[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 169 (Monday, October 30, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11409-H11421]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 2491, SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET 
                       RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House rule XX, and at the 
direction of the Committee on the Budget, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Kasich moves to take from the Speaker's table 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 a Senate amendment thereto, disagree 
     to the Senate amendment and request a conference with the 
     Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is 
recognized for 1 hour on his motion.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and I 
ask unanimous consent that the gentleman have the right to yield blocks 
of time for purposes of debate.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and 
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] to engage in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman if am I correct that will be five 
Republican and three Democratic conferees for all titles of the bill 
under current plans?
  Mr. KASICH. The answer is yes.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, in the case of other committees, in most 
cases, except for those issues relating to tax, trade, and Medicare and 
Medicaid, there will only be two majority and one minority conferee?
  Mr. KASICH. In most cases that would be correct.
  Mr. SABO. So, the agreement in those conferences would really be 
governed by the general conferees, the five Republicans and three 
Democrats, and then the two from that particular committee of the 
majority and one for the minority?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SABO. So that in an area like agriculture, where we are doing a 
major rewrite of agriculture policy, there would be 11 conferees; and 3 
of them, 2 majority and 1 minority, from the Committee on Agriculture?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, in the case of agriculture, the Republicans 
would have three, the Democratic Party would have two.
  Mr. SABO. Then that's changed recently?
  Mr. KASICH. Correct.
  Mr. SABO. But, Mr. Speaker, I would still be eight general conferees 
and only five from the Committee on Agriculture?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SABO. So, the general conferees, if they agreed, would outvote 
the Committee on Agriculture members 8 to 5?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I would not anticipate that happening, but 
theoretically that would be possible.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, as I think everyone agrees, this is a major 
rewrite of agriculture policy in this country then being done by five 
members from that committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], the ranking member on the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I come to protest the composition of 
the conference and to object to going to conference.
  Mr. Speaker, the word I had, up until the distinguished gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] mentioned, was that we would have one conferee 
from the minority from the Committee on Agriculture. I am now informed 
that it would be two. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, there was a book 
written once by a great American called ``The Arrogance of Power.'' We 
are experiencing that at this precise moment.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Agriculture debated and voted three 
times. None of the measures prevailed, therefore, the Committee on 
Agriculture did not submit a measure by a majority vote to the 
conference committee. But there is something called the Freedom to Farm 
Act that was then placed by either the Committee on the Budget or the 
Committee on Rules in the legislation without any contribution, debate, 
or participation of the Committee on Agriculture. It was done by the 
leadership; by the leadership of the Committee on the Budget and by the 
leadership of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I protest that move vehemently. I think it is an insult 
to American agriculture. I think it is an insult to the American 
consumers who are the ultimate recipients of the legislation enacted 
heretofore by the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to know that this is not only 
demeaning but insulting, that a revamping of the farm legislation is 
being done with only two members of the minority in the Committee on 
Agriculture and that they would be outvoted, nonetheless, by non-
Committee on Agriculture general members of the conference.
  Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the Department of Agriculture 
established by President Lincoln, this has not happened. In our 
bipartisan handling of legislation, my experience here has always been 
that we come up with a bipartisan approach, consensus approach to the 
legislation by which agriculture, to some extent rural America, and the 
consumers would be serving under or receive the benefit thereof.
  Mr. speaker, I protest. I know that I have heard it for so many years 
from our colleagues on the other side that we do not have the votes, so 
all we can do is expose, Mr. Speaker, the damage that has been done 
that can be done, that damage that it will do to the legislative 
system. I think that it basically begins the erosion of this great 
institution called the House of Representatives, which we once called, 
and still call, the people's House.
  Mr. Speaker, no longer will it be the people's House, but rather it 
will be by ad hoc committees at the whim of whoever is in the 
leadership. And if this is the way that we will act heretofore, 

[[Page H 11410]]
then the people have lost. The people have lost their ability to 
participate. The people have lost their ability to provide counsel to 
the members of the different committees. It is the people's loss, it 
will be if we go to conference with these numbers and this 
distribution. It will be the people's loss and the people are the ones 
that hopefully will rebel at the appropriate time.
  But as of now, the dismantling of the people's House, this great 
institution called the House of Representatives, that is being 
nullified by what we do this evening. And I feel sad, really, and 
aggrieved that this would happen with such little ability to protest, 
to challenge, and the disruption that will happen in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the ability only to address this House for 5 
minutes. This is not right. This is not fair. This is an arrogant abuse 
of power, and this is an insult to the history of this House and to the 
American people.

  I have had my say, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that the people out there 
realize, all of those involved in agriculture, all of those involved in 
rural America, all of those that are looking forward to bettering their 
lives, to bettering the environment, to bringing water into the 
countryside, to continue bringing electricity, to continue bringing 
telephone, to continue providing these things that enhance the quality 
of life.
  The American people are the best-fed people in the world for the 
least amount of disposable income of any major industrialized nation in 
the world. That has been done because of the system of this House, the 
system of the committee, and we have done and followed through with 
precedent that has been laid heretofore.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness in my heart that I make this 
statement that the people of the United States of America lose tonight. 
Especially those in agriculture and rural America lose tonight, because 
they will not have an opportunity to address the issues fairly, 
equitably.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the numbers, but the numbers are not what 
we are challenging per se; that there is a majority and that there is a 
minority. But the ability to represent the people has been denied, has 
been denied, and the people lose. The people will be the losers 
tonight. It is so said--the arrogance of power prevails and the people 
lose.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] want 
to yield to anyone?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], that we are kind of reserving our time. Unless we 
hear something that we think we need to really make a point on, we are 
going to reserve our time and hold our fire until the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he is planning on 
a 30-minute speech.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, right now we are not, but as the gentleman 
knows, these things are always subject to dramatic change. But at this 
point we are going to reserve our time.
  Mr. SABO. Unless the gentleman gets motivated?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, we are very motivated; we are waiting for 
some good points to be made by the other side. No, I am just kidding.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. de la Garza].
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, now I am personally aggrieved that I 
would not even move the gentleman's inner feelings of his heart when he 
is preparing, here at Halloween, to dismantle American agriculture, to 
cut its throat, to bleed it to the last drop of blood, and it had no 
impact.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what I call the arrogance of power. The 
gentleman has just demonstrated that very well.
  Mr. Speaker, very respectively and kindly and with the admiration and 
respect that I have for the gentleman, I am personally aggrieved that I 
would not move the gentleman at this point.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman we are confident at the end 
of the day we are going to, of course, have a plan that will emerge 
from the conference committee that will be a plan that people across 
the country will continue to support, and we feel we are on the right 
track.
  Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, I know, feels 
strongly about this area. He has been chairman of the committee that 
has been under the control of the Democratic Party for 40 straight 
years. I appreciate the points that the gentleman has made, but we 
really believe at the end of the day the farmers of this country will 
be happy with what we have.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the agriculture 
component of the conference committee as well, and I suggest straight 
out that a conference committee of five is an insult to rural America.
  Mr. Speaker, the component of the Budget Reconciliation Act relating 
to agriculture has been handled in a way unlike any other for 
development of a farm bill in the history of farm bills in this 
country.
  I represent more production agriculture than any other Member of this 
House. I also come to this issue as a member of the Committee on 
Agriculture and as a member of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. 
Speaker, let me briefly recap the very curious turn of events that has 
followed the development of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, in August, not until August but in early August the 
chairman dropped a bill called the Freedom to Farm Act. We were told 
that was going to be the Budget component of the 1995 farm bill. The 
bill did not receive a single hearing in the Committee on Agriculture 
or the subcommittee. No hearings.
  On the day of the markup, after a long day, protracted debate, the 
bill was defeated with Republicans and Democrats voting against the 
Freedom to Farm Act. The committee was reconvened the next morning and 
informed that there would be no more committee meetings on the 
agriculture component of the budget. In other words, the House 
Committee on Agriculture was to have nothing to say about the critical 
part of the budget relating to agriculture.
  Mr. Speaker, it has never been like that. It is the House Committee 
on Agriculture that knows something about agriculture. That is why it 
ought to come through the House Committee on Agriculture, not go around 
it.
  When the Committee on the Budget marked up the reconciliation act, 
there was something, by my eyes very important, missing and that was 
the agriculture part of the budget. It was nowhere to be seen. The 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget told us that he would get it 
added when he went to the Committee on Rules. Again no involvement of 
the Committee on the Budget at that stage.
  We have the Committee on Agriculture excluded and the Committee on 
the Budget excluded. The gentleman went to the Committee on Rules and 
got Freedom to Farm included in the bill that was voted on last week as 
part of the Budget Reconciliation Act, but the morning papers the day 
of the budget vote said that a deal had been cut, and Speaker Gingrich 
announced that this would be rewritten in conference committee.
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, what was voted on by the House last week 
did not mean anything. Now we have excluded the House Committee on 
Agriculture, the House Committee on the Budget and the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, we learned this afternoon that it will be decided by a 
committee of five representing the House; three Republicans, two 
Democrats. No hearings. No language. No legislative proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, what are we talking about here? Agriculture in this 
country represents one out of six jobs involved in the production of 
food and fiber for all Americans. It is the single greatest component 
where we export more than we import. It is truly of vital interest to 
this country and the legislative process has at every stage of the game 
flowed solely from the Speaker's office and shut off all meaningful 
input from those of us representing rural America.

                              {time}  1815

  This is no way for the legislative process to unfold. It is no way to 
leave rural America tonight, wondering what in the world is going to 
come out of the 

[[Page H 11411]]
conference committee, where the House position is at.
  This thing reminds me of a fish. You put a fish in the sun. It starts 
to stink. You put some sunlight on the process that has involved the 
formation of agriculture policy in this budget, and it stinks to high 
heaven. Let me tell my colleagues, rural America deserves a whole lot 
better than this.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Herger] reserves the balance of his time as the floor manager's 
designee.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut, [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last week this House passed the radical 
Gingrich plan that will devastate essential services to millions of 
middle class Americans--all in the name of giving a massive tax break 
to the wealthiest few.
  The Gingrich plan to cut $270 billion out of Medicare to hand out 
$245 billion to corporations and wealthy individuals is an outrage. The 
American people will not stand for this Gingrich plan.
  But now the Republicans say they can't afford to pay the political 
price to kill Medicare outright. So the Gingrich plan will gut Medicare 
but will do it covertly so that it will as he says, ``wither on the 
vine.''
  For millions of Americans, Medicare has stood the test of time as a 
sacred compact between our Government and our seniors. Medicare 
embodies the principle that citizens who work hard all their lives, 
raise their children, pay their bills, and play by the rules will not 
be thrown out into the streets in their sunset years.
  We must not allow the Gingrich Republicans to balance the budget on 
the backs of America's seniors. We must not allow Medicare to become 
the political football it is in the Gingrich plan. I call on this House 
to support the motion to instruct the conferees and reject the Gingrich 
plan.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Democratic chair of the Committee 
on the Budget for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I just noticed in an article in ``Roll Call'' magazine, 
it was just published today, the title of it is ``SOLOMON Wants 
Rewright of Three-Fifths Tax Hike Rule, After the GOP Has Waived It 
Twice.'' I want to put into the Record a statement by my good friend 
and the respected chairman of the Committee on Rules, when this rule 
was passed.
  He said,

       Mr. Speaker, the tax and spend Democrats are at it again. 
     Do you believe it? The Democrats are suing the Republicans to 
     overturn our rules change that requires a three-fifths 
     majority to raise taxes.

  Now, this is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] speaking: 
``The three-fifths majority vote to raise taxes will stand as a 
hindrance to any Democrat's attempt to foist more taxes on the American 
people. There aren't going to be any more.'' He actually said ``There 
ain't going to be any more,'' but I wanted to correct his language.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the same chairman of the Committee on Rules that 
now wants to rewrite the rule that we passed on the first day of this 
session. I have 20 quotes from 20 different Members of the Republican 
leadership, such as ``We required a three-fifths vote to pass any kind 
of tax increase.'' I've got the Speaker's quote on it. I will not bore 
you with all the quotes because they all pretty much say the same 
thing, that any time there is any kind of tax increase, there will be a 
requirement that there be a three-fifths vote to pass that.
  There are actually five tax increases in this budget reconciliation 
bill that we will be taking to conference. The reason why we were able 
to take it to conference is that the chairman of the Committee on Rules 
decided to waive that rule that applied to the House as of the first 
day of the session. He waived that particular three-fifths rule as it 
applies to this reconciliation bill. That was the same technique that 
was applied to the $270 billion Medicare bill when it came before us a 
few days earlier.
  Now, there was not a waiver when the original Tax Act came before us, 
the Contract With America Tax Act. I raised it at that time that it 
really should have required a three-fifths vote because of the tax 
increases in it. We got a ruling that subsequently has been 
reconsidered, and the Parliamentarian agrees that in fact the three-
fifths requirement should have applied.
  It should have applied here, too, because, when we pass rules for 
ourselves, we ought to abide by them. I do not think we ought to have 
the discretion to simply waive them when they are inconvenient. We 
passed a rule on the same day that says, when we write rules for the 
private sector, they ought to apply to us as well.
  Well, it seems to me, when we pass any kind of Federal rule, we do 
not waive it for the private sector. We should not waive it for 
ourselves. There are actually five tax increases in this bill. One 
would increase for some people by 50 percent the tax on Medicare part B 
premiums. There is an increase for some on capital gains. There is a 
repeal of the 5-year income averaging for others. There is an increase 
in taxes on income for others. Three is an increase in taxes on income 
that Indian tribes receive. There is increased taxes on expatriates, 
which I happen to agree with.
  But the biggest tax increase is on the people who can least afford 
it. There is a tax increase on those who qualify for the earned income 
tax credit. That is the most shameful. I wish that this House one day 
would apply the rules that it makes for itself consistently, and not 
hypocritically.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
yielding time to me. I hope everybody votes for his motion to instruct 
the conferees.
  What is this all about? Well, we have got the House with one position 
and the other body with the other body's position. What we are saying 
is at least on their side they showed that they have a little bit 
bigger heart than the Members on our side. We would like our conferees 
to go along with those provisions.
  What are they saying? Well, in the other body, thank goodness, they 
stood up and insisted that Medicaid coverage be there for pregnant 
women and children. I believe that. I certainly hope this body does not 
turn its back on low-income pregnant women and their children. It also 
says Medicaid coverage should go to those who are disabled and low 
income. I believe that, and I think it would be terrible if we went 
along with this House's position.
  They also in the other body came forward and said they insisted that 
they continue to apply Federal standards to nursing homes. Well, I hope 
we do not roll back to where we used to be; but, if we stay with our 
position, that is where we will be going. They can do anything they 
want to, to people in nursing homes, and there will not be a thing we 
can say about it.
  Listen, there was a reason those regulations went in, and that was 
because we needed them. There was scandal after scandal. I think, if 
Federal money goes there, we ought to make sure that there are 
standards there.
  The other issue that the other body did much better on was pensions. 
Do you realize that this body is going to allow folks to go play with 
your pension money? Now, let me tell you, if that does not get your 
attention, you deserve to lose your pension. It is just about that 
clear.
  So let us get your attention. This is about your pension. People who 
vote no on this are saying they want to stay with our position and 
trust those moguls. They will do whatever they want with your pension. 
Wait until you try and go get it.
  So vote yes, this is very critical.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, indeed, perhaps since the inevitable was that 
this was going to pass last week, pass both Houses, and in some ways I 
welcome that, because it makes it real. There is 

[[Page H 11412]]
something about the Halloween season where we do not really worry about 
these ghouls and goblins and whatnot because it does not really seem 
real. This is real. Now that it has passed, the American people have a 
chance to see firsthand what is in these packages and what can really 
be happening.
  It was interesting, I remember this debate taking place 2 years ago 
on the President's budget deficit reduction plan and the other side 
making a lot of statements from some fly-by-night organization about 
the job loss that would result. They were dead wrong and, in fact, the 
economy did not get worse as a result of that package, it got better.
  These are the same Members that are not bringing this plan, a plan 
with a $245 billion tax cut, over 51 percent of the benefits in the 
House plan going to people making over $100,000 a year. This is the 
same group that has now brought us a pension grab plan so that 
corporations can go and take assets from a pension plan while the stock 
market is high, but if that stock market fails or falls, then you are 
going to see a reduction in the value of that pension and it may be 
then undervalued. This is the same group that brought us relaxation, 
not relaxation, obliteration of Federal nursing home regulations.
  In West Virginia, we did an analysis with the West Virginia State tax 
department to conclude that 85 percent of all West Virginians will pay 
more out of pocket with this plan. We like sacrifice. We appreciate 
sacrifice, but it needs to be evenhanded.
  I guess what concerns me finally, Mr. Speaker, is this is not a plan 
that will balance the Federal budget. I do not think it will do that. 
Actually, I think it is going to worsen the economy, not make it 
better. But it is a plan that will definitely unbalance a lot of family 
budgets. Unbalance family budgets that depend upon student loans. 
Unbalance family budgets that are looking toward retirement and having 
that pension there. Unbalance family budgets that need assistance 
keeping a loved one in a nursing home or long-term care. Unbalance 
family budgets that are wondering how their loved one, senior citizen, 
is going to get medical care.
  Bad budget, Mr. Speaker. I urge its rejection.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota 
for yielding time to me.
  I hope that we can be constructive this evening for we have failed to 
address the crisis that has been represented in the national discussion 
on this issue.
  First of all, we have misrepresented to the American people that this 
budget deficit will be helped by $270 billion in tax cuts. In doing 
those tax cuts, we will find that those making over $100,000, $200,000, 
or $350,000 will be getting a tax cut which they have not requested. 
But those who are making under $50,000 and particularly low- and 
middle-income families will experience a tax increase.
  We will lose the earned income tax credit and, in particular, some 
60,000 families in the city of Houston will lose the benefit of 
receiving an earned income tax credit because of this budget 
reconciliation proposal out of the House of Representatives, those very 
working people who are working with children, one or more children in 
the family, who are trying to make ends meet with rent or mortgage 
payments, trying to cover their health insurance, and yet this Congress 
has now burdened them with a tax increase.
  At the same time we have $270 billion taken out of our Medicare 
program in particular, denying many of our senior citizens choice, 
denying them the opportunity for good health care and subjecting them 
to long hours and long appointments and lack of care.
  I would ask that we listen to the debate on this motion to instruct 
conferees that would ensure that we minimize the tax increases on those 
who are low and middle income and particularly cut the tax cuts for the 
wealthy, because as Members recall, in 1981, when under the Reagan 
administration those cuts came into play, we went into the worst 
recession that we could have ever imagined. That does not help budget 
deficits, when we can document from 1992 to 1995 that the deficit has 
been coming down.
  Vote for this motion to instruct and support children, the disabled, 
and those senior citizens who need good health care.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, for those who will not be able to stay tuned 
and follow this House debate, let me tell them how it is going to end.
  My colleagues are going to hear a lot of comments and speeches from 
this side of the aisle pleading with the Republicans to show some 
moderation when it comes to the Gingrich budget bill which we passed 
last week. We will be urging the Republicans in all of our speeches to 
try to be sensitive to the needs of working families to try to make 
sure that any tax cuts go directly to real middle-class families and 
not to the wealthiest people in America. My colleagues will hear our 
speeches as we urge them to maintain standards for nursing homes so 
across America each of us with a parent or grandparent who may end up 
there one day has the peace of mind to know that they are at least 
going to be in an institution holding to some Federal standards. My 
colleagues will hear us plead with the Republicans, ``Please protect 
the pension plans of working Americans. Don't go through with the 
Gingrich proposal to take away the protection of pensions.'' Once a 
person is retired, they are at the mercy of the people who manage the 
pension plans. Our Federal laws protect those people, and we will then 
be urging during the course of this debate that the people on the 
Republican side of the aisle come around and help these folks as well 
as the poorest among us, the children who depend on Medicaid for basic 
hospital care who will be disadvantaged by the Gingrich budget of last 
week.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will hear all these speeches, and let me 
tell my colleagues how it will end if they cannot stay tuned. We are 
going to lose. The Democrats are going to lose. The motion to instruct 
will do down. The Republicans who marched off the cliff with Speaker 
Gingrich last week in the Gingrich Republican bill are going to stick 
with their Speaker even though they know what we are suggesting is 
reasonable to most Americans, it sounds like common sense. They are 
going to stick to their program.
  Let me tell my colleagues this. Ultimately President Clinton will 
veto this terrible bill and we will finally get down to the business on 
a bipartisan basis of coming up with a commonsense solution to reducing 
this Nation's budget deficit.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, what should be the goal of this 
conference? It should be to minimize both tax giveaways for the wealthy 
and tax increases on low- and middle-income working families. We should 
try to do something to preserve and protect the health and income 
security of senior citizens, and we should also avoid increasing the 
number of Americans lacking access to health care.
  So what do we need to do in this conference committee? I think as a 
priority, accede to the Senate-passed provisions requiring continued 
Medicaid coverage for low-income pregnant women and children and for 
the disabled. At the very least what the gentleman from, senior Senator 
from, Rhode Island has proposed, a member of the majority party. We 
should agree to the Senate-passed provisions applying to Federal 
nursing home standards, and we should recede to the Senate position on 
pension reversions, continuing current-law protections for worker 
pensions.
  What we have is a reconciliation bill that makes deep cuts in long-
term care that is going to raise the costs of nursing homes and force 
seniors out of nursing homes or bankrupt their families who are trying 
to care for their parents and grandparents. It is also going to 
eliminate the guarantee of 

[[Page H 11413]]
Medicaid by threatening the health care of over 36 million low-income 
children. Elderly and disabled Americans are most vulnerable Americans. 
It is going to curb the quality of nursing homes for elderly Americans 
by repealing the minimum, and I say the minimum, Federal requirements. 
But worst, it is going to cut the earned income tax credit a tax 
increase for working families, the working poor who had a modest tax 
break, and all of a sudden this is going to be severely dissipated.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a good motion to instruct conferees. We should 
try to send a strong signal. The President should veto this bill, and 
then serious negotiations should start. Let us get rid of this bizarre 
atmosphere, bizarre and bazaar atmosphere, that is pervading this 
legislation.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question on 
process and procedure?
  Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to ask for a recorded vote on 
this, and I am curious. Is the intent to move to the vote on Bosnia 
before we go to the motion to instruct?
  Mr. KASICH. No, I think we are going to move right into the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. SABO. So, for anyone who is interested, that vote then would 
probably come after the vote on the motion to instruct.
  Mr. KASICH. That is correct.
  Mr. SABO. We have 1 minute remaining, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). Yes, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this is again the final minute of our 
consideration of the ``wreckonciliation,'' that is spelled ``wreck'' as 
in car wreck or disaster for the families that are most directly 
affected by this bill, those who will be impacted by the new sick tax; 
that is, Medicare recipients who will suffer under that aspect of the 
bill and those who will be affected adversely by the new work tax; that 
is, working families struggling, dependent on one of the tax provisions 
they have now that will see their taxes go up if they are a family 
earning $30,000 or less. Under either the House or the Senate bill they 
will be wrecked by the reconciliation bill, but, as we consider what 
will happen in conference, it is important to know that at least on the 
Senate side some of the more extremist provisions of this Gingrich 
House were rejected soundly in the Senate, and one would hope the same 
thing would be done by the conference committee.
  For example, the proposal that while we are increasing a tax on work, 
we would eliminate entirely the alternative minimum tax for some of the 
richest corporations in this country; that has been removed by the 
Senate, and I would hope it would be removed by the conference.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
yield back the balance of his time?
  Mr. KASICH. The only thing, Mr. Speaker, is I do not know what the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] would say if I yielded myself 29 
minutes to counter all that.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. I listened to the gentleman from Ohio tell us that, after 
he had been in front of the Committee on Rules for 2\1/2\ hours, he was 
tired of hearing himself, so I assume he would not yield himself 29 
minutes.
  Mr. KASICH. All I want to know is, is the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Sabo] going to kindly sit here and listen to a 29-minute harangue?
  Mr. SABO. I notice the gentleman from Ohio did not listen through all 
the 30 minutes of speeches on our side.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, on that lack of bipartisanship, I yield back 
the balance of my time, and I move the previous question.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                 motion to instruct offered by mr. sabo

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

       Mr. Sabo moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill H.R. 2491, be instructed to do everything 
     possible, within the scope of the conference, to minimize 
     both tax cuts for the wealthy and tax increases on low- and 
     middle-income working families, to preserve and protect the 
     health and income security of senior citizens, and to avoid 
     increasing the number of Americans lacking access to health 
     care; and that the House conferees be further instructed to--
       (1) agree to the Senate-passed provisions requiring 
     continued Medicaid coverage for low-income pregnant women and 
     children and for disabled persons,
       (2) agree to the Senate-passed provisions continuing to 
     apply federal nursing home standards, and
       (3) recede to the Senate position on pension reversions, 
     thereby continuing current law protections for workers' 
     pensions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, this is not an easy bill to devise a motion 
to instruct on because the reality is we have a bad House bill and we 
have a bad Senate bill. So most of the options are pretty bad. So our 
motion in some cases says, ``If you've got a bad provision and there is 
a worse provision, please stick with the bad provision.'' It does not 
get us anyplace, but, as my colleagues know, what the House did with 
the earned income tax credit is incredibly bad. What the Senate did is 
much worse. So stick with the House provision.
  There are some parts of the bill, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to 
offer a motion to instruct on. Both the House and the Senate deal very 
poorly with low-income seniors who today qualify for having their 
premiums paid and their deductibles paid by Medicaid. Neither of them 
are adequate; they are the same. It is impossible within the scope of 
conference to say to improve it because they are the same.
  But there are a few things, a few items, we might suggest to our 
House conferees: Do the Senate provision; they are not quite as bad. 
They slightly improve a bad bill. Do not do this dumb pension reversion 
that raises $9 billion temporarily, but takes $40 billion out of trust 
funds for pensions for American workers. The reality is, even to 
balance the budget, it does not do us much good because in the year 
2002 it is scored as an asterisk that actually loses a little bit of 
money, so it gives us some temporary receipts, creates a raid on 
pension funds.

  Just simply do not do it. Follow the Senate's lead, overwhelming vote 
on the Senate floor.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, Federal nursing home regulations 
did not happen just because somebody wanted to pass some Federal laws. 
They emerged because over the years there was very serious, fundamental 
problems in nursing homes as they dealt with the disabled and the 
elderly population of this country. They emerged because there was a 
clear need. If they need reform, reform it, but do not throw them out. 
My colleagues, stick with what the Senate said. Let us keep those 
Federal standards.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, we are going to have a new Medicaid or 
medigrant program on which we are going to spend over a hundred billion 
dollars a year. Most certainly the Federal Government can say there are 
a few things we should do. Stick with the Federal regulations of 
nursing homes unless there are more comprehensive ones at the State 
level, but let us make sure that in structuring this program the States 
at a minimum keep coverage for low-income pregnant women, and children 
and disabled people.

                              {time}  1845

  That is not asking too much. Over $100 billion of Federal funds, and 
the suggestion is that we should sort of sit back and be oblivious of 
what any requirement of those funds are.
  Mr. Speaker, I have spent many years in my life dealing with the 
question of Federalism. This kind of Federalism of this much Federal 
money, and no expectation that these basic requirements should be part 
of it, is just 

[[Page H 11414]]
nuts. So our motion to instruct is very basic. Do not do that dump 
pension deal. Keep the Federal nursing home standards so our disabled 
and elderly can be in safe surroundings when they have to go to a 
nursing home.
  As we provide over $100 billion a year to the States, let us simply 
say that low-income pregnant women and children and disabled people 
should be able to get health coverage.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote for the motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct conferees has good things, some 
not so good things, some inaccurate statements. I would argue, Mr. 
Speaker, that rather than picking and choosing, but beyond that, tying 
the hands of the conferees of the House as they move into negotiations 
with the Senate, that we provide, obviously, as much flexibility as we 
possibly can to our conferees, but we should keep in mind some of the 
issues that have been argued in this motion to instruct.
  I think the gentleman makes a legitimate point. We will, in fact, 
spend time taking a look at a number of the provisions that have, up 
until now, been dictated by the Federal Government and we intend to 
turn over to the States. In the course of trying to decide how much of 
this we turn over to the States and how much of it we preserve, that is 
clearly going to be a subject of this conference committee. Nothing is 
ever done 100 percent.
  For example, in our Medigrant program, I believe it is up to 85 
percent of all the mandatory spending must continue to be spent on 
women, children, and disabled persons. That is one of the requirements 
that we have on the House side as it relates to the Medigrant program. 
I feel strongly that that be maintained.
  As to whether that needs to be maintained, and at the same time call 
that an entitlement and have the folks here dictate even further to my 
Governor, the Governor of Ohio, that is a matter for debate and 
discussion within the conference committee.
  Pension provisions, of course, get a little bit more complicated, 
because the pension provisions require that these funds that are in 
excess of between 125 and the maximum allowed at 150 percent, that the 
companies would be permitted to draw down those funds.
  The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means would argue that, in 
fact, giving companies flexibility between 125 percent and 150 percent 
would bring about additional defined pension plans, which we do not see 
much of now. Companies are worried they are going to lock their money 
in the box between 125 and 150 percent.
  What is interesting is if you are at 124 percent of liability, you 
are not affected; only if you are between 125 and 150. However, we have 
concern on this side, and we want to talk about this as we get into the 
conference.
  What I would ask the Members to do is to not accept the motion to 
instruct, because if we do, that is it. That is the end of the day. We 
would take the motion seriously. Frankly, as we move into discussions 
between the House and Senate, the House has some concerns about Senate 
provisions and vice versa. We need to work them out as part of a 
package, to be mandated in two or three specific areas. To lose the 
ability of the House of Representatives to drive the best program, to 
drive the best agreement, I personally believe would be a mistake.
  I would ask the Members of the House to reject this motion to 
instruct, preserve flexibility on the part of the conferees here in the 
House. We will in fact pay attention to some of the suggestions in this 
motion, some positive suggestions in this motion, but I would ask that 
we defeat the motion to instruct. Let us have the flexibility to work 
out the best program we possibly can.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, if I did not convince the gentleman from Ohio, 
the next person will.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. 
Meek].
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support and ask the 
House with their strong sense of compassion and realism to vote yes on 
the motion to instruct. I think that the conferees need to broaden 
their knowledge of what is going on in this country with the poor and 
with the near-poor. I think the conferees need some up-to-date 
information and sensitivity as to what happens in many of the homes in 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel very, very embarrassed that the Senate has been, 
certainly, more sensitive to the needs of the poor than has my dearly 
beloved House. What they have done, as my ranking Member said, they 
have not done the best, but they have done much better than we have in 
the House. They have required Medicaid coverage for nursing homes. That 
was not done just in a vacuum. There is a history behind that, the many 
horror stories throughout history of what has happened in the nursing 
homes in this country. We need Federal regulation, and we need Federal 
oversight of nursing homes.
  The Senate went on further to take care of pregnant women and 
children. I do not think there is any Member of this House who would 
want to go back to their home State and say to their home constituents 
that we would leave it up to someone else to take care of poor 
children, nursing mothers, and Medicaid-protected children.
  I have begged for some consideration for Medicaid not only in the 
Committee on Rules, but in my home committee that my chairman has 
turned me down several times on, but I know that I am right, Mr. 
Speaker, I know we must look out more for the poor children in this 
country through Medicaid, to be sure they get health protection and be 
sure that they are taken care of on Medicaid. We should be sure these 
nursing home standards stay. The Senate has at least guaranteed health 
care. Why can we not do it?
  It is a situation now that nursing home reform did not just happen. 
We must keep it going. Our chairman must be sure and our ranking member 
must be sure that House Members are instructed to concur with the 
Senate recommendations. They have studied all this, the Committee on 
Commerce. Their committee has information which shows that there are 
certain States which will not be able to take care of their Medicaid 
patients if they were not to improve Medicare through the years it has 
taken this program to get as far as it is now.
  Do you want to keep going? Do you want poor children to be 
handicapped by what we do in the House? Do you want the House to have 
that stigma? I do not. I am a Member of this proud House, I am a member 
of the Committee on the Budget. I know that we can do better by the 
children of this country.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Hobson].
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to 
instruct. Like the gentlewoman from Florida, [Mrs. Meek], I spent a lot 
of time on the State legislature. I have served on the Committee on the 
Budget. I was chairman of the Committee on Health, Human Services and 
Aging for many years in the State Senate.
  I can tell the Members that I had Governors tell me, other people 
tell me, ``If we could just get the Federal Government off of our 
backs, we could do better, we will do better.'' This is a difference of 
philosophies here. We believe that there is a better way to do things 
for those children than is happening today. We believe in those 
children, and we want to help those children, but we do not think 
putting on burdens from the Federal Government time and time again and 
increasing costs as a result of duplicate regulations is the way to do 
it. We would be better, we think, in going back and to allow States to 
do that, and allow States to do it with a certain amount of regulation. 
There are some good things here and we are going to look at those, but 
we do not want to be tied into this particular type of instruction at 
this point on those things that relate to children.
  There are some other things. We want to help pregnant women and 
children with disabilities. I think I have a good record of doing that. 
I think I will continue to do that.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  
[[Page H 11415]]

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hobson], we are both friends and members of the Committee on 
the Budget. Would the gentleman believe that I would never have been 
admitted to a State university if it were left up to the State? Would 
he also believe I would never have received some of the benefits if it 
were left up to the State?
  Mr. HOBSON. I would tell the gentlewoman, Mr. Speaker, I would 
believe that. I think that was a number of years ago. I think the 
States have gotten better; maybe not Florida, I understand. I do not 
know about Florida. I could tell the Members about Ohio. The gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] is laughing. Maybe he comes from a State 
where that is not true. In my State, that is true. I have until 
recently sat on the board of the oldest African-American university in 
the country, and on the board of the public school there, run by the 
State of Ohio. We have a good record. We have worked on it.
  I am just saying we want to preserve these things, we want to do 
these things, and we are going to try to do that in the conference 
committee. We are going to do a number of issues where we will go in 
and we will work to try to get them better than what we have done here 
and they have done there, but we are not going to impose this 
particular restraint upon our conference committee at this point.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson], I think everybody respects the 
gentleman's stature in the House, but the truth of the matter is what 
we are doing is providing these block grants to the States and we are 
doing it with less money. Then what we are doing is eliminating 
standards, basic standards in terms of nursing home care, basic 
standards in terms of how we treat pregnant women, basic standards that 
go toward whether or not people can get the assurances.
  The gentleman does not work for the State of Ohio any longer. He now 
works for the Federal Government. It does matter what happens in the 
State of Florida versus the State of Ohio. That is what we are doing.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say to the gentleman, 
I do not work for the Federal Government. I work for the people of the 
Seventh Congressional District. I work for the people.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The gentleman is paid by the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. HOBSON. The other inconsistency in the gentleman's statement is 
that we are not spending less money, we are spending more money. I know 
$1 trillion is an increase that is difficult for the other side to 
understand, but that is what we are spending.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that in our Medigrant Program, 
that 85 percent of all the money currently being spent on mandatory 
programs for women, children, disabled, is a provision that is 
contained in our bill. The interesting thing, though, is that 30 
Governors across the States, 30 Governors across the country, have 
asked the Republicans to limit the rules and regulations and the 
dictates from Washington. Do Members know why? Because they are being 
required to comply with rules and regulations dictated by this city 
that get in the way of their ability to serve their needy population.
  I will give one example. First of all, the Governors around this 
country have been begging bureaucrats in Washington to give them 
waivers to spend their people's money inside of their States to take 
care of their populations the way they see fit.
  The Governor of Ohio believed if in fact he could have greater 
flexibility, he could not only attend to the poor population in the 
State of Ohio, but at the same time he could begin to cover people who 
do not have health care coverage. In fact, our Governor believes he can 
serve more people more effectively in the State of Ohio if he did not 
have to come down here on bended hands and knees to ask the 
bureaucrats, who do not even know what time zone we are in, as to 
whether he could deliver services to his own populations within the 
boundaries of the State of Ohio.
  Frankly, I think the Governor of the State of Florida is a fine man, 
Lawton Chiles. He used to be a U.S. Senator. I do not believe Lawton 
Chiles will pass laws in the State of Florida that are not going to be 
designed to help the people of the State of Florida. It is really a 
matter of whether you have confidence in yourself, where you live. That 
philosphical point needs to be made here.
  Mr. HOBSON. Let me say one thing about this, Mr. Speaker. The plan 
the gentleman is talking about is a plan that I worked on in the 
legislature with a Democratic Governor. It is called the Dayton area 
health plan. It started as a plan for ADC mothers and their chidren. 
That program had to come down here on bended knee to get an HCFA waiver 
in order to do that program for these people. It took months. We had to 
come back time and time again to do that program.
  Right now as a matter of fact, in this bill is a provision extending 
that, because we are worried about a time factor on it. This Governor 
thought that the previous Democratic Governor did such a good job that 
that program is now, as John said, going statewide.

                              {time}  1900

  So the States can do things. The problem is, we want more money to go 
back to the States; the gentleman wants to leave it all here with some 
bureaucrat here that we have to come down and fight with all of the 
time. We do not want to do that.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot about State government. I spent 18 
years in State government. The Federal Government at times frustrated 
me. There are rules and regulations that need revision, and we need to 
work on that.
  I would have never dreamed of coming to the Federal Government and 
saying give me $100 billion, no conditions. That is what we are doing 
in this bill. Nursing homes, Federal standards, go, forget about 
history, forget about history. Those standards came because the 
conditions were atrocious. Those of us in State government did not do 
our job, so we got the Federal standards. We did not just throw them 
out in the wake of history of why they were created, of dealing with 
the most vulnerable people in our society.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, the debate tonight is not about whether we have a 
balanced budget or not, or how it is done; the debate is really about 
who is going to carry the burden for this balanced budget. Is the 
product of the House and the product of the Senate the kind of product 
that we want to impose on the American public.
  A great heavy vote in the House, a great heavy vote in the Senate 
have said no. Unfortunately, those votes were not quite enough to carry 
the day, but there were an awful lot of dissent in that. The President 
has said that he is going to veto what comes out of this effort that we 
are about to undertake of trying to reconcile the differences between 
the House and the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, the question tonight is a very fundamental question, 
which is, who shall carry the burden of this balanced budget? How do we 
get there? Every time you look at any analysis, outside analysis of who 
carries the burden in all of this, the burden of this balanced budget 
comes down on the backs of the sick, the poor, the aged, children, and 
low-income working Americans.
  Now, that is not fair. Let us take a for instance. Let us take the 
crown jewel, the tax cut. First of all, there is no need for a tax cut 
today. All of us know we have an unbalanced budget, and why add to the 
burden of balancing the budget by adding $250 billion worth of tax cuts 
to it, particularly when you distribute the tax cuts as they are done.
  Let us take probably the most expensive item in there, which is the 
so-many-dollars-per-child tax cut for families with children under 18 
years of age. That is a very, very expensive program.

[[Page H 11416]]

  The first thing about it is that it is not $500, as has been so 
widely advertised, but $365. The second bad thing about the $365 is 
that only the upper income people get it. The lower-income, working 
people do not get anything. In fact, 33 percent of all of the people in 
the United States with children in their family less than 18 years of 
age get absolutely nothing, not a penny. Another 10 percent get less 
than the $365 that all of the upper income people get.
  Now, that is not fair. If we were trying to balance this budget and 
to deliver a tax cut, we would never deliver a tax cut in that kind of 
manner.
  With all of the other provisions in the tax bill, and the limited 
time does not permit me to go through all of the outrages that are in 
there, we would say, we can put this off, we will debate that at some 
other time, but let us get on with balancing the budget now. Let us get 
on with balancing the budget now. It we have to do something for those 
rich, political friends of my Republican colleagues over there, we will 
talk about that in a different time frame, a different environment than 
we are talking about now.
  Mr. Speaker, we are talking about balancing the budget; we are 
talking about who is going to pay for this balanced budget. The sick, 
the poor, the aged, children, and the working poor are paying for this 
balanced budget. That is unfair.
  This motion to instruct the conferees should be adopted, and the 
whole thing should be rejected. We should go back to the very beginning 
and get this done right.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hobson].
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a philosophical difference, and I want to say 
that State government has changed since many of the Members came to 
this body; I think the State government was in trouble, and I think 
State government has improved dramatically.
  In my State we had large institutions where we used to put the 
mentally ill. We reversed that, we changed that. Our State changed 
that. I think there is a different philosophical understanding between 
our two sides here. The Democratic side still thinks that the answer to 
everything is the Federal Government. We do not believe that.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I have described my politics a little bit different. I 
describe myself as a liberal decentralist. There may not be that many 
of us around. The best memories of my life, the most fulfilling time of 
my life was the time I spent in State government.
  On the other hand, fully understanding the capability of good State 
government, and most of them are good today, and they were 20 years 
ago. Still, for States to come and say, we expect to have a blank check 
of $100 billion, without the basic requirements that you take care of 
poor children and disabled people; that you throw out, with all the 
political pressures that exist, nursing home regulations, that is just 
crazy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kennedy].
  (Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the world of my good friend from the State of 
Ohio, Mr. Kasich, but as much as I think of him, I do not think that he 
can perform the miracles of the loaves and the fishes, and that is what 
he is talking about doing.
  What we are doing here is we are embarking on a process of saying 
that we are interested in balancing the budget of this country, which I 
am strongly in favor of and have been strongly in favor of for many 
years. What we ought not to do is balance the budget on the backs of 
the poorest, most vulnerable people in this country, and that is what 
this budget does.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] made a wonderful speech about 
reconciliation the other day, but reconciliation implies caring for the 
poor. It implies a conciliation, a sense that we are going to get 
together as a people, not pick on the vulnerable. This budget picks on 
the vulnerable.
  All we are asking the House of Representatives and the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], who I am trying to have a conversation with, all we 
are trying to do is ask the gentleman to please pay attention to the 
Senate that is not picking on poor, vulnerable, pregnant women. We are 
just asking to please concede to the Senate in terms of cutting off 
pregnant women. We are asking to pay attention to the fact that when we 
say these Governors are going to be so careful in terms of their 
ability to provide these services at greater degrees than they do now 
for less money.
  Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is, I got a letter from 24 
Governors saying that they wanted to get rid of the spousal 
impoverishment protections that are contained in the current law. They 
are doing that because the Republicans are cutting their programs so 
much that they need the flexibility to be able to cut off senior 
citizens, they need to be able to cut off elderly widows in order to be 
able to maintain the Republicans' sense of how to get to a balanced 
budget.
  Why not go after the F-22? Why not go after the B-2 bomber? Why not 
go after some of the rich pork that is in this program, pork that 
exists in the budget of the United States that the Republicans side is 
unwilling to go after.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes and 10 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not know we were going to have to go 
back and start setting the facts straight again, but let me try.
  In order to qualify for the Medicaid or the Medigrant program, the 
State will have to match just like they have. We are not going to take 
the money and spend it on something other than poor people. The 
question is, can the State of Ohio figure out how to spend it on poor 
people in their States better, better, than we have from here.
  Let me just suggest to my dear friend from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Kennedy, that the closest that we have come to eliminating the B-2 
Bomber has been since the Republicans have taken control of the House. 
We could not get the votes, we could not get the votes to kill the B-2 
Bomber when the Democrat majority was in charge.
  Now we lost this probably by about 3 or 4 votes, and that is because, 
frankly, we got more Republicans than we have ever gotten before, and 
the simple fact of the matter is that we are the ones that have closed 
loopholes on large corporations. I mean the Puerto Rican 936 giveaway, 
the large pharmaceutical firms, the point is that we closed that 
loophole here in the first 9 months. It just took the Republicans about 
9 months to close the loophole that corporations used on COLI, the 
Company Owned Life Insurance. The Democrats had 40 years to do it. We 
did it in 9 months.
  Are there other improvements that need to be made? Dramatic 
improvements that need to be made. To argue, for example, that we are 
going to give Medigrant money to the States and they do not have to use 
it on poor people, that are not the facts. We have to have some 
semblance of facts to go with the statements.
  I have already pointed out that 85 percent of all of the mandatory 
spending for women and children and the disabled have to continue to be 
spent, but the Governor of Ohio believes that if we give him the money 
that the people of Ohio sent to this city, and we give it back to him 
without all of the bureaucratic rules and regulations and redtape, he 
will, with great compassion, take care of the poor and expand the 
program to take care of people who currently, many of the people who 
currently do not have health care coverage.
  So I do not want to get into a tit-for-tat of what we are doing, but 
the simple fact of the matter is it is having confidence in people 
where we live. I have confidence in people where I live. I do not think 
I have to pass this on to people who live 500 miles away to solve my 
problem. I like to solve the problem in my neighborhood, entrusting the 
people who I live in the neighborhood with. That is what the program is 
all about.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].

[[Page H 11417]]

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, just a quick point of reference to a statement that was 
made by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson] before. The gentleman said 
that he did not work for the Federal Government of the United States, 
that he worked for the people of the Seventh District of Ohio.
  Mr. Speaker, we all come here based upon the district we represent, 
but what the gentleman suggested represents the very threat to the 
national principle that many of us on this side of the aisle are 
fearful of.
  Mr. Speaker, let me call to specific attention tonight to the viewing 
audience an issue that I think that they ought to be concerned about. 
Last Friday the other body overwhelmingly removed a corporate pension.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The gentleman will suspend for a 
reminder from the Chair that the gentleman will address his comments to 
the Chair and not the viewing audience.
  The gentleman will proceed.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the most onerous 
provisions in this bill that is before us, and this motion to instruct 
corrects it, would take away, I think, an issue, if I might remind 
viewers of tonight, similar to the S&L issue when I first came here.

                              {time}  1915

  There is a threat to pensions across this country offered by this 
reconciliation proposal of the Republican Party. Simply put, their 
provision allows corporations to raid the pension funds of their hard-
working employees.
  We should not allow this to stand. Allowing corporations to use their 
excess pension funds is bad retirement policy, and pension funds would 
unnecessarily be put at risk. A corporation could take funds out of a 
pension fund that should be used to improve employee benefits. Some 
companies have excess current liability in their pension funds and 
cannot currently pay all of the benefits owed to their employees if the 
plan is terminated.
  Ask yourself tonight what would happen if $40 billion came out of the 
stock market tomorrow. That represents a real threat to the pensions of 
hard-working Americans. The PBGC could be faced with a bailout of 
pension funds that not only would lead to a taxpayer bailout but it 
would be the ghost of S&L past.
  We can protect the pension funds of American workers, as the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] said, by taking this motion to 
instruct seriously and instructing the conferees to leave the pension 
benefits of hard-working Americans alone.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], a member of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a major task. Our task is to get our financial 
house in order and balance our budget, and we are going to do it with 
the help of our colleagues on the other side or without it, but we are 
going to do our job.
  I would just like to reemphasize the fact that my esteemed chairman 
has made a point of, and that is that we have only had eight months to 
deal with a problem that has existed for a long time. I readily agree 
with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that both Republicans 
and Democrats have their fingers in this problem that has existed with 
the deficits going higher and higher and higher.
  The bottom line is, we had a Republican President, we had a 
Democratic Congress for much of that, and both sides simply could not 
agree. Republicans wanted to spend more on defense, and Democrats did 
not want to control the growth of entitlements, and they both agreed to 
disagree and end up with large deficits.
  That was then, and this is now. Now is, we have a chance to deal with 
the problem. The way we are dealing with this problem is to slow the 
growth in spending so, ultimately, it intersects revenue seven years 
out. We are still going to have over a trillion dollar increase in our 
national debt, but it will not be $3 trillion or it will not be $2.5 
trillion. We are going to slow that growth so, ultimately, in the 
seventh year, we have a balanced budget.
  In the process, we are going to save our trust funds. Our trust funds 
are going bankrupt, particularly Social Security. It becomes insolvent 
next year. It goes bankrupt in 7 years. We are going to stretch that 
out so it does not go bankrupt in the year 2002. It is going to get up 
to the year 2010.
  The third thing we are going to do, and the most important, is we are 
going to transform this social and corporate welfare state into an 
opportunity society. We know we have welfare that we focused attention 
on in the social side of our budget, but we also have corporate welfare 
as well that we are getting at, to the tune of $29 billion. When I hear 
things about cutting and I know we are spending more, I just do not 
know how you can keep saying that.
  The bottom line to this issue is that we hear comments about how we 
are cutting Medicare, and I know we are not cutting it. We are going to 
spend 73 percent more in the next 7 years than we did in the last 
seven. I know we are going to spend over $674 billion additional in 
Medicare.
  I also know, at the same time, that we do not have an increase in 
copayments. We do not have an increase in deductibles. I know the 
premium stays at 31.5 percent. It means the taxpayers are going to pay 
68.5 percent; and as health care costs go up, as they have in the past, 
that 31.5 percent will go up as it has in the past.
  I know we are not forcing people out of Medicare. They can stay where 
they are. They can get the traditional fee-for-service program they 
have gotten for the last 30 years. But if they want to, we have a plan 
that enables them to get private care and get better eye care or better 
dental care or maybe get a rebate, a refund in their premium, getting 
into the private sector plans. So I know we are not cutting Medicare. I 
know we are not cutting Medicaid.
  Then I hear about school loans. School loans go up from $24 billion 
this year to $36 billion in the seventh year. I think about that, and I 
think only in this place and where the virus has spread, when you go 
from $24 billion to $36 billion in school loans, do people call that a 
cut.
  What are we asking? We are saying that grace period that students 
will have to pay the interest when they get out of school for that next 
6 months, that grace period, they are going to have to pay the 
interest. It amounts to $9 more a month for those students who have 
borrowed $17,000. So I am thinking, $9 more a month, and that is a cut. 
We are going from $24 billion to $36 billion. Replete in our budget, 
time in, time out, we are spending more, but you call it a cut, and it 
is not a cut. It is an increase.
  Bottom line, we are going to get our financial house in order, we are 
going to balance our budget, we are going to save our trust funds with 
or without your help, and we are going to transfer this social and 
corporate welfare state into an opportunity society. It would be nice 
to have your help, but if it is not there, we will just have to proceed 
on our own.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it is always fun to remind my Republican 
colleagues that in the last Bush budget there was a deficit of $290 
billion. The budget deficit, having fallen 3 years running, is now down 
to a little over $164 billion.
  Think of that, my Republican colleagues. But I do not rise to talk 
about that. I rise to talk about something else. It is something which 
will not save a nickel of money for the taxpayers of the United States 
but which will do irresponsible and unlimited harm and hurt to one of 
the most helpless groups in our society. I refer to the nursing home 
patients. This bill absolutely does away with the nursing home 
protections for patients who are incarcerated in nursing homes.
  In the 1980's our Committee on Oversight Investigations conducted a 
lengthy investigation of this. We found nursing home patients lying in 
their own human excrement, covered with bedsores. We found them tied to 
their beds. We found them drugged. We found their assets stolen. And we 
found them 

[[Page H 11418]]
impoverished improperly by raids upon their assets. We also found that 
they were in fire traps which burned, and they were burned to death in 
these fire traps. We found inadequate care. We found inadequate 
facilities. We found people who were not able to get the care they 
needed because there was neither an adequate number of employees nor 
properly qualified employees. These are the most helpless people in 
this country. We passed bipartisan legislation to do away with those 
abuses.
  That bipartisan legislation is repealed by the legislation before us. 
This legislation is rich in hortatory language that, like the Tale of 
the Idiot in Shakespeare, is full of sound and fury but signifies 
nothing because it does nothing. It is long on hortatory language.
  What this bill will do if the motion to instruct is not adopted is to 
return to those sad, unfortunate, unsavory days when the most helpless 
in our society were abused. That is the kind of legislation we have 
before us.
  Adopt the motion to instruct.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the chairman of the Committee 
on Science.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
   Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to come here to the floor and hear 
that the Democrats are going to present some rational arguments against 
what has been done and then listen to them come on the floor and emote.
  The fact is that what we have heard in a couple of instances has been 
kind of interesting here this evening. For example, the talk about the 
fact that middle-income and low-income people are having their taxes 
increased. The fact is that what they are doing is basing that on a 
calculation with regard to the earned income tax credit. The earned 
income tax credit is actually going up under our plan over the next 7 
years by 40 percent. There is going to be a massive increase in the 
amount of money that people are going to get. This is not taxes that 
they are having to pay. This is money that the Government takes and 
hands back to them. It is low-income people who actually get money 
handed to them through a check handed to them by the Government. That 
is going to go up 40 percent over the next 7 years under our plan and 
so the Democrats seem to think that that is a cut. It is just kind of 
interesting.
  The other thing I am interested in hearing them talk about is 
pensions. It is fascinating to hear them come to the floor and hear 
them talk about how we are doing something to pensions when the fact is 
that the greatest danger to pensioners in this country is being done by 
this administration that is trying to take the pension money and sink 
it into public housing and other public projects. Under Secretary 
Reich, the Democrats have put forward a plan that would have the money 
taken out of the pension plans and invested in high-risk, low-interest 
investments.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I will not yield.
  Mr. POMEROY. Your facts are not correct.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, regular order.
  Mr. WALKER. I am not going to yield. I am going to make my statement. 
I have heard a lot of ridiculous talk.
  The Democrats are doing a job on the pensioners of this country. Now 
what they have found is that Republicans actually want to try to reform 
the system and do something better for pension plans in this country 
and guess what? It is going to take money away from where they want to 
put money in for public housing. The Democrats have figured out that we 
are lowering the amount of money being put into social welfare in these 
budgets and now what they want to do is they want to raid the pension 
funds and they have figured out that under our plans they are not going 
to be able to raid those pension funds for social welfare spending. It 
is absolutely amazing to hear what we are hearing on the floor tonight. 
The fact is the real danger is the social welfare philosophy of the 
Democrats.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is dead 
wrong. We increased the earned income tax credit last year. You are 
cutting it. You are raiding the employees trust funds, taking pension 
assets out of them.
  Your characterization of what the President and others have suggested 
on pension funds is total distortion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene 
Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me also compliment the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania for bringing that up and if he would look 
at what Secretary Reich has said.
  That bill that we passed here, there is no mandate from the 
Department of Labor on any of those investments in housing. But the 
argument should be I would rather them invest in housing here than in 
Beirut, Lebanon where some of them may get the same rate of return they 
would instead of downtown Houston.
  I rise tonight to support the motion to instruct. I support a 
balanced budget but not the effort that the majority is trying to do. 
It is ironic that our Speaker and supporters approved this budget plan 
just a few days before Halloween and here we are going to have it 
tomorrow.
  When one looks at the facts, it is clear that their budget and their 
rhetoric are the ones that are scaring the American people. They are 
scaring seniors on Medicare, college students and the workers who are 
depending on those pensions instead of this raid on the pension plans.
  Perhaps the single biggest trick is that the Republicans are cutting 
Medicare by $270 billion in order to pay for the $245 billion budget-
busting tax cut.
  The fact is that Medicare is cut to pay for tax cuts is highlighted 
by the Medicare cuts are 3 times greater than what the Medicare 
trustees have said they needed to do to ensure Medicare solvency to the 
year 2006.
  If you do not think that is scary enough, listen to this from a 
distinguished Member from the other body:
  I was there fighting the fight, voting against Medicare, 1 out of 
about 12 because we knew it would not work in 1965.
  And from a Member of our own body:
  ``Now we don't get rid of it,'' that is being the Medicare they are 
trying to save supposedly, ``in round one because we don't think that's 
politically smart and we don't think it's the right way to go through a 
transition period. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine 
because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it.''
  Voluntarily leave Medicare? The budget plan will force seniors out of 
Medicare. That is not voluntary. It is forcing them out.
  The promises from the Republicans to strengthen and preserve Medicare 
are scary Halloween tricks on senior citizens.
  Let me remind Members what the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] 
said, that in 1990 we had a $290 billion deficit on a yearly basis. 
This last year without one Republican vote we had $164 billion.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just want to point out again, under our plan, EITC goes up by 40 
percent. The gentleman from Minnesota seems to think that is a cut. A 
40-percent increase seems to me to be a pretty good increase.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. No. I am going to make my statement.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to just----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. [Mr. Riggs] The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will suspend so the Chair can get order.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield 
to the gentleman from Ohio?
  Mr. WALKER. The gentleman yields for a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. KASICH. I want to make a parliamentary inquiry.
  Under the rules of the House, is the Speaker supposed to maintain 
order in here?

[[Page H 11419]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes; the Speaker is to maintain order in the 
House at all times, and the Speaker will remind Members that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania controls the time, and the House will 
proceed under regular order.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  I just wanted to also point out, I come back and say exactly the 
point again, that the President has issued an Executive order. 
Secretary Reich is in the process of implementing the Executive order 
that is designed to raid the pension system of this country, and take 
money out of productive investments where that money can actually earn 
real money and put it into public housing. I think the workers of this 
country would be absolutely appalled if they understood what this 
administration is about to do, and that is take their money out of 
places where it is actually leading to productive investment in the 
country and going into public housing.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to correct some absolute 
misstatements by the preceding speaker, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  The administration has proposed nothing that involves the use of 
pension in any high risk venture. Nothing has been proposed in that 
respect.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Is public housing a high risk investment?
  Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, I will explain it to you, so listen. 
No investment may be used unless it is equal in return and risk to any 
other investment to be made by a prudent investor. That is the only 
standard of consideration by the Treasury Department.
  Let me proceed with what has been proposed in the budget that every 
member of the majority, with a few exceptions, voted for: a raid on 
pension plans that has been estimated to bring in 40, that has been 
estimated to allow $40 billion in pension fund assets to fly out of 
pension funds. During the 1980's we saw pension funds being used to 
finance hostile takeovers of corporations. It was the money of the 
pensioners that was used to finance these pensions.
  On three different occasions Congress enacted safeguards so this 
could never happen again. Without a hearing, Ways and Means removes all 
of those safeguards for a windfall window for corporations to make a 
pension grab up until July 1, 1996, and a 6.5-percent penalty 
thereafter.
  What will happen is one of three scenarios: Hostile takeovers kick in 
again, they raid the corporations, they use the workers' pension funds 
to finance the takeover; second scenario, a corporation wanting to fend 
off a hostile takeover, caring about their workers but wanting to fend 
off a hostile takeover, has to take out of the pension funds to remove 
themselves as a target; or, third, a corporation that is in financial 
trouble begins to dip in the cookie jar, the pension funds reserved for 
the workers.
  I know about this. I for 8 years regulated the solvency of insurance 
companies. I am the only Member of this body that has spent 8 years 
regulating solvency. This is a solvency protection issue. It goes at 
the heart of the pension security of millions of working men and women 
across this country.
  When this came before the floor of the Senate, in their budget 
debate, they rejected this ill-thought-out proposal by a vote of 95 to 
4.
  We urge this body to approve this and yield to the Senate position, 
restore worker pension security.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. At this point in the debate, the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has 8 minutes 50 seconds remaining, and the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to urge support for the motion to 
instruct offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  Let me point out to my colleagues on the other side that all this 
motion does is to ask the conferees to recede to the Senate position on 
the pension reversions. So essentially what we are saying is these 
pension provisions in the House bill are not wise, and the Senate, to 
their credit, has essentially said they are not wise, and that was done 
by the majority party. I think that is a recognition of the fact that 
the concerns that we have over the pension provisions in the House bill 
are real and, therefore, the conferees should listen to what the Senate 
has done because of their concern.
  I just wanted to go back and point out from the very beginning that 
the reason why I support this motion to instruct is primarily because 
it recognizes the fact that we should not destroy Medicare by providing 
tax cuts for the wealthy. What the motion said is that we can provide 
more money for Medicare, more money for Medicaid if we simply decrease 
the amount of tax cuts that are going for wealthy Americans. At the 
same time the motion also says do not increase taxes on poor people. 
The earned income tax credit, which has been the subject of much of the 
debate here today, put more money back into the earned income tax 
credit, the way the current law would provide, so that we do not have a 
higher tax in this budget bill on poor people; the same thing with 
regard to Medicare part B. Medicare part B is doubled in this 
legislation.
  Let us avoid some of those increases. Let us avoid taxing poor people 
or poor elderly or elderly in general, who cannot afford to pay for 
that tax increase.
  The other recognition I think that in this motion to instruct is that 
a lot of people may simply not get health coverage, may not have access 
to health care because of what is in this legislation, low-income 
seniors who no longer will be eligible for part B and have their 
Medicare part B premiums paid, States that may decide they are not 
going to provide the guarantee of Medicaid coverage in certain 
categories.
  I urge support for the motion. It makes sense and takes away from 
some of the terrible things that are in this bill that are passed last 
week in the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] that he has the right to close the debate.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado. [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, this is very simple, what we are talking 
about. We are talking about ``wreckonciliation'' and we have a little 
bit of progress tonight if we pass this motion to instruct.
  If we do not pass this motion to instruct, we are going to wreck all 
of the regulations dealing with nursing homes. We are going to wreck 
the fact that Medicaid goes for women, children and disabled, and we 
are going to wreck the pension part.
  The other body voted on these very strongly, and all we are saying to 
our side is, please, please go along with the Senate on what they 
strongly voted on.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentlewoman 
mentioned pension. The gentleman from Pennsylvania made the 
preposterous statement we are putting pension money into public 
housing. That is, of course, literally impossible. Public housing is 
wholly public funding. What he may be talking about, and I have to say 
on this issue, if a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania is quite safe, because he has none 
whatsoever.
  This House voted, with support of Republicans on the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services, to allow building trades to invest 
their own pension funds in housing, not public housing but assisted 
housing, which would help build housing and help their jobs. Some of 
those projects have already been built. He made that argument before; 
he was repudiated by the Republicans on the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services, as well as over two-thirds of the House.
  Some of that has been done, and there is not any evidence whatsoever 
that anybody is trying to put any money into public housing. It is a 
matter that involves poor people and so, 

[[Page H 11420]]
therefore, it is one he is not familiar with.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. The gentleman from Massachusetts is absolutely 
correct. I think we ought to listen to that, because not only the vote 
in the Senate was 95 Senators agreed with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and everyone else. So if you do not want your pension 
wrecked, if you do not want to do away with standards for nursing 
homes, and if you do not want to undercut Medicaid benefits for the 
disabled and low-income women and children, vote ``yes'' on this motion 
to instruct. It is time we show we have a heart larger than a swollen 
pea.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
   Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I do understand the emotional 
attachment that some in the House have towards believing that the only 
way to solve problems in this country is to send more money and 
influence and power to people in this city.
  What I am a little mystified about is the fact that our philosophy 
simply is this: We think that if we send or if we keep our money and 
our power and influence and we invest it in our neighbors, our friends, 
our families, our local elected officials, that they frankly are 
capable of showing as much or more compassion than those folks who have 
been vested, with money, power and influence in this city.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, if in fact we do not return power and money 
and influence back to our local communities, then in fact the country 
is on a road towards bankruptcy. I would say that the Democratic side 
here has made some legitimate points tonight that we, in fact, will 
consider in the conference. The conference is a matter of being able to 
take the provisions that we have passed in this body, to be able to sit 
down with those in the other body and work out the big picture in terms 
of what best is going to help solve the problems of this country.
  As I have already pointed out, our Medicaid plan already has a 
requirement that 85 percent of all the mandatory spending that affects 
the children and the poor and the disabled be maintained, that a State 
match be maintained, and we are going to continue to have discussions 
in areas where we have some disagreement. But at the end of the day, we 
are going to pass a plan that gives increased flexibility, more money 
on entitlement programs, not less, more money on entitlement programs, 
and restores a big part of common sense. It is about the pendulum 
coming back from too many rules being dictated here to more decisions 
being made at the local level.
  I would ask my colleagues to allow us to maintain this, the 
flexibility, as we go to the conference, reject the specific motion to 
instruct conferees, allow us to get on with our job. Within the period 
of hopefully 2 weeks, we will all be back up here with a wrapped-up 
reconciliation bill that will in fact accomplish our objectives.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes, the remainder of my time, 
to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we have heard some sounds of reasonableness 
from the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and from a few others. But we 
have also heard tonight some notes of meanness.
  Let me say a word about the pension issue, for example. Look, the 
Democrats have not asked that any fund be able to spend this money for 
public housing, as stated. All we have said is let management-labor 
trust funds spend money within the industry in which they labor, and we 
have said to you, do not let employers take back money that employees 
earned for their pensions. That is what we have said.
  I sit on the Committee on Ways and Means, and why was the $40 billion 
proposed? In order to raise $10 billion in taxes.
  I think it is mean to steal pension money from people who worked for 
it in order to pay for a tax cut for very wealthy Americans.

                              {time}  1945

  Let me say just a word about this corporate welfare suggestion to the 
gentleman from Connecticut. Look, there is not an attack on corporate 
welfare here. Sixty-nine percent of this is EITC pension and low income 
housing credit programs. EITC is not giving money back to people. They 
worked for it. It is not the government's money. Now some are proposing 
to reduce it.
  What we are trying to do through this motion is to bring some common 
sense to this process, and to take America back from the extremism that 
we have brought to these deliberations.
  Vote for this motion to instruct. The Senate did better, but we have 
to send a message to the House and Senate conferees: Do not listen to 
the extremism in this budget. Vote for this motion to instruct.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to 
instruct.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The question is on the motion to 
instruct offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198, 
noes 219, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 744]

                               AYES--198

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

                               NOES--219

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling

[[Page H 11421]]

     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bishop
     Chapman
     Dickey
     Fields (LA)
     Ford
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Johnson (CT)
     Lincoln
     McHugh
     McInnis
     Solomon
     Tucker
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2005

  Ms. WATERS, Mr. MOAKLEY, and Mr. ENGEL changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye''.
  So the motion to instruct was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The Chair wishes to announce 
that it will appoint conferees to the House-Senate budget 
reconciliation conference after the next vote.

                          ____________________