, this 
understates the deficit by $245 billion. 

[[Page H 6576]]

  Mr. Speaker, I believe this violates the principle of ``pay as you 
go.'' Worse, it hides the true reality of the deficits in the 
conference report. Because after adding in tax cuts, even with the 
economic bonus, the Republican budget projections show that we will 
only reduce the deficit from $175 billion today to $174.2 billion 2 
years from now.
  At this rate of deficit reduction, the deficit will not be eliminated 
for 437 years. Even more disturbing is the fact that if interest rates 
do not fall significantly or we have a recession, the deficit will 
actually go up.
  Words are cheap. Performance is what counts. I refer you to this 
chart.
  Since President Clinton took office in 1992, with democratic 
leadership in Congress, we have reduced the deficit from $290 billion 
in 1992 to $175 billion in the current fiscal year. That is a 40 
percent reduction. Under the conference report, if everything goes 
right, if interest rates fall dramatically, if we avoid a recession, if 
we make deficit cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and education, all called 
for in the budget, we will make absolutely no progress on deficit 
reduction in the next 2 years.
  This Congress will be able to go home, having cut taxes but not cut 
the deficit. I urge a no vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the 
budget resolution for fiscal year 1996.
  I oppose this resolution for the simple reason that it does not make 
progress in reducing the deficit over the next 2 to 3 years. The budget 
we will be voting on today is a clear triumph of rhetoric over 
achievement, and it has been presented in a way that is nothing more 
than blue smoke and mirrors.
  Let me explain why. The official numbers released to the press show 
modest deficit reduction over the next few years. However, these 
numbers do not include the effect of the $245 billion in fax cuts that 
are contained in the budget.
  Let me repeat; that the numbers being presented on the floor of the 
House today deliberately omit the effect of the $245 billion in tax 
cuts called for in the resolution. This understates the projected 
deficits by at least $75 billion. Worse, if the CBO economic bonus 
never materializes, this understates the deficit by $245 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this violates the principle of pay-as-you-go. 
Worse, it masks the true reality of the deficits in the conference 
report. Because, after adding in tax cuts, even with economic bonus, 
the Republican budget projections show that we will only reduce the 
deficit from $175 billion today to $174.2 billion 2 years from now, a 
reduction of a mere $800 million over the next 2 years.
  At this rate of deficit reduction, the deficit will not be eliminated 
for 437 years. Even more disturbing is the fact that if interest rates 
do not fall significantly or if a recession occurs, the deficit will 
actually go up over the next few years.
  Mr. Speaker, words are cheap, performance is what counts. I call your 
attention to the following chart. Since President Clinton took over in 
1992, while the Democrats were in power, we have reduced the Federal 
deficit from $290.4 billion in fiscal year 1992 to a projected deficit 
of $175 billion in the current fiscal year. This is a reduction of 40 
percent.
  Now let's look at the conference report. If everything goes right--if 
interest rates fall dramatically, if we avoid a recession, if we make 
the significant cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and education called for in 
the budget--we will make absolutely no progress on deficit reduction in 
the next 2 years. And, if there is the slightest blip in the economy, 
or the projections don't come true, deficits will actually increase.
  Last month, I co-offered the coalition budget resolution. It is clear 
that the coalition budget offers a far superior approach for deficit 
reduction and for fair and shared sacrifice. Like the Conference 
report, the coalition budget projects a balance by 2002. However the 
coalition budget cuts deficits by $100 billion more than the conference 
report. It provides a true glidepath--not the cliff of deficit 
reduction in the conference report. And, it cuts $35 billion from the 
deficit over the next 2 years, real progress compared to the running in 
place approach of the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have had enough of tax cuts first, 
followed by the mere promise of deficit reduction. The people have had 
enough of multiyear budgets that promise the world in the out years, 
but make no interim progress. Let's reject this budget and pass one 
with meaningful progress on deficit reduction.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference budget 
report.
  There is a new breeze coming across this land. The tax and spend 
policies of the Democrats is over and the ``balance the budget and 
reduce the burden first'' policy is in place. No nation has ever taxed 
itself into prosperity. Who knew that better than President Kennedy, 
the leader of your party.
  Mr. Speaker, the House-passed budget delineates the boldest, most 
ambitious fiscal blueprint this body has seen in decades. I assure you 
our plan will turn our country around, propelling America into the next 
century, once again as the world's strongest and most prosperous 
nation.
  My colleagues, I urge you and implore you to pass this budget. If you 
look at this chart, you will see there is indeed a path, not 432 years, 
as mentioned by the opposition, the loyal opposition, but, indeed, we 
do balance the budget.
  My colleagues, many of our Nation's governors, including Governors 
Whitman, Weld, Engler, and Thompson have included tax breaks as 
integral components of their State economic growth plan as well as 
President Kennedy.

       There is no good reason to accept the premise, they said in 
     a letter to the Committee on the Budget, ``that current taxes 
     are set at exactly the right level. We think taxes are too 
     high.

  it is no coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that the citizens of Governor 
Whitman's state of New Jersey are among the wealthiest in the nation. 
We must follow through with our tax cut. Do not listen to the rhetoric 
that taxes are only for the rich. They benefit all Americans, all 
working Americans. We must decrease their burden.
  In the end, we must keep our promise to America. When we do so, let 
us not expect the American people to thank us. For all we have done, it 
is really nothing more than simply returning to them what is rightfully 
theirs.
  Mr. Speaker, the 1980's should have taught us all a very valuable 
lesson. The 1981 Reagan tax cut sparked the longest peacetime economic 
expansion in U.S. history. If there were any skeptics about the power 
of tax cuts to boost economic growth before the 1980's, they certainly 
were silenced by the Reagan revolution's sterling success. This is not 
mere ideological grandstanding, Mr. Chairman, this is fact. All 
Americans--even those in the lowest income brackets--experienced real 
and dramatic growth while Reagan was president.
  It is unfortunate, but these lessons went unlearned by the Bush and 
Clinton administrations. Their capitulation to demands by Democratic-
controlled Congresses that Federal spending and taxes increase produced 
significant economic difficulties, including a prolonged recession and 
income stagnation. Amazingly, under the Clinton administration, incomes 
decreased while the economy grew.
  Tax-and-spend policies simply do not work. On the contrary, it is 
only by reducing taxes that we can spur economic growth and increase 
American wages. No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity. 
Kennedy knew it, Reagan knew it, and this House knows it: tax cuts 
work.
  Mr. Chairman, the House-passed budget delineates the boldest, most 
ambitious fiscal blueprint that this body has seen in decades. I assure 
you, our plan would turn our country around, propelling America into 
the next century once again as the world's strongest and most 
prosperous
 Nation. My colleagues, I urge you, I implore you: this plan and adopt 
the House-passed tax cuts without--I repeat, without--conditions.

  The Senate plan throws the baby out with the bath water. It is 
premised on the notion that we have a deficit not because the 
Government spends too much, but because the American people are taxed 
too little. I couldn't disagree more. The tax burden on the American 
people is too high. In 1948, the average family in America paid 3 
percent of its income to the Federal Government. Today that same family 
is forced to pay 25 percent. My colleagues, the Speaker has called tax 
cuts the crown jewel of the Contract With America, but they are more 
than the crown jewel, they are the whole tiara.
  My colleagues, we must understand that tax cuts and deficit reduction 
are not an either/or proposition. We can do both, and we should do 
both. Despite the protests of those who embrace a static view of the 
economy, tax cuts will not only spur the economy forward, they will 
yield the Treasury additional revenue as well. Many of our Nation's 
governors, including Governors Whitman, Weld, Engler, and Thompson, 
have included tax breaks as integral components of their State 
economic-growth plans. As they wrote in a recent letter 

[[Page H 6577]]
to Congress, ``There is no good reason to accept the premise that 
current taxes are set at exactly the right level. We think * * * taxes 
are too high.'' It is no coincidence, Mr. Chairman, that the citizens 
of Governor Whitman's State of New Jersey are among the wealthiest in 
the Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues have argued eloquently today that 
now is not the time for tax cuts, that we cannot afford them. My 
colleagues, the fact is we cannot afford not to cut taxes. Now is no 
time for cold feet. We must follow through with our tax cuts. We must 
decrease the tax burden on families. We must keep our promise to the 
American people. And when we do so, let us not expect the people to 
thank us, for we will have done nothing great; we will have simply 
returned to them what is rightfully theirs.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from my native State of North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the budget 
represented in the conference report.
  There were several ways this Congress could have reached a balanced 
budget, including a proposal I supported in the House, one introduced 
by Senator Conrad in the Senate and the one advanced by President 
Clinton. Unfortunately, Speaker Gingrich has put before us the version 
that gives tax breaks to America's most privileged while socking it to 
the middle class with deep reductions in the Medicare Program, cuts in 
student loans and many, many other vital areas.
  I doubt there are hard-working middle-class families anywhere in this 
country that will take it harder than those I represent, those working 
very hard on family farms across North Dakota.
  Under this plan, funding for agriculture is dangerously, recklessly 
slashed. According to an analysis of their proposal by North Dakota 
State University, it projects land values falling 50 percent as farmers 
can no longer make an adequate income in light of the sharp reductions. 
Farmers that have farmed their land for generations will be forced off 
their lands, not just in North Dakota but across rural America.
  It is not just farmers either that are taking these vicious hits. It 
is the very warp and fabric of rural America. The Medicare cuts will 
close rural hospitals. The Medicaid cuts will close nursing homes. 
Rural development assistance, so vital to diversifying our economies, 
also due to be slashed.
  One Republican suburban Member of this body revealed the thinking of 
the majority as they hit rural America so completely. He says, and I 
quote:

       Not everyone needs to be connected to the U.S. Postal 
     Service. If it is too expensive to deliver to some spot in 
     North Dakota, then those residents can do without it.

  This budget will take away farms. This budget will take away rural 
hospitals. This budget will wipe out critical services in rural 
America, some even advocate eliminating postal service.
  Rural America has been sold out. It is a bad budget for our country.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], a freshman Member.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I was hesitant at first to support this budget resolution. While I 
stand among revolutionaries, I did not think this was revolutionary 
enough. The people on November 8 wanted us to change the way Government 
was running. They wanted us to downsize Government and give Government 
back to the people.
  I am heading up a task force of great Americans that is trying to 
abolish the Department of Energy because, according to Vice President 
Gore, it is 40 percent inefficient. Over the next 30 years it is going 
to cost us $70 billion unless we do something with it. I did not see it 
initially in this budget resolution. But after looking through the 
details, I found out that this is a very good plan, and it is in the 
details. The Senate is not as excited about it yet, but there is room 
to work with these details.
  This starts the process of giving Government back to the people. I 
think that is what people want here in America. That is what they said 
on November 8. It balances the budget in 7 years.
  It returns hope to World War II generations, my father. It returns 
hope to me, the babyboomer generation. And it returns hope to 
generation X, my children, so that we do not pass the burden on to 
them.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey], one of the very able new Members of our 
committee who represents her state of California in distinguished 
fashion.
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, once again with this conference report the 
House is being asked to vote yes or no on the following question: 
Should we take child nutrition away from our kids, college aid away 
from our students and their families, and health care away from seniors 
so that the wealthy special interests can get a tax giveaway? And once 
again, I expect that Members of the Republican majority will answer 
with a resounding yes.
  Despite public opposition, they probably have the votes to pass this 
conference report and continue their assault on America's children, 
seniors, and middle income families. But let me promise the authors of 
this reckless budget, on behalf of the millions of Americans who will 
be hurt by it, we will be back.
  This vote is just one step in the budget process, Mr. Speaker. We 
have a long summer ahead of us. The final details will not be settled 
until the fall. But every day families are learning that this budget 
takes food away from their children. Every day college students are 
organizing, and they will keep fighting until the Republican majority 
realizes the insanity involved in shutting the classroom door on 
college kids in order to open up tax loopholes for large profitable 
corporations. We all know that America's seniors will not sit quietly 
this summer while Republicans take away their health security.
  We have a long way to go before this reckless budget becomes a 
reality, Mr. Speaker. I promise you that we will be back.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report, a report that 
takes away from children, seniors, and middle income families to give 
tax breaks to the wealthiest.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Herger], a member of the Committee on the Ways and 
Means and the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, last fall we promised the American people we would 
reduce the size of government, zero out the deficit and provide tax 
relief. And today we are keeping that promise. While this joint budget 
agreement does not go as far as some of us may have liked, I believe 
this agreement is a major victory. This budget puts us on a path to a 
zero budget by the year 2002 and begins to move people from welfare to 
work, saving $100 billion. We have cut discretionary spending by $190 
billion, and we have already started to cut back foreign aid.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget provides $245 billion in tax relief, 
including a $500-per-child tax credit, tax relief for our seniors and 
incentives for economic growth.
  Mr. Speaker, for the sake of our children and our grandchildren, I 
urge my colleagues to vote yes on this balanced budget.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. 
This bill is ill-advised and should be defeated.
  I strongly support balancing the Federal budget. Earlier this year I 
voted for the Orton-Stenholm balanced budget, which reduced Federal 
spending in an equitable and responsible manner. There is a right way 
and wrong way to balance the budget and this budget before us is the 
wrong way.
  This agreement assumes a tax cut of $245 billion over 7 years. It is 
wrong to cut benefits for seniors, low-income families, veterans, 
college students, NASA, and medical research to pay for a tax cut that 
will benefit the wealthiest in our society.
  All Americans are willing to sacrifice to balance the budget, but 
this is not a fair budget. This budget agreement will hurt Texas, and I 
cannot support it.
  The budget agreement will cut $270 billion in Medicare over 7 years. 
The agreement will cut Medicaid by $182 billion over 7 years. 

[[Page H 6578]]
Senior citizens under Medicare will pay more for the same benefits. 
Seniors will pay higher deductibles, copayments, and premiums. 
Additionally, senior citizens who rely on Medicaid for long-term care 
in nursing homes will see their benefits cut and fewer families will 
receive this necessary care.
  These cuts in Medicare will also affect teaching hospitals and 
providers. Reductions in Medicare will cut $2.4 billion in lower 
reimbursements for indirect medical education and direct medical 
education. The University of Texas system has estimated it will lose 
funding of $21 million. These teaching facilities, which I represent, 
cannot replace these dollars. Private insurers are not willing to pay 
for this medical education which we benefit from.
  These cuts in Medicaid will reduce reimbursements funding for 13 of 
Houston's hospitals by $1.16 billion. Estimates of these cuts are a 
reduction of $196 million for Harris County Hospital District, $163 
million cut from Texas Children's Hospital, $141 million cut from 
Hermann Hospital, $31 million cut from M.D. Anderson Hospital, $17 
million cut from St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, and $17 million cut 
from Methodist Hospital.
  The budget agreement will reduce spending for NASA, a major employer 
for the Houston area which I represent. NASA recently experienced cuts 
of 3,200 personnel at the Johnson Space Center. Under this budget, NASA 
will receive $700 million less next year to build the space station and 
continue important scientific research. In future years, the cuts for 
NASA are even higher. Administrator Dan Goldin has told me that NASA 
cannot absorb these cuts without massive personnel cuts, and will have 
to eliminate centers and programs to meet these targets.
  This budget agreement assumes that college students should start 
paying interest on their student loans before they attend a class, or 
buy a book. This is short sighted and wrong. An average student will 
pay $5000 more for their education. Many middle-class families cannot 
afford these increased costs. It makes no sense to argue that this 
budget resolution will increase investment through tax breaks for the 
wealthy while cutting student loans and education programs which invest 
in the future of our people, the most vital ingredient of our Nation's 
economy.
  This budget agreement will reduce funding for medical research. The 
agreement cuts $100 million next year and even more in the following 
years from the National Institutes of Health. Medical research centers 
such as the Texas Medical Center cannot sustain these cuts. Valuable 
research projects will be stopped and new investments in cures for 
dreaded diseases such as cancer and AIDS will not be made.
  Finally, I am concerned that this budget agreement will not reduce 
our Federal deficit quickly. The conference report cuts the deficit by 
$800 million over 2 years. In order to balance the budget, we need to 
reduce spending by $1 trillion over 7 years. $800 million is not a good 
down-payment on paying down our debt. The Orton-Stenholm balanced 
budget will result in $100 billion lower cumulative deficits than the 
conference report. Let me repeat that, $100 billion less in debt. The 
Orton-Stenholm budget also cuts $100 billion less in Medicare than the 
conference report, and $43 billion less in Medicaid.
  The conference report delays making the tough choices, which Congress 
must act upon. The Republican budget does not cut programs until years 
5, 6, and 7 of the budget cycle. I believe that Congress will not 
follow through with these difficult cuts. If we enact tax cuts, we will 
have fewer revenues to lower our Federal debt.
  I believe that all Americans are willing to sacrifice and share in 
the burden to balance the budget. However, this agreement failed to 
fairly distribute these cuts. It trades severe cuts in Medicare, 
veterans, and students for tax cuts for the wealthy and continues to 
expand our debt. That is wrong, and I urge the defeat of this budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Roybal-Allard], a very thoughtful, hard-working new 
member of our committee.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Republican 
conference report that pays for a $245 billion tax cut for the 
wealthiest Americans, by slashing services and incentives for the 
elderly, the young, and the working poor.
  Our Nation's greatness is not measured by improving the living 
standards of just the wealthy but of all Americans. This budget cuts 
investments in health care, child nutrition, and work incentives.
  First, Medicaid that mainly serves poor seniors, disabled, and 
children, is capped at 4 percent. This is simply insufficient to offset 
the rapid growth of the needy and rising health care costs.
  Second, it cuts nutrition programs in a way that threatens the health 
of children and, eventually, the health of our economy. Hungry children 
cannot learn and grow into productive working adults.
  Third, proposed cuts in the earned income tax credit [EITC] will 
weaken an important incentive for people to work. President Reagan 
called the EITC ``the best job-creation measure to come out of 
Congress.''
  These misguided cuts to benefit the wealthy are indefensible. I urge 
my colleagues to reject the Republican budget conference agreement.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the State of Washington, Ms. Jennifer Dunn.
  Ms. DUNN of Washington, Mr. Speaker, today we take a historic step in 
reducing the size of the Federal Government, providing families and 
employers with badly needed tax relief and erasing the Federal budget 
deficit. Today we are outlining a path to the future that restores both 
hope and opportunity for future generations.
  We are dramatically changing the fiscal direction of our country. 
From a path of out-of-control growth of Government to a path of 
sustained expansion of the economy and job creation. Achieving a 
balanced budget will produce lower interest rates, higher productivity, 
improved purchasing power for all Americans, more exports and 
accelerated long-term growth. That will revive the American Dream.
  In addition to reducing Government spending and eliminating the 
deficit, we are providing incentives for growth of our economy. Mr. 
Speaker, 2 years ago, the Clinton administration imposed the largest 
tax increase in the history of our Nation, placed squarely on the backs 
of the American people. Those tax increases took real money out of the 
pockets of real American families. Recent estimates suggest that with a 
balanced budget, our GDP would rise by an extra 2.5 percent over the 
next decade. This translates into an extra $1,000 a year for every 
American family household.
  This budget resolution unlocks the door to a prosperous, deficit-free 
future. Real incomes will grow faster, long-term interest rates will 
fall significantly, and Americans can once again look forward to their 
children doing better than they. With my two sons in mind as well as 
the generation that will follow them, I am proud to support this 
balanced budget resolution.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett], an enthusiastic, hard-working new member of our 
committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, just a word about the tax-and-spend 
Republican budget resolution. Yes, tax and spend. That is a term we 
hear so much thrown against this side, but this is a tax-and-spend 
budget resolution for many Americans. It has been interesting, in 
listening through the course of this debate, not to have heard one word 
from our Republican colleagues about the 14 million American families 
that the Treasury Department estimates will have their taxes not cut 
but increased through what is being proposed in this budget resolution, 
about the earned income tax credit, the earned income tax credit, 
something that no less a revolutionary than Ronald Reagan described as 
the best jobs program ever devised by man. That program they propose to 
give a good whack to.
  I have been concerned about the impact of raising, not lowering 
taxes, for people like the Kierklewski family, that are struggling to 
get up the economic ladder, that are struggling to reach retirement. Of 
course, there are some who will benefit from their version of 
eliminating tax and spend. The large corporations that will not have to 
pay a nickel with their elimination of the minimum tax credit, they are 
getting a tax break, but not the Kierklewski family.
  What about the spend part of their resolution? Yes, they are cutting 
some Government spending, but they are going to spend a little more of 
Mr. Kierklewski's money. If he wants to go to his own doctor, he is 
going to have to pay maybe $20 a month more just for the opportunity to 
do that, as a Medicare recipient. If he wants home health care, they 
are going to spend more of 

[[Page H 6579]]
his money if he wants to get the same level of service.
  What is so unfortunate about that for retirees, Mr. Speaker, is that 
they are already having to pay 21 percent of their health care costs. 
One out of every $5 already being spent by Medicare recipients is their 
money, so the tax-and-spend budget resolution needs to be rejected, 
even if we have to stay here all of another night to fight this 
stacking of the committees that will implement this resolution.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  (Mr. ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. First of 
all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the committee and thank the 
chairman for their great work. We have been on track from the very 
start, right through the conference committee. That was that we have a 
balanced budget by 2002.
  We have kept our word. We have dealt with real numbers. We have said, 
``Okay, we can create a good balance in this particular budget proposal 
by saying we need tax cuts. If we keep more of the revenue at home we 
can create more opportunity by cutting spending, so people lean more on 
their own shoulders instead of having to lean on the shoulders of 
government.''
  I really, honestly believe this is an opportunity budget. We are 
creating more opportunity and more freedoms for Americans. Mr. Speaker, 
we heard testimony in committee that said that the one thing we could 
do to really create confidence in America would be to balance our 
budget. It was Alan Greenspan who said that. We are doing that. We are 
putting us on track to restore confidence in this country, and to make 
people more responsible for their own lives.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to the conference report on the budget, because I want to 
balance the budget and I want to be fair. Although the language in the 
conference report is an improvement over the House budget resolution, 
it still contains a fatal flaw, $245 billion in tax cuts which will 
delay the benefit our constituents will get from deficit reduction.
  As someone who voted for both rescission bills this year, I do not 
believe that tax cuts are warranted until we have implemented tough 
spending decisions. Taxes today, and we should remember this, take out 
of the economy less than they did 25 years ago. When Richard Nixon was 
President in 1970, Federal taxes consumed 19.6 percent of the gross 
domestic product. Today the percentage is smaller, 19.2 percent.
  What is more, the Republican plan backloads deficit reduction until 
after the year 2000, but gives away an easy tax cut immediately. The 
tax cut increases the deficit in 1997, and hopes to pay for deficit 
reduction in the final 2 years.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished young 
gentleman from the Empire State, New York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I know everyone is very tired 
after being in for over 30 hours, but it is important to straighten out 
certain misconceptions that have been laid out on the floor so far by 
some of my friends. For example, there has been some criticism, some 
implicit criticism that somehow the numbers do not add up for the 
Republican budget.
  Let me tell the Members, those numbers do not come from Republican 
staffers, they come from the Congressional Budget Office, the same 
Congressional Budget Office that President Clinton in this room 
lectured Republican Members about the accuracy, how important that was 
and how accurate those numbers are. These are numbers that come from 
the Congressional Budget Office. They verify that we get to a balanced 
budget by 2002.
  There are some people who have talked about cutting student aid and 
cutting student loans. There are no cuts in any student aid package in 
this budget. There has been some suggestion somehow that tax cuts go to 
the wealthy. Eighty-seven and a half percent of the child tax credits 
for young working families are going to go to families making under 
$75,000 a year.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a positive budget for the average people of 
America. Economists agree that a balanced budget will lower interest 
rates, increase investment, allow for a higher standard of living for 
our children and grandchildren. According to Alan Greenspan, who 
testified before our committee, productivity would accelerate, the 
inflation rate would be subdued, financial markets would be more solid, 
and the underlying outlook would be generally improved for underlying 
economic growth if this budget is balanced. Is that something we could 
not all agree on as an objective? Real incomes would improve, taxes 
would fall, and Americans will be able to look forward to their 
children doing better than they. What better promise can we deliver for 
our children?
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support the conference 
agreement on House Concurrent Resolution 67, which steers us on a true 
course toward a balanced budget in 2002. This historic budget 
resolution accomplishes many goals, but one of the most important is 
that it demonstrates our strong commitment to keeping the promises we 
made to the American people.
  We promised to balance the budget, and this is the crucial first step 
in that process. It is a tough, but fair and forward-thinking plan. 
Every part of the country--urban and rural--is impacted.
  This budget achieves a zero deficit by 2002 without touching Social 
Security, while at the same time cutting taxes for America's 
hardworking families, and preserving, protecting, and strengthening the 
Medicare program.
  Although President Clinton's second budget proposal fails to reach 
balance, at least he finally agrees with Congress and the American 
people that the budget needs to be balanced, middle-class families need 
tax relief, and that the Medicare and Medicaid programs need to be 
strengthened in order to preserve their existence.
  A balanced budget is the surest strategy to increase productivity and 
living standards by increasing national savings in America.
  Although this is an important landmark, we must remember that our 
work has only just begun. Only when the budget is totally balanced will 
we have completely fulfilled our mandate and protected the future of 
our children.
  Mr. Speaker, a few years ago this body faced a difficult task when 
the American savings and loan industry had to be rescued. Leaders in 
Congress and elsewhere ignored warnings that something was wrong and 
continued business as usual, recognizing the crisis only after it had 
happened. The result was a disaster that cost the taxpayers billions of 
dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here to say it is happening again. We are facing a 
crisis that is even more inevitable than what we faced with the savings 
and loans: HUD's portfolio of insured section 8 project-based 
properties.
  The tale of how we got where we are is a classic example of the law 
of unintended consequences. Few in 1974, when the authorizing 
legislation was passed, could have foreseen what would happen to the 
real estate market in the 1980's, nor could they reliably predict other 
elements in the market.
  What the Congress created in 1974 was meant to provide affordable 
housing to needy Americans. It has become, however, a financial time 
bomb that is about to explode with tens of billions of dollars in 
consequences.
  The problem with the combination of section 8 subsidies and FHA 
multifamily mortgage insurance is that it places the Government on both 
ends of the deal. It's a catch-22: we have to lower the inflated 
subsidies to market rates in order to achieve savings, but if we lower 
the subsidies thoughtlessly we risk defaults that could cost the 
American taxpayers billions of dollars.
  When the House Budget Committee, of which I am a member, met this 
spring to discuss budget options, I raised the section 8 contract 
renewal issue. It is a problem without an easy solution and, try as we 
did, there is no way to show short-term savings.
  I supported resolving the situation created by section 8 and FHA 
muiltifamily insurance by returning the properties to market discipline 
because it is the least objectionable of the choices we face. I am glad 
to say that my colleagues on the House Budget Committee realized the 
gravity of the situation and were willing to address the crisis 
honestly. We may not like it, but it may well be our only alternative.
  But we cannot be swayed from addressing this situation honestly. We 
need to resolve this problem now because if we don't mark these 

[[Page H 6580]]
properties to market, we are only holding off the inevitable for a few 
years at best. It could also mean we would risk consequences far more 
severe than purely financial--we risk the displacement of hundreds of 
thousands of families.
  We should realize that nearly half of these units house elderly or 
disabled people. Throwing these people out on the street for short-term 
budgetary gain is not an acceptable option.
  I am disappointed in the other body for their support of the status 
quo throughout the budget conference. Simply renewing the contracts may 
temporarily hold off the flood, but what we are really doing is nothing 
more than putting our finger in the dike and ignoring the fact that, 
finger or no finger, the seawall is crumbling around us.
  We had hoped to address this issue in the reconciliation process 
because of the pay-go rules. As it is, we cannot avoid a mandatory 
expense because cutting subsidies will mean claims against the FHA 
fund. There is no way around that.
  We have to be honest and realize that the solution, in the short 
term, may be more expensive than the status quo. But not resolving this 
quickly will mean we are only continuing along a path of short-sighted 
quick-fixes that fail us in the long run.
  The current system is bad for tenants, bad for the markets, and is 
downright irresponsible to the taxpayers of this country.
  When American voters spoke last November, they asked us to be honest 
and make tough choices. The time has come to make good on our promise 
to do just that. As chairman of the Housing Subcommittee, I intend to 
make sure that happens in a balanced, fair manner.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I, like everyone else in this Congress, 
have a family, and I think we all do our utmost to make sure that, as 
we balance our family budgets, as we must do at the end of every year, 
we have planned for our future, not just for our present.
  I must tell the Members, when I take a look at what is before us 
today in terms of a budget for the family of America, I do not see this 
comporting to what the needs are for all the families of America. In my 
family, as my parents did, our parents did, I plan for the two children 
that I have right now to go on to college. I prepare for the illnesses 
that my spouse, my wife or my kids may face. We must plan for that day 
when it rains a little bit more than we expect, and we need that extra 
cash.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not see this in this budget. What I do see is $245 
billion in tax breaks, mostly going to people who are wealthy in this 
country. I do see cuts of $10 billion, yes, $10 billion in cuts for 
education, for college, and I see $270 billion in cuts for Medicare, 
for our elderly, and $180 billion in Medicaid for our elderly and our 
poor.
  That is not planning the way my parents would do it, the way my 
family would do it, not any family in America would do it. I urge the 
Members to reject this budget proposal.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Cleveland, OH [Mr. Hoke], a member of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, maybe it is that we have been up all night, but this 
debate has been kind of snoozy. The fact is that we are doing something 
that is so extraordinary and so unusual. There are some of us who are a 
little upset about it, because 7 years is a long time. If this was the 
private sector, if this was business, and we had to downsize over a 7-
year period to get our books in order, we would be out of business. We 
would be kaput.
  It is government, so we are going to drag our heels a little bit and 
take time, but we are doing it. We are doing it. It is the first time 
in 25 years. It is phenomenal. It is incredible. I admit, we have all 
been up all night long, 38 hours, 36 hours, whatever. The fact is we 
are going to have a balanced budget for the United States of America, 
for our children, for our grandchildren. We are actually recapitulating 
what we done over 200 years ago, no taxation without representation. 
Let us celebrate it.
  For heaven's sakes, please, if Members honestly believe that this 
somehow drags money out of the mouths of babes and the elderly, they 
have always got to see the glass as being completely half empty.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. What we are facing here is class warfare, and the 
warfare is on the middle class, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. 
On page 74 of the conference report, it talks about $10 billion in 
outlays over the next 7 years being reduced from the student loan 
program, a 20-percent cut in job training funds, $270 billion cut out 
of Medicare, so what are we doing here? We are going to cut taxes for 
the top 1 percent, your mother and father are gong to lose Medicare 
benefits, your kids are not going to be able to get a student loan, and 
when you lose your job and try to get job training funds, they are 
going to be gone, too.
                              {time}  1445

  So what are we doing here? It is very simple. This is a war on the 
middle class so that we can get a tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent 
again. It is just what they did in the early 1980's. It ballooned the 
deficit. It did not balance it. And it hurts the country.
  People who work for a living have a right to expect that their 
parents will get decent medical care, that their kids can go to 
college, and that they can get retrained.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is about time. This budget 
resolution reduces the annual deficit over 7 years and reaches a 
balanced budget in 2002, without attempting a tax increase. Indeed, it 
contemplates a cumulative tax reduction of approximately $245 billion 
over the 7 years of the budget as a partial offset to the huge tax 
increase of 2 years ago. This is a very positive step and signifies a 
turning of the ship of state from what Hayek called the Road to Serfdom 
in his classic 1945 work of government overspending. But, in another 
sense, it showcases the growth of our Federal Government over the last 
25 years. This budget calls for total outlays of $1.587 trillion in 
1996, and is seen as a bare bones budget. To put this in perspective, 
total Federal outlays did not reach $100 billion until 1962. It then 
only took a little more than a quarter of a century to reach $1 
trillion. Seventeen years later, we have a situation where net interest 
on the national debt exceeds the entire Federal budget of 1974.
  The passage of this budget resolution is a signal that the new 
Congress has recognized the effects of our huge Federal debt, yet, by 
the time the debt stops growing in 2002, the debt will have grown to 
$6.7 trillion. While this budget accomplishes a great deal, there is a 
great deal more to be done. As we more forward we should keep in mind 
the words of Dr. Dick Armey, in his book he wrote in the 20th century 
``The Freedom Revolution'': ``The people themselves, not their 
government, should be trusted with spending their own money and making 
their own decisions.''
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I along with a lot of my colleagues very much want to 
support a responsible, reasonable and balanced plan to balance the 
budget. While there are many positive aspects of this budget, and it 
represents a clear improvement over the budget that was initially 
passed by the House, I have concluded that the conference report still 
falls far short of its goal.
  Under this conference report, 2 years from now the budget deficit 
will be the same as it is today. More importantly, this budget takes 
credit for $170 billion of economic bonus whether or not CBO concludes 
that it deserves the credit.
  While I agree that we need to reform Medicare and Medicaid, I have 
not been convinced that we can achieve savings in these programs of the 
magnitude required in this budget without doing harm to our health care 
system. I also have serious concerns about the cuts in agricultural 
programs in this budget. Cuts of this magnitude will unilaterally 
disarm American agriculture in the battle of the global economy.

[[Page H 6581]]

  Finally, I do not understand why the conferees continued to insist on 
savings in education programs. If there is one place we agree, it is 
that we need to have an opportunity for our young people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with disappointment that I rise in opposition to 
this conference report. I strongly support the goal of balancing the 
budget by 2002 and am committed to finding a bipartisan solution to our 
deficit problem. I very much want to support a reasonable, balanced, 
and responsible plan to balance the budget. While there are many 
positive aspects of this budget and it represents a clear improvement 
over the budget initially passed by the House, I have concluded that 
this conference report still falls short of this goal.
  This budget falls well short of the goal of putting the budget on a 
responsible path toward balance. The conference report backloads the 
deficit reduction in the last 2 years. In fact, under this conference 
report, 2 years from now the budget deficit will be the same as it is 
today. Although the conferees initially reported that tax cuts would be 
postponed until CBO has certified that we have produced sufficient 
spending cuts to balance the budget, the conference report before us 
now does not include this provision. The Ways and Means Committee will 
not need to wait until CBO certifies that we have put the budget on a 
credible glide path toward balance before enacting tax cuts. More 
importantly, this budget takes credit for the $170 billion economic 
bonus whether or not CBO concludes that we deserve credit.
  I agree that it is imperative that the budget control the growth of 
Medicare and Medicaid by reforming these programs to reduce their rapid 
growth. However, I have not been convinced that we can achieve savings 
in the Medicare and Medicaid programs of the magnitude required in this 
budget without doing harm to our health care system and shifting costs 
to States and local governments and the private sector. I am 
particularly concerned about the impact that Medicare and Medicaid 
could have on critical rural hospitals.
  I also have serious concerns about the cuts in agricultural programs 
in this budget. Once again, agriculture is being asked to bear more 
than its fair share of cuts. Cuts of this magnitude will unilaterally 
disarm American farmers in the battle in the global economy.
  Finally, I do not understand why the conferees continued to insist on 
savings in education programs. If there is one priority in the budget 
that everyone should be able to agree on, it is that we should help 
younger generations receive the education they need to provide for a 
strong future for this Nation. The education cuts, particularly in 
student loans, will make it much more difficult for students to help 
themselves by receiving an education.
  The budget alternative offered by the coalition earlier this year met 
the goal of balancing the budget by 2002 through responsible reforms of 
government programs while avoiding the ill-advised cuts in agriculture, 
Medicare, Medicaid, and education programs in this conference report. I 
continue to believe that the coalition budget represents the reasonable 
middle ground that can be the basis for a consensus on this issue. I 
intend to work with the President and the leadership of Congress in a 
constructive manner to put together a plan to balance the budget that 
can receive strong support within Congress and among the American 
public and which can be enacted into law.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, one of America's real war heroes.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe people are 
talking about not giving money back to the people of America. It is 
your money. We need to give it back to you. It is not Government's 
money.
  Mr. Speaker, today Republicans will pass the first plan in 26 years 
that balances the Federal budget. This budget ensures a secure future 
for this country and protects the children of tomorrow by eliminating 
the debt of today.
  This budget is proof that Republicans, unlike the President, are 
serious about eliminating the deficit, downsizing the Government, and 
giving much needed tax relief to all Americans. This budget is fair, it 
is balanced and it is the right thing to do.
  I consider this one of the most important votes we will ever make in 
the Congress. We hold America's future in our hands. This is the 
greatest Nation on Earth and this budget will ensure that it will have 
the financial security to stay that way.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote for prosperity, vote for our 
future, and to vote for our children. Vote ``yes'' on this budget, our 
country deserves it.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Rangel], the distinguished senior member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Ohio, Mr. Kasich, Speaker Gingrich, and also Senator Gramm. I do not 
think in our lifetime or perhaps in history have they gone out of their 
way to show you the difference between the Democrat and the Republican. 
I think that is important.
  As I understand the argument, if you are sick, if you are poor, if 
you are blind or disabled, that is not a Federal problem and it 
entitles you to absolutely nothing. The fact is, as the Speaker said 
before, it is time to give the tax money back to those people that earn 
it. The fact that rich people earn it means you give it back to rich 
people. Therefore, the poor should rely more on charitable 
organizations, not-for-profit organizations, even though I understand 
the Republicans want a flat tax that would even withdraw the incentives 
to make contributions.
  Mr. Speaker, I really believe that what is going on now is 
revolutionary. The Supreme Court has said that you cannot elect people 
based on their color. We are going after affirmative action and now we 
are going after the rest of the poor. Congratulations, you have made 
history.
  Mr. Speaker, the way I look at it, while it is so easy to identify 
the poor among us sometimes, when people really see that we are making 
these cuts in order to return this money to the rich, that ultimately 
the poor, the sick, and the aged are not going to go away.
  True, when you give a block grant, you say that we do not have any 
responsibility; let the Governors do it. After all, they are closer to 
the problem. The Governors will say let the mayors do it, and the 
mayors will say let the churches and the synagogues and the temples do 
it.
  Even when someone comes back and they say they want to change, the 
Democrats didn't do the right thing, they never meant that we would 
just take our responsibility and throw it back to the communities that 
cannot afford to raise the taxes to do what has to be done.
  I do hope when the American people finally wake up and see exactly 
what we are doing to them, it is clearly supporting tax breaks for 
those whom God has blessed with the riches among us, and going after 
programs and saying it is not a Federal entitlement, leave it up to the 
charitable organizations.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].
  Mr. BASS. I thank the gentleman, the chairman, for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in proud support of the conference 
committee report. As one of the 72 new Republicans who were elected in 
November, no group stands more solidly behind change here in Congress. 
Indeed, as the distinguished gentleman from New York has pointed out, 
there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats.
  We believe in thoughtful spending. We do not believe in funding it 
and forgetting it. We believe in fiscal sanity. We believe in a 
balanced budget, and we believe that the American people sent a clear 
message to Congress that they want change. That is what we represent 
here in Congress.
  I urge adoption of the committee conference report.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] 
pointed out earlier, that the debate is a little bit stale. I think it 
is stale because the folks on the other side are missing two points.
  No. 1, they are missing the point that the American people do not 
believe that they are out to save the middle class. They realize that 
they define redistribution in such a way that everybody is wealthy in 
their book.
  The second reason is I think the American people realize it is time 
for us to do something. That is what we are doing on this side, and it 
is very exciting to be part of this historic effort to balance the 
budget over 7 years.

[[Page H 6582]]

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Cincinnati, OH [Mr. Portman].
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I want to commend 
him and his bipartisan team that put together this budget. They have 
done a great job. Let us not forget, as someone has mentioned, we have 
not had a balanced budget around here since 1969, so this is historic.
  Yesterday the chairman of the Committee on the Budget revealed to me 
that in his first budget he wrote, which was in about 1969 in the Ohio 
State Senate, he got one vote. It was his own. Today he is probably 
going to get about 250 times that amount. He gets the most improved 
award, I guess.
  The reason he is going to get that kind of support is because this 
document is fair. Despite what my colleague on the Committee on Ways 
and Means from New York said, it is fair. It is fair in that everything 
is on the table. It is fair in that everybody makes a sacrifice for the 
future of the country and, yes, it is fair because it is fair to the 
next generation of Americans who otherwise would be burdened with 
skyrocketing taxes and a failing economy because of our irresponsible 
and reckless spending.
  Our real challenge is going to be to keep our resolve 2 years from 
now, 4 years from now, 6
 years from now. I think we will do it but we need the momentum today 
to be able to do it. It is not going to be easy but nothing is more 
important.

  I urge everyone to support this document because it is fair, it is a 
great start, and again I want to commend the bipartisan team.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], a member of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, for 13 years I served in the State House and I watched 
Congress deficit-spend, and I wondered if I would ever have the chance 
to be part of a movement in Congress to get our financial house in 
order.
  When I was first elected, I noticed this young man named John Kasich, 
who was coming in with these budgets to balance, to get our financial 
house in order, and only about 30 people were supporting him. He kept 
working at it and we are at this day today, which is very historic.
  I have waited 20 years and I have worked for 20 years to finally be 
able to vote for a budget that is balanced. The challenge we have is 
when I listen to my colleagues and they say we are not taking care of 
the sick or poor, they simply are distorting the issue when they say we 
are cutting Medicare or Medicaid.
  The fact is with Medicaid we are going to go from $89 billion to $124 
billion. Only in Washington when you spend more do people call it a 
cut. We are going to spend $329 billion more in the next 7 years on 
Medicaid.
  Then we have the challenge of Medicare. Medicare is going bankrupt in 
7 years. The White House, Congress, the minority party wanted to ignore 
it. We weighed in and said we need to slow the growth of Medicare. We 
are going to slow the growth, but it is still going to go from $178 
billion to $274 billion. Only in Washington when you spend more money 
do people call it a cut.
  We are going to spend $675 billion more for Medicare in the next 7 
years than we did in the last 7 years. Social Security is going to go 
up 5.3 percent each year for the next 7 years; Medicare, an average of 
6.3 percent each year for the next 7 years; Medicaid, an average of 4.9 
percent each year for the next 7 years. Other entitlements are going to 
go up at 4.1 percent.
  What we are cutting is Government. We are going to downsize 
Government. We are going to make it smaller. The school lunch program 
is going to go up. Our health care programs are going to go up, but we 
are going to make this Government smaller. In the process, we are going 
to change this caretaking society to a caring society.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], a very hard-working, 
enthusiastic Member.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, what my colleague who just finished talking 
failed to realize is that none of the increases that they are talking 
about have anything to do with increased enrollment, whether it is 
students or increased enrollment of seniors in Medicare or any increase 
in any inflation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Republican plan to 
cut Medicare to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy.
  Make no mistake about it, that is what this budget resolution is all 
about. It is not about reducing the budget deficit. It is not about 
fixing Medicare. It is about cutting Medicare by $270 billion in order 
to pay for tax breaks for big corporations and the wealthiest 
Americans.
  No matter how you disguise it, this budget resolution is a frontal 
assault on America's 37 million senior citizens--people like Julius and 
Dottie Ruskin in my district in West Haven, CT.
  Julius and Dottie live on Social Security and his company pension for 
a total income of about $14,000 a year. Julius' medical bills this year 
have already totaled more than $10,000, and Medicare pays for 80 
percent of these costs. Julius and Dottie simply cannot afford to pay 
$3,400 more out-of-pocket for their health care over the next 7 years, 
but that is what the Republican cuts to Medicare will mean for the 
average senior. They will pay more, but they will get fewer benefits 
and restrictions on their choice of their own doctor.
  The Republicans may be keeping their promises to the rich and 
powerful. But they are breaking our Nation's historic promise to the 
health and welfare of senior citizens like Julius and Dottie Ruskin.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the statement of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] who said we are cutting 
Medicare and Medicaid and not looking into consideration of increases. 
Medicare goes up from $4,800 per beneficiary to $6,734 per beneficiary. 
We are providing more per beneficiary each and every year.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens], a Member who is very 
concerned about education.
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget calls for $100 billion 
in cuts in low-income assistance programs including aid to families 
with dependent children, food stamps, supplemental security income, 
child welfare programs, and the earned income tax credit.
  These programs are left unscathed by the alternative budget which the 
CBC prepared earlier. Republicans have continually assaulted these 
welfare programs, as they call them, since the beginning of the 
Congress but have neglected to seriously attack other forms of welfare.
  For example, the abuses in farm subsidy programs are widespread and 
well-known and they have not been attacked. Republicans also have not 
attacked corporate welfare. The problem of corporate welfare was at 
least recognized in the House-passed budget. The House did include at 
least $25 billion in corporate welfare cuts when the bill left here and 
the Senate also enacted their version, it had $9.4 billion in corporate 
welfare cuts.
  But somehow in the conference all of this was dropped and there are 
zero cuts in corporate welfare at this point. To add insult to injury, 
after we vote on this budget agreement we will also have a rescissions 
package brought back. I urge a ``no'' vote on this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Concurrent 
Resolution 67, the conference agreement on the fiscal year budget 
resolution. This budget decimates virtually every major social program 
on which working families rely. The budget inflicts immense pain on 
those least able to withstand it while perpetuating corporate welfare, 
increasing defense spending, and cutting taxes for the wealthiest 
individuals.
  First and foremost, the conference agreement calls for cuts for $10 
billion in outlays for student aid and a 33-percent cut in 
discretionary spending for education and training programs over the 
next 7 years. Due to 

[[Page H 6583]]
spending caps, we would lose $4 to $5 billion in education funding in 
fiscal year 1996 alone.
  In stark contrast to the Republican scheme, the President, the 
Congressional Black Caucus [CBC], and the Progressive Caucus have made 
the education and job training portion of the budget their top 
priority--a view which is in line with the majority of the American 
people. Both the President's proposed budget plan and the CBC/
Progressive Caucus alternative budget include tens of billions of 
dollars in spending increases for education and job training, while the 
Republican plan proposes to cut spending on these programs by similar 
amounts.
  Second, the Republican budget slashes Medicare by $270 billion and 
Medicaid by $182 billion. The Medicare cuts translate into $150 month 
out of the pocket of the average senior citizen, and the Medicaid cuts 
mean that 800,000 to 1 million seniors and individuals with 
disabilities will lose health care coverage completely. The CBC/
Progressive Caucus alternative budget, on the other hand, leaves these 
vital programs intact with no decreases in funding.
  Third, the Republican budget calls for $100 billion in cuts in low-
income assistance programs, including aid to families with dependent 
children [AFDC], food stamps, supplemental security income [SSI], child 
welfare programs, and the earned income tax credit [EITC]. Again, these 
programs are left unscathed by the CBC/Progressive Caucus alternative 
budget.
  Republicans have continually assaulted these welfare programs since 
the beginning of the Congress but have neglected to seriously attack 
other forms of welfare. For example, the abuses in farm subsidy 
programs are widespread and well-known. Today, the environmental 
working group once again is releasing a report which details such 
abuses. In this report, the ``Fox in the Henhouse,'' it is revealed 
that local, federally paid, Department of Agriculture employees who run 
farm subsidy programs routinely practice fraud, extortion, and 
embezzlement. In just one incident in California, four employees 
fraudulently issued 17 Federal farm subsidy checks worth more than 
$270,000, using the cash to buy illegal drugs.
  Republicans also should be ashamed to bring a budget plan to the 
floor which drastically reduces funding for every program for the 
working poor and does not strip a single cent from corporate welfare. 
That is right--not a single cent. The House-passed budget resolution 
included $25 billion in corporate welfare cuts, and the Senate-passed 
version included $9.4 billion, but somehow all of that was dropped in 
conference.
  America's working families know that we can do better than that. The 
dirty little secret of corporate welfare is out of the bag. The CBC/
Progressive Caucus alternative budget includes $500 billion in 
corporate welfare cuts, so the people know that it can be done. And it 
is not just Democrats who are pushing for an end to corporate welfare. 
Even the very conservative Heritage Foundation is on board with the 
idea.
  To add insult to injury, after we vote on this budget agreement, we 
will vote on the new Republican version of the rescissions package that 
President Clinton vetoed earlier this month. Unfortunately, the new 
bill is only slightly better. It is like telling the American people 
that we are going to give them one cyanide pill instead of two. The 
rescissions bill remains completely unacceptable.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the budget conference agreement and 
the rescissions package, both of which deliver a sharp blow to the 
stomachs of the most vulnerable Americans without equitably 
distributing the pain necessary to move toward a balanced budget.


                          ____________________