[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 167 (Thursday, October 26, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10872-H10913]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 245 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2491.

                              {time}  1212


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2491) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 
105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996, 
with Mr. Boehner in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
October 25, 1995, all time for general debate pursuant to the order of 
the House of Tuesday, October 24, 1995, and expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 245, there will be an additional 3 hours 
of further general debate.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Sabo] each will be recognized for 1 hour and 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Well, we start the second day's worth of discussion and debate in 
regard to our plan to provide Americans with tax relief and also to 
balance the budget using real numbers over 7 years.
  I just heard today that apparently a poll just came out within the 
last 24 

[[Page H10873]]

hours where the American people apparently registered their doubt as to 
whether we in fact can balance the budget. Frankly, if I was not in 
this Chamber or in this Congress and I was out in America watching the 
operation of this place, I would have my doubts for this reason: For 
about 25 or 30 years we have been promising the people a balanced 
budget. I think every candidate who has run for President has promised 
a balanced budget. President Clinton said he would propose and execute 
a balanced budget within the first 4 years.
  The President before him indicated we would have a balanced budget. 
We have been hearing this over and over and over again. But frankly, 
folks, we are going to have a balanced budget for two fundamental 
reasons. The No. 1 reason why we are going to have a balanced budget 
and we are going to have the discipline to execute and maintain a 
balanced budget over the next 7 years has to do with the American 
people.
  Frankly, we hear a lot about polls, but I want to tell you about the 
poll that I follow. That poll is not just the reaction that I get in my 
own district, but it is the reaction among the Members when they come 
back from being in their districts. We heard when we came back, after 
the last recess, that Americans were going south on this plan, that the 
Republicans were starting to shake. Well, frankly, I have not seen it.
  In fact, I think we have a rededicated sense of purpose to get this 
job done. The reason why it is working is that this House of 
Representatives is truly a reflection of the attitudes, the moods and 
the opinion of the American people.
  Frankly, we are usually behind where the American people are. I 
believe the American people for a number of years have said it is time 
to give us some of our power, money and influence back. Finally we are 
getting the message, which is why, when Members go home, they are being 
positively reinforced and they are all hearing one simple message from 
their constituents. Just put the country first, put politics second. 
Balance the budget and save this country for the next generation.
  Now, let me just suggest to my colleagues that I, again, have to keep 
going back to the reasonableness of this plan. When we look at what we 
have done over the period of the last 7 years, we have spent a 
cumulative total of $9.5 trillion. My colleagues are going to hear this 
from me two or three times today, $9.5 trillion. If you started a 
business when Christ was on earth, if you lost $1 million a day 7 days 
a week, you would have to lose $1 million a day 7 days a week for the 
next 700 years to get to one trillion. We spent 9.5 trillion over the 
last 7 years, and under our plan to balance the budget we are going to 
spend 12.1 trillion.
  I mean, the revolution that we are hearing about, my colleagues, does 
not mean we spend less money over the next 7 years but almost $3 
trillion more. Do Members know what the fight is about in this Chamber? 
Do my colleagues know what the fight is all about in this whole 
capital, Washington, DC, area? Whether we can go from 9.5 trillion to 
12.1 trillion or whether we should increase that to 13.3 trillion.
  The question we have to ask the American people is, can we save $1 
trillion for the next generation? Nothing is more tragic than to go to 
the settling of an estate and have the children sit in the room and 
have it told to them by the lawyers that your mother and father put you 
in debt. We would consider that to be not a good thing to do, a bad 
thing to do, to tell your children that they have big bills. I mean all 
the creditors come into the room and you start paying it out. There 
goes mom and dad's house. There go their savings because they ran up 
all these bills.
  The same is true with the Federal budget. We do not have a right to 
tell the next generation that we cannot stop ourselves from spending 
that extra trillion, because if we can just responsibly, rationally, 
using common sense, hold our spending increases to $3 trillion over the 
next 7 years, we can ensure a strong economic future.
  Now, look, folks, I do not believe all these studies. I believe some 
of them, but let us forget the think tanks. Let us talk about the guy 
who sits down here at the Federal Reserve who decides what interest 
rates are going to be, and that is what drives this economy. He says, 
if for once this Congress can make the hard choice, the hard choice, 
folks, to spend $3 trillion rather than 4, if we can make the hard 
choice, we rescue the country. I mean that is really what it is all 
about.
  When we look at the specific programs like welfare, welfare goes up 
by almost 400 billion. When you combine all the programs, it is 
interesting to note that in many States in this country, welfare 
recipients are getting about equal to $8 an hour. I mean that is not 
being skimpy. That is being pretty darn generous.
  Medicaid, Medicaid is going to grow up to 443 to $773 billion. We 
added another $12 billion. Why? We want to do a little better. The 
debate is not whether it should go up, it is how much should it go up 
and then of course Medicare. I will tell Members on Medicare that, any 
way you want to cut it or slice it, our Medicare recipients will have 
far more, they ought to have far more. The spending is going to go from 
926 to 1.6 trillion. The average senior citizen is going to go from 
4,700 bucks to 6,800 bucks in spending over the next 7 years.
  My colleagues, we can in fact rein this spending in, but it does not 
involve a nose dive. It involves a more gentle climb, rational 
thinking, application of common sense. If we do it, we, in fact, can 
save the next generation.

  Tax cuts? Well, below $75,000, 74 percent of the benefits go. But I 
do not even want to get into this business of dividing rich and poor. 
We do need reconciliation in this country from a whole host of divisive 
claims. Let me just suggest that in 1993 the President raised taxes by 
$250 billion over 5 years. What is this all about? It is really all 
about the size and the scope of the Federal Government.
  We do not think that we need to solve our problem by raising taxes. 
We did not think we needed to solve our problems in 1993 by raising 
taxes. What we are about is taking that money that was taken from the 
American people's pockets in 1993. We took money from their pockets. 
Republicans did not want to do it. We said we can do it without a tax 
increase. Now we are taking that money and we are putting it back into 
the pockets of Americans. In order to do that, Federal spending is 
still going to go up almost $3 trillion.
  So, my colleagues, we have got the common sense plan. This plan is 
going to pass this House today. I will compliment one group of 
Democrats will compliment one group of Democrats coming forward with a 
balanced budget plan. I understand, although I have not read the 
editorial, that the New York Times and the Washington Post have both 
complimented them. That is a sea change, folks. We are the ones that 
said we could do it in 7 years. Now some of the major newspapers in 
this country are saying, well, we do not like the Republican plan but 
we can do it in 7 years. That is an incredible sea change in America.
  When all is said and done, guess what? we are going to get there. We 
are going to have a balanced budget in 7 years. We are going to have 
tax relief for Americans. We are going to save the future, and we are 
going to restore the country for 100 additional years. At the end of 
the day, we will do it on a bipartisan basis. But today we have to do 
our job. Our job is about putting America first, putting the politics 
of parochialism second and just looking out for the next generation.
  That little vision, we are going to look over all the swamp and all 
the muck and all the nasty rhetoric and the shrill rhetoric that exists 
on both sides. We are going to look beyond that, and we are going to 
look to the next generation. We are going to get this done for our 
precious Nation.
  Support the reconciliation bill.
  Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the GOP plan.
  Mr. Chairman, much of the debate I have heard today does not concern 
whether we should balance the budget. Of course we 

[[Page H10874]]

should. The debate I have heard today does not concern when we should 
balance the budget. Most of my colleagues will agree that balancing the 
budget by the year 2002 is a reasonable goal.
  The center of the debate today is how we will balance the budget. The 
Republicans propose to balance the budget with steep cuts in education, 
health, farm, and seniors programs. They also propose outrageously huge 
tax cuts up front which must be paid for with even deeper spending 
cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, I must object to this bill, as well as to the 
legislative process, which has been highly unusual and chaotic. 
Medicare cuts were voted on separately, while the Medicaid cuts are 
rolled into the reconciliation bill with no separate vote. Many 
committees have failed to report their recommendations as called for in 
the budget resolution, and large parts of the bill have been drafted 
behind closed doors and are being added to the bill at the last minute 
without any scrutiny or debate.
  I have here what I believe represents the bill and the process. This 
is a bucket of zoo doo. That's right--zoo doo. It's like a zoo around 
here and all are producing is doo. Elephant doo. This is what this bill 
is--elephant zoo doo. It stinks.
  This legislation will have a financial impact on all Americans and 
there are winners and losers. The wealthiest Americans receive a tax 
cut, while the working poor receive a tax increase. Fifty-two percent 
of the tax cuts go to 5.6 percent of Americans with incomes greater 
than $100,000 a year. Less than 1 percent of the tax cuts could go to 
40 percent of the families earning $20,000 or less. I think we have our 
priorities out of wack.
  I support providing a $500 tax cut to families with children, but we 
can't afford to give this cut to families earning up to $200,000. This 
threshold needs to be lowered to $90,000.
  This bill is too generous with tax cuts, which leads to the deep 
spending cuts in other programs. While middle-income families would 
benefit from the proposed tax cuts, they will suffer, for example, from 
the deep spending cuts in the student loan program. The cuts proposed 
in this bill would raise the cost of the average undergraduate student 
loan by almost $2,500 over 4 years.
  To pay for these tax cuts, the Republican budget plan proposes to 
eliminate the earned income tax credit--a program supported by 
President Reagan--for 5 million working families. Nine million working 
families would see their tax credit reduced on this plan.
  The GOP plan includes a provision to allow corporations to raid 
pension plans for millions of workers. The retirement savings of 
working families could be jeopardized if the economy sours of the 
company makes bad investment decisions. I can't understand why my 
colleagues would want to do this.
  I also have concerns with the Medicare and Medicaid reforms included 
in the bill. Let me be clear: I wholeheartedly support efforts to make 
adjustments to the Medicare and Medicaid programs. However, I stand 
strongly opposed to raiding the pockets of low-income seniors, disabled 
recipients, and health care providers in order to pay for Republican 
corporate loopholes and tax cuts for the wealthy. Not only does this 
bill make severe reductions in Medicare's growth, it also overturns 
significant consumer standards designed to protect seniors from fraud 
and abuse. It is clear to me what lies behind this Medicare bill: The 
special interests, not the people's interests.
  Finally, I oppose the Republican budget reconciliation bill because 
it eliminates the Medicaid Program, handing over these funds to the 
States as a block grant with little or no standards to protect the 
vulnerable citizens this program insures. While I am concerned about 
the Nation's Medicaid recipients, I am especially opposed to the 
Medicaid legislation because it will devastate Tennessee's 1115 waiver 
TennCare Program with a $4.5 billion cut over 7 years. Tennessee is the 
Nation's leader in experimenting with managed care for Medicaid 
recipients, and now we are being punished for our success. Though some 
may vote today to destroy TennCare because of their party loyalty, I 
will stand strong against this bill's destructive provisions.
  In closing, this misdirected legislation would actually make economic 
life more difficult for a vast majority of Americans because of the 
steep cuts needed to pay for the tax giveaway. I must object to this 
legislation and hope that a reasonable compromise can be worked out 
before the bill is sent to the President.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before I speak to the substance, let me congratulate my 
friend from Ohio on his job of chairing the Committee on the Budget and 
working with the Republican leadership. I was one at the beginning who 
thought he would do what he said. He has put a package together that I 
expect will pass the House today that does reflect the values and 
priorities of the majority. I strongly disagree with those values and 
priorities, but he has done it with grace. He has done it with skill. I 
know it is not easy to put a package together. We will talk about the 
substance of that package today, but his job that is his responsibility 
within his caucus, we should not give him praise. He has done it too 
well. They should give him significant praise because he has 
accomplished the goals of his caucus.
  We disagree with that, and in time we will move on.
  Mr. Chairman, what the House is undertaking today is not simply a 
debate about balancing the Federal budget. This is a debate much more 
profound. It is about two very different visions for America's future 
and what those visions mean for America's families, workers, and the 
most vulnerable among us.
  The Republican vision is clear. Yesterday, on the same day we began 
debate on this massive budget bill, the Republican leaders in both the 
House and Senate voiced pride in their desire to dismantle the Medicare 
Program.
  The Speaker of the House sees the Medicare Program only in terms of 
politics. He says that Republicans could not eliminate Medicare right 
now because it is not politically smart. But he then hastens to add 
that he would like to see Medicare eventually wither on the vine.
  This is not a vision to renew America. And it is one that we should 
all reject.
  On the same day, the leading Republican Presidential candidate 
declared that he was one of only 12 to vote against the creation of the 
Medicare Program 30 years ago. With pride he said he was ``fighting the 
fight, voting against Medicare.''
  And so we now move to the budget package to be voted on in the House 
today. The choices are clear. My Republican colleagues will put forward 
a vision that rewards the wealthiest and most powerful interests in our 
society at the expense of the most vulnerable Americans.
  They will raise taxes on low-income working families while lavishing 
massive tax breaks on the affluent. They will make it difficult, if not 
impossible, for millions of citizens to obtain adequate health care.
  They will cut funding for nutrition, education, transportation and 
scientific research even though we have many years of evidence that 
these investments enhance our society and our economic future.
  They will ask people to move from welfare to work at the same time 
they are eliminating work incentives and reducing work opportunities, 
and child care benefits.
  And, at a time investment in education is becoming increasingly 
important to the health of our economy, they will cut job training and 
increase college costs for millions of Americans seeking to better 
themselves.
  One of the most troubling aspects of the Republican vision is that it 
will escalate the 20-year trend that has pushed income inequality in 
this country to its highest level ever--all so that wealthy Americans 
can enjoy large tax breaks they don't need.
  In short, throughout this budget process, Republicans have engaged in 
a one-sided attack on lower and middle-income Americans which will 
ultimately close the doors of opportunity that lead to a prosperous 
Nation and a higher standard of living for everyone.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I call upon my colleagues to reject a vision of 
America that seeks to reward those who have already prospered in our 
economy while imposing burdens on those who have not.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, there are three reasons why I am going to 
vote for this reconciliation bill: their names are Ingrid, Bridget, and 
Karl, my children.
  There is so much in a bill like this that it is easy to lose sight of 
the forest for the trees. Is this legislation exactly the way that I 
would have written it? Of course, not. This bill is the product of the 
push and shove, the battle of competing interests, the art of 

[[Page H10875]]

compromise that is characteristic of democracy.
  As you vote for this historic measure, remember Edmund Burke's praise 
of political courage two centuries ago:

       You well know what snares are spread about your path . . . 
     but you have put to hazard your ease, your security, your 
     interest, your power, even your popularity . . . you will 
     remember that public censure is a necessary ingredient in the 
     composition of true glory: you will remember . . . that 
     calumny and abuse are essential parts of triumph . . . you 
     may live long, you may do much. But here is the summit. You 
     may never exceed what you do this day.

  But to portray this bill as unworthy because it has gone through the 
democratic political process that all our laws go through would be 
unfair. I, like all 435 Members of this House, have to judge this 
important piece of legislation on its overall thrust. It does reform 
welfare, it does preserve Medicare, it does cut taxes, and most 
important, it does balance the budget.
  I will take courage for you, my colleagues, to vote for this bill 
exactly because it is so big and not perfect as you would will it. But 
I ask you to do it for your children as I am doing it for mine.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would only say that the children of Members of 
Congress probably will do fine, but the 20,000 families in the district 
of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] who get the EITC, the earned 
income tax credit, will do much worse.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican budget reconciliation package. I have listened to the debate 
on the floor and in the Rules Committee, and can't help but remember 
1981, 1983, and more important, 1993. In the early 1980's we saw two 
tax bills that were sold on the basis that massive tax cuts for the 
very wealthy would spur the economy. In the late 1970's the top 
marginal tax rate was close to 70 percent, and by the end of the 1980's 
it had been cut to almost 30 percent; did this spur economic growth and 
end deficit spending? Well, we started the decade with a $1 trillion 
debt and ended it at $4 trillion. In addition, we headed into the 
1990's with an economy in deep recession.
  In 1993, in response to the growing deficit and deepening economic 
rescission, we came to the floor to bring a budget reconciliation 
package to control spending and return some progressive policies to our 
Tax Code. A little over 2 years ago we heard the cries of economic 
desperation. Our package was called smoke and mirrors and I quote, 
``it's our bet that this is a job killer.'' The current Speaker 
predicted, and I quote, ``I believe that this will lead to a recession 
next year. This is the Democrat machines' recession, and each one of 
them will be held personally accountable.'' The current majority leader 
predicted, and I quote, ``the impact on job creation is going to be 
devastating.'' Well, we passed the package without one Republican 
vote. Now let's discuss the results and the ability of the Republican 
leadership to predict economic outcomes.

  The deficit came down for 3 consecutive years. Our deficit is now the 
lowest as a percentage of national income of any major industrial 
country in the world. After one of the slowest 4-year periods of job 
growth since the Great Depression, the economy is now enjoying a solid 
growth, with strong private sector job creation and low inflation. The 
economy has created well over 3 million private sector jobs. The 
Republicans were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
  Today, we will be asked to cast one vote on a package that will 
dramatically change our Government. With one vote, we will dismantle 
the Department of Commerce; an agency entrusted with two critically 
important constitutional functions; that of the census and the filing 
and protection of patents. We will dismantle an agency that every day 
impacts millions of Americans. All done without the benefit of any 
comprehensive committee action. We will forever change health care for 
millions of low-income women, children, and senior citizens. We will 
end Federal, uniform nursing home standards implemented less than 10 
years ago; we will force more working families into poverty and end any 
hope of a higher education for thousands of our children. We will 
forever end Medicare as we know it. It does not surprise me that the 
Republicans want to end Medicare, as the leader of the Republican Party 
in the other body has stated, ``I was there fighting the fight, working 
against Medicare--because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965.'' We will 
close many rural hosptials; cut WIC, Headstart, and significantly 
reduce our investment in research and development. All in the hope of 
economic growth and tax cuts for the very affluent. Once again, our 
Republican colleagues are asking Members of this body to take a leap of 
faith on failed economic and budget policies based on failed and 
misguided predictions.
  I am hopeful that many of these radical changes will be dropped in 
conference. It is the only hope we have. I ask all of my colleagues to 
oppose this package.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], a member of the Committee on the 
Budget, and an expert on immigration in America.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in the last election, the American 
people told us to balance the budget, cut the taxes, and end the 
gimmicks.
  They wanted an end to Alice in Budgetland: to the rising tide of red 
ink that destroys jobs, makes housing and education more expensive, and 
encourages our addiction to big government.
  They wanted an end to Alice in Budgetland: to the constant tax 
increases that take more and more money and decisions away from the 
American people.
  They wanted an end to the Alice in Budgetland rosy scenarios, bogus 
growth numbers, and magic asterisks, the ponzi scheme by which Congress 
kept spending more of the people's money.
  Today we keep our word. We have a plan to balance the budget. Our 
balanced budget plan will mean 1.2 million additional jobs by 2002. Our 
balanced budget will reduce interest rates, making new homes, college 
education and start-up businesses more plentiful and affordable.
  Our plan also increases the power and decision-making of families. 
It's not just important to balance the budget. It matters how we 
balance the budget. The family and small business tax relief provisions 
contained in our plan are essential to returning power and money back 
home.
  Without tax relief, we won't return decisions where they belong--to 
the people who do the work, pay the taxes, raise the children. Without 
tax relief, we aren't putting people first.
  Last week in Houston President Clinton stated, ``I think I raised 
your taxes too much.'' We agree that the President was wrong, and 
that's why Republicans unanimously opposed the largest tax increase in 
history. That's why our plan is the only plan that returns some of the 
money that President Clinton took in 1993.
  It's the family's money to keep. It's not Washington's money to 
spend. And only our balanced budget honors hardworking Americans by 
letting them keep more of what they earn and by spending their money 
with great care.
  I urge my colleagues to support this balanced budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from my 
native State of North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Sabo] for yielding this time to me.
  The budget before us is truly historic in its dimensions, and perhaps 
that is the only thing we will all agree about in the course of this 
debate today. As I see it, the debate between us is not about whether 
we ought to balance the budget. I think there is broad agreement we 
ought to move towards that goal. The debate is how we do it, and here 
is where the conflicting priorities of the parties become very clear.
  This budget plan is built on a fundamentally flawed premise, that we 
can balance the budget while financing a tax cut primarily benefiting 
the most privileged among us. This makes as much sense as a family 
resolving to get their household's finances in order just as soon as 
they spend the weekend in Paris once more on that old MasterCard.
  The consequences of the Republican tax plan are enormous. The 
wealthiest people in this country get a windfall while working and 
middle-income Americans lose ground. The tax cut reflects that the 
driving priority in this budget is to assist the wealthy in becoming 
even wealthier, and to this end, 

[[Page H10876]]

 they have sacrificed health programs for seniors, nutrition programs 
for kids, the safety net for family farmers, pension security for 
millions and millions of Americans. In order to accommodate the agenda 
of the privileged this budget makes devastating tradeoffs that pull 
support from those who need it and opportunity and hope from millions 
and millions of middle-class Americans.
  Make no mistake about it. The bottom line on this budget is more 
wealth for the richest, less help for the neediest, and reduced hope 
and opportunity for middle-income families.
  This bill is more than an historic budget, it is an historic and 
tragic mistake, on which if enacted will change the character of our 
great country.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker]
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of clarification I would like 
to engage the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] in a colloquy.
  First let me thank the gentleman for his willingness to work with 
those of us who have been concerned about the public auction of the 
facilities in the Power Marketing Administration. It is my belief that 
the study provision contained in this legislation is superior to an 
outright sale. In fact, this non-biased study will hopefully provide 
our committee with the needed facts to determine whether or not a sale 
of the PMA's will be in the best interest of the Government in the long 
run.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it better end 
up being better in the long run. I would say to the gentleman I wanted 
to do it this year, and he said we got to study it for a while, make 
sure we do the right thing. I agree with the gentleman.
  Mr. PARKER. However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to seek clarification 
to determine whether or not the evaluation or study will look at the 
impact, if there is a sale of the PMA's, on the wholesale and retail 
electricity rates of the current customers in the affected areas.
  Mr. KASICH. I think that the gentleman makes a good point, and 
obviously we want to make sure that, when we do this, we do it right 
and everybody understands what the impact will be.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for having 
yielded to me. The clarification is appreciated.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], a brand-spanking new, fiery 
member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this. We 
have spent a full generation. Now the last time we balanced our budget 
I was a sophomore in high school. My children are now out of high 
school and heading on to college. I have got a daughter who is a junior 
in high school. It has been a full generation since we have balanced 
our budget. It is time we get it done.
  Congratulations to the Committee on the Budget, to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], for bringing us a bill that is going to allow us to 
not only keep our promises, but, more importantly, do what is right for 
the American people.
  As my colleagues know, not enough has been made about what happens 
after we balance the budget. I just heard about the hopes and the 
dreams of the future of the middle-class America. When we balance the 
budget, what that means is the Federal Government stops borrowing 
hundreds of billions of dollars out of the private sector, and, when 
the Federal Government stops borrowing that money, that money is now 
available for real people to borrow, and when real people have the 
opportunity to borrow that money, that means they can buy homes, and 
they can buy cars, and they can get college loans to go to college, and 
when they get those loans, the interest rate is going to be lower 
because there is more access to the money. This is good news for the 
future of the middle class.
  As a matter of fact, if somebody were to go out and buy a house 
today, and they were to borrow $50,000, and we had balanced the budget 
sooner so the interest rate was 2 points lower, they would save over 
$1,000 a year in the interest on the payments in that $50,000 loan.

                              {time}  1245

  If they borrowed $100,000 to buy a house, they would save $2,000. 
Almost $200 a month remains in the pockets of the working people of 
this country because we are about to balance the budget. This is good 
news for the hopes, for the dreams, for the future of this country.
  Also, it puts this Nation back on track, that the Nation will be 
preserved for the next generation. Instead of giving them a legacy of 
growing debts, we can give our children the hopes and dreams of the 
future, like we received from our forefathers.
  In the budget resolution we passed earlier this year, it sets some 7-
year targets and it sets some 1-year targets. Again, I commend the 
Committee on the Budget. This proposal that we have before us today not 
only hits the 7-year targets, it also hits the first-year targets, and 
a lot of other political groups would not have done that. I commend the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and 
the committee for their tireless work at helping us keep our promises 
to the American people, and strongly urge support of this bill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise just to let our colleague, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, know that in his district 17,179 working 
families will have their taxes increased by this Republican bill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Lucille Roybal-Allard], a distinguished member of our 
committee.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is morally 
wrong. It does nothing to improve national living standards.
  Except for the very wealthy, it hurts the majority of hard-working 
Americans. Three areas illustrate my point.
  First, the Republican bill cuts taxes for the rich, but raises taxes 
on the poor. It cuts the earned income tax credit which helps keep 14 
million low-paid working families earning $9,500 to $25,000 dollars a 
year out of poverty.
  The GOP tax plan will give families earning $350,000 dollars a year a 
$14,000 tax cut. While the struggling, lowest paid worker must lose an 
additional $300 to $324 annually. That is wrong.
  Second, the Republicans cut child and prenatal nutrition programs 
proven to be good national investments. For every $1 spent on prenatal 
nutrition, the WIC Program saves the American taxpayer $3.50 in special 
education and Medicaid expenses. To cut such programs is wrong.
  Finally, the Republican plan unbelievably repeals the Nursing Home 
Standards Act of 1987. This act was enacted as a direct response to 
congressional hearings which revealed widespread abuses in State and 
privately run nursing homes. Abuses resulting from unsanitary 
conditions, malnutrition, overmedication, neglect, sexual and physical 
abuse.
  Our current law has helped to eliminate these abuses and to improve 
the quality of life for nursing home seniors.
  If these standards are eliminated, Republicans condemn our seniors to 
suffer the horrible abuses of the past. That is wrong.
  Under the Republican budget reconciliation bill, the rich will be 
richer, but the living standard of our Nation will be made much poorer.
  The only good thing about the Republican budget is that it is so 
extreme and unfair that the President must veto it.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Martini], the courageous young freshman who is from the 
State of Bruce Springsteen.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio. I first 
would like to compliment him and his committee for the outstanding work 
he has done on this budget this year.
  Today we are debating and are about to consider a Budget 
Reconciliation Act. It struck me coming over here that reconciliation, 
the very nature of the word itself, suggests a coming together, a 
solving of differences, and a 

[[Page H10877]]

going forward. I believe that the American people today know that the 
Federal Government has had extreme problems with its fiscal matters 
over the years. I think the Americans also know that this majority of 
Congress has been set to correct those wrongs, but I suspect that the 
Americans out there still do not know if this Congress has the resolve 
to do that today. It is no wonder, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, because 
over the last several weeks all they have heard are distortions and 
scares, scares intended to stop people in their tracks from going 
forward.
  It strikes me as sad that the party whose former leader, Franklin 
Delano Roosevelt, once gave us the phrase ``We have nothing to fear but 
fear itself'' now offers us only fear itself and no solutions. Let us 
just look at the record for a moment, if we may.
  On June 4, 1992, President Clinton promised a balanced budget. He 
never delivered. He promised a tax cut for middle-class families. He 
never delivered. Worse than never delivering, he actually implemented 
the biggest tax increase in the history of our Nation. Now he has even 
admitted he raised our taxes too much. He failed to offer a plan to end 
welfare as we know it, and he stayed on the sidelines as we saved 
Medicare from going bankrupt.
  In contrast, this Congress is about keeping promises. We understand 
the importance of fulfilling our promises to our elderly and our 
children, and we will do just that. Today, for me, Mr. Chairman, it is 
indeed humbling to take part in such a historic vote in favor of a more 
fiscally sound America and a brighter America, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, 27,641 working families in the district of 
the gentleman who just spoke will have their taxes increased by this 
Republican tax increase bill they are approving today.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I join my ranking Member in emphasizing 
that putting all substance aside, the logistics of bringing this bill 
to the floor have been an abhorrence not only to the usual committee 
process but of any democratic process.
  I want to add a word or two today about the role which the Budget 
Committee has, or rather could have had, in today's reconciliation 
bill. Having spent a great deal of my career looking at budget process 
issues, and in fact, having enjoyed working on a number of those issues 
with Chairman Kasich, that is what I would like to examine now. I was 
both surprised and disappointed that this reconciliation bill took a 
minimalist approach to process reform.
  Needless to say, this bill is expansive in every other regard. No one 
single bill has ever entailed such a comprehensive overhaul of Federal 
Government policy. The other side likes to speak of the Republican 
revolution and I would, in no way, dispute that this is a revolutionary 
document.
  That is why I am disappointed that process reforms which could bring 
meaningful budget enforcement, greater integrity in the process, and a 
sense of openness and honesty were left out of the revolution.
  Two year's ago when we were battling over the 1993 budget 
reconciliation bill, I engaged in intense negotiations with my 
leadership to move us closer to enforcement language which would 
guarantee the deficit reduction promises being made. In particular, we 
were trying to remove ``uncontrollable'' as an adjective for 
entitlement spending.
  The agreement that we reached in 1993 was far less than I wanted, 
especially with regard to guaranteeing control over the Medicare 
Program. But do you know what? That agreement showed a lot more 
enforcement muscle than appears any where in this budget. I received 
all sorts of Republican lecturing for failing to bring my party to the 
stronger entitlement control I wanted and yet even that compromise 
language is missing in this revolution. This bill allows 
``uncontrollable'' to continue accurately describing entitlement 
spending.
  What else could have been included? Well, the substitute which I am 
supporting today includes deficit reduction guarantees enforced by 
sequestration. It has 10 year scorekeeping to make sure that things 
like grossly ballooning tax cuts start showing up beyond the curtains 
on current budget windows.
  Our substitute has process reforms like line item veto and a deficit 
reduction lock box, which the majority of this House has said it 
supports. It also adopts numerous provisions borrowed from previously 
bipartisan bills which many people standing on the other side of the 
floor right now not only supported but co-authored--things like 
baseline reform, controlling emergency spending, continuing resolution 
reform.
  Where are those provisions today? How did they get left out of the 
revolution? For a party which has made a mantra of ``Promises Made--
Promises Kept'' why were not some of the promise-keepers built into 
this bill?
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the base bill and vote yes on the 
substitute which actually has a chance of maintaining the many promises 
being made today.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  This is a defining time and a defining vote. Very few here have made 
every vote in the last two Congresses to achieve significant and fair 
deficit reduction--beginning with support of the 1993 budget which has 
halved our deficit to the lowest level in a generation and decreased it 
for 3 years straight. I have made each of those tough deficit cutting 
votes.
  And today I will continue to stand up for fairness, for balance, for 
deficit reduction, and for bipartisanship.
  In this spirit, I strongly oppose H.R. 2491 as drafted because it 
funds ill-timed tax cuts by raising the deficit in the short-term and 
hurting our most vulnerable populations--seniors and children--with 
devastating Medicare cuts and the termination of Medicaid as a 
guaranteed safety net for nursing home residents.
  I strongly support the bipartisan coalition substitute which defers 
tax cuts until we have achieved a balanced budget, treats cost-of-
living increases in a non-inflationary manner, and preserves Medicaid, 
including regulations against nursing home abuse.
  In my view, the Medicare cuts in the coalition substitute are deeper 
than what I would like to see, but this bipartisan effort sets a marker 
for further discussion. I have met with hundreds of seniors in my 
district, and will stand with them as we work for the fairest 
compromise within tough budgetary constraints.
  Had H.R. 2491 been drafted with real public input, I believe its 
contents would be different. Now with its expected passage and its 
expected veto by the President, the real debate must start.
  Every Federal program, every Federal dollar should be on the table as 
we debate--openly and in a bipartisan manner--how to share sacrifice 
and how to share benefits. Every program. Every person.
  But the operative word is balance--a balanced budget, balanced 
sacrifice, balanced benefit, and an open and balanced process. Let's 
begin anew.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to say is I would not vote for 
the plan described by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], and I do 
not think anybody on this side of the aisle would, but that is not our 
plan. That does not seem to matter to the gentleman from Minnesota and 
others.
  We have had a budget deficit that has gone up and up and up, a debt 
that has gone from $385 billion 25 years ago to $4,900 billion, or $4.9 
trillion. Our colleagues on that side of the aisle who have been in 
power for 40 years have had a chance to deal with that issue. We need 
to get our financial house in order, and we need to balance our Federal 
budget. We need to save our trust funds, particularly Medicare, and we 
need to transform our social and corporate welfare State into an 
opportunity society.

[[Page H10878]]

  The bottom line and the most difficult part is saving our trust 
funds. We know what the board of trustees of the Federal hospital 
insurance trust fund have said. they have said that in basically 7 
years the Medicare part A trust fund literally goes bankrupt, but 
nobody on that side of the aisle even wanted to address it until a few 
weeks ago.
  We are addressing that fund. We are making sure that $333 billion 
benefits the Medicare part A trust fund, and $137 billion benefits the 
Medicare part B trust fund. We have extended its insolvency and its 
ultimate bankruptcy from the year 2002 to the year 2010.
  What is so important about the year 2010? That is when the baby 
boomers start to get into this fund. At that point, we have the baby 
boomers from year 2010 to the year 2030. By the year 2030, baby boomers 
from the age 65 to 85 will be in the fund. What does that mean? We have 
workers right now, three and one-half workers are working for each 
individual in the trust fund. Right now three and one-third workers 
work for every person in the Social Security trust fund. By the year 
2030, 35 years from now, there will only be two workers.
  We are talking about what has happened over the last 40 years, and 
particularly, the last 25. Our Congresses and, regretfully, our 
Presidents have mortgaged the farm, and now we are trying to buy it 
back for our kids. this is about kids. It is about saving this country. 
I could not be more proud to be part of this reconciliation act. My 
only regret is that the President has not joined in in this effort.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, looking at the numbers as the gentleman referred to, I 
discovered he only has 11,000 families eligible for low-income tax 
credit, one of the lowest in the country. They are going to be hurt, 
but let me assure the gentleman from Connecticut, all the rich 
constituents he has are not going to be hurt. They are going to 
prosper. They are going to do well. His district does not resemble 
America.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. 
Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]. I 
served under them this session on the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the reconciliation bill we will 
consider today.
  Why are poor Americans being asked to shoulder most of the pain in 
balancing the Federal budget and paying for tax breaks for the wealthy? 
The answer is that they are a convenient target. Poor people can't 
afford to hire lobbyists to protect their interests.
  We all know that cutting the Federal budget deficit is painful, but 
this debate isn't about pain and suffering. It is about fairness. Most 
of the cuts in the reconciliation bill reported by the Committee on the 
Budget fall on low-income Americans. The reported bill cuts $221 
billion from entitlements, and $192 billion of these--87 percent--are 
in two Federal programs that help poor and low income Americans: 
Medicaid and student loans.
  The Budget Committee also approved $53 billion in increased taxes, 
and $27 billion--51 percent--are reductions in the earned income tax 
credit for working Americans and low-income housing credits.
  The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means recently justified 
the changes in the earned income tax credit by arguing, and I quote, 
``Simply put, the EITC is going to people with incomes that are too 
high.'' Too high? Should a single hard-working person with no children 
earning $8,200 a year, or $4 an hour, have her Federal income tax 
raised by $101 a year? Should working people struggling to get by help 
pay for a tax cut that goes mainly to the small minority--12 percent of 
all families--that earn over $100,000 a year? This bill is simply 
unfair.
  What happened to the Republican pledge in January that it would 
require a three-fifths vote to raise income taxes because the 
Republicans said they wanted to ``help'' working Americans? Today the 
Republicans are waiving this requirement. People are going to bear the 
burden for these false promises.
  The Republicans' plan to cut Florida's Medicaid payments by 26 
percent over the next 7 years will have a devastating effect on Miami. 
Jackson Memorial Hospital accounts for 30 percent of all hospital 
admissions in Miami. This year Medicaid will supply $438 million to 
Jackson Memorial, or about 40 percent of its total revenues.
  What will happen to health care for the poor if Jackson Memorial runs 
out of Medicaid money in October under the Republican scheme? Will they 
stop delivering babies? Will they stop vaccinating children in November 
and December? Is this fair?
  Last week the Republicans voted to increase part B Medicare premiums. 
This week they are cutting Medicaid. What will happen to the elderly 
when Florida runs out of Medicaid money and can no longer pay for the 
Medicare part B premiums of the elderly?
  What will happen to the elderly who are now in nursing homes when 
Florida runs out of Medicaid money? Will the elderly be put out in the 
street?
  The Republicans opposed my efforts to make the Medicaid formula 
fairer. Twice I tried to have the entire House decide whether to accept 
the Medicaid formula adopted by the Senate Finance Committee, which is 
fairer and helps ease the burden of these cuts on States like Florida. 
But twice every Republican voted ``no'' even though my amendment would 
have helped a majority of the Republican Members.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the simple fact of the matter is under the House plan 
the earned income tax credit is going to go up by 40 percent. Forty 
percent may not be enough for some that want to drive it up 60, 70, 80 
percent. Forty percent is a generous increase.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget and my fellow Buckeye for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I listen to this debate and I just cannot conceive of 
how Americans watching it in their homes could be anything but 
confused, because we bandy about the word ``cut'' in such a 
disgraceful, shameless, and such a completely inaccurate way. The fact 
is we are going to increase the spending on the earned income tax 
credit from $22 billion in 1995 to $32 billion in 2002. Overall, this 
budget goes from one trillion five hundred billion to one trillion 
eight hundred billion; Medicare goes up from $170 billion to $244 
billion; education and student loans goes up from $24 billion to $36 
billion. That is a 50 percent increase. Yet all we hear from the other 
side is cut, cut, cut.

                              {time}  1300

  Where is the cut? It is that kind of abusive language that makes it 
so impossible for average Americans to decipher what the heck is going 
on and to make the kind of judgments that they need to be able to make 
in order to evaluate their representatives. In fact, the only cut that 
I am aware of, the only real cut in this budget has to do with foreign 
aid, and that is a real cut.
  What is the good side, what is the upside of all of this? The upside 
of all of this in terms of balancing the budget, the biggest impact on 
American families will be with respect to what it does to interest 
rates, and that is a profound impact. It is not just a fog of numbers, 
it is not just accounting, it really makes a difference in terms of 
what those dollars mean to the average American working family.
  DRI/McGraw Hill has said that it is a 2.7 percentage point difference 
as a result of balancing the budget. On a $100,000 mortgage, on a 
$100,000 mortgage, that amounts to about $225 per month more in the 
hands of the people that earn that money. That has a profound impact on 
a student loan. There is a tremendous difference, as well as on a car 
payment.
  The good news is that balancing the budget puts more money in the 
pockets of the people that make it.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in response to my colleague 
  
[[Page H10879]]

from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], the last speaker, does the gentleman know that in 
his district 22,659 working families will have their taxes increased by 
this bill?
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, our Republican budget chief is exactly right. This is a 
debate about promises, and how you feel about the promises depends on 
where you are sitting on the economic ladder of this country.
  If you are way up there on top, at the apex of the American economy, 
sitting on a cushion sipping champagne, you got your promise fulfilled 
by in Republican Party bountifully, because the better off are going to 
get a little more better off today. If you are one of the great 
corporations of America that back in the days of yesteryear never paid 
a dime of taxes on billions of dollars of profit, you also can smile. 
You are better off today. You will pay zero, zip, not a dime under the 
repeal of the minimum tax credit.
  Mr. Chairman, but what if you are not way up there on top? What if 
you are down on the lower rungs, just trying to struggle and make ends 
meet and get your kids through school? Well, those people on the 
economic ladder have a broken promise. If you are on Medicare, well, 
you get the new Republican sick tax. Yesterday, Bob Dole was boasting, 
he voted against Medicare, and Newt Gingrich said, well, we will just 
let it wither on the vine. The Republicans lever a hefty sick tax 
because they want to help those who are well. Very well. Well off.
  If you make $30,000 or less, these Republicans are going to raise 
your taxes, plain and simple. To the many who are trying to climb up 
that economic ladder and share in the American dream, they stomp on 
their working fingers as they try to climb up that ladder. That is why 
we call it Wreckonciliation, because it wrecks working families that 
are trying to make a go of it. It wrecks seniors who are going to have 
to pay that Republican sick tax.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], a member of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the only thing that we will wreck if we do not pass 
this reconciliation bill is the American family. Let us talk about 
exactly what is going to happen to spending over the next 7 years. If 
we do nothing, Federal spending will rise by 37 percent. If we pass 
reconciliation, which we will do later on today, Federal spending, we 
are really going to tighten our belts for the next 7 years. We are only 
going to allow Federal spending to increase by 27 percent.
  I came out of the private sector, and I would have loved any budget 
that over 7 years would have allowed me to increase spending by 27 
percent. We are asking the Federal Government to get spending under 
control and have a gentle slope toward balancing the budget.
  Spending goes up in every category. Total spending goes up. Welfare 
reform, welfare spending goes up. Medicare spending goes up. Per 
beneficiary on Medicare goes from $4,800 to $6,700. We are trying to 
manage health care growth to 5 percent per year. Medicaid spending goes 
up. Spending on student loans. Student loan spending goes by 37 percent 
over the next 7 years. School lunches. We heard that those were gone. 
Spending on school lunches goes up by 4.5 percent per year.
  This is a reasonable budget; this is a commonsense reconciliation. 
Common people, on the street every day would love to have a budget at 
their house that would go up by 3 percent per year and be asked to 
manage to that. This makes sense. This is reform that we can manage 
too.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, to my dear friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], I just wonder if he knew that in his district 
23,679 working families will have their taxes increase by their 
Republican reconciliation.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the omnibus 
bill that I believe is a major step backwards for our Nation. I am 
committed to ensure our Nation's fiscal integrity. Our obligation to 
our future and our children demands decisive and decidedly different 
action to effect a disciplined conduct in our fiscal business. But the 
Republican package is not the answer. It is an attack on the middle 
class and poor Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I supported the Balanced Budget Amendment. I voted for 
the Stenholm budget, which would have achieved a surplus by 2002, and I 
will support the Orton alternative that also puts us on a path to a 
balanced budget by 2002. But I do not support tax cuts until we get our 
fiscal House in order. Balance the budget first and then consider tax 
reductions.
  Half of the bill's tax breaks go to those who make more than $100,000 
a year, while the lowest 20 percent of income earners will see their 
taxes go up. That is not right. If the Republicans were not so 
committed to tax breaks for the wealthy, this legislation would not 
include the draconian cuts that I oppose so strongly.
  One example of the bill's attack on the middle class is provisions on 
Federal employees. While I am pleased that the parking provision has 
been dropped, what remains is still unfair and unwarranted.
  In addition to the dramatic reductions in the earned income tax 
credit which has been spoken of, this bill makes very serious cuts in 
Medicare and Medicaid. Over $450 billion in health care cuts for 
seniors families and children.
  Furthermore, the Republican proposals for welfare reform are weak on 
work and tough on kids; they are tougher on kids than they are on the 
deadbeat dads who walk out on those kids. The Orton substitute will 
effect real welfare change and require those who can work to work 
regularly.
  These are just a few examples of what I believe our priorities must 
be. Not tax cuts in the face of deficits, but fiscally responsible 
policies that serve our Nation's needs, promote the American economy, 
and effect a balanced budget by the year 2002. I urge defeat of the 
Gingrich-Kasich budget.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler].
  (Mr. CHRYLSER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand in this House today in support of 
our plan to balance the Federal budget over the next 7 years. It is the 
most compassionate thing that we can do for the children of America. 
One of the best ways to help the children in America is to help their 
mom and dad, and let them have the basic human dignity and pride that 
comes from bringing home a paycheck. We need less government and lower 
taxes; we need to let people keep more of what they earn and save, and 
we need to let people make their own decisions on how they spend their 
money, not government.
  As the head of the task force to dismantle the Commerce Department, I 
know we found a good place to start in rightsizing the Federal 
Government. Former Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher put it best when 
he recently called his old department, ``Nothing more than a hall 
closet where you throw everything that you don't know what to do 
with.'' In fact, 60 percent of the Department has nothing to do with 
commerce.
  In a recent Business Week poll, senior business executives said to 
eliminate the Department of Commerce by a two-to-one margin. Why? 
Because if the Commerce Department were truly the voice of business, 
they would be supporting a cut in capital gains tax; they would be 
supporting tort reform and regulatory reform, and balancing the Federal 
budget. In fact, the Department of Commerce is diametrically opposed to 
all of them.
  Our plan simply makes more sense than current hodgepodge programs 
huddled at the agency that some now call the Department of 
Miscellaneous Affairs.
  Mr. Chairman, our efforts to dismantle the Department of Commerce 
will 

[[Page H10880]]

streamline and improve Federal efforts on behalf of American businesses 
and save billions of dollars, giving taxpayers and their children their 
money's worth. Everyone in my district, in my State, and America are 
better off, and 88 percent of them say, balance the Federal budget.
  Last week, House Republicans unveiled their final plan to dismantle 
one of least defensible Departments in government: the Department of 
Commerce. As Majority Leader Dick Armey noted, for the first time in 
history, the American people will see a Cabinet chair carried out of 
the Cabinet Room at the White House and placed in a museum with other 
artifacts from American history.
  Our plan to dismantle the Commerce Department is the first step in 
our mission to downsize a bloated Federal government that is too big 
and spends too much money. It will begin to put out-of-control 
government growth in reverse and will save taxpayers at least $6 
billion over the next 7 years, a significant down payment on our plan 
to balance the Federal budget.
  Nothing so clearly demonstrates the need to streamline the Federal 
Government more than the Commerce Department. Accordingly to the 
Department's own inspector general, this agency is a loose collection 
of over 100 unrelated programs. In fact, today's Department is involved 
in everything from managing fish farms to predicting the weather to 
promoting new technology.
  What Commerce officials describe as ``synergy'' among Commerce's 
wide-ranging functions, most reasonable people simply call confusion.
  What most people believe is the real mission of the Department of 
Commerce, promoting the interests of American business throughout the 
global marketplace, is actually only a fragment of what the Department 
actually does. Only 5 percent of Commerce's budget is devoted to trade 
promotion, a responsibility the Department shares with numerous other 
Federal agencies.
  While Commerce Secretary Ron Brown continues his defense of his 
beleaguered Department, the business community remains notably silent. 
A recent Business Week poll of senior business executives illustrated 
their support for eliminating the Department of Commerce by a margin of 
two to one.
  Secretary Brown insists the Department is ``the only effective 
Cabinet-level voice of U.S. business,'' yet industry remains skeptical. 
Recently, the respected Journal of Commerce quoted Willard Workman, a 
vice-president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce saying, ``I've only 
received four phone calls from member companies asking that we lead the 
effort to save the Department.'' The U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
represents over 200,000 businesses throughout the nation.
  A Wall Street Journal article earlier this year about Republican 
calls for the elimination of the Commerce Department was headlined 
``Business Sheds Few Tears.'' The article went on to quote Clinton 
administration ally C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for 
International Economics, as noting ``I don't think much would be lost'' 
if the Department of Commerce were eliminated.
  Karen Kerrigan, president of the Small Business Survival Committee, 
recently rejected Secretary Brown's assertion that the business 
community would face dire consequences if the Department at the 
Commerce were dismantled: ``Having the Commerce Department at the 
Cabinet table has accomplished little in the past few years--in fact, 
taxes have risen and the regulatory burden has grown.''
  Despite this resounding vote of no-confidence from the business 
community, Secretary Brown tries to claim credit for encouraging 
billions of dollars in U.S. exports and for creating hundreds of 
thousands of American jobs. Secretary Brown fails to understand that it 
is the spirit of American enterprise and entrepreneurship that drives 
the American economy, not government bureaucrats in Washington.

  Steve Moore, director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute, 
wryly answers the Secretary's exaggerated claims, ``Right. And if we 
could just find 10 more Ron Browns, the American trade deficit and 
unemployment would magically vanish.''
  We are not, however, disputing the importance of many of the trade 
functions currently performed by the Commerce Department. We must 
aggressively pursue foreign markets and provide in-roads for American 
business. But to huddle these beneficial trade functions under the same 
administrative umbrella as the Weather Service, the Census Bureau, and 
the Economic Development Administration does not make sense. Our plan 
would change that.
  That said, Mr. Brown's argument that Commerce has been a ``proven 
business ally at the Cabinet table'' holds little weight with America's 
business community and the American taxpayers who foot the bill.
  Our plan provides a blueprint for what the Federal Government should 
be doing for American business: aggressively promoting opportunities 
and opening avenues for free and open trade for all industries.
  Our plan will strengthen the important trade functions of the Federal 
Government. Currently, over 19 federal offices or agencies play some 
role in developing Federal trade policy. Our plan begins to consolidate 
this fragmented system, avoiding the confusion and missed opportunities 
that this scattered system often creates.
  We will consolidate the trade programs of the Commerce Department, 
including the U.S. Foreign and Commercial Service and the Import 
Administration, into the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative, which already takes the lead in trade policy.
  Secretary Brown has claimed that eliminating the Commerce Department 
will be tantamount to unilateral disarmament, gutting the ability of 
the United States to compete in world markets through aggressive export 
promotion and sensible trade policies. I don't think the American 
people buy that argument for a minute.
  Mr. Brown's argument assumes that it is a good thing for the U.S. to 
have trade functions housed in an agency in which they are swallowed 
up. Do our trading partners think we are serious about trade when 
functions directly related to trade account for just 5 percent of the 
budget for the Department we call Commerce? Mr. Brown implies that our 
trade policy and promotion efforts will only work if they are carried 
out by lots and lots of people sitting in a very big building. I know 
the people of my district sent me here to challenge that kind of 
assumption.
  The fact is, we can conduct a much more effective trade policy by 
restructuring and downsizing the trade bureaucracy. The current U.S. 
structure for trade policy--USTR as the leader, Commerce's 
International Trade Administration as the poor cousin--is an anomaly. 
It is wasteful, duplicative, and it reduces our effectiveness vis-a-vis 
our major trading partners, like Canada, Japan, France, and the United 
Kingdom, which have single, unified trade agencies.
  I am absolutely convinced that, by breaking Commerce's trade 
functions out of a hidebound bureaucracy, by streamlining those 
functions, and by eliminating the senseless division that exists 
between USTR and the International Trade Administration, U.S. business 
will end up with a much more effective advocate, and our trading 
partners will face a much more formidable presence across the 
negotiating table. Our plan moves us toward that goal. We're not 
disarming--we're rethinking, retooling, consolidating and learning from 
the successes of our trading partners.

  The Commerce dismantling plan will also consolidate the beneficial 
science and technology programs of the Commerce Department into the new 
National Institute for Science and Technology [NIST]. The General 
Accounting Office recently reported that Commerce Department efforts 
comprise only a tiny fraction of overall Federal scientific endeavors. 
Most of the Federal science and technology programs are carried out 
elsewhere in government.
  Many of the Commerce Department's technology programs have become 
notorious as the golden gooses of what Labor Secretary Robert Reich 
calls corporate welfare. A prime example is the Advanced Technology 
Program [ATP], which provides multi-million dollar hand-outs to some of 
the Nation's industry giants. In most cases, ATP grants amount to 
nothing more than pork gone high-tech.
  T.J. Rogers, the CEO of Cyprus Semiconductor, recently offered these 
thoughts about corporate welfare:

       Corporate welfare burdens successful companies and 
     individuals with higher taxes and higher interest rates. And, 
     as with social welfare, corporate welfare often hurts the 
     intended beneficiary. The Department of Commerce is one of 
     the primary vehicles for corporate welfare.

  Our plan puts an immediate stop to these taxpayer funded giveaways.
  Here again, we are moving closer to a government that makes more 
sense, where similar functions are housed together and the waste and 
duplication eliminated. The useful programs of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, including the National Weather Service, and 
the standards functions and labs of the National Bureau of Standards, 
are merged into the new NIST.
  We consolidate Federal statistical functions, merging the Bureau of 
Economic Analysis [BEA] with the Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS]. The 
Bureau of the Census will be held in the Office of Management and 
Budget for up to 6 months, in anticipation of the creation of a unified 
Federal Statistical Agency.
  Our plan to dismantle the Department of Commerce will clean out the 
bureaucratic clutter from this attic of the Federal Government, 
eliminating over 40 unnecessary agencies and programs and shrinking 
those that have grown too big. For example, the plan terminates the 
U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration, the Technology Administration, 
the Economic and 

[[Page H10881]]

Statistics Administration, the Economic Development Administration, and 
the Minority Business Development Administration.
  We eliminate the Office of Technology Policy, the Advanced Technology 
Program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the Federal 
Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, and numerous other 
duplicative or wasteful programs.
  Our plan will also free two agencies from the burden of government 
red tap. The National Technical Information Service will be privatized 
and the Patent and Trademark Office will be made into a government 
corporation.
  Our efforts to dismantle the Department of Commerce are an important 
first step in downsizing the Federal Government and letting the 
American people keep more of what they earn and save.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, in response to the last speaker from 
Michigan, did you know that in your district 19,170 working families 
will have their taxes increased by this Republican bill, and in 
Michigan, students will have to pay $211 million more for student loans 
because of this bill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, the driving force behind today's vote on 
the budget reconciliation is the goal to balance the budget by the year 
2002. I believe most of us in Congress support the goal of balancing 
the budget. The question is, how, by what means, who makes the 
sacrifice, who will balance the budget on whose back?
  Every citizen has the goal of balancing their personal budget. We 
make decisions, we make choices. We can decide to purchase a luxury 
automobile if we wish, but if an average American purchases a luxury 
automobile, they may have to sacrifice paying for their house, 
providing their children nutritious food. They may have to sacrifice 
providing their children with good health.
  Most Americans, I believe, would forgo a luxury automobile in favor 
of choosing to do the right thing, supporting their family, supporting 
their elderly, supporting their children, providing for the basics.
  We have a choice today. We can decide to pay the luxury tax of $245 
billion for the most wealthy Americans and for those who do not need 
it, or we can decide to provide for the health care of our seniors, 
provide for the housing of our poor, provide for education of our 
children. We can forgo giving the 1 percent of our citizens, those who 
earn over $100,000, a tax cut that they have not even asked for.
  Let us balance the budget, I say. I am for that, and so are many of 
my colleagues on the Democratic side. For that reason, we should reject 
the notion that the only way to balance the budget is to accept the 
Gingrich proposal of balancing the budget.
  I support the Democratic substitute. Why? Because they balance 
priorities. They protect the poor. They make sure that Medicaid is 
there as an entitlement, and they fund the welfare program. If we are 
going to balance the budget, make sure we balance the priorities for 
all Americans, the poor Americans, which are the majority. We do have 
choices. Let us make the right decision for all Americans.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich].
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, today is a great day in America. As you 
all know, it is fall. Back in my hometown of Mariposa in California it 
is also fall, and what appears about this time of year is something 
that is known as a face fly. Why they call it a face fly is because if 
you are outside and you try to do some work, you are trying to get 
something done, you get this tiny bunch of flies that are in your eyes, 
in your mouth and buzzing in your ears, and they are a major 
distraction.
  Ladies and gentlemen, the Federal Government has become a face fly in 
the faces of the American people. I believe that we were sent here by 
the American people last November 8 to get American Government out of 
our faces.
  This budget gives that face fly a good swat. It gives freedom to the 
American people and freedom from a body in this Congress for the last 
40 years that has tried to be America's mother, tried to be America's 
father, tried to be America's pastor, tried to be America's employer. 
We are giving freedom back to the American people to live their own 
lives.
  I would imagine that I have got working poor in my district and their 
message to you is, get out of my face.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleague, the gentleman 
from California, to take a closer look at this budget, because he may 
not know this but 52,385 working families in his district in California 
will have their taxes raised through this Republican reconciliation 
bill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Mfume].
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation and 
I urge my colleagues to do the same. The bill before us represents bad 
policy; it is bad for America on several fronts, and I frankly fear for 
the future of our Nation should this legislation become law.
  Supporters of this legislation are likely to talk about the future. 
They will say that over the next 7 years this bill will lead us toward 
a balance budget, and that they are doing this for their children and 
grandchildren.
  Yet what kind of a world will these future generations be inheriting?
  They will be living among seniors who do not receive adequate medical 
care or enough income to survive, despite having worked all their 
lives.
  They will be surrounded by under-educated people, who were bought up 
in public schools that were plagued by drugs and violence and out-of-
date books. Most of these people will then be relegated to menial jobs 
because they cannot afford a college education.
  Everwhere they look, there will be whole families without adequate 
housing and without adequate help. Entire communities will be subject 
to decimation by crime, the lack of viable businesses, and by abject 
poverty.
  Mr. Chairman, if this bill becomes law our children and grandchildren 
will be living in a world where hard work is not rewarded unless it 
reaps more than $100,000 per year.
  This bill is rife with problems. In almost every area that this bill 
touches, it has the potential to wreak havoc on millions of Americans.
  To add insult to injury--and there will be injury to millions of this 
Nation's most vulnerable citizens--this bill then gives aid and comfort 
to those who need it the least.
  Let us look at just two unrelated areas which demonstrate the pain 
that this bill will inflict on millions of hard working Americans--the 
provisions addressing Federal employees and those addressing the 
Community Reinvestment Act.
  Under this bill, Federal employees' contributions to their Federal 
retirement system will be increased and their cost-of-living 
adjustments will be delayed. In other words, Federal employees will be 
paying more and receiving less under this plan.
  On another issue, this bill dilutes the effectiveness of the 
Community Reinvestment Act [CRA], which has been essential in past 
years in assuring that banks return some of the money they earn to the 
communities in which they are located. Through several provisions, this 
bill effectively exempts close to 90 percent of the banks and thrifts 
from CRA coverage. The bill also eliminates the sole enforcement 
mechanism in CRA.
  While these two issues may not appear to be related, they are both in 
this bill and they are demonstrative of the destructiveness this 
legislation will cause to average Americans.
  While I will not claim that this Congress under Democratic rule was 
able to resolve all of this Nation's problems, at lest we attempted to 
address them. This bill is simply saying to the old, the infirm, the 
middle class, the working poor, the students, and the children, that 
Congress no longer cares about their pain.
  With this bill, we are saying that Congress has new priorities, and 
the average American is not one of them.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the ranking Democratic member of the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, be permitted to 
control the next 

[[Page H10882]]

16 minutes of time on our side and that he be permitted to yield 
portions of that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, let us talk in realistic terms about the 
middle class in America. The fact is the middle class carries the huge 
working burden for this entire country. The fact is that what has 
happened over the last few years is that the middle class, in order to 
survive, has had to go from one-earner families to two-earner families 
and sometimes now to three- and four-earner families just to keep pace.
  What has Government done along the way as we have taken on the middle 
class? Well, what we have done is literally taken them on by raising 
their taxes. We have raised their Social Security taxes, we have raised 
their Medicare taxes, we have raised their income taxes, and over the 
last 20 years more and more we have undermined their ability to keep 
what they earn for themselves and use it for their families.
  The coup de grace was literally put in place a couple of years ago 
when this administration, and this Congress raised taxes enormously, 
the biggest single tax increase in history. Even the President now says 
it was too much tax. It was a huge tax increase. What it did was 
literally programmed in tax increases now and well into the future.
  What we are trying to do in our budget is give back a little bit of 
that money to those people, to take away some of the tax increase that 
was imposed on them 2 years ago.
  What do we hear? Oh, it is a tax cut for the rich. No, what is really 
does is goes to average middle-class Americans in a $500 per child tax 
credit and gives them back some of what was taken away from them by 
this Congress and by this administration.
  Democrats do not like that. But the fact is that that is what has to 
be done if middle-class America is going to get back that which they 
earned for themselves.
  What is the plan that we are offered in opposition to what we are 
doing? They want to continue those programmed tax cuts right on into 
the future. This year it will be $188 more the average family. Next 
year it will be $159 more for the average family. They continue those 
tax increases right out into the future. That is wrong. Middle-class 
America deserves the tax break that is contained in this budget.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman. I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel]
  Mr. ENGEL. In response to the last speaker from Pennsylvania, did the 
gentleman know that in his district 12,921 working families will have 
their taxes increased by this Republican bill and in Pennsylvania 
college students getting loans will have to pay $400 million more?
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, for almost a year, the Republican party has 
been making extravagant promises to the American people in the form of 
their contract on America.
  A lot of well-meaning, sensible people bought into this charade. In 
street language, the Republicans are pulling off a classic bait and 
switch; they made a set of promises to the voters in order to gain 
power, but now they are delivering a different bill of goods that will 
smother the aspirations of middle-class families. Republicans are 
rewarding their rich supporters by hurting those who simply want to 
pursue the American dream through higher education.
  To help finance their tax cuts for the rich, the Republicans propose 
to cut $10 billion from the student loan program. For many middle 
class, hardworking families, student loans have done more to open the 
doors of opportunity for their children than any other program 
established by the Federal Government.
  The American people did not ask the Republicans to give a multi-
billion dollar tax cut to the rich. The American people did not ask the 
Republicans to make it harder for their children to attend college by 
increasing the cost of student loans.
  Mr. Chairman, for 50 years, our national investment in higher 
education has had an extraordinary rate of return. But, obviously, such 
generosity is too liberal and too progressive for the Republican party. 
On the eve of another Halloween season, this House is haunted by the 
ghosts of society past, when a college education was a privilege 
reserved for the children of the elite.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this wretched reconciliation bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, this is a great day for America. We have a 
real chance to vote on a balanced budget today using real money, real 
numbers, and real cuts.
  It is wrong to live beyond our means. We do not do it in our homes. 
We do not do it in our small businesses. We do not do it in our 
churches. It is wrong to continue to indebt future generations. Most of 
all, it is wrong and dead wrong to reject this one best opportunity to 
reverse the growth of Government, restore individual freedom, and lower 
the present and future tax burden for all Americans.
  This budget bill puts America on track to a balanced budget and 
higher standard of living for all Americans in years ahead. This bill 
saves Medicare and the earned income tax credit, which is very 
important, while reforming welfare and providing American families with 
a much needed tax credit.
  My colleagues, this is not a perfect bill. The agriculture section of 
this bill must be improved, and I am hopeful that it will be. It is a 
bill that must better address reimbursement for federally mandated 
Medicaid treatment. Also lost will be an opportunity to repeal a big 
boondoggle, the Davis-Bacon Act. But we can make these improvements.
  I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas, [Mr. Gene Green]
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, does my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas, know that in his district, if this bill passes, 
51,213 taxpayers will pay in increased taxes because of changes in the 
earned income tax credit and in Texas he will lose $337 million in 
student loans?
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Republican bill and 
in support of the coalition alternative. Today I believe that there is 
a majority of principle for a balanced budget but only a partisan 
majority for the balanced budget plan offered by the Republican 
majority. That is because the Republican majority asked those who are 
best able to help themselves to do the least and those who are least 
able to help themselves to do the most. Nowhere in this budget is that 
more evident than in the field of education, and nowhere is that more 
evident than in the direct lending program which is abolished by the 
Republican bill.
  My friends, the Republicans are abolishing the direct lending program 
because it works so well, because it shows American students and 
American taxpayers that this program works better than the billion-
dollar-a-year corporate welfare giveaway to the banking industry, than 
to the hundreds of bureaucracies that have sprung up around the country 
wasting the money of students and taxpayers and families.
  Direct lending will be preserved after the President vetoes this bill 
and we come together as a principled majority for a balanced budget. 
But none of us should vote for a bill that says to a janitor that we 
will raise your taxes while we lower the taxes of the person whose 
office you clean at night. No one should vote for a bill that says to 
the salespeople working for that company president, your children will 
pay more to go to college or will not go at all, at 

[[Page H10883]]

the same time that the largest argibusiness in America walk off scot-
free. It is the right principle. It is the wrong path to get there.
  Our principled majority will join together after our President has 
spoken and pass a 7-year balanced budget the right way. This is not it.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].
  (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, we all want America to remain the 
strongest country in the world. We want our children to grow up 
healthy, well-educated, drug free, and prosperous. And we want to 
reduce the burgeoning Federal deficit.
  However, we on this side of the aisle recognize that we cannot 
achieve our first two goals without first addressing the deficit. We 
simply must get control of escalating Federal spending.
  Former Senator Paul Tsongas made this clear when, appearing before my 
Health and Environment Subcommittee earlier this year, he testified:

       The bipartisan commission on entitlement and tax reform 
     shocked even cynical inside-the-beltway types by pointing out 
     that, on the current path, entitlement programs plus interest 
     will exceed all Federal revenues by the year 2012.

  Mr. Chairman, that is just 17 years away.
  We do not like having to say, over and over, that Federal Government 
spending must be contained, that waste must be eliminated, that the 
bloated bureaucracy must be deflated and that all programs must be 
examined with an eye toward cutting. We do not like to argue, over and 
over again, that we need a balanced budget amendment and a line-item 
veto.
  It would be much easier to just keep piling money on every program 
year after year. But it would not be responsible. Unwarranted scare 
tactics and false information to score cheap political points do not 
help.
  Mr. Chairman, we must pass this landmark budget reconciliation bill 
to balance our Federal budget and begin to honestly address our 
Nation's problems.
  Support this bill.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, in response to the last speaker, did you 
know that in your district, 32,028 working families will have their 
taxes increased by this Republican bill, and in Florida college 
students getting loans will have to pay $276 million more?
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Reed].
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget 
reconciliation before us today.
  At the very time in our history when we need to invest more in 
education, this bill takes a step backwards. It goes after important 
programs that will help improve our education, like setting higher 
standards for our schools, providing for safe and drug-free schools, 
providing technology for our schools. These are devastating cuts to 
education.
  When you look at the reality and get beyond the rhetoric, for working 
families in Rhode Island, this is even worse than the educational cuts. 
When you look at the Medicare proposals and the Medicaid proposals, you 
will see working families in Rhode Island have the cruel choice of 
saving more money to take care of aging parents or saving money to 
invest in their young children, indeed probably choosing between which 
fortunate child will go to college and which will be forced into the 
world, a complex world, without benefit of higher education. We can and 
must do better to ensure all of our citizens, all of our citizens have 
access to quality education.
  Indeed, this whole proposal rests on very, very shallow grounds. The 
direct loan program is an example of a program that works for America, 
that saves money for taxpayers, is universally accepted and applauded 
by students and colleges alike, yet targeted for extinction. Why? 
Because it works too well, because it displaces bank-subsidized loans 
rather than providing direct loans to American students. This gimmick 
was employed in this new bill by changing the budget rules so we could 
make this efficient program look more expensive rather than more 
efficient as it in reality is.
  These types of gimmicks underscore the cruel cuts imposed on this 
bill. We have to invest in education. Our economic prowess today is a 
result of consistent Federal policies, beginning with the GI bill, 
stretching through Pell grants, all of them aimed to improve human 
capital, the ability of our citizens to be the most educated, the most 
productive in the world. Yet we turn our back on that proud history and 
condemn our Nation to ignorance.
  I reject this measure.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, while I come to the floor to express my 
overwhelming support for this reconciliation bill, I want to make a 
very important point. This debate today is about so much more than the 
nuts and bolts of achieving a balanced budget, about accusations that 
Republicans are giving a tax break to the wealthy or about 
irresponsible individuals calling an almost $2,000-per-person increase 
in Medicare, a spending cut.
  This is about doing what is right, what is decent, and what is 
required of us to do if our children and grandchildren and our parents 
have any chance of surviving the failure of past generations of 
lawmakers to exercise any kind of fiscal responsibility. This is 
plainly and simply the right thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, as I know when I sit down we are going 
to hear some remarks about those people in my district impacted by this 
bill, but these are from the same folks that said they were concerned 
about health care for the elderly but when faced with Medicare's 
imminent bankruptcy, they chose bankruptcy. We said we want to cut 
taxes for working families, but they did not. We said we want to 
balance the budget, but they did not.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it just goes to show that adage, you can fool 
the country once, shame on us, fool the country more than once, shame 
on those.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the speaker 
from Indiana, wondering if he knows that in his district 31,695 working 
families will have their taxes increased by this Republican bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that we need to cut 
spending and balance the budget. The debate is not about whether we 
have a balanced budget, especially with our coalition budget that we 
Democrats will offer today. It is a question of fairness to the 
American people and to the children and the students of this country.
  The big difference between the Republican plan and the coalition plan 
is cutting taxes. The Republican plan cuts taxes by $250 billion, so it 
takes money out of very important programs like Head Start for 
children, where they kick children out of Head Start programs and 
student aid for student loans. Now, what are the American people saying 
about these tax cuts? When I read about the people who testified before 
the Committee on the Budget and their testimony, all across this 
country, in Arizona, New Jersey, they said things such as Mr. Frank 
Ramsey in Arizona, ``We here feel in Prescott what needs to be done 
first is cut spending long before cutting taxes.''
  In Montana, Greg Pearson said, ``I think it is absolutely foolish for 
Congress to talk about reducing taxes at all.'' Lynn Dill in Delaware 
said, ``Gentlemen, I am not looking for a tax cut. I want the best 
thing for the country and for the children.''
  The second major difference between the Republican plan and the 
coalition plan is that that cuts $10 billion out of student loans. I 
have Indiana University at South Bend [I.U.S.B.] in my district. The 
average age is 28. We have 

[[Page H10884]]

factory workers going back to school to get new skills so that they can 
continue to earn money for their families. We have people 55 changing 
their careers, going to I.U.S.B. This proposal will say to so many of 
these students that are 28, 38, and 48 years old, no more educational 
opportunities for you.
  Mr. Chairman, let us sacrifice together equally. Let us not do the 
tax cuts at this time. It is inappropriate and unfair.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, for 40 years we had a tax-and-
spend Congress. In 1965, the war on poverty; for 30 years there has 
been a war on poverty, $5 trillion has been spent. And what have we 
got? We have more in poverty, we have more welfare, more illegitimacy, 
lower education, higher crime, more poverty, more drugs.
  It is time to reform. It is time to balance our budget.
  That Congress for 40 years spent us into a $5 trillion debt. Now, I 
am not going to pretend that today is going to be easy to vote on this 
bill, but it is time that we balance our budget.
  If a House run by Democrats for 40 years had not spent the American 
people into the ground, we would have more resources, but we do not. 
Today we vote on whether to stop the bleeding or whether to continue 
down a path that will lead our Nation, our seniors, and our children to 
economic disaster.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Kentucky, 
did you know that in your district 34,543 working families will have 
their taxes increased by this Republican bill, and in the State of 
Kentucky students will have $75 million less for student loans?
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Gene Green].
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I want to know how many Members on the Republican side have had a 
chance to read this bill. Maybe if they had, they would notice two 
things in the bill. One of them is that it cuts student loans, but also 
that in relation to that, the quote from our majority leader on the 
Senate side that said, ``I was there fighting the fight, voting against 
Medicare in 1965,'' and now he is proud to be doing it again. I hope 
they would look at that bill in relation to these quotes from this 
week.
  There is an old saying that only the ignorant fear education. I rise 
today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' against ignorance and to 
vote ``no'' against this careless and irresponsible bill we have today.
  The Republicans, in their zeal to balance the budget, eliminate the 
stafford student loan 6-month grace period. This attack on students 
will increase college loan costs by $3.5 billion nationwide and $331 
million in the State of Texas alone. College students will have to take 
out additional loans just to pay the interest.
  This shows the Republicans' commitment to education, in addition, the 
commitment on the plus loan, or raise the interest rates for parents.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican 
budget proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the current Republican budget 
proposal and urge a vote against this attack on working men and women.
  My colleagues, what we have before us today is the naked shift of 
wealth at its very worst. We are robbing working class Americans to pay 
for tax breaks for the wealthy. In the past we have talked about 
changing spending priorities and investing in working America. This 
legislation is nothing more than a debate on de-investing in working 
America.
  In today's society when the top 4 percent of the population's total 
earnings already exceed that of 50 million working class Americans--
something is very wrong. Where is the fairness in giving more to those 
who already have so much, while taking so many desperately needed 
programs from those that have so little.
  With reductions ranging from the earned-income tax credit, and the 
low-income housing tax credit, to cutting support for education, job 
training, and infrastructure, this budget finishes the Republicans' 
goal of removing society's safety net, and ending many working 
American's dream of a better life.
  In the future we will still see groups of very prosperous people. But 
they will be flanked by larger groups of working poor. Sandwiched in 
between will be an unstable middle class, struggling just to hang on. 
This new polarized society will make America look more like a third 
world country than a world leader.
  Today's vote marks the end of an era. Gone will be the world in which 
mothers and fathers hoped and dreamed that their children's lives would 
be better than their own. Today with this vote that dream will cease to 
exist. My colleagues, before you vote ask yourself--is balancing the 
budget on some arbitrary date, worth the price of our children's 
future? I think not.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Texas 
a question. Does the gentleman from Texas know how much money he is 
depriving his constituents by voting against the $500 tax credit?
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I do not have that information. But I would 
imagine in my district, to my colleague and my friend, who is chairman 
of my committee, my district has a $25,000 median income, and they will 
not even be eligible.
  Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, I say to the gentleman from Texas, you 
have given statistics. I want you to know that your vote against the 
$500 tax credit is going to cost your constituents $60 million.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and yield to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I am really confused on 
this. I thought I heard the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] 
yesterday ask you if the $500 tax break was actually in this bill. I 
thought I heard you say it is not. Now I am asking for a clarification. 
Is it or is it not?
  Mr. KASICH. Since I yielded to the gentleman, the actual $500 tax 
credit is not contained in this bill, because we went from a bill that 
had 350 billion dollars' worth of tax relief to $245 billion. And now, 
the simple fact of the matter is that at the end of the day we will 
march on this floor in a conference report on reconciliation with a 
$500 tax credit contained in the final product.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. But it is not in this bill?
  Mr. KASICH. I control the time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I am sorry.
  Mr. KASICH. I cannot tell you what the ratio adjustment would be, but 
I would hope that nobody would attempt to distort or try to deceive 
people that it is somehow not the intention of the Members in this 
House to deliver a $500 tax credit.
  Now, you cannot have it both ways. Out of one side of your mouth you 
cannot say we want to have it, we do not want to have any tax relief 
for Americans, and then on the other side of your mouth berate us 
because we do not technically have it done because of the way in which 
we do our scoring rules.
  So the bottom line is we will have a $500 tax credit, and as the 
gentleman from Connecticut just pointed out, one of the last speakers 
is going to lose about $60 million from his district because he opposes 
the $500 tax credit.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the----
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, can the Chairman maintain order in the 
House? Regular order.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bilirakis). The time is controlled by 
the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has chosen at this 
point in time to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

[[Page H10885]]

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am not asking the gentleman 
from Ohio for a parliamentary inquiry. I am asking you for a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time is controlled at this point.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my colleague on the 
Committee on the Budget, and congratulate him for all the terrific work 
he has done.
  Friends, last month, a close friend of mine, Rick Raemisch, sheriff 
of Dane County, had a baby with his wife, Colleen. My family sent him 
off, as you might expect, a present and said, ``Congratulations.''
  This place managed to send, along with our President, a tab for 
$190,000. That is the interest that little baby now owes this country 
because of the national debt this Congress has run up over the last 30 
years.
  I have got three boys at home, ages 3, 6, and 10, and combined, all 
of them now owe a half-million in interest payments because this 
Congress has not been able to control spending over the last three 
decades.
  We have to balance the budget because this plan does it over the next 
7 years, and it saves the promise of America for Rick and Colleen's 
little baby and for my three little boys.
  It also saves Medicare for my 78-year-old mom, who lives in Milwaukee 
and who is scared to death if Congress does not do something that 
Medicare is gone completely, that it vanishes in the year 2002. We have 
to live up to our promises to our constituents to balance the budget. 
That is why I came here in the first place, and that is what this vote 
is all about this afternoon.
  It is about a newborn baby in Madison, WI, and it is about my 78-
year-old mom, moms and grandparents and fathers all across this 
country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to finally manage to balance the 
budget in this place over the next 7 years.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Gene Green].
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, who is a good 
friend of mine, did he know that in his district, 19,900 more working 
families would have their taxes increase if this bill passes? And in my 
own district, 57,757 families would have their taxes increased if this 
bill passes today, 57,757 in my district in the State of Texas.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of my 
committee for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to 
this bill.
  It is called a reconciliation bill, but under my definition, 
reconciliation means bringing people together and trying to reconcile 
differences. The majority party has made no such attempt, and we find 
in this bill crushing destruction of bills that have brought so much 
progress to our country. In Medicare and Medicaid, they are going to 
cut $455 billion.
  We have already seen devastating cuts in the appropriations bill for 
this year in education, and this bill brings another $10 billion of 
cuts in student programs to enable them to go to college. We have 
always talked about the importance of education for our future, for our 
ability to compete globally and how important it is to support our 
young people in going to college. This bill that we are being asked to 
vote on today crushes that opportunity, denies millions of students the 
opportunity to go to college. This is a backward moving bill. I urge 
that it be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2491, the Seven 
Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, because it breaks 
faith with the promises made to millions of Americans who have trusted 
the Government to provide certain basic services which safeguard their 
and their family's health, education, and welfare.
  This reconciliation bill is a process gone amok. It was initially 
intended to coordinate the work of all the committees and enable the 
Congress at the end of the session to know what the total budget 
spending was and in addition provide for the needed legislative action 
required to implement actions taken by the appropriations committee. 
The budget process was intended to bring greater collaboration and 
cohesiveness in the work of the Congress.
  This bill attempts to implant a 7-year budget restriction by enacting 
in one bill thousands of changes in statutory law intended to achieve 
cuts in spending in order to reach a balanced budget by the year 2002. 
It has created chaos and literally abandoned sunshine and open 
government.
  I do not believe that this budget process was created to foist upon 
an unsuspecting public, who scarcely understands what we are doing, 
these monstrous changes in current law that could affect so many lives, 
so drastically, without open discussion and due debate.
  Imagine a Medicaid and Medicare reconciliation which cuts $455 
billion over a period of 7 years. These cuts were devised somewhere in 
the back room in secret. There were no public hearings on the thousands 
of sections containing these devastating cuts. These are not just pages 
in a bill. These cuts sever the life connection for our elderly and for 
many it will be disastrous choices and heavier burdens on their already 
hard pressed children.
  On page 1242 of this bill, title XI Medicare states, ``text to be 
supplied.'' We have to presume that the 1,000 page bill that we voted 
on October 19, 1995 is what is intended to be inserted. This bill cut 
$270 billion of the Medicare Program without even 1 day of hearings. We 
know that various sections of the bill were changed during last minute 
negotiations, and one wonders what other changes were added to 
Medicare, and all the other sections.
  Reconciliation means putting together the annual spending bills and 
making certain that statutory changes were made to align the spending 
with the law. That is what reconciliation should mean.
  Instead this reconciliation has evolved into a demolition process in 
which wholesale massive destruction of programs are hastily included 
under the guise that it is necessary today under time targets set in 
the law for entirely different purposes.
  One could argue about the necessity of various programs. One could 
differ about its efficacy. But these differences need to be discussed 
in the light of the day with full and open disclosure in public 
hearings and only after thorough and complete understanding about what 
is being proposed should they be brought to the floor for a vote.
  There is no justification that we vote to eliminate the Department of 
Commerce without opportunity to debate what happens to all of the 
programs contained within it. This process is a disgrace and demeans 
this institution. There is no reason for this haste. This is deliberate 
chaos.
  The budget resolution we passed in the spring called for the 
committees to report their recommendations. The Agriculture Committee 
did not report their recommendations. Nonetheless a recommendation is 
being added to this reconciliation bill by edict of the Speaker. This 
bypass of a standing committee is unprecedented. It is a derogation of 
authority and threatens the constitutional basis upon which we stand.
  The 245 billion dollars' worth of tax cuts are supposed to be 
included in this reconciliation bill. Yet on page 1563 of the bill H.R. 
2491, it still says, ``Text to be provided''. What changes are we 
voting on compared to the bill that the House passed in the spring?
  The page where the welfare reform bill is supposed to be is also 
blank. We are told that it is intended that the House passed welfare 
reform bill is to be inserted.
  It is clear to me that the thrust of this 7-year plan is to abandon 
the poorest, neediest, and most helpless of our population. It is 
definitely a plan that balances the budget on the backs of our 
children, our poor, our sick, and our elderly and disabled population.
  Furthermore the size of the deficit is increased under their plan by 
the $240 billion tax cut, half of which goes to the 1 percent of our 
wealthiest people. Imagine giving these huge tax breaks, and on top of 
that repealing the alternative minimum tax which currently imposes tax 
on the super rich who otherwise would escape any payment whatsoever.
  The tax benefits given the rich, is paid for by the poor, the ill, 
the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled. It's simple mathematics. 
If you give away a tax dollar you should have collected, in order to 
still have a zero deficit, you have to take away a dollar's worth of 
benefit from someone.
  No matter what the majority party says, the 245 billion dollars' 
worth of tax cuts, has to be paid for in order to have a balanced 
budget.
  Let me outline the most egregious of all the cuts in programs that 
will result if this Reconciliation bill is enacted.


                               education

  You recall that in this year's appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1996 we already cut education spending by $4.1 billion. A long list of 
programs were eliminated and many were cut 

[[Page H10886]]

back badly. Our education spending priority is gone.
  This reconciliation bill proposes an additional $10.1 billion of cuts 
over the next 7 years in various aspects of the student loan program. 
This is a crushing blow to thousands of students who could not make it 
through college without this help. The numerous changes in the program 
will enable the financial institutions to toughen the eligibility 
requirements freezing many students from getting their loans.
  H.R. 2491 seriously undermines the ability of parents and students to 
get loans, increases the costs of these loans, and jeopardizes the 
structure and integrity of the program.
  Eliminating the Federal interest payment during the 6-month grace 
period is expected to cost students $3.5 billion over 7 years. The 
grace period was instituted because the greatest number of defaults 
occurred in the first few months of repayment, when students often had 
difficulty finding jobs and establishing a steady income.
  Republicans have also reduced the amount of money parents can borrow 
under the PLUS loan program and increased the interest rate charged to 
parents.
  Perhaps the greatest harm to students and parents will come 
indirectly from the new costs imposed on lenders, guaranty agencies and 
secondary markets. The impact of these new fees and costs will increase 
costs on lenders and guaranty agencies causing many to leave the 
program, limiting access to student aid and result in redlining. This 
will take us back to a time which only the well-to-do had access to 
higher education.
  These problems in gaining access to student aid will also be 
compounded by the elimination of the direct loan program. While 
Republicans insist that they support student aid, their recent actions 
speak otherwise. The direct loan program is the second student aid 
program that the House Republicans have voted to eliminate this year. 
The other program, the State student incentive grant program was 
zeroed-out in the appropriations bill.


                                 taxes

  With respect to the $245 billion package of tax cuts, the House GOP 
would direct 52 percent of the package's benefits to families with 
incomes of over $100,000, of which 28 percent would go to families with 
incomes over $200,000. The proposed reduction in taxes would range from 
a meager $53 per year for families with incomes of $10,000 to $20,000 
up to a whopping $10,362 for families with incomes of over $200,000.

  The House GOP reduces the earned income tax credit by $32 billion, by 
rescinding the credit to families without children, broadening the 
definition of income used to calculate eligibility, and reducing the 
income level at which families can receive the EITC.


                                welfare

  Although not printed in H.R. 2491, I presume the House-passed welfare 
reform bill has been made a part of this bill. These measures would 
desert low-income families in times of greatest need and punish 
children just because they are poor.
  Most of those receiving welfare--Aid to families with dependent 
children, [AFDC] are children--approximately 10 out of 14 million 
recipients. The arbitrary lifetime limit of 5 years for cash assistance 
with cut off benefits to families while ignoring special circumstances 
these families endure. This time limit is punitive because most 
recipients are cyclers, unable to sustain employment and support their 
families continuously because at least one vital element is missing: 
child care, job assistance, education, health care, housing assistance 
or transportation.
  By refusing to provide all elements of this necessary safety net, 
this bill denies welfare families true opportunity at self-sufficiency. 
Stringent work requirements as conditions of cash assistance are 
unreasonable without job creation. It is unrealistic to expect welfare 
recipients--mostly single mothers--to be able to find a good job paying 
a living wage while the country's unemployment rate remains high.
  Low-income families will be further punished through the 
discontinuation of entitlement status for several programs and 
establishment of various block grants to States in this bill. By 
capping spending for these programs, States in times of fiscal hardship 
would be deserted, unable to receive additional Federal assistance 
despite the fact that the number of individuals relying on government 
assistance would grow. By placing programs for low-income families into 
block grants, the bill carries no assurance that States will use funds 
for these needy families.
  Funding reductions and benefits caps in the Food Stamp Program, as 
well as the elimination and block-granting of the school lunch and 
breakfast programs, will severely threaten child nutrition in America. 
In Hawaii alone by 2002, nutrition assistance for 50,000 children would 
be cut; school lunch, the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants and Children [WIC] and other child nutrition programs serving 
184,000 children would be jeopardized. Nationwide, 14 million children 
in 2002 would lose nutrition assistance, and 32 million children could 
lose nutritional support.
  Among other impacts of these welfare provisions, the administration 
estimates that more than 400,000 American children will lose child care 
assistance in 2002--1,450 children in Hawaii by cutting $10.6 million 
over 7 years. Foster care and adoption for vulnerable children will be 
cut by $6.3 billion over 7 years--by $32.9 million from children in 
Hawaii. Child protection for abused and neglected children will 
decrease by 19 percent in 2002--24 percent in Hawaii. Furthermore, 
because their paternity has not been established 3.3 million American 
children will be ineligible for cash assistance--12,000 in Hawaii--by 
the time the House bill is implemented in 2005.
  Just as disagreeable in this legislation are measures to deny Federal 
benefits to legal immigrants--those who have followed the letter of the 
law and paid taxes. Most legal immigrants would be denied by assistance 
from Supplemental Security Income [SSI], Medicaid, food stamps, 
temporary assistance for needy families block grant and social services 
block grant programs.
  Finally, the bill before us would change eligibility requirements for 
SSI and reduce spending by $17.6 billion over 7 years. It is appalling 
that this bill would allow only those low-income children to receive 
SSI who are severely disabled so as to require institutionalization if 
they are without continuous personal assistance. As many as half of the 
disabled children in Hawaii projected to receive SSI in 2002 under 
current law would be denied benefits; the figure is as many as 55 
percent nationwide.


                                medicaid

  Once again it is our children, low-income families, and the elderly 
that will feel the brunt of the Republican Medicaid plan. The 
Republican Medicaid plan wipes out guaranteed health care coverage for 
36 million Americans, most of whom are children and cuts the program by 
$182 billion over the next 7 years.
  Under the Republican plan no one is entitled to coverage for any 
services, regardless of how basic--even prenatal care, immunization for 
children, and care for the disabled. Instead of the current Federal 
guarantee of care, States will now be able to decide eligibility 
requirements, the level of benefits and services, and with at least 20 
percent less funding they will have no choice but to cut off people or 
cut services.
  Children will be among the most vulnerable to suffer from these cuts. 
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that as many 
as 15,161 children in Hawaii could lose Medicaid coverage under this 
plan. Currently 15 percent of Hawaii's children rely on Medicaid for 
the basic health needs. But the Republican plan will cut Federal 
Medicaid dollars to Hawaii by $443 million over 7 years.
  The Urban Institute estimates that even if Hawaii could make up half 
of these cuts by reducing services and provided payments, it would 
still have to eliminate coverage for 29,557 people, including 15,161 
children in the year 2002.
  The other primary group of people who will be hurt by the Medicaid 
cuts is the elderly and disabled who depend upon Medicaid for long-term 
care. The majority of Medicaid funds goes to pay for long-term care--
institutional and home care--for the elderly and disabled. In Hawaii 
Medicaid currently pays 60% of the costs of elderly in nursing homes. 
74% of Hawaii's 3,289 nursing home patients rely on Medicaid to pay 
their bills.

  Under this bill Hawaii's elderly and disabled will no longer have the 
assurance of Medicaid assistance for their long-term care. The program 
has been converted to a block grant to states under an inflexible, 
potentially inequitable formula. In addition, the bill repeals federal 
quality standards for nursing home residents. The bill also allows 
states to place liens on assets of adult children before their parents 
can be eligible for Medicaid.


                                housing

  With respect to housing, the Budget Reconciliation Act makes numerous 
reckless cuts. H.R. 2491 terminates the Resolution Trust Corporation 
[RTC] and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's [FDIC] affordable 
housing programs. Under the RTC affordable housing program, more than 
104,000 residences have been sold for $1.5 billion while eliminating 
these programs will save a mere $32 million. These relatively meager 
savings will abolish these sensible and necessary services.
  HUD's multifamily property disposition would be practically wiped 
out. This bill authorizes HUD to sell its multifamily housing projects 
and HUD-held mortgages without restriction. There will be no 
protections for displaced low-income tenants forced to enter the market 
and locate suitable housing that will honor a voucher. Tenants will not 
be guarded from rent increases and will be required to pay the 
difference when rents rise above the value of their voucher.
  The Rural Housing and Community Development Service will be required 
to recapture 

[[Page H10887]]

Federal subsidies from rural housing borrowers when a home is 
refinanced or a single family direct loan mortgage is paid off. A low-
income family that has spent years saving their scarce resources to 
purchase a home will be further burdened with repaying principal and 
interest on a refinanced first mortgage as well as the interest credit 
subsidy recaptured upon refinancing. This policy goes contrary to 
helping families obtain the American dream; delaying efforts of low-
income families to purchase their own homes.
  Despite weighty testimony that many low- and moderate-income 
individuals are not currently assisted adequately, this bill eliminates 
all enforcement mechanisms of the Community Reinvestment Act [CRA]. The 
responsibility of financial institutions to meet the credit needs of 
their communities will not be monitored. Institutions could invest more 
outside of their communities thereby slowing the growth of these 
already distressed areas and make it increasingly difficult for its 
citizens to obtain loans.


                                medicare

  Last week this House passed Medicare cuts of $270 billion. Medicare 
is not about cold pieces of metal fastened together to create a space 
station or a stealth bomber. It is about people's standard of living. 
It is about having the comfort and security to know that if you become 
ill in your years of twilight, or disabled at any age there will be a 
safety net.
  There are already 41 million people in this country without health 
insurance. Does anyone in this room believe that this number will 
decrease as a direct result of these provisions to cut Medicare?
  The majority claims that seniors will have more choice with their 
Medicare plan. Sure they will have new choices but in addition, I 
caution you to be aware that old choices will be eliminated. Among the 
new choices will be the option to select a medical savings account that 
could have a $10,000 per year deductible; the choice to stay with a 
skeleton of the traditional Medicare system that will not pay for all 
the services it did before; and to select a provider service 
organization that will be unregulated, unsafe, and financially 
vulnerable, until States are able to implement their own regulations.
  Meanwhile, old choices will be abolished. This bill includes 
provisions that would remove a patient's legal right to sue for 
malpractice more than 5 years after damages were sustained even if 
damages were not discovered until after this period of time; patients 
would not have the choice to select a nursing home that maintains 
federally regulated standards; and beneficiaries who exercise their 
choice and select a Medicare-plus option could later find that they do 
not have the choice to select their family doctor under their new plan.
  Why are we rushing these catastrophic cuts when we have 7 years at 
the earliest before the Medicare trust fund will become insolvent. The 
Medicare trustees have not stated that we need Medicare cuts of $270 
billion to make the trust fund solvent. One Trustee stated that $89 
billion is all that is needed. We have 7 years to plan these changes 
and we have done it 8 times before.


                         department of commerce

  The reconciliation bill eliminates the Commerce Department causing 
needless shuffling of governmental functions while eliminating 
successful activities that clearly benefit the American people 
especially in areas that promote economic growth, increase the 
international competitiveness of U.S. firms in global markets, and 
advance U.S. technology.
  H.R. 2491 eliminates four agencies, the Minority Business Development 
Agency, U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration, Technology 
Administration and the Economic Development Administration. The 
remaining Commerce programs not eliminated are transferred to existing 
agencies or departments or consolidated in newly created agencies.
  The U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration and the Economic 
Development Administration have been particularly important to economic 
and business development in Hawaii. These two key agencies were major 
contributors to the economic recovery of Kauai following Hurricane 
Iniki.
  It is highly contradictory that Republicans who pride themselves as 
supporters of private enterprise would eliminate a whole agency 
dedicated to improving business and economic development.

  The transfer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
[NOAA] to a new agency threatens weather services, State grants, 
fisheries, research, navigation, and sanctuaries nationwide. Negative 
effects of this provision will be felt the hardest in Hawaii as 
numerous programs lose funding or are terminated.
  Finally this bill contains a provision to lift the ban on export of 
Alaska North Slope [ANS] crude oil which would have disastrous effects 
on Hawaii's consumers, who already pay the highest gas prices in the 
Nation. According to industry experts, this measure could increase 
wellhead prices for ANS by more than $2 per barrel, which would 
translate directly into skyrocketing gas costs for Hawaii, whose 
refineries run on 60-percent crude oil. The 22-year-old export ban on 
ANS has enabled Hawaii's refineries to hold costs down.
  Should the ban be lifted, as gas prices start to rise, Hawaii and the 
U.S. territories would begin to receive less ANS crude. According to 
the State's largest refinery--BHP petroleum Americas--removal of the 
export ban would make exports to Pacific rim countries more attractive. 
The ANS provision is terribly irresponsible, at a time when the United 
States is importing nearly half of its petroleum, to allow domestic oil 
to go to foreign countries.
  This is just a brief description of the thousands of harmful 
consequences of this bill. This bill must not become law. It destroys 
America's belief in what Government stands for.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just have a very calm dialog 
with my good friend; he truly is a good friend and someone I respect 
from Texas. I would just ask the gentleman to share that, the gentleman 
says in my district, What?
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, 11,207 would see increases in 
taxes from earned income tax credit, but also your district would 
benefit from the increased taxes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, so the gentleman is talking about the earned 
income tax credit. Is it the gentleman's point on the floor of the 
House that any of my constituents who get the earned income tax credit 
will get less next year?
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, the number, the 11,000 number is based on the number of 
constituents you have that are eligible for the earned income tax 
credit.
  Mr. SHAYS. Nobody will be taking any earned income tax away. They 
will not get an increase.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. They will. Under this bill, there will be 
less earned income tax credit.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just think the numbers 
you all are using are bogus. I am fed up with it. These are not 
accurate numbers. You are not disclosing that it is to be increased. 
There is no cut to a constituent in my district because of the earned 
income tax credit. It has got to end.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/3\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to two 
provisions in this mean-spirited attack on educational opportunity and 
on the lowest paid workers in America, the people who are covered by 
the Service Contract Act. There is no need to go after the workers in 
the Service Contract Act. it does not have anything to do with 
increasing revenues for this country. It will not cost us anything in 
tax expenditures; however, it may cost a great deal in food stamps and 
unemployment insurance if we end the service contract and lower the 
wages of the lowest paid workers in the country.
  Wage determinations under the Service Contract Act in 30 cities come 
out to $6.07 per hour for janitors, $5.42 for food service workers, 
$5.59 for guards. Why are we going after these lowest paid workers in 
America? Why is the mean-spirited attack on workers continuing through 
the Reconciliation Act? It does not save any money. It will cost us 
money in the end.
  We will also lose money by not investing more in education in 
America. Educational opportunity is an investment. It is not an 
expenditure. We need to widen the amount of money available in 
discretionary programs so that we can restore many of the cuts made in 
education. We want to restore the cuts in title I. We want to restore 
the summer youth employment grant. We also want to make certain that 
the job training programs which are defunded have money restored. If we 
extend this attempt to balance the budget over a 10-year period instead 
of a 7-year period, we can gain back many of the dollars that are 
needed to restore these educational cuts in the budget.

[[Page H10888]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this mean-spirited 
attack on educational opportunity in America and on the lowest paid 
workers in America.
  Education has become a matter of individual economic survival in this 
country. You cannot succeed, you cannot earn enough to support a 
family, you cannot achieve the American dream, without postsecondary 
education. Americans understand this and they now make enormous 
sacrifices to obtain access to the halls of higher education, working 
extra hours, taking second jobs, scrimping, saving, and, inevitably, 
assume crushing debt burdens.
  Instead of honoring the determination and the responsibility of these 
Americans, today this House is about to make their struggle that much 
harder, piling on aid cuts of more than $10 billion. Many families will 
not be able to afford cuts of these magnitude. More importantly, no 
family should be asked to shoulder this additional burden. There is no 
high purpose behind all this; the only reason we are savaging these 
programs is to free up money for the Republican tax cut payoff.
  This bill also wages a parallel assault on elementary and secondary 
education and job training, threatening both the availability and the 
quality of educational and training opportunities for millions of 
American children. The dramatic reduction in permissible discretionary 
spending that would be imposed by this bill between now and the year 
2002 will savage Federal assistance for elementary and secondary 
education. The Labor-HHS-Education appropriations legislation passed by 
the House earlier this year offers just a preview of the carnage to 
come.
  The title I program, which supports tutoring and remedial educational 
services for low-income children and others who are falling behind in 
school, is cut by $1.1 billion, or 17 percent, throwing 1.1 million 
educationally disadvantaged students out of the program. The Safe and 
Drug-Free School Program, which provides support to nearly every school 
district in the country for drug abuse education programming and 
antiviolence activities, is slashed by 60 percent, eliminating services 
to 23 million schoolchildren. Cuts in funding for the Adult Education 
Act will deny services to 125,000 illiterate adults next year. Cuts in 
Head Start will toss nearly 50,000 preschool children out of that 
acclaimed program. Support for training for disadvantaged youth is cut 
in half and the entire summer youth employment program is eliminated, 
denying 600,000 young people job and education opportunities next 
summer.
  These draconian reductions, I emphasize, are just the beginning; this 
is just the first year, the first cinching of the garotte on 
educational funding imposed by this legislation. More than $36 billion 
will be bled from educational programs over the next 7 years.
  The debate today is not about deficit reduction and balancing the 
budget. The issue is how we go about reaching the balanced budget and 
what programs should be given priority for funding. Earlier this year, 
the Congressional Black Caucus put forward a budget proposal which, 
like the Republican plan, balanced the budget over 7 years. We did not 
cut Federal support for education by one dime. Indeed, we nearly 
doubled spending for education, training, and other human investment 
programs. We expanded and improved educational opportunity in America 
and, at the same time, eliminated the deficit, balanced the Federal 
budget, and provided a tax cut to working families as well. It is not 
necessary to attack education in order to achieve the professed goals 
of the majority.
  But attack education is what this legislation does, virtually and 
violently. Key Federal investments in education which make the American 
dream possible for all of our citizens are blotted out. Key Federal 
investments in education which make the American dream possible for all 
our citizens are blotted out. Key Federal investments in education 
which make our economy thrive are extinguished. This legislation does 
not provide for the future of our children and youth--it destroys it.
  I oppose the repeal of the Service Contract Act because it is nothing 
more than an assault on the standard of living of some of the hardest 
working men and women in our Nation; and it is an assault which will 
deprive workers and their families of a fair wage, health insurance, 
and pension protections for their senior years.
  The Service Contract Act has enjoyed bipartisan support since it was 
enacted in 1965 and amended in 1972. The law has been virtually without 
controversy because it protects some of our most exploited and 
victimized workers in our Nation. Today, 30 years later, the Service 
Contract Act continues to protect almost 1 million workers--most of 
whom are minority and female workers in low-wage occupations. For 
example, service contract workers include cooks, bakers, cashiers, mess 
attendants, cleaners, custodians, janitors, housekeeping aides, window 
washers, trash collectors, mechanics, clerks, small equipment 
mechanics, cafeteria workers, food preparation workers, machinery and 
furniture repair workers, landscapers, keypunchers, and laundry 
workers, to name but a few.
  The single largest occupation covered by the Service Contract Act is 
janitor, porter, cleaner which, in 1986, accounted for 18 percent of 
the total SCA-covered work force. The other largest categories are 
housekeeping aid, security guard, mess attendant, and food service 
worker. These occupations are ones in which the employment of women, 
African-Americans, and Hispanics predominates. According to the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics of all employed janitors, porters, and cleaners, 34 
percent are women, 24 percent are African-American, and 11 percent are 
Hispanic. In housekeeping occupations--performed outside private 
homes--84 percent of such workers are women, 31 percent are African-
Americans, and 13 percent are Hispanic. The food preparation and 
service occupations also consist of high proportions of women and 
minorities. Fifty-seven percent of these jobs are held by women; 12 
percent are held by African-Americans, and 13 percent are held by 
Hispanic workers. Thus, the repeal of the Service Contract Act will 
injure, in particular, low-wage workers and primarily women, African-
Americans, and Hispanic workers.
  Repeal of the SCA would shred the safety net, as modest as it is, for 
these service contract workers, many of whom earn a very modest wage 
even with the Service Contract Act. For example, janitors in Atlanta, 
GA, receive $12,730 under the Service Contract Act. In St. Louis, MO, 
janitors make $12,860 annually and in a high-wage area like Boston, 
janitors make $17,200 annually. When the Federal poverty line of 
$14,754 for a family of four is considered, it is clear that even with 
the protections of the Service Contract Act, workers still need the 
protection of the act.
  One of the myths about the Service Contract Act is that it no longer 
protects low-wage employees, but rather protects high technology 
professional and managerial employees. But the act contains numerous 
exemptions for many types of service contracts under which so-called 
high technology, high wage workers are employed. There are three major 
categories of highly skilled and highly compensated workers who 
Congress specifically excluded from the Service Contract Act when it 
amended the law in 1976 including professional employees, executive 
employees, and administrative employees. Another major category of high 
technology workers who have been exempted from coverage includes 
technicians who repair and maintain computers, scientific and medical 
equipment, and office and business machines when those services are 
provided by the manufacturer.
  The wage determinations issued under the Service Contract Act are not 
inflationary. In 30 cities, SCA wages averaged $6.07 for janitors, 
$5.42 for food service workers, and $5.59 for guards. Even in a high-
cost metropolitan area such as Washington, DC, the prevailing wage for 
SCA-covered janitors is $6.35 per hour--plus $.91 per hour in benefit 
contributions. In Boston, janitors receive $8.60 per hour; in Memphis, 
janitors receive $5.60 per hour; and in Salt Lake City, janitors 
receive $5.85 per hour. Thus, despite the act's protection, even those 
earnings are quite modest. Without SCA coverage, the work force of low-
skilled, predominantly minority and female workers, would quickly drop 
to $4.25 per hour under the pressure of the procurement system.
  In summary, the Service Contract Act has allowed workers to earn a 
living wage. It has enabled millions of workers to enjoy the benefits 
of fair wages and fringe benefits such as health insurance and a 
pension typically unavailable in this industry. Also, many service 
contractors on Federal service contract jobs maintain jointly 
administered labor-management training programs. Many workers have 
participated in these training programs and have been allowed to 
improve their job skills and move up the economic ladder. Improved job 
skills for many who might otherwise have little or no job training has 
benefited all service contract workers and it also has benefited their 
employers and the Federal Government--the ultimate consumer of their 
services. It is for all these reasons that I oppose repeal of the 
Service Contract Act.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
  (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the seniors, working families 
and especially children in my district, I strongly oppose this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2491, the Budget 
Reconciliation Act. This bill ignores the priorities of the American 
people by its cavalier attitude toward children and working families. 
One key purpose of this bill is to provide tax breaks for the wealthy; 
most 

[[Page H10889]]

Americans will get nothing back or even pay more under this so-called 
tax break plan.
  My district is made up of hard-working American families and they 
have sent me a loud and clear message: they want thoughtful and 
measured cuts in our Government, coupled with strong safeguards for our 
elderly, our families, and our children. This bill ignores that 
message.
  Mr. Chairman, almost 8,000 children in my district will lose their 
health coverage under this bill, and thousands of working families will 
suffer from the cuts in student loans and higher taxes. My district, 
Santa Clara County, will lose $564.6 million in Medicaid funding over 7 
years and health care officials warn that emergency clinics, local 
clinics, public hospitals, nursing homes and private hospitals could be 
forced to close their doors. These measures aren't part of the message 
I receive from my district.
  This bill also cuts into some of the most important tax provisions 
that benefit my district. I know that many of my colleagues are 
dismayed that the Earned Income Tax Credit, which provides a true 
incentive to people trying to stay off welfare and into the work force, 
would be a target of this Congress. Scaling this back really amounts to 
a tax increase for low-wage-earning Americans.
  I am equally disappointed that the Majority has seen fit to eliminate 
the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. In 1993, two-out-of-three of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle cosponsored legislation in 
1993 to make this credit permanent. It made sense in 1993 and it makes 
sense now. The city of San Jose has called this tax provision ``the 
single most important source of funding for the development of 
affordable housing.'' Since 1991, 1744 affordable units have been 
developed in San Jose, with a total tax credit of $100 million and a 
total economic impact of a quarter of a billion dollars. Mr. Chairman, 
this credit, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, helps people toward 
self-sufficiency, spurs local economies, provides jobs for local 
workers and provides affordable housing for struggling families. Under 
this same bill, 7,685 children in California will have to go without 
basic housing. We need housing for these children and their families. 
Why are we sacrificing effective credits in favor of tax breaks for 
those who make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year?
  But this bill is about more than tax credits and tax breaks, Mr. 
Chairman. It's really about our children themselves. Kicked off 
Medicaid, deprived of school lunches, and inadequately protected from 
hunger, homelessness and abuse by the provisions of this bill, children 
are going to suffer. Did you know that over 50 percent of all Medicaid 
recipients are children? These children are the real losers in this 
bill. And to top it all off, this reconciliation bill is going to cap 
welfare assistance, meaning even less money will be available for these 
needy children.
  My colleagues, it is clear that the current majority lacks interest 
in struggling families. When this budget takes effect, working America 
will be squeezed even more. What will this mean? More working families 
unable to afford health care, housing, education, child-care and even 
food; more problems with unemployment, homelessness and more stress in 
our local communities. Do we want this? Is this what the American 
people really asked for in November? I know that the people who elected 
me last November certainly did not.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first of all point out 
what we do not do, and then I would like to point out very quickly what 
we do do.
  First of all, we do not eliminate inschool interest subsidies even 
though Alice Rivlin suggested to the President that might be the way to 
go. We do not eliminate the 6-month grace period before students begin 
repaying their loans. We do not change the eligibility or the access to 
student loans. We do not increase loan origination fees paid by 
students. We do not increase the interest rate students pay on their 
loans nor do we take away the reduction that they are due to get in 
1998.
  Let me tell my colleagues what we do do. The number of student loans 
issued will be increased from 6.6 million this year to 7.1 million next 
year. The volume of student loans increases 50 percent, rising from $24 
billion this year to $36 billion.
  The primary impact of what we have done really falls strictly with 
the loan industry who are going to come up with over $5 billion. Pell 
grants under the House appropriation will be the maximum they have 
been.
  The supplemental education opportunity grants will continue at the 
same level. The college work-study will continue at the same level. The 
Perkins loan will continue at the same level. The minority programs, 
TRIO programs which benefited minorities and disadvantaged will 
continue at the same level. The historically black colleges, the 
undergraduate and graduate college programs are fully funded at the 
same level.
  Those are the things we are doing. At the same time, we are going to 
bring down interest rates so that those people paying on these loans 
will get a tremendous reduction by the time we get to a balanced 
budget. That is not my word. That is the word of most economists, 
including Mr. Greenspan.
  So, what we have done has done nothing to hurt students. It gives 
them every opportunity they have ever had to get loans, to get more 
loans, to get higher Pell grants. We are helping students, and at the 
same time we are going to help them in the future because we are not 
going to mortgage their future.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Take a look at this bill. The Republican bill increases taxes for 14 
million working families at the same time it allows multinational 
corporations that make billions in profits to pay no taxes. The 
Republican bill taxes seniors through the $270 billion cut in Medicare 
and the $182 billion cut in Medicaid, and at the same time we are 
giving the Pentagon $8- to $10 billion more than the Pentagon even 
requested. Can it get worse? Yes. If you have students in your family 
and they want to go to college, get ready because they are going to 
have to pay billions more in this Nation to go to college, up to 
perhaps $5,000 more for that student to go through college. That is a 
tax because it would not be that way without this bill.
  So who is helped? Well, this tax cut for the wealthy and tax cut for 
corporations helps them. As we hear now from Speaker Gingrich and the 
Senate majority leader on the Senate side saying, they never wanted 
Medicare to begin with. It is becoming clear who this is benefiting. It 
is not those who work and pay taxes. It is for those who just invest 
and get money.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman on the other side 
will stand and say that someone in my district is going to pay higher 
taxes because of this reconciliation bill, he is mistaken. Anyone who 
claims that EITC reform is a tax increase is either misstating the 
situation, being deceived or simply does not understand how the program 
works.
  The fact is that 85 percent of current EITC spending is considered 
outlays or direct government payments just like AFDC. Six out of seven 
dollars being spent on EITC is above and beyond, as it is returned to 
that taxpayer, is above and beyond the aggregate taxes paid. Less of an 
increase is not a cut. It is not a cut in Medicare spending, and it is 
not a cut in the EITC spending.
  In addition, in this reconciliation bill encompassed is tax relief 
for millions of hard-working Americans in the $500-per-child tax 
credit. The family making $30,000 with two children sees their taxes 
cut in half.
  A family making $25,000 a year with two children sees their tax 
eliminated. Every hard-working American family in this country will be 
better off because of this reconciliation bill. That is the fact.
  For those who listened yesterday on this floor, I had a colloquy with 
members of the Committee on Ways and Means, with leadership Members in 
this body who made a flat commitment that we would work to ensure that 
all American families, all working American families will be better off 
under this program of tax relief than they were last year. That is a 
commitment and that is the truth. All of this bogus talk and bogus 
figures about tax increases is simply misrepresenting the reality of 
this reconciliation bill.

[[Page H10890]]

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, for those of you who plan to vote for this 
bill today, you should do so fully aware of the consequences.
  The block grant and funding reductions in the Medicaid Program in 
this bill will have devastating effects on disabled children across the 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1986, this Congress made changes to the Individuals 
with Disabilities Act [IDEA] to help States establish and operate 
comprehensive early intervention services for infants and toddlers with 
disabilities. In 1993, this program helped 154,000 families overcome 
the challenges of meeting the needs of disabled infant and toddlers. 
This is a program of proven success and has solid bipartisan support. 
Why? Because it works. Talk to your States. They will tell you that 
this program saves money because early intervention means that fewer 
services are needed in the future. This means reduced reliance on 
medical services and families avoid the expensive tragedy of putting 
their children in institutions.
  The infants and toddlers program has been successful because it is 
conducted through a partnership with the Medicaid Program. In some 
States over 50 percent of funding comes from Medicaid. The city of 
Chicago estimates that they will lose $45 million annually as a result 
of this change to the Medicaid Program.
  If you vote for this bill, know that you will put this progress at 
risk and that it will devastate the dreams of disabled children and 
their families.
  Many families, who are both poor and middle class, receive much-
needed support from Medicaid for their disabled children. What kind of 
help do they receive? Wheelchairs, equipment used to communicate and 
the kind of services that make it possible for parents to keep their 
children at home. Voting for this bill means running the risk of 
forcing parents to make absolutely cruel choices about the most 
important thing in their lives--their children.
  Do you think these parents would give this up to get a $500 tax cut? 
Of course not. Vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
majority's budget proposal. Is there no end to the Republicans' attack 
on the most vulnerable in our society? They have already dismantled 
Medicare forcing seniors to pay more for less health care coverage. 
Now, the Republicans are going after those who--truly cannot--defend 
themselves, those who--entrust us with their future--the Nation's 
children.
  The Republican budget: Takes away health care services from over 4 
million needy children; takes away Head Start from 180,000 
disadvantaged children; takes away basic assistance in reading and math 
from over 1 million disadvantaged children; and threatens the 
availability of school lunches and other nutritious meals for 32 
million hungry children.
  I know the children of my district and those across the State of Ohio 
will be hurt by the drastic cuts in health care, education, housing, 
and child protections alone. Over 150,000 children in Ohio will lose 
Medicaid coverage, and nearly 40,000 will be denied disability 
assistance. Over 600,000 children in Ohio will suffer from the drastic 
cuts in nutrition assistance. Nearly 20,000 children in Ohio will be 
denied child care.
  In addition, assistance to over 180,000 children in Ohio is cut 
simply because their paternity has not been established. Over 8,000 
children in Ohio will no longer have the benefits of Head Start. Over 
32,000 children in Ohio will be denied the basic assistance in reading 
and math that they need. Summer jobs for nearly 20,000 Ohio youth who 
need and want to work will be eliminated. The families of over 150,000 
children in Ohio will be forced to pay higher rents, when the median 
income or their family is only $6,800. To make matters worse, the 
families of over 700,000 children in Ohio will have their taxes 
increased by the Republican budget.
  Mr. Speaker, what could these poor--little--innocent children in Ohio 
and across the Nation have done to the Republicans to warrant such a 
coldhearted attack? I urge all my colleagues to throw off these 
shackles of oppression being imposed by the Republicans on the American 
people and vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  (Mr. CLINGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the only constant 
that we have in this world is the fact of change. We have seen an 
enormous change in this country. Science and technology have whisked 
changes by that are blinding, at a frightening rate of speed. 
Nevertheless, progress, opportunity, and a hope for a better tomorrow 
have made most of us willing participants in this ongoing change.
  As we have adopted changing times, so have nearly all of society's 
major institutions: the American family, large corporations, small 
businesses, communities, every institution, Mr. Chairman, except one, 
the Federal Government.
  The Federal Government has continued to grow and centralize power and 
decisionmaking authority in Washington, DC, without regard to cost or 
efficiency. So, Mr. Chairman, in this era of downsizing, when everyone 
else, everyone else is asked to do more with less, the Federal 
Government has continued to swell requiring a greater and greater share 
of American family income and business earnings.
  For too long, Congress and the White House have turned a blind eye to 
the dire consequences of deficit spending and the mounting national 
debt. In the short-term, we have been a dead weight around the neck of 
our economy, crowding out private investments, stifling job creation 
and limiting economic growth and opportunity. But even worse, Mr. 
Chairman, in the long run, they have compromised the standard of living 
of our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. Chairman, today that ends. Today the House is going to adopt the 
first balanced budget in a generation. Today we will finally stop the 
hemorrhaging of red ink and get our fiscal house in order.

                              {time}  1400

  So I am proud to rise in support of this budget because it is an 
honest measure that does not rely on smoke and mirrors, rosy economic 
scenarios, and other phony accounting gimmicks.
  In a moment I am going to hear, I am sure, how many of my 
constituents are likely to be, possibly going to be, disadvantaged by 
the passage of this budget, but what we will not hear from the other 
side are the hundreds of thousands of my constituents, indeed all of my 
constituents, who will be disadvantaged seriously if we fail to get 
this budget in balance by the year 2002, and I rise in strong support 
of this measure.
  Over the past several decades our world has changed dramatically. 
Empires have crumbled, and infant nations have been born. Diseases have 
been eradicated by modern medicine, while newer, deadlier ones have 
emerged.
  In some areas such as science and technology, the change has occurred 
at a blinding pace. What is invented today may be obsolete tomorrow.
  Swift air travel, world-wide television coverage, and instance 
communications have made our planet a relatively small place. Laptop 
computers, once the size of living rooms, have empowered individuals by 
bringing a wealth of information and knowledge to our fingertips.
  Keeping pace with the present, never mind catching up to the future, 
has made our lives more complex, more exhilarating, and more 
exhausting.
  Nevertheless, progress, opportunity, and hope for a better tomorrow 
have made most of us willing participants in this ongoing change. And 
as we have adapted to these changing times, so have nearly all of our 
society's major institutions.
  The American family has undergone a complete metamorphosis. Families 
supported by one breadwinner and one homemaker are nearly obsolete and 
have been replaced by single parent families or double-income families 
with latch-key kids.
  Large corporations have become smaller and flatter to compete in the 
global marketplace. As we've moved from the industrial age into the 
information age, the more successful businesses have learned to 
integrate workers and technology, and replace conflict with cooperation 
to improve productivity.
  Even the most conservative of institutions, religion, has taken 
advantage of technological advancements to reach followers and spread 
their word.
  But, during this whirlwind of change, one major institution has 
managed to resist it. The Federal Government over the past 30 years has 
continued to grow and centralize power and decisionmaking authority in 
Washington, DC, without regard to cost or efficiency. Somehow, the 
Federal Government has been able to inoculate itself against the 
constant changes that are reshaping our world and our lives.

[[Page H10891]]

  Its monolithic bureaucracies and rigid hierarchies have proven to be 
anathema to creativity, innovation, and experiment. Perverse incentives 
and debilitating inefficiencies have rendered the Federal Government 
incapable of dealing with the Nation's most vexing problems. Though 
Government once helped people overcome obstacles, it now has become an 
obstacle itself.
  In this era of downsizing when everyone is asked to do more with 
less, the Federal Government has continued to swell, requiring a 
greater and greater share of American family income and business 
earnings. To the dismay of all Americans, we seem to be feeding more 
money to Washington, but getting less back in terms of results.
  The Federal Government's inability to adapt to changes in the modern 
world coupled with Congress' addiction to spending have resulted in an 
overwhelming fiscal mess that should make us blush with shame or turn 
red with anger.
  Each year since 1969, the Federal Government has failed to live 
within its means, spending more money than it collects in taxes and 
borrowing to make up the difference. For 26 straight years, we have 
piled more and more onto our national debt which now stands at nearly 
$5 trillion.
  For too long, Congress and the White House have turned a blind eye to 
the dire consequences of these irresponsible spending practices. In the 
short term, deficit spending and the mounting National debt have been a 
dead weight around the neck of our economy, crowding out private 
investment, stifling job creation, and limiting economic growth and 
opportunity.
  But even worse, in the long run, deficit spending compromises the 
standard of living of our children and grandchildren. We are risking 
the prosperity of future generations in order to consume more today.
  Well, today, Mr. Speaker, that ends. Today, the House will adopt the 
first balanced budget in a generation. Today, we finally will stop the 
hemorrhaging of red ink and get our fiscal house in order.
  I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 2491, the Seven-Year Balanced 
Budget Reconciliation Act because it is an honest, credible measure 
that does not play the popular Washington game of relying on smoke and 
mirrors, rosy economic scenarios, and other phony accounting gimmicks 
to balance the budget. Rather, it makes the tough decisions that are 
necessary to really and truly get to a balanced budget.
  For instance, it saves billions by tackling the difficult issue of 
welfare dependency. Not only does it overhaul our welfare system to 
encourage work and self-sufficiency, it also attacks corporate welfare 
by closing $30 billion in corporate tax loopholes.
  The measure also achieves savings by revamping Federal farm subsidy 
programs so that American farmers can move away from dependence on 
Government support while remaining competitive in the global market and 
continuing to feed the world.
  Some budget savings in this budget are not easy, but necessary if we 
are going to make the Federal Government smaller, more cost effective, 
and more responsible to the taxpayer. The Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee, of which I am chairman, crafted the 
section dismantling the bloated, misguided Department of Commerce. It 
will save billions and serve as a blueprint for future downsizing 
efforts.

  Many provisions in the budget simply make sense. For 70 years, the 
Federal Government has maintained a helium reserve for national 
security purposes. Today, however, the U.S. military uses B-2 bombers 
and F-16 fighters to defend the Nation, not blimps. Privatizing the 
helium reserve and saving millions of dollars is just common sense.
  Other provisions are long overdue. As chairman of the Government 
Reform and Oversight Committee, I worked to end special pension 
treatment for Members of Congress and their staff. The American people 
have been screaming for congressional pension reform, and this budget 
delivers it.
  Another reason this budget package has earned my support is because 
it doesn't rely on the tried-and-failed method of deficit reduction: 
raising taxes. We can't tax our way out of debt or into prosperity, and 
history has borne that out. This time, instead of hitting the taxpayers 
up for more money, we have struck at the core problem: Congress' 
addiction to spending.
  During the course of debate, we have heard concerns and criticisms 
about various line-item cuts and programmatic changes in the budget, 
however, we must not lose sight of the fact that balancing the budget 
is a necessity, not a luxury. In my mind, beside rescuing the standard 
of living of future generations, balancing the Government's books will 
have two vital impacts on our Nation.
  First, balancing the budget will significantly boost our economy by 
reducing long-term interest rates by 2 percent. Families will pay less 
for mortgages, student loans, care loans and credit card payments. 
Lower interest rates will help businesses to expand, create jobs, and 
improve their international competitiveness. A balanced budget will 
create 6.1 million additional jobs and increase per capita income 16.1 
percent over the next 10 years.
  No Federal Government program can provide the American people as much 
in benefits that a balanced budget can.
  Second, and maybe even more important, balancing the budget may 
restore the American public's confidence in its Government. The 
Founding Fathers instilled in us a health dose of skepticism for 
government, but this has festered into a deep distrust and cynicism 
about government.
  Some pundits and political scientists attribute these feelings to the 
Vietnam war and Watergate. I disagree. When I talk to people back home 
who are disgusted with Washington, they don't mention Vietnam or 
Watergate, they point to what's going on today. They don't understand 
how their leaders can so poorly manage the nation's finances.
  The public recognizes that many of the problems facing our Nation--
the economy, cultural and moral decay, foreign conflicts--can be 
influenced, but not completely controlled by the President and 
Congress. But they know that managing the Federal Government's fiscal 
affairs is a direct function of Congress and the White House, and we 
have been derelict in our duties for too long.
  For these people, balancing the budget is not just about hope, 
opportunity, and prosperity, its about cleaning up the mess in 
Washington.
  As elected officials responsible for governing the Nation, we should 
not--indeed, we cannot--underestimate the power of regaining the 
American people's trust and confidence. After all, balancing the budget 
is only the beginning, not the final product of the task at hand.
  I remind my colleagues that balancing the budget and reducing the 
size of Government is only half of what we must do. Government still 
has vital functions and can improve the lives of people in many 
circumstances. Our obligation is to transform our current 1930's style 
Government into a 21st century Government capable of coping with the 
challenges confronting modern society.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, I am proud to vote for this budget. Though I 
don't agree with every detail, I support this measure because it will 
balance the budget while still allowing spending to increase at a 
responsible rate; it will save Medicare for current and future 
beneficiaries; it will provide tax relief to middle class American 
families; and it will invigorate our economy and help create jobs.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in answer to my chairman of 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 28,588 constituents 
lose----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Today America departs from a long, unbroken tradition of bipartisan 
support for America's students and for the schools they attend. From 
college grants to Head Start, Mr. Chairman, Republican, as well as 
Democrat, Presidents and Congresses have been in agreement until today. 
Chapter 1, arts education, drug-free schools, just name it, Goals 2000, 
was the product of a Republican President, former President Bush. But 
today the far right, the radical right, is in full throat on the 
Republican side, and so today for the first time in the history of this 
Nation the public's demand of bipartisan support for education is being 
broken.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican proposal today cuts student loans for 
the first time in history by $10 billion, and these proposals never had 
a single day of hearing, never had one single public comment from that 
public that insists on bipartisanism. There will be significant 
increases in the cost of college for working families and their 
children, and now we are hitting them with a big price increase for 
college, an increased price tag for college, of 5 billion with a ``b,'' 
$5 billion.
  What do we know about this proposal? First, it will, count on it, it 
will force students to pay approximately $4 billion more for the 
student loans they receive, and for their parents, they will be able to 
borrow less than they can 

[[Page H10892]]

now borrow, and it will cost America's parents $1 billion more than 
they pay today to borrow that money.
  The sad thing, my colleagues, is that today, because of the radical 
right, we have abandoned a long, proud American tradition of bipartisan 
support for our students and for their schools.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the Committee on Economic 
and Educational Opportunities.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding this time to me.
  What I have been trying to say in committee for a long time is that 
we better talk about excellence and quality rather than access. Let me 
tell my colleagues that during the last 5 years we have increased, we 
have increased, spending on Head Start 180 percent. How many students 
do my colleagues think we have increased during that time? Thirty-nine 
percent.
  Something is not right. The students are not getting the help, the 
children are not getting the help. Obviously, the administrators must 
be. If we increase spending 180 percent and we only increase 
participation by 39 percent, we are not helping the kind of people we 
are supposed to be helping.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I do not take a back seat because I made some 
suggestions in relationship to chapter 1 and relationship to Head Start 
because we must insist on quality. We cannot just talk about access 
because we are not helping the people we set out to try to help.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, today we finally have an 
opportunity to vote against the Gingrich agenda, to repudiate a 
document that in chapter and verse, in precise detail, dictates the 
single most egregious redistribution of wealth in our history. 
Contained in this budget bill are provisions that give the wealthiest 
families in this country, as this chart amply shows, the top 1 percent, 
a $14,000 tax break. Speaker Gingrich calls this tapestry of tax breaks 
the crown jewel of the Republican agenda, but, sad to say, it is really 
a crown of thorns. As this chart shows once again, families earning 
less than $50,000 a year, most middle-class families, end up footing 
the bill. They will lose nearly $650 a year through a combination of 
tax increases and benefit cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, the Gingrich bill trashes the tax credit for low-income 
working families; 4.3 million families would lose the credit 
altogether, and another 14.2 million families would actually see their 
taxes increase.
  The children's tax credit; jewel or thorn? My colleagues, be the 
judge. Forty-six percent of the children in this country will not get a 
single dime of the $500 tax credit.
  The president of Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonpartisan 
organization, called the tax provisions of this bill a hoax. He is 
right, and the American people have a right to feel wronged. The 
American people should not be martyr to a cause they do not agree with 
and do not support.
  I urge my colleagues in this perhaps-most-significant vote in the 
years I have been in this Congress to vote against what is a massive, 
unprecedented transfer of wealth that only makes worse class warfare in 
this country.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in extreme support of this measure 
that gets us on the road to improved fiscal health for our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, the vote we are about to take marks a historic change 
in the way this Nation conducts its business. It shows that this 
Congress is taking seriously its responsibility to rein in excess 
spending and achieve a balanced budget--something our Nation has not 
enjoyed since 1969. This reconciliation measure will help restore the 
fiscal health of our Nation and provide a brighter future for our 
children, who will otherwise be saddled with the consequences of our 
inaction.
  In addition, this bill includes $245 billion in tax reductions over 
the next 7 years. It will allow our citizens to keep more of their own 
hard-earned money. By returning these resources to our Nation's 
families and creating the means for greater investment in private 
enterprise and economic growth, we will help to meet the needs of all 
Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support this historic bill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Gene Green].
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, conservative estimates of the 
tax increases for earned income tax credit constituents will increase. 
I am opposed to the bill because my taxpayers will pay more, but do not 
take my word for it. Take Jack Kemp, who last week said:

       I hope you guys do not go too far on removing the EITC 
     because that is a tax increase on low income workers and the 
     poor which is unconscionable at this time . . .

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
statement of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] that the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], the ranking Democrat on the Committee on 
Agriculture, be permitted to control the next 15 minutes of time on our 
side, and that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking 
member of the Committee on Commerce, be permitted to control the 
balance of the time remaining on our side, and that each have the 
authority to yield to other members.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 45 seconds to the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, both of the bills that are under 
consideration, the Republican reconciliation bill and the coalition 
bill, will balance on the same date in 2002 if the projections are 
accurate. Both use CBO scoring, but what happens if the projections are 
not accurate? That is the problem we have had in the past. It is easy 
to project a balanced budget. We need enforcement mechanisms to be sure 
it is there.
  The budget under consideration does two things which I support. It 
continues the current practice of enforceable discretionary caps and 
extends the pay-as-you-go provisions, but that is it. The coalition 
budget does additional steps, and it places the deficit targets in law 
and requires that, if we do not meet these targets, the President come 
back with a recommendation of how to meet those targets, and requires 
the Congress to vote, and if the Congress cannot determine how to meet 
those targets, would place into effect sequestration. It also puts into 
place tools to aid us in cutting spending like applying the line-item 
veto to 1996 spending bills. It also applies the lockbox provision to 
the appropriation cuts. It also would extend, so that we have a more 
fair representation and more accurate projections, it would extend 
projecting and scoring to 10 years, would also take emergency spending 
and put it on budget, requiring us to create an emergency account which 
we fund and then spend out of that rather than waiving the budget to 
spend on emergencies, and would also eliminate baseline budgeting.
  Mr. Chairman, all of these enforcement mechanisms I believe have 
bipartisan support. That is the reason for voting for the coalition 
budget, and, if my colleagues cannot see their way fit to voting for 
the coalition budget, at least let us put these things in in 
conference.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the former Governor.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 7 year 
Balanced Budget Act. My commitment to balancing the budget is based on 
personal experience. I have lived through disastrous times in my own 
State when we did not balance our State budget and I have seen the 
tremendous economic recovery that occurred when the State took the 
tough steps necessary to balance its budget.
  In the 1970s, the State of Delaware was an economic basket case. We 
had the highest personal income taxes in the country--19.8 percent--but 
the State could still not balance its budget because it was spending 
too much; businesses were leaving the State as fast as they could get 
out. In short, Delaware's State government operated the way the Federal 
Government operates today.
  Delaware finally decided to face the music, we passed a balanced 
budget amendment and began to get our economic house in order. Since 
that time, Delaware has been one 

[[Page H10893]]

of the economic showplaces of the Nation. We have balanced our budget 
19 straight times, reduced taxes 6 times; we have created more jobs on 
a percentage basis than virtually any other State; reduced poverty more 
than any other State during the 1980's. This would not have happened if 
we had not balanced our budget.

  It's time for the Federal Government to do this for the entire 
Nation. Mr. Chairman, I know from my experience as a Governor, 
balancing a budget is not easy. Tough decisions have to be made. This 
legislation makes those decisions in a fair manner. I have not agreed 
with every provision and have worked hard to modify some of them.
  I strongly support the inclusion of the Castle-Upton-Martini deficit 
reduction certification and monitoring provision in the bill. This 
requires a process of that will ensure that we stay on path to a 
balanced budget each year until 2002. I also appreciate the efforts 
that have been made to improve the Medicaid funding formula to ensure 
that all States are treated fairly in the necessary effort to reform 
the Medicaid System.
  Whatever particular differences we have with specific provisions of 
this bill, we can not and should not overlook the larger and most 
important goal of balancing the budget.
  Simply put, because of its deficit spending, the Federal Government 
is eating up money that would normally go to businesses and 
individuals. This year the Government will pay $233 billion in interest 
on the debt, more than the $160 billion deficit for this year. If we 
don't change we will be paying $340 billion in interest by 2002.
  If the Government stops depleting the pool of money available for 
savings, it would lower business's costs of borrowing and enable them 
to invest in the equipment that makes their employees more productive 
and increases their paychecks. Earlier this year, a private economist 
estimated that balancing the budget would raise our national output an 
extra 2.5 percent over the next 10 years. That would mean an average of 
an extra $1,000 a year for each American family. The economy would 
create 2.4 million more jobs by 2005 than if we do nothing about the 
deficit.
  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that enactment of 
balanced budget legislation will result in lower interest rates that 
will save the Government over $170 billion in interest payments by 
2002.
  Tearing up Uncle Sam's credit card allows the private sector to grow 
and affects us all from lower home mortgages to more business 
expansion.
  Balancing the budget is good for us now and it is great for our kids 
and the Nation's future. I urge passage of the reconciliation bill.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, I rise in opposition to the main 
Gingrich Republican substitute amendment and in favor of what we call 
the coalition proposal that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and 
others have worked out.
  Balancing the budget is not an issue everyone is for, reducing the 
deficit is not an issue everyone is for, and our section in agriculture 
though bears a tremendous burden, more than the norm. We have always 
provided in the past 10 years over $50 billion. If every other 
committee had done what the Committee on Agriculture has done, we would 
not be worrying here about reducing the budget or balancing the budget. 
We have done it. We have done our fair share. But in this case the 
process I must object to. We have not had a hearing on the freedom to 
farm, we have not had any discussion. We have had votes in the 
committee where everything failed. Basically the freedom to farm that 
is in this proposal has not and does not have the approval of the 
Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly suggest that it might be well for us in the 
agriculture sector, in the areas where we impact negatively on 
Medicare, on Medicaid, that this is not the proper procedure, and I had 
to go to the Committee on Rules to say, ``We have not had the 
opportunity to handle this. I hope that you do something for us.'' 
Unfortunately they did not.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2491, and in 
support of the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, the process of the development of this reconciliation 
bill has brought us a season of surprises:
  First, in a year when the No. 1 fiscal priority of the American 
people is to balance the budget, the Gingrich Republicans propose a 
$245 billion tax cut:
  Second, when a primary concern for many Americans revolves around 
providing health care for their elderly parents, Republicans cut 
Medicare by $270 billion; and
  Finally--because of Republican conflicts over their own priorities--
national farm policy for the next 7 years has been written in the House 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Chairman, the 1995 reconciliation process has turned into the 
sole forum for establishing national farm policy for the next 7 years. 
In past years, we have had the opportunity to prepare comprehensive 
farm policy in a deliberative, all-inclusive manner. When we've been 
required to comply with budget reconciliation instructions, the House 
Agriculture Committee has complied to the tune of $50 billion in 
savings from 1981 through 1993.
  The confusion this year of the policymaking process with the deficit 
elimination process has led to paralysis in the Agriculture Committee. 
For the first time ever, the House Agriculture Committee has failed to 
meet its budget reconciliation obligations.
  As a result--Mr. Chairman--Speaker Gingrich and his Rules Committee 
were given the task of writing farm policy that will take us through 
2002.
  I do want to commend Chairman Roberts for his efforts this year. He 
was placed in an impossible position. The Gingrich Republicans are 
requiring a 25 percent reduction in agricultural spending in order to 
provide a $245 billion tax cut. Mr. Roberts fought hard earlier this 
year for that tax cut to be scaled back, but to no avail. We agree that 
the tax cut is inappropriate and that it leads to farm program cuts so 
deep that the viability of our Nation's food production system is 
threatened.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans are the best fed people in the world. They 
have a stable and abundant supply of nutritious food, and pay a lower 
percent of their disposal income for food than any other nation in the 
industrialized world. I like to think that the House Agriculture 
Committee--on a bipartisan basis and in spite of what editorial writers 
say--has played a constructive role in that success story.
  Nevertheless, Speaker Gingrich, the Republican leader, and the 
Republican whip wrote a letter to Chairman Roberts last month. That 
letter dictated to the Agriculture Committee--in no uncertain terms--
the specific policy option the committee was to choose in order to meet 
its reconciliation savings. No room was left for the committee to 
deliberate--for the committee to obtain the views of farmers, of 
consumer groups, of the administration.
  Mr. Chairman, the Freedom to Farm Act included by decree of Speaker 
Gingrich in the bill now before the House, was first introduced as a 
bill in August. Our committee has not held one hearing on it. The 
details of the dairy portion were only made available in September: 
same story--no hearings.
  Mr. Chairman, farmers in every region of this country have very grave 
concerns about the agriculture provisions before the House. They 
represent a sudden and dramatic abandonment by the government of its 
roll in sharing the farmer's risk. Farmers are particularly concerned 
that this sudden withdrawal of the Federal Government from sharing 
their risks may make the difference in their fight to stay on the farm. 
Yes, they may know that each year they will get a cash payment, but if 
prices collapse next year, will that payment be enough? If wheat prices 
fall to $2.50, how many wheat farmers will be out of business in 
Kansas, in the Dakotas, in Washington? If cotton prices fall back down 
to 45 cents, how many cotton growers--spread out all over the South--
will survive? If corn prices are under $2, where will the corn belt be? 
What if milk prices fall to $9, how many of New England's dairy farmers 
can make it?
  Mr. Chairman, farmers will hope for the best. But if the best doesn't 
materialize, and a substantial base of our food and fiber production 
capacity is lost--will we feel that it was worth the risk, to have 
incurred that loss in order to provide a $245 billion tax cut?
  All these questions, Mr. Chairman, and we have no answers--not even 
opinions. All we had in the Agriculture Committee this year were a few 
votes. No discussion. No consideration of the views of the farmers, the 
consumers, the businesses that thrive on the products of agriculture--
those hearings on which we've always heavily relied. The policy before 
the House was not aired out in the Agriculture Committee, it was 
dictated by Speaker Gingrich and Republican Leader Armey.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not easy to figure out where we went wrong this 
year but I do know this: The most basic needs of our society are at 
stake and we are nowhere near to a consensus on where we should go. The 
paralysis of the Agriculture Committee and the dissension within the 
majority party make it clear that we need to start over again. We need 
to support the Democratic substitute and if that fails, we need to vote 
this bill down and start again.
  The American people don't want this bill and many American farmers 
will not survive this bill. A right-thinking bipartisan majority 
defeated this proposal in the Agriculture Committee. Many of my 
colleagues on the Republican side know that the agriculture title in 
this bill is 

[[Page H10894]]

wrong. I urge them to resist the Speaker's pressure and to join with 
us; to oppose this bill today; and to work with us in trying to reach a 
consensus on a balanced budget that doesn't undermine agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, of all the things I have done in my career as a public 
servant--of all the things that, God willing, I may still yet 
accomplish--I believe I have never been more proud than I am today, 
standing in support of this reconciliation bill.
  For decades, responsible voices across the political spectrum have 
warned Congress to get control over entitlement spending; today, we 
heed their call.
  Since the 1970's, economists have forewarned a coming fiscal tragedy 
if Congress failed to muster the courage to balance the deficit; today, 
after 30 years of excuses, we will do just that.
  For years now, reconciliation was the time when the promises ended 
and the excuses began.
  Excuses, And justifications. And rationales.
  Excuses that said balancing the budget was impossible.
  Justifications that explained why it couldn't be done.
  Rationales for the failure of this Congress to act.
  Today is the day the excuses come to an end; the dawn of a new day, a 
day of political leadership.
  A day of courage.
  A new day of accountability in government.
  Today will be remembered as the day the new Congress transformed 
Washington's approach to government.
  We are long overdue.
  A child born this year will pay more than $187,000 over his or her 
lifetime just to pay the interest on the debt we have already 
accumulated.
  It's too late to change that.
  But it is not too late to change the growth of that debt in the years 
ahead.
  It has taken this Republic more than 200 years to build up a debt of 
almost $5 trillion.
  But if we fail to act today, that debt will more than double in just 
the next two decades.
  If we fail to act today to bring entitlement spending under control, 
those same entitlements--together with interest on the debt--will 
consume every dollar paid by every taxpayer by the year 2030.
  If we fail to act today, your children, my grandchildren, will be 
turned down for college loans, for home mortgages, for credit cards--
because the money will already have been committed, earmarked toward 
fueling the Government's debt.
  But we will act today--and our Commerce Committee had a major role in 
getting us to this day, with historic reforms in Medicare and Medicaid, 
and with the first-ever elimination of a Cabinet-level department, the 
Department of Commerce.
  We will act today. I'm proud of that. The American people can be 
proud of it, too.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, those of us who come from rural America 
know there will be profound implications from this budget 
reconciliation proposal that is put before us, not only for our farming 
communities, which feed the rest of this country. We know that 3 
percent of our farmers are feeding 97 percent of our population, yet 
this bill, which had no hearing, the freedom-to-farm bill, will now put 
those farmers at great peril, because now they will pull that security 
from them.
  In addition to the farm bill itself, there are other bills in our 
areas in rural America. We earn about one-third as much as the rest of 
America. That means we have less money for shelter, less money for 
clothes, less money for health care. Yet, through this bill, that means 
we will be threatened in terms of our senior citizens. By the way, 
there are more senior citizens living, in proportion to our population, 
in rural areas than anywhere else, so we will have to take care of the 
sick.
  Tell me, how, through this bill, do we respond. This bill is a 
disaster for America, but it is far more harmful to those who live in 
rural America. For those of our community who would like to have water, 
sewer, and industrial development, again, no funds for housing, very 
little funds for water and sewer. Those funds have been cut. I remind 
Members, in the Committee on Agriculture itself both Republicans and 
Democrats voted for an amendment to the freedom-to-farm bill to extend 
at least $800 million more so small communities could have water and 
sewer. Did I find it when I looked in the bill? No, it was deleted. 
This is a disaster. We should vote against this bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I had not planned to speak in this part of the debate, 
but I have been sitting in my office listening to the debate, and 
sitting here on the floor listening to it. I have heard so much about 
this Republican tax increase. What this side has been talking about is 
the cuts in the earned income tax credit. The earned income tax credit 
started in 1975. It started out as a $2 billion a year program. It now 
has grown to $20 billion a year. That is a 1,000 percent increase.
  Is the Republican plan cutting it? No, we are not cutting it. I have 
a graph next to me that I think very graphically depicts, in picture 
form, so maybe those who have been debating can understand it. The red 
bars, as we see, starting in the year 1996, are the Republican 
proposal. The blue shows what existing law is, and what existing law 
would be if the present spending levels were to remain in place. As we 
can clearly see, in each year where we see the red bars, that is the 
Republican plan, the spending levels are substantially over 1995 and 
continue to escalate. As a matter of fact, it escalates out to $27 
billion.
  People might say ``Where are the savings coming from?'' The savings 
are coming from people who do not have children. We feel that the 
earned income tax credit was meant, really, to help people out that are 
trying to raise families. The question is, of the people that have 
children, were any of them cut. Yes, some of them were cut. That was at 
the highest level of income. The ones going into the workplace, the 
ones that are becoming first-time employed, they are not all affected 
by what the Democrats call this huge cut.
  The argument has been going on on this side of the aisle to say 
``This is a tax increase.'' Let me tell the Members that is what is 
wrong with this country today, that type of mentality. Eighty-five 
percent of the money sent out by Uncle Sam as an earned income tax 
credit is an outlay, 85 percent of it. That means only 15 percent is 
actually a refund in taxes.
  If we look at the whole reconciliation bill we will also find 
something else in there that people who are taxpayers are getting. That 
is a $500 credit for children. The people that are losing the earned 
income tax credit at the higher end of the scale, they are going to 
receive a tax credit. It comes out in the wash, and it is just, really, 
about the same. The only people that are going to actually lose this 
are the single taxpayers that do not have children, that are not 
raising families.
  I tell the Members, with the type of mentality and the type of 
argument that has been going on in this Chamber today, it is no wonder 
that we are swimming in red ink. This is irresponsible accounting and 
it is irresponsible debate.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to our 
distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. 
DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say to my colleague 
that if it was not a tax increase, then why did he need a budget waiver 
for this bill?
  Let me just say that what they have done here with the earned income 
tax credit, it is $23.3 billion in taxes of low-income working 
families. They are going to raise the taxes of 14.2 million families 
who make less than $28,000 in 1996, and the charts can say whatever 
they want, that is an absolute fact. Take the words of Jack Kemp, who 
was appalled at what you are doing in 

[[Page H10895]]

terms of cutting the earned income tax credit.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  Mr. STENHOLM. The first thing I want to do, Mr. Chairman, is make 
this general observation, that are we not truly blessed to live in a 
country that has the most abundant food supply, the best quality of 
food, the safest food supply, at the lowest cost of any other country 
in the world?
  From that point I make another observation. Here we are, I thought 
about to discuss one of the most important things for agriculture in 
the United States in the budget, and we are talking EITC on this side, 
and no one is discussing agriculture. That has been our problem all 
year on agriculture. We have ideology running it on this side, and some 
of us on this side would like to deal with technology. We would like to 
talk about how we make certain things work. Instead, we are still 
debating freedom to farm. That is in the budget. Where is someone over 
here to defend freedom to farm? Where is someone on this side who is 
prepared to stand up and say the Freedom to Farm Act is the way we 
ought to go? No one is yet, and I am sure there will be someone soon.
  This has been the point we have been trying to make all year, not one 
single minute of hearings have been held on the agricultural sector 
freedom to farm, which is in the budget today. A simple question, a 
simple statement. Basically what we are saying, we should not 
unilaterally disarm our farmers in the international marketplace with 
trade, GATT, NAFTA, all of the things that are going on, when the rest 
of the world is continuing to subsidize farmers.
  What do we hear from the other side? Freedom to farm, freedom to 
farm, freedom to go broke. Somehow, some way, people believe that we 
can have our farmers competing with the European Economic Community 
that are increasing their subsidies. That is the answer we hear in this 
wonderful budget coming from this side of the aisle. That is the thing 
we have wanted to see debated and discussed time and time again.
  For the first time in years, if not history, we have a farm bill in 
this bill that nobody seems prepared to defend. No one has seen fit 
even to have hearings. Yet, here we are today, unilaterally disarming, 
at least from the majority budget. Support the coalition budget, the 
best alternative.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, given that 
we are ahead in time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
   Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman discontinuing his 
presentation, inasmuch as it is totally unrelated to what we are 
speaking about on this side, agriculture.
  Again, I protest the process. On that side they have legislation that 
was not approved by the committee, which is, in my years here, in the 
history of this Congress, basically the first time that that has been 
done. I am terribly embarrassed, one, and upset and frustrated that 
this process has gone on.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dooley].
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, we have heard why there are good reasons 
for senior citizens to be very concerned about this reconciliation 
bill. We have heard very good reasons on why the working poor ought to 
feel threatened by the passage of this reconciliation bill. I am here 
to explain why farmers throughout this country, in particular dairy 
farmers, should be very, very concerned about the prospects of what is 
included in this bill.
  The dairy title in this reconciliation bill, if it was instituted, 
would require the immediate deregulation of our dairy industry. It 
would eliminate any type of dairy policy that has guided this country 
for the last 60 years, that has ensured stability of prices throughout 
this country. They would eliminate that overnight, which would ensure 
that we would have thousands of dairy farmers throughout this country 
being driven into bankruptcy.
  Every economist that has analyzed the deregulation plan has come to 
the conclusion that it would result in at least a 15-percent decline in 
prices, and dairy farmers cannot withstand that. This policy is also 
one which is not consistent with Republican philosophy, as far as I can 
tell, because the Republican proposals for dairy farmers in this, with 
their deregulation, they are willing to obligate taxpayers of this 
country to start writing checks to dairy farmers.
  In fact, the provisions of this dairy title would allow a dairy 
farmer today to sell his herd in the next month, and taxpayers for the 
next 7 years would be required to write them a check, even if they were 
not milking another cow for the next 7 years. In fact, a dairy farmer 
in my area with a 1,000 cow herd would be eligible under this dairy 
program that the Republicans are promoting for a $200,000 check next 
year, a $200,000 check coming from the taxpayers of this country.
  The Republicans campaigned on a Contract With America. They 
campaigned that they were going to do good things. They convinced some 
of their constituencies they were going to do good things, but this 
contract that the Republicans are signing for the taxpayers on behalf 
of the dairy farmers in this country is obligating them to a check that 
they are going to write that they cannot afford. It is bad policy and 
we ought to defeat this bill.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Laughlin], a very valued member of our conference.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, passage of the 7-Year Balanced Budget 
Reconciliation Act demonstrates to the American people that the new 
Republican majority will deliver on its promises and end business as 
usual in Congress.
  This reconciliation package provides for a balanced budget by the 
year 2002. With this proposal, we will balance the budget while 
allowing the citizens of this country to keep more of their hard-earned 
money. With this reconciliation package, we are telling the hard-
working citizens of this country that they, not the Federal Government, 
can and should decide where their money is spent.
  This package marks the beginning of a shift toward the goals and 
decisions of the individual, and an end to the burdensome, intrusive, 
bureaucratic agencies like the IRS.
  Democrats will say that we cannot afford to give hard-working 
Americans a tax break while balancing the budget. With this plan, we 
will prove that we can and that we will. Provisions such as a reduction 
in the capital gains tax will mean more jobs and economic growth. This 
is what the American people have asked for, and this is what we are 
delivering.
  The American people understand the importance of balancing the 
Federal budget. They understand that Republicans have offered the 
solution, and that Democrats have offered scare tactics. We need to 
pass the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act today for our children and 
grandchildren.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to our 
distinguished colleague from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the last speaker from 
Texas if he realizes that people from Texas, through this bill, at 
least, will lose $4.3 billion in Medicare for his senior citizens. That 
is a 20-percent cut for the citizens of his district.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the previous speaker if he realizes 
that this legislation will reduce by half the rice-growing area of 
Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Rose].
  (Mr. ROSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, the Republican revolution has just rolled 
over rural America and left the family farmer in the tire tread marks. 
The drastic changes to farm commodity programs being forced upon family 
farmers by this bill that we will vote on today are unprecedented in 
their severity and in their lack of judicious consideration by the 
House Committee on Agriculture.
  The budget cuts envisioned for rural America by the Republican 
leadership 

[[Page H10896]]

have not had a single day of hearings, have not been adequately 
debated, have not been approved by the House Committee on Agriculture. 
The chairman of the Committee on Agriculture has spent more time 
discussing the Republican Freedom to Farm Act with the editorial boards 
of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times than he has with his 
Democratic and Republican colleagues on the House Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Even with the ringing endorsements of the Wall Street Journal and 
corporate executives of well-known rural centers like New York, 
Chicago, and San Francisco, the Republican farm bill failed the House 
Committee on Agriculture. We voted it down in a bipartisan vote. After 
meeting strong bipartisan resistance, the leadership circumvented the 
traditional committee process and has inserted Freedom to Farm in the 
Republican budget.
  Now, I would say to my colleagues, this is being told to the American 
farmer as a great visionary piece of work. However, we have not seen 
one single visionary on the Republican side here today talking to you 
about how great Freedom to Farm is. What is the matter, brothers and 
sisters? If it is so wonderful, why are you not out here extolling the 
virtues of Freedom to Farm?
  I have a letter here to the Speaker signed by about 15 Republican 
Members of this body to the Speaker, and it says:

       The Senate is bringing us a workable package of 
     agricultural budget savings that we can all live with. Why 
     not come to an agreement on an approach that achieves the 
     budget target and avoids a disastrous vote for rural 
     Republicans?

  Brothers and sisters, my colleagues, do not do Freedom to Farm. We 
have done enough to rural America. This is the last straw.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, a gentleman who had much time in Vietnam to 
think about how much he cares about our country and its children.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this morning I saw a bumper 
sticker that was very appropriate for today. It read, ``Hey, Congress, 
do your job, balance the budget.''
  I think today America is closely watching this debate to see if 
Congress is finally going to live up to its promise of balancing our 
Nation's budget, and that includes agriculture too, I say to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza]. America has heard the 
Democrats' scare tactics, the rhetoric, and the empty promises before, 
and they are fed up with it.
  Mr. Chairman, it is the Democrats' tax and spend policy of the last 
40 years that has driven this country into the financial crisis that we 
are facing today. I am proud to say that the Republicans are ready to 
act now and do what Americans elected us to do, and that is, balance 
the budget. We are going to send the President a plan that cuts 
spending by $894 billion, and for the first time in 26 years, balances 
America's checkbook.
  This bill eliminates hundreds of wasteful government programs, ends 
welfare as we know it, protects, preserves, and strengthens Medicare, 
returns power to the States, and provides much-needed tax relief to 
hard-working Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, the President says he will veto this historic document. 
If he does not have the leadership or the courage to balance the 
budget, lower taxes, and secure a safe future for our children, just 
remember, that for each day after a veto he will be personally 
responsible for adding millions of dollars to the national debt.
  So if you are for less taxes, less government, and a balanced budget, 
your vote for this budget will create more jobs, more opportunity, and 
more prosperity for our Nation. A vote for this plan is a vote for the 
future of America.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds to say to the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, we have a plan that balances the 
budget. We have a plan that balances the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill].
  (Mr. BEVILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this budget plan. I will 
vote against it and I wish I could vote against it twice. This bill 
will create more suffering for senior citizens and children than any 
legislation ever passed by Congress. If it passes, I strongly urge the 
President to veto it.
  This bill severely cuts Medicare, requiring senior citizens to pay 
more for their health care needs. It jeopardizes their choice of 
doctors, the quality of care they receive and their ability to pay for 
it. It eliminates Federal standards for nursing homes.
  This bill severely cuts Medicaid, imposing a tremendous burden on 
States to meet the needs of poor children. It eliminates the School 
Lunch Program, replacing it with a block grant that will not cover all 
needy children when poverty increases.
  This bill destroys work incentives for thousands of low-income 
working families trying to stay off welfare. It cuts the earned income 
tax credit, designed to help the working poor, while cutting taxes for 
the nation's wealthiest people.
  In fact, this budget plan favors the big corporations, the high-
income people and the special interests at the expense of those who can 
least afford it.
  I favor reducing the size of the Federal Government. I am a long-time 
co-author of a constitutional amendment to force a balanced Federal 
budget. And, I think we can do a better job of enforcing laws already 
on the books to cut waste, fraud, and abuse in government programs.
  But, I will never support legislation that seeks to balance the 
budget on the backs of senior citizens and children.
  This is the worse piece of legislation I have ever seen and I 
strongly urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote against it.
  (Mr. de la GARZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, today the House will consider a 
substitute to the Gingrich budget bill. This substitute contains 
agriculture provisions that will reduce the deficit $4.6 billion over 7 
years. These are the provisions that were considered by the Committee 
on Agriculture and failed on a 22 to 27 vote. In spite of the fact that 
they were desirable policy, they did not meet the committee's 
reconciliation obligation. Many of my colleagues across the aisle 
regretted that they could not support it because it did not meet the 
requirements of the budget resolution to balance the budget by 2002.
  Today, my friends, you can now support reductions of $4.6 billion for 
agriculture, not $13.4 billion in cuts--three times that size, and reap 
the benefit of a balanced budget because the substitute also balances 
the budget by 2002.
  Yesterday, I heard my good friend Chairman Roberts testify before the 
Rules Committee what his freedom to farm provisions would do as part of 
the Gingrich plan.
  Chairman Roberts said American farmers would pay $15 billion less in 
interest expenses because of a balanced budget. Mr. Chairman, the 
substitute will reduce the same $15 billion in interest expenses for 
American farmers because the substitute also balances the budget.
  Chairman Roberts said American farmers will have increased planting 
flexibility because of freedom to farm in the Gingrich budget plan. Mr. 
Chairman, American farmers will also have increased planting 
flexibility in the substitute budget plan.
  Chairman Roberts said that freedom to farm will lock up the baseline 
for farmers so that when we will have to pass more cuts in coming 
years, and he said not to fool ourselves--we will have more deficit 
reduction bills just like this one, that farm spending will be 
protected. Mr. Chairman, I do not know why there will be more 
reconciliation, perhaps the tax cuts are too high or the spending cuts 
are not real, but if you vote for the substitute, there will be no need 
for future reconciliation because it will balance the budget.
  Chairman Roberts said that freedom to farm was a market-oriented 
plan. Mr. Chairman, unless, by market-oriented, Chairman Roberts means 
the unimpeded opportunity to lose your shirt, the substitute bill is 
also market-oriented. Farmers will respond to market prices in their 
planting and marketing decisions.
  But when farm prices are driven down by large supplies, poor economic 
growth, or an overvalued currency, as happened in the past, the 
substitute's farm program will increase payments to farmers to 
partially offset those market losses. And when prices are high, 
government payments will decline or cease altogether, reducing benefits 
when farmers do not 

[[Page H10897]]

need them. Under freedom to farm, farmers will receive the same $6 
billion in 1996, for instance, whether prices are low-baseline levels, 
or above, as USDA has recently projected them, and requiring only $2.8 
billion in payments to farmers.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished 
colleague from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, a cute phrase can be deceptive. This is 
certainly the case with the mislabeled farm portion of this massive 
bill. The farmers in my area call it the Farm Failure Act of 1995. It 
is designed to stabilize land values, not commodity prices. It benefits 
landowners far more than farmers. It mandates automatic payments 
regardless of crop prices. It discredits the farm programs.
  In fact, it mandates these payments even if the prices are at record 
highs. In this time of huge deficits, it is estimated that it will cost 
$10 billion more than a simple continuation of present programs. We not 
only balance the budget on the backs of farmers, we are cutting them 
off at the knees.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that all of us agree that we should balance 
the budget in 10 years. We should balance it in 5 years. We have a plan 
that would balance the budget in 7 years, and it would do so without 
the harsh, dramatic impact on agriculture that this bill that the 
Republican majority proposes would impose.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nevada [Mr. Ensign], another distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  (Mr. ENSIGN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no easy way to do what Congress is about to 
do. If it was easy to do, previous Congresses would have done that. The 
national debt we are passing on to our children, including my 3-year-
old son, Trevor, and his little sister who will be born in a little 
over a month, is nothing short of immoral. It is immoral to do to poor 
children, middle-class children and wealthy children, because if 
nothing is done, poor children will never get to be middle class or 
wealthy.
  This bill is not only pro family because it begins to lift the debt 
burden from our children and grandchildren, but there are many other 
provisions on which I will touch on just a few.
  First of all, this bill addresses the marriage penalty. There is a 
$500 per child tax credit. There is a $500 elderly care tax credit. 
There is also an adoption tax credit, and there is also estate tax 
relief so family-owned businesses such as family-owned farms can 
survive without having to sell off all of their assets so they can send 
that money back here to Washington. Mr. Chairman, it is bad enough that 
citizens pay taxes all of their lives, but then when they die, they 
have to pay taxes again.
  This debate is largely about who should spend the people's money. 
Should families have more of the money they earn to spend at their 
discretion in the manner best suited to their situation, or should the 
Federal Government, which already has demonstrated all too well the 
inefficient way it spends money. Should the Federal Government be 
increasingly let into our pocketbook to waste our tax dollars?
  I believe that the words tax cuts are not bad words. This is your 
money, America. Do you not deserve a little more of it back? Is 
everyone satisfied with the bang that they are getting for their buck?
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to bring to the attention of our colleagues 
that approximately 14 of our Republican colleagues addressed a letter 
to the Speaker where they call the proposal, welfare for the Freedom to 
Farm bill. They said they would rather have a Senate version than the 
version here.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman 
from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my colleague that just 
spoke that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, Mr. Kasich just 
informed this body that the $500 tax credit is not in this bill.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, this portion of the budget represents the 
deepest cuts and most drastic changes proposed in agriculture in 
decades. You would have thought that the Freedom to Farm Act might have 
warranted very thorough consideration. In fact, it did not have a 
single hearing in the Committee on Agriculture.
  Basically, House leaders told rural America, this is what we are 
going to do, now sit down, shut up, and take it. But we did not take it 
in the House Committee on Agriculture. We defeated the proposal. 
However, House leaders had the audacity to move this into the budget in 
spite of the House Committee on Agriculture rejection. Shame on all of 
you who have participated in such a vicious charade for rural America.
  I am not surprised that for most of this debate there is not a single 
Republican House Committee on Agriculture member here to defend what 
has been done.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank the gentleman from North 
Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] for his help on the spousal impoverishment, which 
was very fine help. We appreciate it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from California [Mr. Thomas] of the Health Subcommittee from the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, what I want to do is try to refocus our attention away 
from perhaps the more rancorous partisan aspects and frankly look at a 
little bit longer term perspective.
  Because I am here representing two individuals who are not here in 
both the House and the Senate. Senator Bentsen is no longer with us, 
and J.J. Pickle is no longer with us. But for a number of years, 
Senator Bentsen joined with Senator Roth and I joined with J.J. Pickle 
to focus on what we call superIRA accounts, the idea that individuals 
would have greater control over that money, which was theirs, which had 
been put away.
  We were unsuccessful for a number of years, but I am pleased to 
announce that in this particular reconciliation bill a couple of the 
key points that Senator Bentsen, Senator Roth, Jake Pickle, and I 
fought for, for a number of years, are present.
  Today, if you withdraw from your IRA to spend on medical expenses for 
yourself prior to the 59\1/2\ year, you not only have to pay taxes on 
the money you withdrew from your own savings, you also have to pay a 
10-percent penalty. That just does not make any sense. What we do today 
is say, if it is for medical expenses, you do not have to pay and you 
do not have to pay the penalty.
  I might add that President Clinton's 1996 budget also includes this 
provision; and I might say that H.R. 11, which was passed by this House 
and unfortunately vetoed by President Bush two Congresses ago, 
contained that provision as well. So it is just kind of a nice 
culmination of a number of bipartisan projects that come together today 
in this particular bill.
  In addition, the long-term care insurance provision. You do not now 
get to deduct the cost of long-term care insurance as part of your 
medical expenses. This has been a project that we have worked on 
bipartisan for a long, long time. As a matter of fact, President 
Clinton has this in his 1996 budget as well. We think it is a good 
idea, and we included it in this reconciliation package.
  In addition to that, we are supposed to talk about taking care of 
your own. Today, if you have a senior or an elderly in your home, your 
parent, your relative, you do not get any tax credit whatsoever for the 
out-of-pocket costs in taking care of that individual. In this 
reconciliation bill, you get credit for those expenses.

[[Page H10898]]

  In addition to that, when we examined the medical savings accounts 
and those who were uninsured, we thought that those young people who 
are working above the poverty level but do not need all of that third-
party first-dollar coverage of comprehensive medical care really did 
not have a product in the marketplace that fit their needs. This 
reconciliation bill contains a medical savings account provision for 
young people who can shape their insurance needs to what they need at 
an affordable cost.
  In addition to that, you have an orphan tax credit that has been 
worked on on a bipartisan basis for years. It had lapsed. We had not 
been able to renew it. It is for those drugs that go to Tourette's 
disease, go to Huntington's disease, but there simply is not a broad 
enough base to pay for them. That is in this bill.
  There are a number of provisions that for a number of years on a 
bipartisan basis we have tried to move forward. I just thought people 
should know in the middle of this partisan rancor that there are a 
number of provisions that colleagues here today have voted for and 
colleagues who have been here in the past have voted for, and it is a 
really good provision.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, just this point. Do we all know that 14 
Republicans wrote Speaker Gingrich saying this bill is a disastrous 
vote for rural Republicans?
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to thank all the members that worked with us in the Committee 
on Agriculture. I am saddened by the fact that the legislation which 
appears in the reconciliation is not the product of the Committee on 
Agriculture. I am concerned about that.
  But the Stenholm proposal balances the budget in 5 years. The 
Committee on Agriculture has met its commitment. We have reduced over 
$50 billion in the past 10 years. No one can point the finger at the 
Committee on Agriculture that we have not done our share.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the previous unanimous-consent agreement, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] will control the remaining 30 
minutes for the minority.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has 27\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, does the majority not want to use its 
time? It is such a great bill they have got. I would be delighted to 
defer to listen to that.
  Mr. SHAYS. If I heard the gentleman correctly, Mr. Chairman, we have 
27 minutes and this gentleman has 30 minutes remaining. Is that 
correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would observe that it is usually the 
practice for the majority to set forth what a great piece of 
legislation this is. I am waiting for somebody over there to tell me 
what a great piece of legislation this is.
  Mr. SHAYS. I would be happy to point out to the gentleman, but we 
reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I can understand the reluctance of my Republican 
colleagues to tell us what a great bill it is because, quite frankly, 
this is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen in the 
40 years I have served in this body. The bill includes both Medicare 
and Medicaid cuts and tax breaks.
  Our Republican colleagues said that they were not tying the two 
together. Well, they are tying them together in this bill. The poor and 
the aged are going to understand that the contributions that they are 
making of about $500 billion is being made so that a tax cut can be 
given to the wealthiest Americans. That is finally proven in this piece 
of legislation.
  The pernicious approach violates the contract we have with seniors 
who have paid for their Medicare benefits. It means seniors will pay 
more and get less choice of doctors, poor quality lab tests, and 
nursing homes that do not meet common standards of decency.
  By separating action on Medicare from the rest of reconciliation, 
Republicans tried to convince us that $270 billion in Medicare cuts do 
not pay for $245 billion in tax breaks for the rich. But Americans can 
perform the simple math required. They know when someone is pulling the 
wool over their eyes.
  The bill also destroys Medicaid. Under the mantra of State's rights, 
Republicans are pulling the safety net out from under middle class 
families, poor children, women, seniors, and the disabled--the most 
vulnerable of Americans. Up until last night, the Republican bill 
arbitrarily cut $182 billion from Medicaid. Now they say they have 
fixed it by cutting only $170 billion. But this midnight deal does not 
change the fact that this bill abdicates the Federal Government's role 
in Medicaid, reduces health care for the most needy, and invites abuse 
by States. It takes away vitally important guarantees under current 
law: protection from having to sell the family home or farm to pay for 
a loved one's nursing home care; guaranteeing coverage for seniors with 
Alzheimer's; setting minimum standards of safety, cleanliness, and 
decency for nursing homes; and guaranteeing health care for children 
and pregnant women.
  I and other Members tried to correct one of the most glaring defects 
in the bill by offering an amendment on behalf of Mr. Gingrich. In 
debate last week, the Speaker obviously was under the misimpression 
that his new MediGrant Program does what current law guarantees--
covering the cost of Medicare premiums for seniors under the poverty 
line. In fact, this bill repeals what current law provides. Our 
amendment would have restored provisions the Speaker erroneously relied 
on and guarantee that the poorest of seniors have Medicare coverage. 
But the Rules Committee gagged us from amending the bill so that it 
will do what the Speaker says it does.

  I also want to point out the devastating impact that this bill has on 
health care for veterans. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs says that 
the harsh spending caps in the Republican plan will require 41 veterans 
hospitals to close their doors. As a result, more than 1 million 
veterans will be denied health care by 2002. I do not share the 
misguided view of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the 
best way for veterans to stay healthy is not to get sick.
  This bill walks away from responsible government to help people in 
need in favor of lining the pockets of the wealthiest Americans with 
unneeded tax cuts. In addition to health care cuts, this bill slashes 
education, job training, and other programs upon which we empower 
people to help themselves.
  Most Americans will get nothing, or pay more under the GOP tax break. 
The small percentage of the tax cuts that will go to families earning 
less than $50,000 a year will be more than offset by spending cuts. 
These families stand to lose $648 a year or more under the GOP plan. 
Those earning more than $350,000--the richest 1 percent--will get 
$14,050 a year for the tax cut. I find it curious that my Republican 
colleagues, who criticize the President for not cutting middle class 
taxes enough, are rushing to raise taxes on many low income families. I 
must confess I am not surprised, however, that they would follow 
through on their threats to slash programs vital to the financial 
security of working Americans.
  Finally, I must object to the cavalier manner in which the Republican 
leadership has included massive changes in farm programs. The so-called 
freedom-to-farm proposal was found to be so objectionable that the 
House Agriculture Committee failed to get it out of committee. On an 
issue as vital as our Nation's food security, this bill shreds 
responsible legislating for partisan game playing and makes rural 
Americans the pawns.
  This is not the way to legislate, and it is a dangerous way to 
govern.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the biggest and the most important bill to be 
considered by the House this year. The cuts are too large. It hurts 
terribly the health care coverage of millions of Americans.
  I strongly oppose the bill. I now look forward to hearing from my 
Republican colleagues about what a great piece of legislation this is.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I say the reason the gentleman has not heard from us is 
he has not been on the floor listening.
  Just taking Medicare, for instance. We have not increased co-
payments; we have not increased deductibles. The 

[[Page H10899]]

premium stays the same at 31.5 percent. No one has to leave their fee-
for-service system. If they want to, they can go. If they go into a 
private care, every month they can come back into their system.
  What the gentleman does not want people to know is that we are going 
to spend 73 percent more, over $600 billion more in the next 7 years 
than we did in the last 7 years; what the gentleman does not want 
people to know is in the 7th year we are spending 50 percent more than 
we do today on Medicare; and what the gentleman does not want people to 
know is that the per beneficiary goes from $4,800 to $6,700.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Portman].
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for 
yielding me the time, and I commend him for his unwavering support over 
the years for fiscal sanity and say that I am very proud to stand up 
here today and support this bill that leads us to the first balanced 
budget in 26 years.
  But I also want to talk about some other things. As the gentleman 
from Michigan says, many of us are eager to talk about some of the good 
things in this bill beyond the fact that we come to the first balanced 
budget in 26 years, which is of paramount importance.
  This afternoon, I want to highlight a few of the small business 
incentives in this package that go beyond that critical task of getting 
spending under control but will encourage saving and job creation to 
lead to real long-term economic growth.
  Let me give a good example. It is not too glamorous, but it is 
extremely important to small businesses, to workers and employers in 
small businesses around this country. It is the long-overdue, 
comprehensive simplification of our pension laws in this country. And 
it is in this bill.
  These changes which the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] and 
others on both sides of the aisle have been working on will make it 
easier and less expensive for businesses to both establish plans and to 
maintain pension plans, thus encouraging and enabling people to save, 
an important public policy goal in its own right, and also will 
encourage people to plan and to take responsibility for their futures 
and for their retirement.
  Pension law is a great example of an area where Congress, by 
meddling, has hurt workers and employers who are trying to do the right 
thing. Quite simply, as the rules and regulations have multiplied in 
this area, fewer and fewer employers are able to offer pension plans. 
It has gotten to the point where today only 20 percent of those 
employers with less than 25 employees offer any kind of pension plan at 
all. It is no surprise that our savings rate is among the lowest, if 
not the lowest, in the industrialized countries.
  Another example of rules that are outdated, overly complex and impede 
job creation are the subchapter S corporation rules and regulations. 
That includes most of the small and family-owned businesses in 
America. The sub-S changes that we have made, and they are in this 
bill, will help companies grow and flourish, create new jobs and will 
keep family businesses family-owned.

  The point I want to emphasize is that the pension, subchapter S and 
other reforms in this legislation are going to stimulate national 
investment and savings, foster business growth, and they are good for 
America, and they are all in this bill.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to myself to point out to 
the gentleman from Ohio, who just spoke about the bill, that Ohio will 
lose $4.1 billion in health care for the elderly and the disabled. Most 
of this is in nursing home care which will have to be paid for by their 
hard-working middle-class families.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman].
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, there are many, many reasons to oppose this 
legislation: It savages health and education programs; it gives tax 
breaks to the wealthy at the same time it takes the earned-income tax 
credit away from people who need it; it contains some outrageous 
assaults on some of our most treasured environmental assets.
  Under the cover of balancing the budget, this bill is a disaster for 
American people, full of special interest giveaways and policies that 
will do irreparable harm to the health and well-being of America's 
working families, children and seniors. Nowhere is that effect more 
obvious than in the actions taken to slash and undermine the Medicare 
and Medicaid Programs.
  The so-called Medicare reform of Mr. Gingrich is nothing less than an 
attempt to destroy Medicare as we know it, and take away from our 
seniors the ability to stay in a strong and viable Medicare Program 
where they can choose their own doctor and be protected against having 
to pay that doctor a lot of extra dollars out of their own pocket.
  The Gingrich Medicare reform hikes the Medicare premium dramatically, 
and takes away the guarantee for seniors struggling to live on incomes 
below poverty that Medicaid will pay their Medicare part B premium and 
cost-sharing. Despite the personal assurances of Speaker Gingrich to 
this House last week, that help that seniors have now is not there.
  If there is any doubt about what the agenda is here, we need to look 
no further than the statements reported in today's Washington Post:

       Majority Leader Dole, stating with pride that in 1995, ``I 
     was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare.''
       Speaker Gingrich, bragging to the insurers about what the 
     Republicans are doing to Medicare, ``Now, we don't get rid of 
     it in round one because we don't think that's politically 
     smart . . .''.

  It is not that he does not think it is a good idea to get rid of 
Medicare, but it is smart politics to cover up the impact in the first 
round.
  I do not think it is smart politics to think that you can fool the 
American people about what is going on here. Democrats are proud to 
defend Medicare, not because we think it is smart, but because it is 
the right thing to do.
  With Medicaid, Mr. Gingrich and his Republican colleagues do not even 
seem to think they have to put up a smokescreen as they dismantle it. 
They take away any guarantee of coverage for people who need nursing 
home care, for severely disabled children, and adults who have nowhere 
else to turn for help, for 18 million poor children who have no other 
source of health care. That is one-quarter of the kids in this country 
who are about to be put at risk to join the ranks of the uninsured.
  They take billions of Federal dollars out of the system to provide 
health care for people who have no other options, and they leave 
States, counties, and cities holding the bag when they find that there 
is not enough money to deal with the problem. They leave the States 
with the choice of raising taxes to try to replace Federal revenue, or 
simply cutting people off from help.
  And they tip the scales toward cutting people off. States will soon 
be competing with surrounding States in a race to the bottom--afraid to 
try to keep an adequate Medicaid Program in place because too many 
desperate people from surrounding areas will try to come in to get 
help.
  There is more. They do not want to pay nursing homes enough to 
support the delivery of decent quality care. So their answer to that 
problem is to repeal the nursing home standards.
  They undo all the protections of current law, and hope people will 
not understand what they are doing. They hope this will get through 
before they get caught.
  Look what they did in terms of protecting the spouse of someone who 
goes into a nursing home from ending up in poverty. First, they 
repealed all the protections. Not one Republican voted for restoring 
them when we offered an amendment to protect against spousal 
impoverishment in committee. They were very outspoken that they did not 
need or want Federal standards.
  Then they started to feel some heat in the press, and even they 
started to feel uneasy defending what they had done. So they changed 
it--all of a sudden the amendment all the Republicans hated in 
committee showed up in the Kasich bill. Now they were finally willing 
to say that a State could not impoverish the spouse.
  But there is just one problem--they let the nursing home itself 
require the 

[[Page H10900]]

spouse or the adult children of the person in the nursing home to make 
them pay extra if they wanted their husband or wife, father or mother, 
to get care in the nursing home. I think we call that giving with one 
hand and taking away with the other.
  What happened? Once again, when the light of day shined on what they 
were doing, they reversed course.
  Now the rule adds a Bliley amendment--one that Mr. Bliley did not ask 
to be made in order, I might not, until we caught them at what they 
were doing--that would not let the nursing home get that extra money. 
Well good! That is what they should have done in the first place.
  But the fact is they are still trying to hide the biggest thing of 
all. What they are hiding is that the spouse who needs the nursing home 
care in the first place is not assured of getting it!
  People with Alzheimer's getting coverage under Medicaid now: They 
have no guarantee they will be covered.
  People who could stay at home if they had some help: No guarantee of 
coverage.
  People who have to have nursing home care: No guarantee of coverage, 
and even if they do get it, no guarantee that it will be in a decent 
facility.
  Even veterans now getting services: No guarantee they will continue 
to get coverage.
  This is wrong. It is wrong to say to millions of working families 
with severely disabled children, that they have no guarantee of help 
anymore.
  It is wrong to say to families who have no health insurance coverage 
for their children, that they have no guarantee of help anymore.
  It is wrong to say to low-income seniors that they have no guarantee 
that we will help pay their Medicare premiums and cost-sharing anymore.
  And it is wrong to say to States, and counties, and cities, it is 
your problem. We have washed our hands of its.
  There are many things that are wrong with this bill. But what is done 
to Medicaid alone is enough to vote against it. What is done to 
Medicare alone is also enough to vote against it.
  The health and security of America's seniors and children depend on 
what we do here today. Defeat this bill.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Ewing], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Risk Management and Speciality Crops.
  (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I have been concerned, 
listening to the debate here today, the criticism of the process 
followed by the Committee on Agriculture.
  In fact, in many ways it was not the majority party's problem. We 
went through the process. We debated the issues. The Democrats were 
given an opportunity to put forth their substitute, and it failed. We 
came along with the substitute put forth by Republican Members, and it 
failed, and the one program that had the most votes was the one which 
is in this bill. This program is the Freedom to Farm Act.
  The one that the Democrats voted for cut just as much money from 
agricultural programs as Freedom to Farm.
  Let us not lose sight of the big picture. Our prior Congresses have 
been cutting agricultural spending for producers and putting it into 
social programs. We are going to continue that process of phasing out 
Big Government controls and regulations on agriculture, and it is going 
to go to deficit reduction.
  This program is a good program. It meets the needs. It is important 
that it is passed with this bill.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the 
gentleman who just spoke, under this bill the State of Illinois will 
lose $3.5 billion in health care for the elderly and disabled, mostly 
nursing home care, which will have to be paid for by hard-working, 
middle-class families, and his vote will increase taxes for thousands 
of middle-class families at the same time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Wyden].
  (Mr. WYDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I believe that there is a 
clear consensus in this body for bipartisan reform of the Medicaid 
Program, and clearly the States can play a critical role in reforming 
that essential program.
  Five States have been the lead; five States have been a laboratory 
for change, and the tragedy today is that this bill will turn out the 
laboratory for change in our home State of Oregon. This bill means that 
a program that is serving more than 100,000 low-income people will have 
to be dismantled. This means that charity care is going to increase. 
This means our welfare rolls are going to increase.
  I would note specifically in a letter I just received from Jean 
Thorne, who is our Governor's assistant on Federal health policy, that 
she believes that the level of funding involved in this bill is going 
to require the dismantling of the Oregon health plan. This is a 
tragedy. It is a tragedy for Oregonians. But it is a tragedy for our 
Nation because we need bipartisan Medicaid reform, Medicaid reform that 
stresses prevention, holds down costs through health maintenance 
organizations, and this plan does it.
  Let us reject this bill. Let us not turn out the lights on the 
laboratories for health care change in America like in my home State of 
Oregon.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is a very strong, bipartisan 
consensus in this House to fix Medicaid--and to fix Medicaid in some 
very fundamental and tough-minded ways.
  And I believe that the State can play a very important role in this 
matter as our laboratories for change and innovation.
  This bill, unfortunately, turns out the lights on those laboratories 
for change by eliminating waivers for these experiments in five States 
including my home State of Oregon.
  This is bad medicine for Oregonians, and no remedy for the beleagured 
Federal taxpayer.
  This is the last thing we should be doing. It is unwise because it 
will remove health care coverage from thousands of our fellow citizens, 
it will hog-tag States that already have undergone significant reforms, 
and it ultimately will cost tax payers far more dollars than you are 
attempting to save in this reconciliation package.
  This bill sends us marching backwards, dooming States that have had 
the political guts to reform, back into the bad old days of public 
welfare programs.
  Oregon is one of the States that has lead the way toward a century 
Medicaid Program, and our waiver plan has full, bipartisan support 
within our congressional delegation. It has that support because in the 
last 16 months: Oregon has enrolled 130,000 working poor into managed 
care; reduced uncompensated, charity expense at hospitals by 30 
percent;  and has delivered a Medicaid Program which, per capita, is 10 
percent less costly than the national average.

  This bill even with the new provisions worked out by the speaker last 
night, dooms the Oregon health plan.
  I have just received a letter from Jean Thorne, governor Kitzhaber's 
Federal policy director and the former manager of the state's Medicaid 
Program.
  Here is what she has to say about the measure we are voting on, 
today, with regard to our health plan.
  Short-term, she says that while additional moneys inserted into this 
bill last night will alleviate some of the problems in the first year, 
we will likely need to take actions limiting the program before the end 
of the 1996 fiscal year.
  After that, according to Thorne's letter, the package will cause the 
Oregon plan to plummet as if from a cliff.
  She says the 7 year loss from this measure ``is still almost $2 
billion.''

       It is likely that such a level of funding loss will require 
     us to dismantle the Health Plan. If this were to happen, it 
     would mean that approximately 130,000 low-income Oregonians 
     would no longer have Medicaid coverage. These are people who 
     are primarily families with children.

  My colleagues, and particularly my colleagues within the Oregon 
delegation, make no mistake, this will kill the Oregon health plan as 
we know it.
  I suspect, after speaking with State officials this morning, that 
this will force a special session of our State legislature early next 
year to revamp the Oregon plan.
  This will mean fewer services covered, and fewer Oregonians under 
health care coverage.
  One State official speculated that somewhere between 30,000 and 
40,000 Oregonians--working poor--will have to be let out of their 
coverage in the next 15 to 20 months.

[[Page H10901]]

  Mr. Chairman, I should point out that under this plan we have reduced 
the number of welfare recipient in the State by about 8 percent in the 
last year. We projected further decreases of about 12 percent over the 
next 2 years.
  That projection, like health care coverage for some tens of thousands 
of Oregonians, is now out the window as well.
  We will see our welfare rolls, and our welfare costs, grow because of 
the loss of this waiver.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said we have worked cooperatively in our 
delegation to try to get this issue turned around, and I want to 
especially commend the work of my colleague, Jim Bunn.
  But we have no remedy in what is proposed, today.
  This language is a prescription for higher public costs, higher costs 
to hospitals which will be shifted to other consumers, and the loss of 
decent health coverage for many, many of my fellow Oregonians.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this measure.


                                                State Capitol,

                                      Salem, OR, October 26, 1995.
     To: Congressman Ron Wyden.
     From: Jean I. Thorne, Federal Policy Coordinator.
     Subject: Amendment to House Medicaid Bill.
       In reviewing the special adjustment made for Oregon in the 
     House bill, I believe it helps alleviate the need to take 
     immediate action to possibly dismantle the Oregon Health 
     Plan, but it does not change the long-term outlook for the 
     Plan.
       As I read the language included in the bill, it provides a 
     one-time allotment to Oregon of an additional $155 million in 
     fiscal year 1996, but does not change the allotments in 
     subsequent years. The amount of funding provided in 1996 
     basically would equal the amount spent in 1995 plus an 
     inflation factor of 7.24%. We are anticipating approximately 
     9% growth in Oregon's Medicaid expenditures between fiscal 
     years 1995 and 1996, so although this additional amount of 
     funding will alleviate much of the immediate problem, we will 
     likely need to take actions before the end of the fiscal year 
     to trim back the Health Plan and other areas of Medicaid, 
     such as long-term care services. By fiscal year 1997, more 
     drastic actions will be necessary, although it is unknown at 
     this point whether a special legislative session prior to the 
     regular 1997 session would be necessary.
       Clearly, beginning with 1997 we face the same problems as 
     in the original House bill. The seven-year anticipated loss 
     with this change is still almost $2 billion, as opposed to 
     $2.1 billion. It is likely that such a level of funding loss 
     will require us to dismantle the Health Plan. If this were to 
     happen, it would mean that approximately 130,000 low-income 
     Oregonians would no longer have Medicaid coverage. These are 
     people who are primarily families with children. Since the 
     beginning of the Health Plan in February 1994, we have 
     increased the number of Oregonians with Medicaid coverage by 
     almost 50%. We currently have over 75% of all Medicaid 
     enrollees receiving services through prepaid health plans. 
     The amount of funds hospitals spend on charity care has 
     decreased by over 30%. Our welfare caseloads have declined by 
     8%, with another 12% decline anticipated in the current two-
     year budget period. At the same time, our spending per 
     beneficiary is more than 10% below the national average. Our 
     ability to ``squeeze'' additional savings out of the program 
     is severely limited. If the Oregon Health Plan were to be 
     dismantled, we would face the prospects of actually going 
     backwards from the gains we have made--less people covered, 
     less people in managed care, more costs shifted to other 
     payers and welfare caseloads increasing.
       We deeply appreciate the work of Congressman Bunn in 
     getting this issue before Congress, but we recognize that it 
     is only a first step. Our hopes are that we can secure an 
     exemption for states with operating Section 1115 waivers to 
     continue under the funding terms of the waiver, allowing us 
     to prove that our demonstration programs can improve the 
     health of poor persons in a cost-efficient manner.
                                                John A. Kitzhaber,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am anxious to hear the speeches when 
people stop buying treasury bills because our debt has grown so large 
that people are no longer interested in taking the risk.
  This bill brings us to reality. It will reduce the cost of real 
interest payments.
  On the farm bill, they say it was done in the dark of night. We had 
10,000 farmers at 19 field hearings from California to New York to 
Florida, talking about reforming agriculture. Now, one group says we 
have done too much to agriculture and we are hurting rural America. My 
God, I live in rural America. I respect rural America. They asked me, 
Mark Foley, to make changes in the agriculture policy of this Nation.
  So I stand here proudly to support the Freedom To Farm Act. We will 
unshackle agriculture. We will allow them to become productive. We will 
feed America's families. We will save us tremendous interest costs 
around this Nation and make our farmers proud to be Americans once 
again, which they are today.
  Let us not hear the rhetoric that this bill is bad for America, 
because when the final numbers are in, when we save our children's 
future, when we save the bankruptcy of this Nation, when we make our 
people proud of this country once again, the numbers and the votes and 
the sentiment of America will be with us.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Rush].
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the gentleman 
who just spoke that under this bill the State of Florida will lose $5.9 
billion in health care for the elderly and the disabled. Most of this 
is coming from nursing home care which would have to be paid for by 
hard-working middle-class families.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, now I get it. Now I understand why 
the Gingrich majority believes this bill is good for middle-class 
America.
  The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Heineman] recently noted those 
with incomes between $300,000 and $750,000 a year are middle class. I 
get it: The middle class that this reconciliation bill will help has an 
income of $300,000 a year.
  The Gingrich plan cuts Medicare to give tax breaks to people making 
one-half of a million a year. Why? Well, Speaker Gingrich told an 
extremist group of supporters of his, ``We don't get rid of Medicare in 
round one, because we don't think that would be politically smart. We 
don't think that is the right way to go through a transition. We 
believe it is going to wither on the vine because we think people are 
voluntarily going to leave it.''
  Shame on them, cutting Medicare, trying to destroy Medicare to give a 
tax break to people making one-half of a million a year.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham].
  (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting when you talk 
about agricultural policy and not having hearings, we had 19 hearings 
concerning the Freedom to Farm Act and getting ideas from farmers 
themselves. One gentleman who spoke earlier admitted during the 
committee hearing, on the Democrat side, that he had never attended any 
of these hearings.
  I think it is kind of interesting, I am sure he must have been 
listening to bureaucrats here in Washington, but the thing they told, 
the farmers told us, they want flexibility, they want a safety net, and 
they want relief from regulations that are strangling agriculture 
today.
  One important thing to remember, when we actually get to a balanced 
budget, it is going to lower interest costs by 1.2 to 2 percent, and 
when you look at agriculture that is borrowing $141 billion a year, 
over 7 years, that more than makes up for any reduction in farm 
spending, and under the bill that is in our reconciliation act, there 
is more disposable net farm income than even existing law would be.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out 
that the gentleman who just spoke, under this bill, the State of Iowa 
will lose $590 million in health care for the elderly and disabled, and 
most of this is nursing home care which will have to be paid for by 
their hard-working middle-class families.
  Mr. Chairman, maybe Speaker Gingrich is planning to save his book 
royalties to pay for his hospital, doctor, and nursing home bill if he 
ever needs it, but most older Americans don't have that luxury.
  This bill delivers a knock-out punch to middle-income families, and I 
don't mean those middle-income families defined by Congressman Heineman 
as 

[[Page H10902]]

making $300,000 to $750,000 a year. Not only does it cut student loans 
their children will need for college, but it is also going to force 
them to pay for much of the health care their parents now receive under 
Medicare and Medicaid. Talk about taking the care out of health care; 
that's a double whammy.
  Bob Dole yesterday proudly proclaimed that he voted against Medicare 
when it was created in 1965 because, and I quote, ``we knew it wouldn't 
work.''
  Well Senator, let me tell you: You couldn't be more wrong--Medicare 
works. When Medicare was signed into law by President Johnson, nearly 
30 percent of senior citizens lived below the poverty line and half of 
all senior citizens had no health insurance. Today barely 12 percent 
live in poverty and an astounding 99.1 percent have health insurance 
coverage.
  The Republican leadership sure has a knack for revising history.
  The Gingrich Medicare plan will force the elderly and their children 
to pick up the tab for $270 billion in payments for doctors, hospitals, 
medical equipment such as wheel chairs, and drugs that Medicare now 
covers. Adding insult to injury, it is the elderly and their middle-
class sons and daughters who will not benefit from the huge tax break 
these health care cuts are intended to give to people earning more than 
$100,000 a year.
  In fact, while the Republican tax plan gives a $14,000 tax break to a 
wealthy family with an income over $350,000, it actually raises taxes 
by more than $600 for middle-income families with incomes below 
$50,000.
  Just listen to what the Speaker wants to take away from elderly and 
middle-class Americans to pay for his tax cut.
  First, Speaker Gingrich will cause hospitals in the Chicago 
metropolitan area to lose more than $2.8 billion. The city of Chicago, 
alone, will lose $1.3 billion; almost half that amount, $699 million, 
will be lost by the 11 hospitals in my congressional district.
  Cuts of this magnitude will force these hospitals to sharply reduce 
the number of patients they can serve.
  If the Speaker were on the floor, I'd say to him: Mr. Speaker, is 
your tax break for the wealthy worth the risk that thousands in the 
Chicago metropolitan area may be denied a hospital bed?
  Second, under the Speaker's Medicare bill, each of Illinois' 1.6 
million Medicare recipients will see their health care costs rise by at 
least $3.500.
  Mr. Chairman, where is the fairness in a proposal that pays for a 
$14,000 tax break for the wealthy by forcing the elderly to pay $3,500 
more than they currently pay for health care?
  Third, Mr. Gingrich's Medicaid proposal will lead to the termination 
of nursing home care for an estimated 350,000 people simply to pay for 
his crown jewel of a tax cut for the rich. Meanwhile, seniors will be 
asked to pay the jeweler.
  Fourth, the Speaker will cut payments for more than 60 percent of all 
the Illinois elderly who enter nursing homes. With the Speaker's 
blessing, no elderly or disabled individual will be guaranteed coverage 
for any benefit, including nursing home care.
  Mr. Chairman, is giving a tax break to wealthy Americans really worth 
denying nursing home care each year to 50,000 sick and aged folk who 
live in my State?
  Is it really worth denying long-term care for 96,000 elderly and 
disabled in my State? That's 49 percent of all those currently 
receiving such services.
  Mr. Chairman, as my constituent, Irene Nelson, a senior citizen from 
Chicago, testified at the Democratic alternative Medicare hearings, and 
I quote, ``It is obvious to me that the people who are making these 
decisions are completely out of touch with the daily struggles of 
senior citizens like me.''
  I beg of you, my colleagues: Please don't do this to your parents and 
to our Nation's elderly citizens. Find it in your heart to vote against 
the Speaker's changes that make Medicare and Medicaid into medican't.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary].
  (Mr. HILLEARY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in proud support of this historic 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I proudly rise in support of this historic legislation, 
H.R. 2491, the Seven-Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995. 
This legislation keeps the promises I made to the people of the Fourth 
district of Tennessee.
  This bill balances the Federal budget in 7 years, provides genuine 
welfare reform, preserves Medicare for our elderly now and in the 
future, and provides real tax relief for middle-class families.
  I am confident that the changes we are making here today will lead to 
lower interest rates and growth.
  Not growth in the Federal bureaucracy, but growth in the private 
economy creating more jobs for the people of Tennessee.
  History has shown us over and over again that raising taxes hurts 
economic growth and never raises as much money as promised. In fact, 
this morning in the Wall Street Journal, former Chairman of the 
President's Council of Economic Advisers, Martin Feldstein, wrote an 
article showing that President Clinton's income tax increase in 1993 
failed to raise the money he claimed. He writes that the IRS has 
recently published data showing that the steep increase in the tax 
rates raised only about one-third of the amount of money that President 
Clinton had predicted.
  For the families of my district in Tennessee, they will see real tax 
relief. The $500-per-child tax credit means that families with children 
earning less than $25,000 will no longer pay Federal income tax. 
Families making $30,000 will see their Federal income tax bill cut 
almost in half. Furthermore, lowering the capital gains tax will mean 
more economic growth and more jobs for the people in Tennessee.
  Unlike past efforts of Congress to balance the budget, H.R. 2491 
doesn't rely on accounting tricks or gimmicks. It makes real cuts.
  All of us in this Chamber, everyone in Tennessee and throughout the 
country has benefited over the years from the Federal Government's 
overspending.
  But this overspending has a devastating impact on our young who are 
the future of our country. Right now, a child born today will pay an 
average of $187,000 in taxes over a lifetime just to pay the interest 
on the debt. This irresponsibility in the Federal Government can't 
continue. It must stop. We can't continue to do this to our children.
  Cutting out programs many people have become comfortable with is not 
a job any of us cherish or enjoy. I can assure everyone that making 
these cuts was not easy, but I can say that they are fair.
  Is this legislation perfect?
  I will be the first to admit that it is not a perfect bill. It's no 
secret that I personally believe that we can and should balance the 
budget in less than 7 years.
  Did we cut out only the wasteful programs and leave only the good 
ones?
  No, I think there is still plenty more that can be cut and we may 
have made some errors where we cut. Some of these errors can and will 
be corrected as the legislative process continues. Other problems we 
may have to address with corrective legislation next year.
  One of the problems we identified was in the funding formula for the 
new Medigrant Program. Under the House version of the Medicaid bill 
which uses 1994 as the base year for Medicaid payments, Tennessee was 
in fact being penalized for pioneering a State run Medicare/Medicaid 
Program.
  Under TennCare, Tennessee had paid out an extra $180 million to its 
Medicaid recipients that was not included in fiscal year 1994. This 
short fall was a result of an entire 3 months of payments that the 
Federal Government had not included in its equation because of 
accounting differences between them and the State of Tennessee.
  Mr. Chairman, I am encouraged by the willingness of the Speaker to 
work with the Members of Tennessee on the Medigrant funding levels. The 
Speaker acknowledged a discrepancy between the State of Tennessee's 
1994 Medicaid funding and the numbers used by the Federal Government.
  I thank the Speaker for his understanding of this problem and his 
support for putting an extra $180 million into TennCare's 1996 funding 
level to insure that no harm would come to Tennessee's Medicaid 
recipients.
  Furthermore, I extend my appreciation to the Speaker for his 
commitment to continue negotiations as this legislation continues 
through this process to ensure that Tennesseans receive their fair 
share of funding for the TennCare Program.
  I believe we can work out these final problems before the conference 
report is brought back to the House.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to move forward this historic legislation to 
change the direction of the Government.
  I proudly support this bill and urge all of my colleagues to vote for 
H.R. 2491.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this vitally 
important legislation for the future of our country.
  Today we are keeping our promise to America for a better future, and 
fulfilling the people's mandate for change. No more excuses, 

[[Page H10903]]

no more Washington gimmicks. It's time to do the right think--it's time 
to balance the budget.
  Passing this budget reconciliation bill will bring more change to the 
way Washington operates than any other legislation in the last half 
century. It eliminates deficits over the next 7 years and does it 
honestly and fairly. And in doing so, it eases the crushing burden of 
Federal debt on our children.
  A balanced budget is more than just an accounting trick. Balancing 
the budget will lower interest rates which will mean lower mortgage 
rates, lower car loan costs, lower rates on student loans, and more 
jobs.
  For instance, according to DRI-McGraw/Hill, an independent economic 
consulting firm, fixed rate mortgages would drop by 2.7 percentage 
points and adjustable rate mortgages would drop by 1.7 percentage 
points by 2002. This would boost home values by 8 percent, existing 
home sales by 11.5 percent, and housing starts by 65,000 each year.
  With this bill we keep other promises such as bringing real reform to 
the welfare system. It breaks the cycle of dependency, and emphasizes 
work, personal responsibility, and the preservation of the family. It 
shifts power and resources back to the States and slices away 
government bureaucracy.
  The bill includes Medicare provisions, passed earlier this year, 
which preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare. It saves Medicare 
from bankruptcy while still increasing spending on this important 
health care program. It's security for our seniors who have planned for 
their retirements with the hope that Medicare will be there. And it's 
security for baby-boomers who know we are committed to a sound Medicare 
system when they retire.
  We deliver on our promise of tax relief for America's families and a 
cut in the capital gains tax to spur job creation and economic growth. 
According to the Joint Economic Committee, a $500 per-child family tax 
credit means families with children earning less than $25,000 will see 
their entire Federal income tax liability eliminated. Families with 
incomes of $30,000 will have 48 percent of their Federal income tax 
liability eliminated.
  And capital gains tax relief means jobs and economic growth. 
Investment will not happen without capital, and capital will not be 
freed up without tax relief. Economic growth and more jobs means more 
tax revenue.
  Despite what our critics say, we can balance the budget and still 
give relief to our hardworking and overburdened taxpayers. And one 
thing we know for sure, increasing taxes has not produced balanced 
budgets.
  The American people want a smaller, more efficient government, but 
Washington has failed to deliver until now. With this bill we begin 
slimming an overweight Federal bureaucracy by eliminating an entire 
Cabinet-level agency--the Commerce Department.
  The budget reconciliation bill is the right thing for America and 
America's families. We keep our word and balance the budget. Most 
important, we save the future of the American dream for our children.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

                              {time}  1515

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, what we are doing here 
today is passing the components of a program that over 7 years will 
balance this Nation's budget, but also put in place a tax policy that 
will assure that the jobs will be created that people need for their 
own security and that our Nation needs, to enjoy a level of economic 
growth that will make that balance possible.
  This overall bill also addresses many problems. It is the first time 
we have tried to put in place a policy that would protect people of all 
ages from the catastrophic cost of nursing home care. If we do not 
start now, we cannot succeed for future generations.
  But also within this bill are many, many detailed provisions that the 
public does not know about, but that will directly affect their lives. 
In the Taxpayer Bill of Rights section, a section that is bipartisan, 
that was developed in a bipartisan way, has bipartisan support, this 
bill builds on the work of the Hon. Jake Pickle of Texas, who spent 
many years trying to get this very legislation passed. I am proud not 
only have we adopted his work, but we have gone beyond it. Because 
through the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, we make the taxpayer now not a 
David who meets Goliath, but an equal who has an opportunity to be 
heard by the IRS, to have a fair shot at paying only their fair share 
of taxes.
  For the first time, this Taxpayer Bill of Rights will begin to look 
at the terrible and bad breaks that so many couples who are separated 
and divorced get when dealing with the IRS. For the first time we ask 
the IRS, for the first time in all of our history, to come back to us 
every year with the 20 most important problems that taxpayers face. For 
the very first time the IRS will have the responsibility for their 
taxpayer advocates to actually tell the Congress what are the 20 most 
serious problems the people face in dealing with their Government, and 
then we will be able to change those things. We do not allow for their 
suggestions to go through the IRS or the Department of the Treasury. 
They must come directly to us so that they cannot be filtered.
  We do many, many things in this bill to protect taxpayers from IRS 
actions and to put taxpayers on an equal footing with their Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to draw our colleagues' attention to some very 
important provisions in the Ways and Means Committee title of H.R. 2517 
which collectively are known as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2.
  For taxpayers who go up against the Internal Revenue Service, it is 
too often a David vs. Goliath contest. The IRS is Goliath and the 
taxpayer is David. The Ways and Means Committee title includes the 
recommendations developed by the Subcommittee on Oversight to increase 
the rights of taxpayers in dealing with the IRS. The campaign to 
safeguard taxpayer rights has a long history. The Taxpayer Bill of 
Rights 2 portion of title XIII will establish a new milestone in 
protecting taxpayers. Like the David in biblical history, the average 
taxpayer may be smaller than the rival IRS, but we are giving him some 
strong weapons with which to defend himself.
  The original Taxpayer Bill of Rights was enacted in 1988. While this 
action was a good first step, there was a consensus that more could be 
done to protect the rights of taxpayers. The Oversight Subcommittee 
developed follow-up legislation during the 102d Congress, but 
regrettably it did not become law.
  One of the early priorities of the Oversight Subcommittee in the 
104th Congress was to protect the rights of taxpayers in dealing with 
the IRS. Despite the helpful effects of the 1988 legislation, the 
chorus of constituent complaints against the IRS convinced us that 
further action was needed. On March 24, 1995, the Subcommittee on 
Oversight held a hearing to investigate what additional safeguards were 
apprporiate to provide taxpayers more evenhanded treatment in their 
dealings with the IRS. The hearing opened our eyes to the many areas in 
which we need to act in order to protect taxpayers.
  For example, we learned of cases where the IRS began auditing a 
taxpayer's return and then the IRS employee conducting the audit was 
transferred to a new division, and the return sat for another year or 
two before the audit was completed. Under current law, the IRS has no 
authority to abate the interest which runs up during this period. The 
bill addresses this problem by giving the IRS authority to abate 
interest charges that accrue as a result of unreasonable delays caused 
by the IRS's own mistakes.
  The bill will also make it easier for taxpayers who win their cases 
against the IRS in court to collect attorney's fees. Under current law, 
not only does a taxpayer have to prevail against the IRS to collect 
attorney's fees, she must also prove that the IRS was not justified in 
pressing its case against her. Our bill would shift the burden to the 
IRS of proving that its position was substantially justified. This is 
consistent with the judicial principle that the party in control of the 
facts should bear the burden of proof.
  Another major problem area is the treatment of separated or divorced 
taxpayers. Under current law, couples who file a joint tax return are 
each fully responsible for the accuracy of the return and for the full 
tax liability, even though only one spouse may have earned the income 
which is shown on the return. This is called joint and several 
liability. Spouses who wish to avoid joint and several liability may 
file as a married person filing separately.
  The Oversight Subcommittee learned of many instances where divorced 
taxpayers who signed a joint tax return during their former marriage 
were treated harshly when the IRS later disputed the accuracy of the 
return. Far too often, the IRS tried to collect the entire amount due 
from the wife, even though the omitted income or erroneous deductions 
which caused the tax deficiency were attributable solely to her former 
husband. In some cases, the person pursued for payment of the taxes due 
was not even aware that a tax return filed during the marriage had been 
audited or the additional taxes were due.
  In an era where almost 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, this 
problem is contributing to the perception that the tax system is 
unfair. The time has come to reexamine the 

[[Page H10904]]

joint and several liability standard and to consider replacing it with 
a proportionate liability standard, under which each spouse would be 
responsible for the tax on that portion of their income which he or she 
earned. In order to fully consider the ramifications of such a change, 
our bill requires the Treasury Department and the General Accounting 
Office to conduct detailed studies examining possible changes to the 
joint and several liability standard designed to better protect the 
interests of separated and divorced couples. This is an area that we 
definitely intend to revisit after the studies are complete.
  The Subcommittee on Oversight met on September 12, 1995, and 
unanimously approved a package of recommendations to address the 
taxpayer problems which we had identified from our hearing and from the 
numerous communications we had received from taxpayers. The 
recommendations for a Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 were introduced on 
September 14, 1995, as H.R. 2337. The full Committee on Ways and Means 
included in its reconciliation title a Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 
subtitle which is virtually identical to the work product of the 
Subcommittee on Oversight.
  I am gratified at our action for two reasons. First, we have acted 
forcefully to protect the rights of taxpayers in dealing with the IRS. 
Second, the subcommittee's action was bipartisan, it was strongly 
supported by Members of both parties. I hope this will set the example 
for all the activities of the Oversight Subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, the Nation's taxpayers probably will never enjoy paying 
their taxes, but they should not feel powerless in dealing with the 
IRS. The taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 will help to better safeguard the 
rights of taxpayers. Until Congress implements fundamental reforms of 
the tax system, the next best approach is to make the current system 
operate in a way which treats taxpayers more fairly.
  Finally, the following is a brief outline of the Taxpayer Bill of 
Rights two provisions which are included in title XIII of H.R. 2517:

       1. Creation of Independent Taxpayer Advocate. (a) 
     Statutorily establish the position and office of the Taxpayer 
     Advocate within the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); (b) 
     require the IRS to make annual reports to the tax-writing 
     committees describing the 20 most serious problems taxpayers 
     encounter when dealing with the IRS, along with the Taxpayer 
     Advocate's recommendations for administrative and legislative 
     actions to resolve such problems; and (c) require the IRS to 
     provide that regional problem resolution officers will 
     actively participate in the selection and evaluation of local 
     problem resolution officers.
       2. Expand Taxpayer Assistance Order (TAO) Authority. 
     Provide the Taxpayer Advocate with broader authority to 
     intervene on behalf of taxpayers.
       3. Authority to Review a TAO. Provide that a TAO may be 
     modified or overturned only by the Commissioner, Deputy 
     Commissioner, Taxpayer Advocate, or Regional Problem 
     Resolution Officer, and require a written explanation for 
     modifications or reversals of TAOs.
       4. Improved Notification of Installment Agreement Changes. 
     (a) Require the IRS to notify taxpayers 30 days before 
     modifying or terminating installment agreements (except in 
     jeopardy cases) and to include in such notification the 
     specific reasons for the action taken; and (b) require the 
     IRS to establish an administrative appeals process in the 
     case of modifications or terminations of installment 
     agreements.
       5. Expand Abatement-of-Interest Authority. (a) Provide the 
     IRS with expanded authority to abate interest resulting from 
     erroneous or dilatory ``managerial acts'' (e.g., for cases 
     where the assessment or collection of a deficiency has been 
     unreasonably delayed as a result of IRS's loss of tax 
     records, or IRS personnel management decisions, including the 
     termination, transfer, training, and the granting of leave 
     for any reason to IRS employees responsible for the handling 
     of the taxpayer's case); and (b) give the U.S. Tax Court the 
     jurisdiction to review the IRS's failure to abate interest on 
     an abuse of discretion standard for taxpayers who meet the 
     net worth criteria of section 7430.
       6. Extend Interest-Free Period for Remitting Tax. Extend 
     the interest-free period provided to taxpayers for the 
     payment of tax liability reflected in the first notice from 
     10 days to 21 days, if the total tax liability shown on the 
     notice of deficiency is less than $100,000.
       7. Study of the ``Joint and Several'' Liability Standard. 
     Require the Treasury Department and the General Accounting 
     Office to conduct studies, to be submitted to the tax-writing 
     committees within six months of the date of enactment, 
     analyzing: (a) the effects of changing the current standard 
     of ``joint and several'' liability for married couples to a 
     ``proportionate'' liability standard; (b) the effects of 
     requiring the IRS to be bound by the terms of a divorce 
     decree which directly addresses the responsibility for the 
     tax liability arising from joint tax returns filed during the 
     former couple's marriage; (c) proposals for expanding the 
     ``innocent spouse'' relief of IRC section 6013; and (d) the 
     effects of overturning the application of Poe v. Seaborn for 
     income tax purposes in community property states.
       8. Election to File Joint Return Without Making Full 
     Payment. Repeal the provision that requires full payment of 
     tax liabilities as a precondition to taxpayers switching from 
     married-filing-separate status to married-filing-jointly 
     status.
       9. Improved Treatment of Separated or Divorced Spouses. 
     Upon written request, require the IRS to inform either spouse 
     as to whether the IRS is making any attempt to collect the 
     tax liability from the other spouse; the general nature of 
     the collection effort; and, the amount collected.
       10. Authority to Withdraw Notice of IRS Liens. Provide the 
     IRS with authority to withdraw a public notice of tax lien 
     prior to payment in full by the indebted taxpayer when it is 
     ``. . . in the best interest of the taxpayer and the 
     Government'' and require that in the case of an erroneous 
     lien, upon taxpayer request, the IRS must make reasonable 
     efforts to notify major credit agencies and financial 
     institutions of the erroneous filing of the lien.
       11. Authority to Return Levied Property. Provide the IRS 
     with authority to return the proceeds of levies, without 
     prejudice against future reinstatement of the levy, if it is 
     ``. . . in the best interest of the taxpayer and the 
     Government.''
       12. Increase the Protections of Taxpayers from IRS Levy 
     Actions. Increase the exemption level on fuel, furniture and 
     personal effects to $2,500, and index it thereafter for 
     inflation.
       13. Offers-in-Compromise. Provide that offers-in-compromise 
     which reduce tax liabilities by less than $100,000 do not 
     require a written opinion from the Office of the Chief 
     Counsel. Offers in compromise which would reduce tax 
     liabilities by $100,000 or more would continue to be subject 
     to approval by a written opinion from the Office of the Chief 
     Counsel.
       14. Civil Damages for Fraudulent Filing of Information 
     Returns. Create a federal cause of action for a person who 
     has been victimized by a willfully filed fraudulent 
     information return to recover the greater of $5,000 or actual 
     damages from the person(s) who filed the fraudulent 
     information return.
       15. IRS Responsibility to Verify Accuracy of Information 
     Returns. In cases where a taxpayer asserts reasonable dispute 
     about the accuracy of an information return, the IRS would be 
     required to take reasonable steps to investigate the accuracy 
     of the information return and would bear the burden of 
     producing reasonable and probative information to corroborate 
     the return. The reasonable steps which the IRS must take to 
     corroborate the disputed information return would vary in 
     response to the facts and circumstances of each case. The 
     objective is to meet the standard outlined in Portillo v. 
     Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128 (1991).
       16. Expansion of Attorney-Fees Provisions. (a) In cases 
     where a taxpayer substantially prevails over the IRS in a tax 
     dispute, switch the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the 
     IRS to establish that the IRS was substantially justified in 
     maintaining its position against the taxpayer; (b) increase 
     the hourly rate of the attorney fees eligible for 
     reimbursement from the current rate of $75 to $110, and index 
     this amount after 1996; (c) clarify that the taxpayer's 
     failure to extend the statute of limitations shall not be 
     considered to be a failure to exhaust the administrative 
     process; and (d) repeal the current prohibition which denies 
     the reimbursement of attorney fees in some court actions for 
     a declaratory judgement.
       17. Taxpayer Reliance on IRS Guidance. In determining 
     whether or not the IRS was ``substantially justified'' in 
     maintaining its position against the taxpayer, the fact that 
     IRS employees did not follow its own published guidance 
     (e.g., revenue rulings, revenue procedures, and information 
     releases) in examining the taxpayer, will create a rebuttable 
     presumption that the IRS's position was not substantially 
     justified for the purpose of applying section 7430.
       18. Increased Damage Awards to Taxpayers Harmed by Reckless 
     IRS Collection Actions. (a) Increase the ceiling on damages 
     to $1 million; and (b) give the courts discretion to reduce a 
     damage award because of the taxpayer's failure to exhaust the 
     administrative remedies in the collection process, rather 
     than a mandatory denial.
       19. Modification of the Penalty to Collect and Remit 
     Payroll Taxes. (a) Require the IRS to issue a preliminary 
     notice 60 days in advance of any demand for payment of the 
     100-percent penalty imposed by section 6672, except in 
     jeopardy cases; (b) in cases where the IRS is seeking to hold 
     a person responsible for payroll taxes under section 6672, 
     the IRS would be required to share with such person the 
     identities of other persons who the IRS also asserts are 
     responsible for the taxes and the collection activities which 
     it has pursued against those persons; (c) create a federal 
     cause of action for a person who may be held liable for the 
     collection of tax under section 6672 to seek contribution 
     from other persons who have a similar liability under the 
     law, but who have not yet contributed their proportionate 
     share of the liability for the collection of the tax. The 
     ``responsible person'' seeking a contribution would 
     proceed by bringing an independent action against the 
     third parties; and (d) provide that the IRS will not 
     impose the 100-percent penalty under section 6672 on 
     unpaid, volunteer trustees or directors of tax-exempt 
     organizations if such persons serve solely in an honorary 
     capacity, do not participate in the day-to-day or 
     financial operations of the 
     
[[Page H10905]]

     organization, and do not have actual knowledge of the failure 
     to remit payroll taxes to the IRS.
       20. Enrolled Agents as Third-Party Record Keepers. Add 
     ``enrolled agents'' to the list of third party record keepers 
     to whom section 7609 applies.
       21. Safeguards Related to Designated Summons. (a) Require 
     that IRS regional counsel review any designated summons 
     before it is issued against a taxpayer; (b) limit the 
     issuance of a designated summons to taxpayers being audited 
     as part of the IRS's Coordinated Exam Program (about 1,600 of 
     the largest corporate taxpayers); (c) prohibit the IRS from 
     issuing a designated summons for the purpose of third-party 
     information gathering, except in circumstances where the 
     taxpayer being examined has transferred its books or records 
     to a third party; and (d) require the IRS to submit an annual 
     report to Congress describing the designated summonses issued 
     by the IRS during the preceding year.
       22. Relief from the Retroactive Application of IRS 
     Regulations. Provide that the effective date of any 
     temporary, proposed, or final regulation shall not be before 
     the earliest of:
       (a) the date the regulation is filed in the Federal 
     Register; (b) in the case of a final regulation, the date of 
     the temporary or proposed regulation to which it relates was 
     filed with the Federal Register; and (c) the date on which 
     any notice substantially describing the expected contents of 
     any temporary, proposed, or final regulation is issued to the 
     public. However, this limitation will not apply: (a) where 
     the regulations are issued within 12 months of the enactment 
     of the statutory provision to which the regulation relates; 
     (b) where the Secretary of the Treasury determines that the 
     regulation should be retroactive in order to prevent abuse; 
     (c) where the regulation is directed at correcting procedural 
     defects in an earlier regulation; (d) where the regulation 
     relates to the internal policies, practices, and procedures 
     of the Treasury Department; (e) where the taxpayer elects to 
     have the entire regulation apply retroactively, i.e, back to 
     the date of the underlying statute; or (f) in cases where 
     Congress grants authority to the Secretary to prescribe the 
     effective date of a regulation.
       23. Report on IRS Pilot Program for the Appeal of 
     Enforcement Actions. Require the IRS to submit a report to 
     the tax-writing committees, by March 1, 1996, about the scope 
     and results of its pilot program for the appeal of 
     enforcement actions, including lien, levy, and seizure 
     actions, together with any recommendations for 
     legislative actions which may be necessary to facilitate 
     the implementation of a permanent process for appeals of 
     such enforcement actions.
       24. Phone Numbers of Payors on Form 1099. Require that the 
     providers of information returns include the phone number of 
     the payor's service representative on the form 1099.
       25. Notification to Taxpayers of Overpayments. Require that 
     the IRS make a reasonable attempt to notify, within 60 days, 
     those taxpayers who have made payments which the IRS cannot 
     properly post to the taxpayer's account.
       26. Damage Claims for Taxpayers Injured When the IRS Uses 
     Improper Informants. Create a civil cause of action allowing 
     a taxpayer to sue the Government for the lesser of $500,000 
     or actual damages (plus costs) in cases where any Federal 
     Government employee intentionally compromises the collection 
     of any tax due from an attorney, accountant, or enrolled 
     agent representing a taxpayer in exchange for information 
     supplied by the taxpayer to such a professional for the 
     purpose of obtaining tax advice.
       27. Annual Reminders of Outstanding Tax Liabilities. 
     Require the IRS to send out annual reminders to taxpayers 
     with outstanding delinquent accounts that are not in active 
     collection status.
       28. Extension of Authority for IRS Undercover Operations. 
     The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 exempted IRS undercover 
     operations from certain statutory restrictions controlling 
     the use of Government funds (which generally provide that all 
     receipts be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury and 
     all expenses be paid out of appropriated funds). This 
     exemption expired on December 31, 1991. In general, the 
     exemption permits the IRS to ``churn'' the income earned by 
     an undercover operation to pay additional expenses incurred 
     in the undercover operation. Extend the IRS ``churning'' 
     authority to December 31, 2000.
       29. Disclosure of Form 8300 Information on Cash 
     Transactions. Amend IRC section 6050I to allow form 8300 
     information to be disclosed for either civil or criminal 
     enforcement or regulatory purposes under the same rules 
     applicable to Currency Transaction Reports. This would permit 
     form 8300 information to be used at various levels of 
     government to identify targets for investigation of possible 
     nontax related crimes.
       30. Simplified Disclosure Procedures. Amend IRC section 
     6103(c) to delete the word ``written'' from the requirement 
     that ``written consent'' from the taxpayer is necessary for 
     the disclosure of taxpayer information to a designated third 
     party.
       31. Study on Interest Netting. Require the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to conduct a study of the manner in which the IRS 
     has implemented Congress's directions regarding the netting 
     of interest on overpayments and underpayments and the policy 
     and adminstrative implications of global interest netting. 
     Before submitting the report of such study, Treasury would 
     be required to hold a public hearing on global interest 
     netting to receive comments from interested parties. The 
     record of these hearings should be included in the report.

                                EFFECT OF PROPOSED HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE EITC REFORMS ON EITC SPENDING BASELINE                                
                                                                [Fiscal years 1995-2002]                                                                
                                                                  [Millions of dollars]                                                                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                Total   
                                                  Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year ------------
                                                      1996         1997         1998         1999         2000         2001         2002      1996-2002 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EITC under present law..........................       23,762       25,870       26,947       28,077       29,338       30,536       31,735      196,265
Budgets effects of proposed reforms.............         -160       -3,417       -3,603       -3,754       -3,940       -4,109       -4,268      -23,251
EITC under proposed reforms.....................       23,602       22,453       23,341       24,323       25,398       26,427       27,467   \1\173,011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Totals do not add due to rounding. Estimates based on data from Joint Committee on Taxation.                                                         

  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] that the State of Connecticut would 
lose $590 million in health care for the elderly and the disabled.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Rush].
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday, I spent a good part of my morning at La 
Rabida Children's Hospital on Chicago's South Side. Similar to many 
other children's hospitals across the Nation, over half the children 
cared for at this fine institution rely on Medicaid.
  I met many of these children on Tuesday. And I want to remind my 
colleges on the other side of the aisle that these children are not 
faceless statistics. They are human beings.
  Like 10-year-old Tyronne, who has been coming to La Rabida for the 
last 9 years of treatment of severe asthma, sickle cell anemia, and 
scoliosis (sko-lee-osis).
  When hospitals like La Rabida care for Tyronne, they do so at 
considerably greater cost than what it takes to care for adults. This 
is because of the wide array of equipment and supplies necessary to 
treat children of all ages and sizes.
  Children's hospitals cannot shift costs to adult patients or, like 
some other hospitals, to commercial payers.
  Mr. Speaker, children's hospitals are able to serve as an integral 
part of this Nation's approach to health care because of Federal 
funding provided to them via the Medicaid Program.
  And the Newt Gingrich Republicans want to ignore this fact by passing 
the responsibility for basic health care services for children to the 
States--a responsibility, that many States cannot or do not want to 
bear.
  The American people must take a long hard look at this so-called 
Gingrich Republican revolution, and see the wreckage left in its wake.
  The Gingrich Republican meat ax will cut deep. It will cut to the 
bone. It will cut to the marrow.
  It will cut the lifeline of many of our Nation's children. It will 
cut their access to basic health care.
  Basic health care for our children is not a privilege, it is a 
fundamental right.
  We must balance the budget, for our children, not on the backs of our 
children.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hastert], the distinguished deputy whip.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  
[[Page H10906]]

  Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the 
gentleman from Illinois; [Mr. Hastert], the chief deputy whip and 
member of the Commerce Committee in a colloquy in order to clarify one 
of the Medicaid provisions in this bill. As an active member of health 
care, I am extremely concerned with the enormous problem of health care 
waste, fraud, and abuse that has riddled the program. The amount of 
such waste, fraud, and abuse perpetrated on taxpayers is staggering and 
must be eradicated.
  It is my understanding that section 2123 would prohibit any State 
from using its Federal MediGrant funds for any purpose other than 
medical assistance for eligible beneficiaries. Is that correct?
  Mr. HASTERT. The gentleman is correct. Section 2123 would prohibit 
the States from using any of the Federal funds provided by this act for 
any purpose other than providing benefits and administering the 
provisions of this act.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. The reason I want to clarify this point is 
because we are all aware of the tremendous amount of waste, fraud, and 
abuse in the current Medicaid system. If the States are successful in 
exposing this waste and fraud, the residents from my State of 
Pennsylvania would like to know that these savings will be used to 
provide needed health care services--and not be diverted for some other 
unrelated purpose.
  Mr. HASTERT. I think the gentleman raises a very important point. The 
public has every right to expect that the Federal funds Congress 
provides for health care services for the poor will in fact be used for 
health care. This bill gives them that assurance.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman, again, for engaging 
in this discussion. I commend the gentleman, Chairman Bliley, and the 
Commerce Committee for acknowledging the serious problem of waste, 
fraud, and abuse and for including these true reforms in the House 
budget reconciliation bill.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Crane], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I came to this body in 1969, and I reflected back when 
we got into this debate about counsel my father gave us as children. He 
passed away this summer at the age of 94, mercifully in his sleep 
without pain and suffering. He told us as kids, he said, ``Boys, you 
have two obligations in life: One is to be givers and not takers; and, 
two, leave it better than you found it.''
  I wrote him a letter after we got into this process of trying to turn 
this country around before he died, and I said, ``Pop, you know, I was 
always able to be a giver, because I controlled that.'' But when I came 
here in 1969, our national debt was in the neighborhood of $385 
billion. I knew that we were facing the prospect of a $5 trillion 
national debt this year. And I reflected back that in 1969 we had a 
budget surplus, a modest $3 billion, but, still, it was a surplus, and 
I thought we were going to engage in elimination of debt at that time. 
And I steadily watched this situation deteriorate.
  Now, does this move fast enough in guaranteeing that we get our books 
in balance for our children and our grandchildren? No, not in my 
estimation. Does this provide us the kind of tax relief that is 
necessary to again revitalize our economy? No, not in my estimation. 
But it is a move in the right direction.
  I think all of us have to share a responsibility, having participated 
in this process for all of these years, in creating a kind of a climate 
that, if it is not addressed in 7 years, is hardly salvaging anything, 
in 7 years to get us back on track.
  This country still represents the world's last, best hope, and it is 
not just for our children and our grandchildren. We are talking 
posterity. And each one of us, when we raise our hand and are sworn in 
in this body, has the obligation to engage in that commitment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of my colleagues, back off, take 
another look at this, because this is in the national interest. This is 
in the interest of mankind.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the budget reconciliation 
bill. While I have made separate remarks on other provisions in this 
package, as chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, I would like to point 
out some of the benefits of the trade provisions included in this bill. 
While these provisions have not been at the center of the debate on the 
reconciliation bill, they nonetheless provide important tools for U.S. 
business and industry in the global marketplace.
  Included within the budget reconciliation package are a number of 
technical corrections to certain trade legislation and other 
miscellaneous trade provisions. Passage of these provisions will 
streamline implementation of the Customs Modernization Act, the 
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, the Andean Trade Preference Act, 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, and 
the North American Free Trade Act. The administration and the business 
community have reviewed each of these provisions and concluded that 
they are noncontroversial.
  The bill also includes an extension of the generalized system of 
preferences program [GSP] which expired on July 31, 1995. For over 20 
years, the President has been authorized to grant tariff preferences to 
developing countries under GSP. Congress extended the program on a 
short-term basis in the 1993 budget reconciliation bill, and then again 
in the Uruguay Round Trade Agreements Act in 1994.

  I support extension of GSP because it is a useful program for 
promoting increased trade with lesser developed countries. USTR can use 
GSP benefits effectively as a trade policy tool to achieve more open 
markets for U.S. exports. Testimony received by the Trade Subcommittee 
of the Committee on Ways and Means confirms that many U.S. businesses 
depend on duty-free treatment under GSP to help reduce costs.
  H.R. 2491 extends authority for GSP for 2.5 years, to terminate on 
December 31, 1997. So that there will be no gap in duty-free treatment 
provided under the GSP Program, the bill would provide for refunds of 
any duty paid, upon request, between July 31, 1995, and the date of 
enactment. The recommendations lower the per capita GNP limit from 
$11,800 to $8,600, a number which would be indexed. When countries 
reach this limit, which is considered high income under the bill, the 
President is required to terminate the country's eligibility for GSP 
benefits.
  H.R. 2491 would lower the competitive need limit in current law from 
$114 million in 1994 to $75 million in 1995 and increase it by $5 
million each year after 1995. The bill would authorize the President to 
designate additional articles from the least developed beneficiary 
countries as eligible for GSP. This new authority does not apply to 
statutorily exempt articles such as textiles and footwear. Finally, the 
bill updates various provisions in order to simplify administration of 
the GSP Program.
  Also, I would like to address the issue of trade adjustment 
assistance. The Committee on Ways and Means carefully examined not only 
trade adjustment assistance for workers and firms, but also adjustment 
assistance programs tailored to the implementation of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement. The committee's recommendations 
harmonize general trade adjustment assistance programs for workers with 
the NAFTA Workers Security Act programs.
  I firmly believe that protectionism destroys jobs, while free trade 
creates jobs by increasing our competitiveness in the global 
marketplace. Nevertheless, we have extended both general and NAFTA-
related trade adjustment assistance to reassure those workers uncertain 
about free trade.
  NAFTA-related trade adjustment assistance for workers will be 
extended through September 30, 1998. General trade adjustment 
assistance will be extended through September 30, 2000. Our 
recommendations require workers to enter approved training programs to 
receive further cash benefits. The Secretary of Labor will be permitted 
to issue waivers of the training requirement only if training is not 
available. Our recommendations also terminate relocations allowances 
under both general TAA and NAFTA-related TAA. This will end a two-
tiered system of haves and have-nots in which workers unemployed due to 
foreign competition are relocated at the expense of the Federal 
Government while those unemployed due to domestic competition are not 
eligible for such assistance.
  The provisions included in the reconciliation bill reauthorize 
general trade adjustment assistance programs for firms through 
September, 2000, at which time these programs will terminate.
  The budget reconciliation bill also dismantles and reorganizes the 
Commerce Department as part of the congressional effort to streamline 
Government, increase its efficiency, 

[[Page H10907]]

and save taxpayer dollars. The legislation retains a number of trade-
related functions that are aimed toward achieving gains for U.S. 
companies and places them within the U.S. Trade Representative. I 
strongly believe that we should preserve powerful tools in this way to 
negotiate initiatives that open foreign markets, encourage growth in 
U.S. exports, and fight foreign unfair trade practices. This effort 
will remove a Cabinet seat and streamline our Government, while at the 
same time preserving the functions that keep our U.S. companies 
competitive.
  I would like to add a word here about consideration of H.R. 2371, the 
Trade Agreement Authority Act, which is not included in the 
reconciliation bill. This legislation would renew trade agreements 
negotiating and implementing authority for the administration--to so-
called fast track authority. We tried very hard to come to an 
understanding with the administration concerning the content and form 
of this special procedure. However, the administration would not agree 
to our language and seems to be prepared to do without this authority.
  I believe that fast track is extremely important if we are to 
continue to implement trade agreements that strengthen our economy, 
create good jobs, and reduce the deficit--including an agreement with 
Chile. However, the administration must recognize that fast track is a 
derogation of the rules of the Congress. As such, congressional 
concerns over the use of fast track for issues that are not directly 
related to trade must be taken into account if these special procedures 
are to be used by the administration in the future.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the two gentlemen from 
Illinois that Illinois will lose $3.5 billion in health care under this 
bill.
  I rise today to opposed this bill. Gosh, even Pat Buchanan says the 
Medicare cuts are to deep. I have heard the GOP being called the get 
old people party. Well, I think now, after this bill, it is going to be 
called the gut our protections party.
  This bill treats Medicare as a piggy bank, to pay for a tax cut for 
the rich, and we did not get 1 day of hearing. This bill shuts down 
State efforts to reform health care, like the Oregon health plan. This 
bill eliminate protections for seniors, for children, for the 
environment, for students, while increasing Pentagon spending by $63 
billion.
  Look, I am a grandmother. I know what makes sense. This does not make 
sense. We should vote no. Let us not gut our protections; let us 
eliminate the GOP budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Shaw], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, for the second time this year, the House will be asked 
to decide between the status quo and making real reforms to the failed 
welfare system.
  Consider the millions of Americans now on welfare. History tells us 
that they came from farms, they came from all over this Nation and 
elsewhere in search of a better life for themselves and their families. 
They settled in the cities, they settled in the coal mines, and they 
were hard working because there was a strong work ethic.
  Then the jobs went away. So when the jobs left the big cities and the 
mines closed, why did not the same people who were the children of 
those who came to the factories, who came to the cities seeking a 
better way of life, why did they not follow? Why did they not go where 
there were better jobs and better opportunities?
  They did not because the Congress of the United States, this 
Government, put into place a welfare system that was corrupt and 
destructive--although thought to be kind and gentle. For generations 
now, we have seen this destructive welfare system stay in place and 
keep people where there are no jobs, a system that destroys self-
esteem, destroys families, destroys the basic moral fiber that has held 
this Nation together. Now is the time to sweep this failed welfare 
system away.
  One of my colleagues has said that, through our welfare reforms, the 
Republicans are coming for the poor and the children. Yes, we are. We 
are coming for them to pull them out of the life of dependency and 
poverty. We are sweeping away a destructive system, and we are putting 
in a system that can work.
  For once, after we pass this bill, let us join together in a new 
meaning of the American spirit and solve the problems of poverty in 
this country, to give people back self-dignity, to discourage 
illegitimacy, to promote the family, and to promote the values that 
have made this country great.
  Support real welfare reform; support the Republican reconciliation 
bill.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Rush].
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, this bill is destructive to the people of 
Florida. I would like to point out to the gentleman from Florida who 
just spoke, that Florida will lose $5.9 billion in health care for the 
elderly and the disabled. Most of this is nursing home care which would 
have to be paid for by their hard-working middle-class families.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
  (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I think all Americans across this Nation 
have called on us in Congress to do what is fair and reasonable to put 
our Nation back on track. We all here share a common goal in balancing 
the budget and eliminating the deficit in order to put our Nation back 
on track. But most Americans learn that you have to eat your vegetables 
first before you get your dessert, and that basically translates to we 
have got to cut our spending, our abuse, and our waste first.
  There are two choices before us today: No. 1, to achieve the goal 
while squeezing senior citizens, farmers, children, and military 
retirees, or, No. 2, achieve the goal by requiring that every group of 
Americans give a little to make a contribution. If we were blindfolded 
as Members of the House of Representatives to all of the partisan 
politics that go on here, and asked to just base our decisions weighted 
on the merits of these two packages, we would not want to cut $100 
billion more out of Medicare than is necessary to balance the budget. 
We would not want to cut $9 billion more out of agriculture than is 
necessary to balance the budget.
  This does not allow veterans the health care choices that they want 
and deserve. It raises taxes on lower income Americans by $23 billion 
by removing the EITC. It cuts $10 billion more out of student loan 
programs than is necessary to balance the program. It does devastating 
things to rural America and the life we know there.
  I just ask my colleagues to take a serious look at what is an honest 
and fair way of balancing this budget for the American people, and that 
is the coalition budget.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
  (Mr. ENSIGN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I was raised by a single mother with no 
child support, and each and every day I saw her get up and go to work, 
a lesson that was taught to me that we have robbed from welfare 
families. This has lead to a generational dependency. There is nothing 
more important in America to learn than the work ethic. If we want 
people to get out of poverty, they have to work.
  Our EITC program will preserve the incentive to go and get a job and 
stay off of welfare. In fact, when the EITC was created in 1975 total 
spending was about $2 billion. Today EITC spending is $20 billion. That 
is a tenfold increase. Under our plan, total EITC spending will 
continue to grow to about $27 billion.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I know some of our public schools are not that 
great these days, but even these schools know that this is addition, 
not subtraction. The American people know that spending more on 
something is not a cut. Only those who employ confusion and scare 
tactics fail to understand this lesson.

[[Page H10908]]

  The last point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that some are calling 
this a tax increase because we happen to not be giving it to people 
with children. The last time I checked, when we give a subsidy to the 
American people and then happen to remove that subsidy, that is not a 
tax increase. That is something we are taking from one taxpayer, giving 
to the other, and then all of a sudden we decide we cannot afford to 
continue to give more and more of their money in taxes to other people 
and redistributing that.
  Those on the left are calling this a tax increase. That is the 
mindset they have. That is how corrupt they are in their thinking.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman who just 
spoke, if we are not raising taxes then we did not need a budget 
waiver.
  Let me quote Jack Kemp. This is a tax increase on low-income workers 
and the poor, which is unconscionable at this time. We eliminate the 
credit for working people who are without children. That is 4.3 million 
people and we increase the phaseout rate.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, as Congress takes up the budget, the 
American public fears the Republicans plan to curb Medicare spending, 
scoffs at their tax cut and flatly does not believe that the plan would 
produce a balanced budget by 2002. That is from the latest New York 
Times CBS News poll that came out yesterday.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not normally pay attention to polls, but this time 
the polls got it right and the American people got it right. The 
Republicans call this the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act, but how 
do we begin balancing the budget by implementing such a large tax cut? 
We estimate that after 7 years the national debt will be at least $268 
billion higher because of this tax cut that provides generous benefits 
for the wealthy. The legislation actually would raise taxes on 
taxpayers earning less than $30,000 a year.
  Mr. Chairman, with all these tax cuts for the rich, and without a 
balanced budget, what are we getting in return? Well, essentially we 
are abolishing Medicare and Medicaid. The Speaker indicated in the 
quote earlier, Speaker Gingrich, that it is not being abolished right 
away but eventually we will get rid of it.
  For Medicaid recipients, for seniors, they are doubling the part B 
premium, increasing their taxes. They are imposing means testing. They 
are squeezing the hospitals so much that providers and other providers 
at hospitals will close or scale back their quality. And also seniors 
are going to lose their choice of doctors.
  Medicaid is actually abolished in this. Instead, we have block grants 
going to the States without any strings attached, really. So there are 
no guarantees that poor people will get health care. Also, we lose the 
nursing home standards. So much money will be squeezed out of this 
system we can be sure those nursing homes are going to decrease in 
terms of the quality of care.
  I went before the Committee on Rules and I asked that there be a 
guarantee for low-income seniors who no longer will have their part B 
premium for the doctors paid under this legislation. The Speaker said 
last week there was going to be that guarantee. There is no guarantee. 
The public is right, the poll is right. Medicare and Medicaid are 
essentially abolished and there will be no balanced budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with many of my colleagues who believe today is 
an historic day. I have served in the House of Representatives for a 
decade, and this is the very first opportunity I will have to vote for 
a balanced budget.
  There is no question that in a bill this size, which makes changes in 
almost every department and agency of government, every Member will 
find provisions with which they disagree. There are some provisions in 
this legislation which I would prefer to see changed, or in some cases 
dropped. But I will support this legislation nevertheless, for three 
reasons:
  First, we must preserve the Medicare Program from bankruptcy, and 
this legislation is a first step in slowing the rate of growth of the 
program. This legislation does not cut Medicare or Medicaid. It does 
slow the rate of growth in these programs. While increasing spending 
from $4,800 this year to $6,700 in 2002, per Medicare beneficiary.
  I believe the changes we are making in these health programs will 
secure health care for the elderly and the poor well into the next 
century. But, in making these changes, we must ensure that people are 
not hurt by the changes--and so we must closely monitor these programs 
over the next several years to be certain that they are working as we 
envision.
  Second, over the past several years, I have worked very hard to 
change our welfare system, and this bill contains the same provisions 
of legislation I authored in 1993. I believe our welfare system has 
failed the very people it was designed to help. Instead of moving 
people out of poverty and into well-paying jobs, it has trapped people 
by fostering illegitimacy, weakening families, and discouraging work. 
If we don't make changes in these programs, by the year 2000, 80 
percent of majority children, and 40 percent of all children, will be 
born out of wedlock. Our concern is the children. The dollars are 
important, without a doubt, but the changes we are making today are for 
the children. We want our children to be born into caring families, to 
have fathers, to enjoy childhood, and to be able to pursue an 
education. This means that above all else, we must curb the 
illegitimacy rate and restore personal responsibility in a caring and 
compassionate way. And I think that is what we are doing in this bill.
  Third, finally, I will support his bill today because we cannot 
afford to fail. This is our first step toward a balanced budget in 
2002. If we don't do it now, we may not have another chance until it is 
too late.
  This process will not get any easier; and may not get done at all if 
we fail the very first year we try--and we cannot afford to fail.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has 11 minutes and 
45 seconds, and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo] has 13\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address one of our 
country's greatest domestic problems, the Nation's illegitimacy rate. 
In 1940, the rate was well under 5 percent. Even 15 years ago, in 1980, 
the illegitimacy rate was only 15 percent. Today, 15 years later, it is 
doubled. It is 30 percent. It is a terrible revolution in birth 
patterns.
   Mr. Chairman, the consequences of this explosion are staggering. 
Everyone, including the President, recognizes that the exploding 
illegitimacy rate is the Nation's most important domestic problem 
because it is the leading cause of school failure, crime, unemployment, 
and welfare dependency.
  Why does illegitimacy lead to these problems? Consider these four 
facts: First, the poverty rate among children with never-married 
mothers is almost eight times that of children in two-parent families. 
Second, the odds of an out-of-wedlock child being on welfare are 10 
times that of a child born into a two-parent family. Third, the odds of 
an out-of-wedlock child having a parent who does not work are six times 
greater than the odds for a child from a two-parent family. In fact, 40 
percent of children born out of wedlock have no working role model 
parent in their lives. And fourth, the rate of school suspension among 
out-of-wedlock children is over three times as high as the rate of 
children from two-parent families.
   Mr. Chairman, everybody realizes that illegitimacy is an outrage but 
only Republicans are proposing solutions that will effectively 
alleviate the problem. We get what we pay for, Mr. Chairman, and the 
Federal Government is now guaranteeing a package of benefits to 
teenaged children who have babies that adds up to $12,000 every year. 
By far, the most important action we can take to reduce illegitimacy 
and to stigmatize this most destructive behavior is to cut the cash 
subsidies.
  The House Republican welfare reform bill is the only bill that deals 
with illegitimacy in this direct fashion. Only 

[[Page H10909]]

Republicans have the courage to take the strong action necessary to 
combat the tragic scourge of illegitimacy. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, 
I do not see any other way to do it.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the 
gentlewoman from Washington who just spoke that in her State her 
constituents will lose $2.36 billion in health care for the elderly and 
the disabled. That is really what I call guardians of the privileged.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, last Thursday night the Speaker stood in 
this well and charged me with misrepresenting the facts, with engaging 
in an absurd misrepresentation and allegation. He said, in fact, there 
is a provision in the Medigrant program that provides that senior 
citizens at the poverty level and below have all of their part B 
premium paid for by the taxpayers 100 percent.
  Now, my hope was that when he spoke last Thursday night, he was going 
to include that in this reconciliation package. They have not. In fact, 
only 44 percent of all those poor seniors' Medicare part B premiums are 
going to be covered. They are not, in fact, protected at all 100 
percent. Just the opposite is the case.
  Mr. Chairman, back in the 1960's our political leaders asked us not 
what our country could do for us, but what we could do for our country. 
Well, in 1995, the Republican motto is ask not what our country can do 
for us, but ask what we can do for the country club. This is a contract 
with the country club. This takes money out of the pockets of senior 
elderly, out of students, piles it up, and then gives tens of billions 
of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthy in our country. The wealthy are 
not asked to sacrifice.
  Mr. Chairman, back in the Civil War, because the wealthy could buy 
their way out of the war, they said it was a rich man's war but a poor 
man's fight. Well, here in this reconciliation battle in 1995, it is a 
rich man's war but it is a poor man's fight. The rich man get 
tremendous, tens of thousands of dollars in tax breaks, and the poor 
seniors have their Medicare premiums go up. The poor students and 
working class families have their student loan payments go up, and yet 
the Republicans stand here and tell us that they care about the working 
people in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a wrong vote for America, just plain wrong. 
Vote no on the Republican reconciliation bill.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Houghton].
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] 
was up here a little earlier talking about suggestions that his father 
had made to him in his early years, one was to give and not take, and 
the other was to leave the world better than when he found it. He might 
have added another thing. Do not spend it unless we have it.
  This bill gives us an opportunity for the first time I have seen 
since I have been down here to spend within our means. President Reagan 
used to talk about morning in America. I really feel we can extend this 
to this is morning in America for our children. No party has a lock on 
caring. No party is trying to hurt our children or our mothers or our 
nursing homes or our seniors. It is all our jobs to protect them.
  Mr. Chairman, most Republicans and Democrats, I would like to feel, 
with the possible exception of some of the fire brands, are going about 
the task of doing this thing quietly and carefully.
  Let me give Members an example. There is a thing that the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Rangel] has been working on with me called the work 
opportunity tax credit. People come off welfare, they need jobs, this 
is a way to create incentives for those people who are willing to offer 
them jobs. It is a wonderful program. It hires those people who have 
not had jobs and also it helps retain them. Is it going to solve all 
the problems in welfare? Certainly not. But it will help.
  This is not a perfect bill, Mr. Chairman. I have never seen any bill 
which is perfect down here, but it is a good bill and I support it.
  Mr. Chairman, on another issue, I hope this legislation will foster 
the development of provider networks, including specialty networks. 
They would assure seniors that they will have choices relating to 
behavioral, rehabilitation and any other specialty care services.
  The private sector has engaged in direct contracting with specialty 
networks in order to lower costs and improve access to quality 
treatment as well as expand choice for consumers. The Medicare program 
should also explore the utilization of these specialty networks for the 
same reasons.
  I believe the Health Care Financing Administration has adequate 
demonstration authority under current law to test the feasibility and 
desirability of permitting specialty provider sponsored networks to 
serve the new Medicare market. A demonstration project would serve to 
determine whether seniors have access to the most cost effective 
quality treatments for specialized services.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, to my good friend from New York, Mr. 
Houghton, I want to point out that when the gentleman puts his card in 
the machine and casts his vote for this reconciliation bill today that 
people in his State of New York who are elderly and disabled will lose 
$11.2 billion, and this money will have to be made up for in nursing 
home care and hospital care by their hard-working middle class 
families.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, in one word, in one word, this Republican 
reconciliation bill can be described as a fraud. Nothing more, nothing 
less, a fraud. What kind of sense does it make to ask senior citizens 
to pay $312 a year more for a weekend Medicare Program while the 
Republicans give a $14,000-a-year tax break to people making $300,000 a 
year?

                              {time}  1545

  Why should we ask low-income workers to pay more in taxes, while we 
cut and do away with taxes for some of the largest and most profitable 
corporations in America?
  Why do we throw 20,000 Vermonters off of Medicaid, low-income, 
disabled people, children, senior citizens off of Medicaid, while we 
retain and not cut $800 billion in corporate welfare for the privileged 
and the wealthy?
  Mr. Chairman, this Republican proposal is a fraud and it must be 
returned to sender. Let us defeat it today.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of allegations today 
here. I have heard my socialist friend from Vermont talk about cuts for 
people on Medicare. The fact is in our reconciliation bill we raise, 
over the 7 years, people's Medicare from $4,800 to $6,700, a 40-percent 
increase.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want to talk about cuts, I would like to take a 
look at this placard that we have here. We want to talk about what a 
real cut is. In the Clinton 1993 health care bill, in section 9101 of 
the Clinton bill it said: The Secretary shall provide each year for 
payment to regional alliances for the amount equal to the Federal 
medical assistance a percentage of 95 percent. That is a cut. The 5-
percent decrease is a real cut. My colleagues can see here on the math, 
we go down 5 percent.
  In the Republican majority 1995 Medicaid Program, there is an 
increase. The Medicaid growth increase for fiscal year 1996 is 7.2 
percent and it grows from there. The conference agreement of the budget 
resolution grows Medicaid 7.2 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, a cut is below the line. A cut is what we had in the 
Clinton health care bill when we cut Medicaid and only gave it to 
people at 95 percent; a 5-percent cut. Increase is when the line goes 
above and we give the American taxpayers and people on Medicaid, the 
American poor that need it, a 7.2-percent increase.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that Medicare, Medicaid, 
that 

[[Page H10910]]

is what this is about. It is tax breaks for the rich versus Medicare 
and Medicaid.
  The Speaker, in his own words, has said what he believes we ought to 
do with Medicare, and that is that we do not get rid of it now in round 
one because we do not think it is politically smart, but we do believe 
that it is going to wither on the vine.
  That is the true, the true statement about the Speaker and how he 
feels about the Medicare Program and its future.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].
  (Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for 
the Seven Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995.
  I do so with concern over several of the bill's provisions, 
particularly those relating to the Federal Helium Program, the Freedom 
to Farm Act, and certification requirements for weather radar service 
office. But these concerns are outweighed by the historical 
significance of the bill, and the singular importance of its No. 1 
goal--mainly, to balance the budget in 7 years.
  It has been 27 years since the Federal Government passed a balanced 
budget. In that time, a burden of debt has been placed on American 
families that casts a long shadow over current and future generations. 
A child born today will pay an average of $187,000 in lifetime taxes 
just to pay off interest on the national debt. It is a moral imperative 
that we get this weight off this shoulders. It is what we were elected 
to do.
  But just as important as removing this burden for those coming into 
the world is restoring economic opportunity and security for those 
already here.
  The single most imposing obstacle to economic advancement in our 
Nation today is the Federal Government. It discourages savings and 
security by overtaxing middle-income families. It stifles growth and 
investment by overregulating small businesses. And, for the less 
fortunate, it smothers hope and independence by promoting welfare over 
work. What Ronald Reagan said more than 15 years ago still holds true: 
In our country today, government is not the solution to our problem--
government is the problem.
  This legislation addresses this problem in many important ways. Among 
the bill's many worthwhile provisions, I am especially pleased with 
those which reform the welfare system in a way that emphasizes work and 
family. I am also happy that this bill takes a much-needed first step 
toward reducing the outrageous pensions Members of Congress receive. 
Finally, I am pleased with the provision that replaces the current 
Medicaid system with MediGrants, which will not only benefit taxpayers 
by controlling runaway spending, but will also benefit States by giving 
them the freedom to develop health care delivery systems that suit 
their needs the best.
  As I indicated, I do have concerns about the provisions relating to 
three specific areas. The Federal Helium Program has become an easy 
issue to demagogue, but the provisions included in this legislation do 
not provide the guarantee of a reliable, affordable supply of helium 
which this country must have. In addition, I am concerned that the 
provisions relating to the Freedom to Farm Act are not in the best 
interests of the country. However, my reservations in this regard are 
overcome by the certainly that the problems with these provisions will 
addressed in conference. I am also concerned with possible lapses in 
public safety caused by repealing the requirement that no weather 
service offices be shut down unless there is proven to be no 
degradation of radar coverage. This is critical to my region of the 
country, where radar coverage is not up to par. We should use House-
approved language providing for a streamlined procedure which reduces 
unnecessary spending and emphasizes quality of service in problem 
areas.
  I would also like to briefly touch on why I voted against the 
alternative measure introduced by a coalition of Members from the other 
side of the aisle. The coalition should be commended for offering a 
substantive alternative that balances the budget in 7 years. Both the 
leadership of their own party and their President have failed to do 
either of these things. However, the coalition proposal falls short in 
several critical areas. For one thing, it would provide for an 
adjustment in the consumer price index, which could lead to a reduction 
in Social Security benefits. Second, the coalition plan fails to 
provide tax relief for the middle class, thereby breaking the promise 
we made to American taxpayers.
  I am pleased that the majority reconciliation bill fulfills this 
important promise by providing tax relief to families and incentives 
for job creation, both of which are absolutely essential and long 
overdue. These provisions will allow taxpayers to keep a portion of the 
money taken in the tax increase passed in August 1993, and correct an 
ill-conceived policy that even the President admits was a mistake. I am 
also happy that this legislation includes the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, 
which will provide taxpayers with protections from a wide range of 
Government abuses.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is truly historic. While is not perfect, it 
represents a giant leap toward keeping the promise we made to the 
American people to balance the budget and get our Nation heading in the 
right direction.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich] a second. The stock market has already voted on the 
gentleman's plan today. It is down 50 points. I would say to the 
gentleman, ``Your crown jewel has turned to paste.''
  The crown jewel, the $500 tax cut for every child that has been so 
freely advertised by my Republican friends, is now down to $365 per 
child, and the bill has not even gotten to second reading here on the 
floor. Lord knows what it will be when it gets to third reading or gets 
back from the Senate.
  But, Mr. Chairman, that is not all of it. That $365 per child, that 
was $500 for every child, does not cover 33 percent of all the children 
who are in families who would qualify for this. Their families do not 
qualify for 1 red cent.
  So, the $500 per child tax cut is down to $365 and 33 percent of the 
families get absolutely nothing out of this. It all goes to the rich. 
Then they tax, wrack, tear, root $270 billion out of the sick and the 
old. They tear, root, and rip $450 billion, almost a half a trillion 
dollars, out of children, out of sick people, out of nursing home care 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a travesty on the American public. Nobody is 
arguing about balancing the budget. The argument is how we balance the 
budget. Who has to carry the burden? The Republican way, the ``Get Old 
People'' way, the GOP way, is to give to the rich a $245 billion tax 
cut, then take all of that money and the rest of the balancing of the 
budget money out of the children, the sick, the poor, and the aged.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Bunn].
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, the Oregon Health Plan is an 
innovative, cost-effective plan. We spend $3,800 per person in Oregon, 
down over 10 percent from the national average.
  Hospital charity care had gone down 30 percent since the 
implementation of the plan. Welfare rolls have decreased 8 percent and 
we have covered an additional 130,000 people. The governor said we 
needed $1,042,000,000; the Speaker has provided $1,025,000,000 in this 
plan.
  Mr. Chairman, we will have an Oregon Health Plan next year. We will 
work with the leadership to provide it beyond that.
  Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the leadership's support for the 
Oregon Health Plan.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to 
the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn] who just spoke over on the GOP 
side that out of this bill, the State of Oregon will lose $1.8 billion 
in health care for the elderly and the disabled.
  Mr. Chairman, even the doctors say that, ``People will be sicker and 
people will die as a result of this toxic mix of funding cuts and 
elimination of standards.'' We need to keep that in mind.
  Mr. Chairman, the GOP guardians of the privileged ought to look at 
what the doctors are saying. ``People will be sicker and people will 
die as a result of this toxic mix of funding and standard cuts.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo] has 6 
minutes 10 seconds remaining and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
has 5 minutes 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer], the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, as I listened to this debate, I was struck 
by the growing philosophical differences 

[[Page H10911]]

between the two parties. It is unfortunate, because we should all be 
Americans instead of Republicans and Democrats.
  But there is a difference between us. As we Republicans move forward 
to balance the budget and reduce the tax burden on the American people, 
we have made our governing philosophy very clear. We believe that the 
strength of this Nation lies not with the Government, but with each of 
us individually in our communities, in our churches, in our homes. Left 
to their own, without Government interference, redtape, or excessive 
taxation, there is no problem the American people cannot solve.
  But Mr. Chairman, the great social experiment of the last 30 years 
has led to an unparalleled expansion of the Federal Government. Sadly, 
this has failed to solve our Nation's most difficult problems. Nowhere 
is that more the case than in our miserable and unfortunate welfare 
system where, in the last 30 years, we have spent over $5 trillion in 
the war on poverty, only to lose the war.
  Mr. Chairman, the Government that the Democrats brought, along with 
the bankruptcy at whose brink they have left us, has overextended its 
reach and it has made promises to the people that no government can 
fulfill.
  Government cannot take the tax dollars that are earned by one 
citizen, hand them over to another, and then believe that they have 
improved the lot of either citizen, yet for 30 years, Government tried 
that. It is called tax and spend.
  Mr. Chairman, the time has come to admit that tax and spend has 
failed. It is time to reduce the size of Government and to give the tax 
dollars back to the people who earn them. I say to my colleagues across 
the aisle, ``It ain't your money. It belongs to the people who have 
earned it.''
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear from this debate that the Democrat Caucus 
is the liberal caucus. The overwhelming majority of the Democrat Party, 
a party that I once belonged to myself, insists that the Government in 
Washington, DC remains the only solution and represents the best hope 
of how to solve people's problems, if only we would just spend more 
money.
  Those on the other side argue over and over again that we could make 
our Nation's problems go away. If only we, the Government, had a few 
more of the people's tax dollars, we could solve our problems, so say 
the Democrats.

  Mr. Chairman, while the world has changed, the Democrats in 
Washington have not. They still cling to the notion that an ever-
expanding Federal Government, one that requires more taxes from its 
citizens, is the best hope that we have to solve our problems. As we 
downsize Government to a balanced budget, they do not want to give any 
dividend to the hard-working taxpayers of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, we fell differently. While the hearts of the Democrats 
may sound as if they are in the right place, their fingers are in the 
wrong place. Their fingers remain stuck deep in the wallets of middle-
income Americans trying to take from one citizen in order to give to 
another.
  The Democrats in Congress cling to the notion that big Government, is 
best; that more power in Washington is wise; and that more spending 
leads to more solutions.
  To my colleagues across the aisle, I have a simple message: Let it 
go. Let it go. Let it go.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my Democrat colleagues, We tried their way for 
30 years. We raised taxes and we increased spending. Now it is our 
turn. We want to cut taxes, yes. Not for rich Americans; for middle-
income Americans. That is what our tax bill does.
  We want to cut spending and we want to balance the budget. That is 
what this bill does and that is why I am voting for it and why it is 
historic in turning this country around and giving it back to the 
people.
  Ms. ESCHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that when the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] casts his vote, the elderly and 
disabled in his State will lose $6.5 billion in health care. Most of 
this is in nursing home care for seniors, which will have to be paid 
for by the hard-working middle-class families.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Deutsch].

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, there is an old expression: If it looks 
like a duck and it sounds like a duck and it quacks like a duck and it 
walks like a duck and it smells like a duck, there is probably a pretty 
good darn chance it is a duck.
  Let me tell my colleagues about the Republicans and Medicare. Bob 
Dole: ``I was there fighting the fight, voting against Medicare, one 
out of twelve, because we knew it would not work in 1965,'' a couple of 
days ago.
  Speaker Gingrich on Medicare: ``We do not get rid of it in round one, 
because we don't think that that is politically smart and we don't 
think that is the right way to go through a transition period. But we 
believe it is going to wither on the vine because we think people are 
voluntarily going to leave it,'' just yesterday.
  There are three big lies about the Medicare plan. The first one is 
that it is such a terrible thing that there is a 7-year actuarial life. 
In the 30 years of the Medicare System, 12 of those 30 years, there was 
a shorter actuarial life, and we did something about it. We made tough 
choices, and we did something about it. We changed it, not 
unprecedented health insurance.
  The second big lie is $270 billion in cuts. The actuaries, 
nonpolitical people, not numbers out of the ballpark. It has nothing to 
do with saving Medicare. The money is not going into the trust fund. It 
is a flat-out lie. The $270 billion in Medicare is not going to save 
Medicare. It is just a flat-out lie. It has nothing to do with the 
problems with the trust fund.
  The third problem and the third lie is the issue of choice. My 
colleagues continue to say that there is going to be choice. It is a 
false choice, because essentially the Speaker is right; no one will be 
able to stay in Medicare except for the richest of the rich, because 
people will be forced out of Medicare, forced into substandard HMO's. 
This plan is wrong, wrong, wrong. I urge a no vote.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this Gingrich 
budget. There are many reasons to oppose it, but I want to highlight 
two: how it treats our Nation's elderly and our Nation's children. On 
both counts, this legislation fails miserably to live up to our 
Nation's historic commitment to those in the autumn of their lives and 
those in the spring of their lives.
  There is nothing in this bill to prevent nursing homes from using 
physical restraints on seniors without a doctor's order, nothing to 
prevent nursing homes from evicting the elderly for financial reasons, 
nothing to prevent abuses which existed in many States prior to 
critical Federal intervention.
  As a member of the Committee on Commerce, I was proud to offer an 
amendment which would have continued the guarantee of health coverage 
for our children. That failed. As a result of these Medicaid cuts and 
other Gingrich proposals, our children will receive less health care, 
less preschool education, and less money to live on.
  This Gingrich budget fails the test of decency for our children, for 
our elderly, and it deserves to be defeated. It does not honor our 
fathers and our mothers, and it totally dishonors our Nation's 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois 
[Mrs. Collins].
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I hope that my friends and my 
colleagues on the other side realize what everybody is saying about 
this 

[[Page H10912]]

thing that is absolutely true. That is that, because Federal law 
forbids denying emergency care to uninsured, hospitals could avoid 
financial harm only by closing emergency rooms and trauma centers, and 
the general public is going to be hurt.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
  (Mr. KLINK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I thought I was misreading my calendar. I 
thought that it was a week after Halloween, not the week before 
Halloween, because, you see, this week the masks come off. Last week we 
heard the Speaker give an impassioned speech here in this very well in 
which he gave us, first of all, his entire family tree and told us how 
important Medicare was to all of these people and how he was going to 
make sure that Medicare was there for them. Then this week, when 
speaking to a group of very important people in the insurance industry, 
Blue Cross and Blue Shield, he said: ``We don't get rid of it in round 
one because we do not think that politically it is smart. We don't 
think that is the right way to go through a transition period, but we 
believe it is going to wither and die on the vine.''
  I ask, when was the Speaker being truthful? Was he being truthful to 
us a week ago in this very well when he talked to us about the fact 
this was an important program that he was trying to save, or in fact 
was he being truthful to these people that he was talking to from the 
insurance industry?
  For a few Americans this bill is really going to be like the Good 
Ship Lollipop. It is going to shower sugarplums and candy canes in the 
form of tax breaks for the very wealthy. But for most of middle-class 
America, this bill that we are debating here on the floor of the House 
today is indeed the S.S. Titanic. It simply will not float.
  This bill is going to shred a health care system that has protected 
senior citizens for 30 years. It cuts Medicare by $270 billion. It cuts 
Medicaid by 180 billion. To those who think we have a good health 
delivery system, 60 percent of the money that goes into training 
doctors and into taking care of medical needs of our country come from 
these programs. Vote against this bill. It is horrendous.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] is recognized 
for 35 seconds.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have listened all during this debate to 
my Republican colleagues say that Medicare does not work. I do not like 
to hear that, and I do not think the senior citizens like to hear it, 
because Medicare has worked. Medicare has prolonged the lives of senior 
citizens. Medicare has given a better standard of living to the 
American people. Medicare has prevented young people from having to 
choose between college for their kids and health care for their 
parents. Medicare has seen to it that, instead of less than 50 percent 
of the senior citizens having health care, that now almost 100 percent 
do. Americans are covered by health care amongst the senior citizens.
  Americans are urged by the New York Times, and they say, reject the 
big Medicare cuts. The big Medicare cuts we are talking about here are 
nothing more or less than something that is going to hurt the senior 
citizens, and it is being done by the Republicans to ensure that they 
can give a tax cut to the very rich.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  (Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this reconciliation 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2517, the Seven Year Balanced 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995. The current budgetary situation 
facing this Nation is staggering. Years of deficit spending have pushed 
our national debt to nearly $5 trillion. For a child born today, the 
share of this debt totals $19,000. The landmark measure before us 
today, which would set a glidepath to achieve a balanced Federal budget 
by the year 2002, will provide our children with a future that promises 
economic opportunity and prosperity, rather than a future of paying for 
our irresponsible fiscal behavior.
  Earlier this year, Congress adopted the congressional budget 
resolution, a nonbinding blueprint of Federal spending over the next 7 
years. This resolution recommended reducing the overall growth of 
Federal spending to 3 percent annually, instead of the current 5 
percent annual growth. H.R. 2517 fulfills the promise of the budget 
resolution and makes the necessary changes in our revenue and spending 
laws to achieve a balanced budget for the first time in a generation.
  H.R. 2517 would balance the Federal budget by restraining spending 
and shrinking the size of Government. The plan encompasses innovative 
reforms in all areas of Federal spending, including: reforming the 
welfare system to emphasize work, families, and responsibility; 
restructuring Medicare to reign in out-of-control health care 
expenditures, and simultaneously giving seniors more choice in health 
care services; converting the Medicaid Program into ``Medigrants,'' 
block grants to the States to allow more flexibility in providing 
health care to the disadvantaged elderly and disabled; closing billions 
of dollars in corporate tax loopholes; scaling back agriculture 
subsidies; abolishing the Department of Commerce; repealing burdensome 
and costly Federal statutes, such as the Service Contract Act; 
privatizing portions of the Federal bureaucracy, such as the U.S. 
Enrichment Corporation; and, terminating out-dated Federal programs, 
such as the Federal Helium Program.
  Opponents of this legislation argue that Republicans are recklessly 
cutting Federal spending. A closer look at the plan, however, reveals 
that there are no cuts in spending. To illustrate, during the last 7 
years, from 1989 to 1995, Federal spending totaled $9.5 trillion; under 
the Republican plan, during the next 7 years Federal spending will 
total $12.1 trillion. The growth in the major Federal programs over the 
next 7 years is indisputable: Medicare spending will increase by $672 
billion; Medicaid spending will increase by $330 billion; and, welfare 
spending will increase by $346 billion. The bottom line is clear: under 
the Republican plan, overall Federal spending will increase by $2.6 
trillion during the 1995-2002 period. Only in Washington can these 
increases in spending be considered cuts. On the same note, I would 
also point out that even with the enactment of $245 billion in tax 
relief in this legislation, overall Federal revenues will still 
increase by $3.3 trillion during the same period.

  H.R. 2517 is not a perfect bill. There is one provision in particular 
about which I would like to comment. Section 13607 of the legislation 
effects a seismic change in pension law by permitting employers to 
withdraw for any purpose so-called excess assets from ongoing private 
pension plans of the defined benefit variety. This is said to raise 
about $9.5 billion in revenue from the $27 billion in withdrawals 
expected to be made by employers over the 5-year window opened up under 
the bill. ``Excess assets'' means assets above a threshold defined as 
the larger of 125 percent of current liability or the plan's full 
funding limit--equal to the lesser of the plan's accrued actuarial 
liability or 150 percent of current liability.
  In short, this means that employers can withdraw plan assets above a 
minimum asset threshold which can, in effect, vary from 125 to 150 
percent of current liability depending on plan structure.
  The potential risks related to these provisions are not small. My 
first concern is that so-called excess assets can be withdrawn from a 
pension trust even by employers in bankruptcy who can then terminate 
the plan with no guarantee the remaining assets will be sufficient to 
pay for all plan benefits. This is because the defined threshold beyond 
which assets may be withdrawn can be less than the threshold of assets 
required in the event of the actual plan termination by a financially 
distressed employer.
  I believe the American Academy of Actuaries is correct in saying that 
the minimum threshold for asset reversions should be based on plan 
termination liability, rather than current liability. I generally 
concur with the views expressed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation [PBGC], that a plan whose current liability is 125 percent 
funded may in fact be less than 100 percent for purposes of its 
liability at plan termination. This discrepancy is the result of 
differences in the actuarial assumptions used for interest, mortality, 
and expected retirement age. While the PBGC calculations may not be 
perfect, the discrepancy between current and termination liability is 
real, and the danger to employees, pensioners and the taxpayer in the 
case of the termination of an underfunded plan by an insolvent employer 
is real.
  The overall funding of defined benefit pension plans has declined 
precipitously since 1987 when, in order to increase revenues, Congress 
placed an artificial full funding limit, that is, a maximum limit, on 
the level of tax-deductible employer contributions. As a result, 

[[Page H10913]]

many large employer plan sponsors have been forced to take contribution 
holidays, and thus have been prevented from funding toward projected 
actuarial liabilities--a more accurate measure of long-term pension 
plan costs than current liability. I believe it is time to reconsider 
the suitability of this artificial maximum contribution limit and 
ensure a more sound funding target--it is not the time to adopt a 
definition of excess assets based on the inadequate standard of current 
liabilities.
  It may, indeed, be time to reconsider the suitability of this 
artificial maximum contribution limit and ensure a more sound funding 
target of at least ``plan termination liability'' which is the level of 
plan assets needed to pay all benefits upon the actual termination of a 
plan. Clearly, it could not have been intended that a large employer in 
or facing bankruptcy be enabled to extract assets from a pension plan 
and to then terminate the employer's plan or plans, leaving other 
employers who pay PBGC premiums or taxpayers to pay for the pensions of 
the employer's underfunded plan or plans. This can be avoided by 
listening to the voice of pension experts in the American Academy of 
Actuaries who suggest the withdrawal threshold be based on at least 
termination liability.
  It also may well be that a more refined pension policy allowing for 
the reversion of pension assets that are truly excess could help 
restore employer interest in defined benefit plans and, thus, expand 
pension coverage. However, the provision should be crafted carefully, 
should amount to more than a temporary revenue raising measure, and 
should take into consideration the protections of that title I of 
Employer Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA] presently provides to 
plan participants and retirees. Without a permanent provision employers 
will have no incentive to create or remain in defined benefit plans--
and that purported benefit of section 13607 will never be realized. 
Care must also be taken to recognize the complexity of individual 
plans, including the fact that so-called excess assets can arise from 
contributions made by employees as well as those made by employers.
  Moreover, the reversion provisions of section 13607 may not even 
generate the revenue projected. Corporations with a tax loss carry-
forward will look to acquire companies with excess assets, so that they 
can take a reversion tax free. Alternatively, companies may wait to 
take reversions until they have a tax-loss year. Thus, we may be 
encouraging the removal of an estimated $27 billion of excess assets 
without gaining the sought-after revenue.
  The success of ERISA private pension plans in America has been 
immense--$3.5 trillion of assets invested in America. In addition, 
unlike Social Security and many public pension plans, the assets are 
real. So far, ERISA's ``prudent man rule'' has protected the sanctity 
of those trust funds. We have been successful in the House in fighting 
off the administration's efforts to hawk economically targeted 
investments [ETI's] to private pension plan fiduciaries. That effort 
could rightly be described as an attempt by the administration to force 
private pension assets to be used for socially correct investments. We 
want to allow employers the right to take true excess funds from their 
pension trusts, but the words ``excess funds'' are, at best, actuarial 
indefinite and vague. It is therefore essential that the formula for 
allowing employers to remove funds from pension trusts be 
unquestionably based on the most conservative of actuarial principles. 
I believe that this is the essence of what Republicans stand for. I 
fear, however, that section 13607 is not fully consistent with these 
principles.
  Finally, I remain concerned that the reversion provisions in section 
13607 do not include the ERISA amendments necessary to enable pension 
plan asset reversions to be legally consummated.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, although I have these concerns about the 
pension reversion provisions, this reconciliation bill has many more 
positives than negatives. And there still is opportunity--in 
conference--for salutary changes. What is most important is that the 
constant failure of Congress to reach a balanced budget is leading us 
to an unforgivable consequence: passing on trillions of dollars in 
Federal debt to future generations of Americans. The best time to begin 
putting matters in order is today; when it comes to making tough 
decisions to rein in total Federal spending, tomorrow never comes.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray] is 
recognized for 40 seconds.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I am a freshman. I have not been here 
before, but I do recognize the fact that the citizens of the United 
States want to get their fair share for their dollar spent.
  The colleagues to my left keep pointing out about Medicare. My 
seniors are saying, why pay more than twice the rate of inflation? Any 
good consumer would not only encourage that, they would demand that. 
That is all we are saying.
  Let me leave you with this: I keep hearing my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, who controlled this body for 40 years, saying that 
they support a balanced budget. As a freshman who has come here this 
year, my question to them is, why again and again ever since the 1960's 
have they not been able to present that balanced budget to the people?
  So all I ask them to do is quit finding excuses not to vote for a 
balanced budget. The American people want it. They are tired of the 
excuses from Washington, and they want us to prove that we can balance 
the budget just like they do every day of their lives.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, all time for general 
debate, has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of H.R. 2517, as modified by the amendments 
printed in House Report 104-292, is adopted and the bill, as amended, 
is considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment 
and is considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
is as follows: