[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 183 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13148-H13151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




AUTHORIZING CORRECTION IN CONFERENCE REPORT AND WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER 
  AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2491, SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET 
                       RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 272 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 272

       Resolved, That the proceedings of the legislative day of 
     November 15, 1995, by which the conference report to 
     accompany the bill (H.R. 2491) to provide for reconciliation 
     pursuant to section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 1996 was presented to the House and 
     ordered printed, are hereby vacated, to the end that the 
     managers on the part of the House may immediately present the 
     conference report in the form actually ordered reported to 
     the House as a product of the meeting and signatures of the 
     committee of conference and actually to be presented in the 
     Senate, in pertinent corrected part as depicted in section 3 
     of this resolution. The existing signatures of the committee 
     of conference shall remain valid as authorizing the 
     presentation of the conference report to the House in 
     corrected form.
       Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider the conference report presented to the 
     House pursuant to the first section of this resolution. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable 
     for two hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. 
     After such debate the previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the conference report to final adoption without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit, which may 
     not contain instructions and on which the previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered. After disposition of the 
     conference report, no further consideration of the bill shall 
     be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the 
     House.
       Sec. 3. The correction described in section 2 of this 
     resolution is to insert between subtitles J and L of title 
     XII a subtitle K (as depicted in the table of contents) as 
     follows:

                      ``Subtitle K--Miscellaneous

     ``SEC. 13101. FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY.

       ``Section 6(f) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2015(f)) is amended by striking the third sentence and 
     inserting the following: `The State agency shall, at its 
     option, consider either all income and financial resources of 
     the individual rendered ineligible to participate in the food 
     stamp program under this subsection, or such income, less a 
     pro rata share, and the financial resources of the ineligible 
     individual, to determine the eligibility and the value of the 
     allotment of the household of which such individual is a 
     member.'

     ``SEC. 13102. REDUCTION IN BLOCK GRANTS FOR SOCIAL SERVICES.

       ``Section 2003(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397b) is amended--
       ``(1) by striking `and' at the end of paragraph (4); and
       ``(2) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the 
     following:
       `(5) $2,800,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1990 
     through 1996; and
       `(6) $2,240,000,000 for each fiscal year after fiscal year 
     1996.'''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Woodland 
Hills, CA [Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous matter.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, due to a technical error committed during 
the filing of the conference report on H.R. 2491, this rule vacates the 
proceedings by which the conference report on H.R. 2491, the Seven-Year 
Balanced Budget Act, was filed. The rule authorizes the managers to 
immediately refile the report in the form actually signed and ordered 
reported, with the corrected part printed in section 3 of the rule. The 
rule further provides that the existing signatures of the conferees 
shall remain valid as authorizing the presentation of the conference 
report to the House in its corrected form.
  The rule then provides for the consideration of the newly filed 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2491. The rule waives all points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration. The 
rule provides for two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee.
  The rule provides for one motion to recommit the conference report 
which may not contain instructions. Finally, the rule provides that 
following disposition of the conference report, no further action on 
the bill is in order except by subsequent order of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, this is it. We are beginning, over the next 3 hours, the 
debate on the most important change in decades.
  Mr. Speaker, while democracy in action can be loud, most people in a 
free society are too busy living their lives to listen closely. to the 
casual observer, we can sound as irritating as static on a radio. 
However, the more the volume is turned up, the more people will notice 
that while Washington might sound like it always does, this is not 
business as usual. Instead, the majority in Congress is carrying out 
truly history change--actually balancing the budget for the first time 
in decades.
  At the heart of our agenda for change are four fundamental goals that 
Americans from all regions and income groups recognize are vital to our 
future as a prosperous and secure nation.
  One, we must balance the Federal budget as quickly as possible in 
order to stop the massive increase in debt that is mortgaging our 
children's future.
  Two, we must reform the welfare system that is trapping honest 
families in a cycle of dependency and poverty.
  Three, we must fundamentally improve the Medicare system so that we 
provide health care security to a generation of retirees by averting 
the system's bankruptcy and keeping it from destabilizing the Federal 
budget; and
  Four, we must provide some tax relief that strengthens families and 
spurs private sector job creation and rising worker wages.
  These are not partisan goals. They incorporate the basic aspirations 
of families throughout this great and massive Nation. That is why it 
was not just the new majority in Congress that was elected after 
calling for these changes. Back in 1992, the President called for a 
balanced budget, ending welfare as we know it, and providing a middle 
class tax cut. Now that he has the chance to work with a Congress that 
shares those same goals that he has outlined, he can follow through on 
his promises. We are going to give him that opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, the Balanced Budget Act conference report accomplishes 
these four foundation pillars of the effort to change the Federal 
Government so that it serves America's families, rather than families 
serving the Federal Government.
  This bill is not a flimsy outline of talking points that can be 
pawned off as a balanced budget. It is a specific plan, warts and all, 
that turns around three decades of deficit spending and balances the 
budget in 7 years. And it meets that goal using conservative forecasts 
of economic growth so that we do not see hundreds of billions in new 
debt 7 years from now and say to our children--``Oops, I guess we 
weren't as lucky as we had hoped we would be.''
  This bill cuts taxes. I will not apologize for that. It cuts taxes 
less than the 

[[Page H13149]]
President raised taxes 2 years ago. Americans would have more of their 
own hard earned money if neither the 1993 tax increase, nor his tax 
cut, were ever enacted. A full 60 percent of all tax benefits in the 
bill go to families with children and incomes less than $110,000. Those 
are the people who are the heart and soul of this Nation, the people 
rising our future.
  I would also note the incentives to promote savings and investment, 
especially the capital gains tax cut, are critical in regions of this 
country in need of greater economic growth.
  I am privileged to represent California. In California, the capital 
gains tax rate reduction and the extension of the research tax credit 
are two tax proposals that translate directly into more jobs in the 
private sector companies that are at the heart of our economic 
recovery, creating the transition from a defense-based to an export-
based economy.
  California also appreciates that while we balance the budget, we do 
not ignore clear Federal priorities. At the forefront is the Federal 
responsibility to control our borders and provide funding for the cost 
of failed immigration policies.

                              {time}  1015

  The $3.5 billion in Medicaid funds to assist States for the cost of 
health care to illegal immigrants providing multimillion dollar relief 
to California taxpayers is a critical new effort which is addressed in 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the Balanced Budget Act is an agreement between the 
majorities in the House and Senate encompassing the views of 
Representatives with varied views on Government and its role in our 
society.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a radical plan. It spends $12.1 trillion 
over 7 years. If we stick to the current deficit spending plan, we 
would spend $13.3 trillion over that time. Despite the ``sky is 
falling'' rhetoric of some, all we are proposing is that the Government 
live on just about $1 trillion less over 7 years. There is still $12.1 
trillion to go around.
  Mr. Speaker, this real balanced budget is doable. It is reasonable. 
It has heart. Medicare spending goes up a lot. Medicaid, school 
lunches, and student loans all go up by billions of dollars. Families 
keep a little more of the money that they earn.
  There likely remains a way to go in this process. Despite addressing 
a number of his Presidential campaign promises, after 3 years in 
Washington the President may have forgotten why he was elected and he 
might choose to veto this bill. However, I hope we can all agree that 
by the end of this year, we will agree on a balanced budget that means 
is 2002 the first American babies born in nearly 40 years, our high 
school class of 2020, will be born in a country where their parents and 
grandparents are not putting the bills on the backs of those children.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule permits us to enact a balanced budget. I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] for 
yielding me the customary half hour of debate time.
  Mr. Speaker, we strongly oppose this rule and the legislation it 
makes in order, the conference report on the 1995 Budget Reconciliation 
Act.
  By waiving all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration, this rule enables the Republican leadership 
to bring this measure to the floor without worrying about whether or 
not it violates any of our standing House rules. One rule that this 
legislation most certainly violates is the 3-day layover rule, the rule 
designed to give Members 3 days to review legislation before having to 
vote on it. It is the layover that protects the very basic right of 
Members to have a sufficient opportunity to evaluate legislation before 
voting on it.
  It is also very likely the conference report violates the rule 
against exceeding the scope of the conference, preventing conferees 
from inserting legislation in the conference report that was not passed 
by either the House or the Senate.
  We are concerned about these two potential violations because while 
we are all familiar with the broad outlines of this legislation, very 
few of us know much about its details. In facts, Mr. Speaker, when the 
Committee on Rules took testimony on this bill last night, we were 
dismayed to find that even the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, 
the Member of this House who has been most closely involved with this 
legislation, was unable to answer many of our very basic questions 
about the contents of this measure. The ranking minority members of the 
Committees on the Budget and Ways and Means, members who certainly 
ought to have been given sufficient information on the conference 
report by that point, were just as much in the dark about its contents 
as we were.
  To make matters worse, the rule before us provides for only 2 hours 
of debate. Thus, not only does this rule rush this conference report to 
the floor before Members have had a chance to find out what is in it, 
but it also severely restricts the amount of time we will have discuss 
and question and understand just what it is we will be voting on.
  At our Committee on Rules meeting, in response to the clear need for 
more information on this measure, we offered an amendment to extend 
general debate time from 2 to 4 hours. Unfortunately, our totally 
reasonable request was opposed by nearly all the majority members. In 
doing so, we believe they did a real disservice to the Members of this 
Chamber and to the American public.
  We also object to this rule's denial of a motion to recommit with 
instructions. As our Republican friends always and vigorously argued 
when they were in the minority, that motion to recommit is virtually 
meaningless if it cannot be used to amend a measure. Disallowing 
instructions on a motion to recommit tramples on one of the most 
important rights the minority party has under the rules of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, we understand the Republican leadership's desire to move 
forward with this legislation as quickly as possible, particularly in 
light of the fact that the President intends to veto it and Congress 
will again have to consider reconciliation legislation later in this 
session. But when we are faced with a piece of legislation so massive 
and so far reaching as this is, so historic as our Republican friends 
called it last night, Members ought to have sufficient time to find out 
what is in it and to debate it for a reasonable amount of time before 
we are asked to vote on final passage.
  Now that it is apparent the House will be in session for several more 
days as we try to reach an agreement on funding for Federal agencies, 
there is no valid reason whatsoever why we cannot wait another day or 
two to consider this measure and then a few more hours to debate it so 
we can do so in a more thoughtful and reasonable manner than is going 
to be allowed.
  The only reason for rushing this conference report through the House 
today is to keep Members and the public from learning what is in this 
package, because the more Members learn about this conference report, 
the less eager they will be to vote for it. This is a bill that makes 
far-reaching changes in Medicare and Medicaid, in tax policy, in 
support for low income Americans, in farm programs, the student loan 
program, the Federal retirement system, and in laws governing the use 
of much of our Nation's natural resources, including revisions to the 
1872 mining law which this House has signaled its disapproval of 
through numerous votes earlier this year.
  It is true that the conference report predicts a balanced budget in 7 
years, which is something the American people and we support. But they 
do not support reaching that goal in the manner provided for by this 
legislation. It will soon become evident, if it is not already, that 
the reason this legislation contains such extreme cuts in Medicare and 
in programs that help moderate income Americans, is those cuts are 
needed to help finance the bill's $245 billion tax cut that most 
Americans believe should not be our first priority and should be 
postponed until such time as we have actually balanced the Federal 
budget.
  In fact, as more of the details of this measure are revealed, the 
American people will see the greatest significance of this measure is 
not its role in 

[[Page H13150]]
producing a balanced budget, but rather its monumental shift of 
resources from poor and middle income Americans to the wealthiest 
Americans. They will see that it is a cruel, mean-spirited, and 
misguided measure that will reward well-to-do Americans and special 
interests and punish the rest.
  While we think it is a move in the right direction that the $500-per-
child tax credit will not be available to families with incomes over 
$110,000 a year, we think it is wrong that the tax credit will not be 
available to low income working families either. Low income families in 
fact will pay higher taxes under this bill because of the decrease in 
the earned income tax credit.

  We are extremely concerned that the legislation will pull the rug out 
from under working families by cutting not only the earned income tax 
credit, but also Medicaid, food stamps, child care assistance, the 
support that parents working in low wage jobs need to stay off welfare.
  We are particularly concerned that the legislation will raise the 
cost of student loans, the primary means available to moderate income 
families to give their children a leg up in life, that it will reduce 
the alternative minimum tax that ensures profitable corporations are 
not able to use multiple tax loopholes to escape paying taxes; and that 
it will encourage corporations to raid the pension funds, and thus 
jeopardize the retirement security of millions of American workers.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a rule that sets the stage for a vote on a far-
reaching conference report before we know what is in it, a rule that 
makes it easy for the Republican leadership to sweep through the House 
a very bad package of legislation. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the 
rule, and ``no'' on the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
very good friend, the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], a 
former Marine platoon leader and chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Claremont, CA, 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I probably should not be here in the well, because I am 
so excited, because I thought this day would never come. It is a day 
that I have waited for for 17 years. To think we are on a glidepath 
that is irreversible to a balanced budget, how exciting that is to the 
American people.
  Today this House is going to consider what is arguably the single 
most important piece of legislation this Congress will consider this 
year or any other year, again, because it is irreversible, on a 
guaranteed glidepath to a balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have said it in poll after poll 
after poll: They want a balanced budget, and this is our chance to do 
it. They want this Congress to be fiscally responsible, the way they 
are.
  This proposal is much different from the one put together by 
President Clinton. This one is in real legislative language. It shows 
exactly how the hard choices have to be made. It is specific. This 
Balanced Budget Act, when scored by realistic budget projections of the 
Congressional Budget Office, leads to a budget surplus at the end of 7 
years, something we have not had around here in over 26 years. The 
Clinton proposal, when scored by the same realistic budget projections 
of the Congressional Budget Office, never leads to a balanced budget, 
for as far as the eye can see.
  For example, in the year 2002, the deficit level of the Clinton 
budget is higher than it is today. Can you imagine? Instead of a 
glidepath down, we are on a glidepath up. Over $250 billion at the year 
2002 will be the yearly deficit that year, and it would add another $1 
trillion to the already unconscionable debt that has turned this 
country of ours into a debtor nation, drowning our children and our 
grandchildren in a sea of red ink. That is terrible.
  Now President Clinton claims his budget leads to a balanced budget in 
10 years. But the only way to reach that conclusion is to use 
unrealistic, rosy economic assumptions. It is this kind of overly 
optimistic scoring that has caused Democrat-controlled Congresses over 
the years to produce these huge budgetary deficits.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that some Democrats will try to say that because 
there was a Republican President during some of those years, that they 
were not responsible. Well, let us get the record straight right now. 
If you read the Constitution of the United States, you will find that 
it is this Congress which has the responsibility to control the purse 
strings. No President can spend a dime; only we in this body can spend 
that dime. The Constitution specifically provides that only the House 
of Representatives can initiate new revenue measures, and by long 
custom, only the House of Representatives initiates spending measures, 
period. This body, not even the Senate. We cannot even blame the 
Senate. We blame ourselves.

  Now, for the first time in 40 years, Republicans are responsible for 
control of the purse strings, and no matter what, my friends, we are 
going to balance this budget, and you can count on it.
  Mr. Speaker, as we have tried to make these tough choices necessary 
to protect future generations, there are those who have attacked us as 
being mean-spirited, and we are going to hear it this morning. But what 
is really mean-spirited about piling this kind of debt on our children 
and our grandchildren? Let me tell Members, that is not compassionate, 
that is a shame. Mr. Speaker, there is no excuse for this generation 
not to be paying its own bills. That means you and me.
  Mr. Speaker, today we will hear from those that will want to balance 
the budget, but they are going to come up here and they are going to 
say on this floor they want to do it a different way. In a package of 
this size, there is bound to be something that each of us do not like. 
I am sure if you read the 3,000-page document, you are going to find 
things you do not like. But, Mr. Speaker, in a large and diverse Nation 
like this, each of us cannot say ``my way or no way.'' At some point, 
we would have to consider the long-term good of this Nation, and we 
need to stop trying to figure out how much we can take from our 
Nation's taxpayers, how much we can take, ``give me, give me, give me; 
more, more, more.''
  It was a Democrat President that said, ``Ask not what your country 
can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.'' You know 
something, I was proud to be a John F. Kennedy Democrat at the time 
when he spoke those words, and I might still be a Democrat, my friends, 
if my party had taken a more responsible approach to running this 
Nation over those years.
  But what I see on the other side of the aisle now are too many people 
asking how much they can get, and too few being concerned about the 
consequences of dumping this kind of debt on my children and your 
children, and my grandchildren and your grandchildren.
  If this package prevails, my friends, future generations will win. 
Keep that in mind. But if this package loses, future generations lose, 
and it may be irretrievable, the damage we do to them. Please come over 
and support this rule and vote for this bill. It is the right thing to 
do for this country, and for our children and grandchildren.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], our ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to hear the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, saying that we 
should read the bill. This is the bill, Mr. Speaker, that was placed on 
our desk 5 minutes before the Committee on Rules met last night.
  We asked for 2 hours of extra time just to go through it, and they 
said they did not have the time. So they ask us to read the bill, but 
then do not give us the time to read the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, today is our last chance to stop this horrible bill 
before it goes to the President. Today is our last chance to vote 
against cutting Medicare to pay for tax breaks for the very rich. And 
we should.
  Mr. Speaker we should not cut Medicare $270 billion to pay for $245 
billion in tax cuts for the rich.

[[Page H13151]]

  We should not even think about cutting child nutrition programs, like 
school lunches by $6 billion.
  We should not cut student loans by $5 billion.
  And we should not increase the taxes on working families by $32 
billion. But, today my Republican colleagues probably will.
  Now maybe someone can think of a reason to cut these critical 
programs, but I cannot. I think it is horrible to even consider these 
cuts in order to give more money to the people who do not need it.
  But it is true, Mr. Speaker, these cuts are to lower the taxes on the 
very rich, and to lower the taxes on big corporations. And that is 
wrong.
  This bill takes from the mouths of babes, from the health care of 
seniors, from the education of students, and gives to the pockets of 
the rich.
  What makes this whole idea even worse is that my Republican 
colleagues, the people responsible for writing this bill, cannot even 
tell us exactly what is in this bill.
  So we asked for more debate time, more time to ask questions, but 
they said no.
  They said no to finding out the details. They said no to Medicare 
recipients. They said no to children who need school lunches and they 
said no to students needing loans.
  The only people who are getting a yes these days are the richest 
Americans and the biggest corporations.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a horrible rule for a horrible bill, and I urge 
my colleagues to defeat it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual situation going on 
around here in Washington. Employees are furloughed, Government is shut 
down. I am a Democrat that is not against cutting taxes. I voted to cut 
taxes.
  In fact, I voted for the last continuing resolution. I believe the 
Republican continuing resolution was better than the motion to recommit 
by the Democrats. The Democrats had a line-item veto in it.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask, do my colleagues want to protect Medicare and 
Social Security? It is not done by passing a line-item veto. There may 
be a President some day that just might target it.
  Let me say this. I want to cut taxes. I do not demean the motives of 
the Republican Party. The Republican Party is courageous, they have 
outfoxed us. The major difference in this House is five votes on a gun 
ban and the biggest tax increase in American history, and we are being 
suckered in once again. Their courage may cost them, the majority, next 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, I want a tax cut. I am a Democrat that wants a tax cut. 
I support a tax cut. I do not believe that where it is coming from is 
in the best interests of the country.
  I voted for that 7-year continuing resolution, 7 years the Democrats 
offered so that the President could sit down and say, look, maybe let 
us bring it down for more working families, let us set Medicare aside, 
treat it better, but let us work together.
  The truth is, both parties are in lockstep. This is Presidential 
politics. And beware, Democrats. No one is talking about the trade 
issue, and without Democrats, there would be no GATT, there would be no 
NAFTA, and now Democrats are going to give the President a line-item 
veto.
  The President will spend every damn dime. There is no program. There 
is no program. I admire your courage, but I do not believe it is going 
to work, and I will not support it.
  I am saying to the Democrats, we do not have a program. I am going to 
vote no on this rule; I am going to vote no on this reconciliation.
  Let me say this, while everybody is lockstepping with these party 
leaders, we were not set here to be lemmings. Think for your damn self.
  Our country screwed up. Mr. Speaker, 43,000 Americans have lost their 
jobs since 1941. We have men trying to get jobs in Hooters Restaurant, 
for God's sake.
  Mr. Speaker, if we want to balance the budget, we will not balance it 
the way we are going. Let us take a look at these unrealistic trade 
programs. Let us take a look at the loss of jobs going overseas, good-
paying jobs, and the Republicans are not dealing with that yet.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I will make one last statement. The country 
would not be in the condition it is in today if it were not for 
Democrats, GATT, and NAFTA. The Democratic Party supports line-item 
veto, yet does not support American workers.

                          ____________________