[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 183 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13151-H13157]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would advise Members 
that the use of profanity is against the House rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative 
and Budget Process of the Committee on Rules, who as chairman of the 
subcommittee understands what it is going to take for us to balance the 
budget.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, Congress has been working long days and late 
hours to find a positive solution to the budget crisis. We have moved 
appropriations bills, put together the Balanced Budget Act conference 
report, and passed two continuing resolutions to reopen the Government. 
The latest one is under a veto threat because it contains a simple 
statement of commitment to balance the budget in 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, it is in this context that the President said, when 
asked why he was refusing to negotiate with Congress, that, quote, 
``Somebody has to do the right thing,'' end quote. It surprises me, and 
it will surprise many Americans, that the President seems to have an 
exclusive take on the right thing, one that leads him to refuse steps 
to reopen the Government. Only President Clinton knows what is right, 
so says President Clinton. Wrong. Given the $5 trillion debt we have 
built up and will leave to our children and grandhcildren, I think that 
a commitment to a balanced budget in 7 years is the right thing. Even 
better is a specific outline to eliminate the deficit and get us there.
  Saving Medicare from bankruptcy is the right thing. Allowing 
Americans to keep more of the money in their paychecks, that is the 
right thing. The child tax credit, that is the right thing. Phase out 
of the marriage penalty, the right thing. And a reduction in the 
capital gains rate is the right thing.
  This rule provides for ample time to debate this historic balanced 
budget; it allows us to send the President the balanced budget the 
American people have demanded.
  It is up to us to pass this rule, support the Balanced Budget Act of 
1995, and once again urge the President to do the right thing.
  We will not be playing any golf this weekend. I hope the President 
will not be either. The right thing to do is to sit down and sign the 
Balanced Budget Act.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a good rule because it does not allow for a 
motion to recommit and debate over a serious and real alternative. The 
question is not whether we should move toward a balanced budget; the 
question is how we should move toward a balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the economic reality in this country today is that the 
richest people are becoming richer, the middle class is shrinking, and 
today, with great shame, we have by far the highest rate of childhood 
poverty in the industrialized world.
  Given that reality, how in God's name can anyone talk about moving 
toward a balanced budget by giving huge tax breaks to the rich, by 
creating a situation in which the largest corporations will pay no 
taxes, by building more B-2 bombers that the Pentagon does not want at 
$1.5 billion a plane, by putting more money into star wars, by spending 
$100 billion a year defending Europe and Asia against a nonexistent 
enemy?
  How do we talk about balancing a budget when we continue to spend 
$125 billion a year on corporate welfare, but we are going to slash 
Medicare, slash 

[[Page H13152]]
Medicaid, slash veterans' programs, eliminate LIHEAP, and do 
devastation to middle-income working people and the poor?
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, if they want to balance the budget, 
what about going after foreign corporations with subsidiaries in 
America like Toyota and Nissan, which underpay their U.S. taxes by $25 
billion?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce], my very good friend and a hard-working member 
of the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the nay-sayers said it could not be done, but they told 
Lindberg the same thing.
  Well, nobody is saying it was easy, but through the years of hard 
work and dedication of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and many 
others on both sides of the aisle, we have done it. We have produced a 
balanced budget in 7 years.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as the old saying goes, ``the proof is in the 
pudding,'' and the proof is in the conference report which we are about 
to consider under the terms of this rule.
  Today, as the national debt soars to nearly $5 trillion, we have 
learned a painful lesson that our short-term fixes have become long-
term burdens for our children and grandchildren.
  I would ask my colleagues who might be thinking of voting against 
this rule and the underlying legislation to consider the children of 
our country.
  They are the Nation's most precious resource, and without a balanced 
budget, we will surely be robbing them of the kind of prosperous, 
productive, and financially secure future which we have enjoyed and 
which surely they deserve.
  Unfortunately, the nay-sayers will be at it again, telling us that we 
are going too far, too fast.
  But this conference report offers solutions no more complicated or 
profound than those used every day by hardworking taxpayers and their 
families who play by the rules, who work to pay the bills, and who 
watch their spending in order to make ends meet.
  We cannot go on blaming others for the fiscal mess we face when we 
have the golden opportunity today to vote for a plan that will make the 
American dream a reality for so many.
  The choice is ours, Mr. Speaker. We can either vote ``yes'' for the 
dream of a brighter future, or ``no'' for a long, painful slide into 
third world economic status.
  Adopt this rule for our kids.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this sensible and completely 
appropriate rule so that we may begin to build a better future for the 
children and grandchildren of this great country.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule and the budget reconciliation and the conference report.
  Today we are considering a bill with all of the wrong priorities. It 
includes cuts in education, investment in our future, deep cuts in 
programs for seniors, especially Medicare. The Republican majority cuts 
$270 billion in Medicare, while enacting a $245 billion tax cut.
  We can balance the budget and make Medicare solvent without deep cuts 
in senior citizen health care and without these tax breaks.
  The Republicans' $270 billion cut is three times larger than what the 
Medicare trustees requested. In fact, there is a $36 billion hole in 
this budget that is a line item that just says fail-safe. That is the 
amount that will be cut from hospitals and providers if these other 
reforms do not work.

                              {time}  1045

  If the Republicans left out their tax cuts, they would not need the 
budget gimmicks like this fail-safe to make their numbers up. We need 
to oppose the rule, the conference committee report and let us balance 
the budget, whether it is in 7 years or not, without cuts in Medicare, 
and without cuts in taxes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that over 80 
percent of this tax cut goes to people who are earning less than 
$100,000 a year.
  With that I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Harrisburg, PA [Mr. 
Gekas], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law.
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule which is the first step 
towards the balanced budget for which we all yearn.
  Mr. Speaker, if we do nothing more throughout the balance of the 7 
years that we are discussing here today, we will be spending $13 
trillion. If we arrive at the balanced budget which we seek, we will be 
spending only $12 trillion. So the balanced budget would save us $1 
trillion throughout the course of the 7 years.
  Is this important? One thousand billion dollars which we would have 
to borrow because we do not have a balanced budget, to borrow more, to 
pay more interest on the debt, to pay nothing on the principal of a 
multitrillion-dollar national debt.
  Is that what the country wants? Or does it want us to reach that 
balanced budget and start taking the money that we would be paying for 
interest on the debt, paying that back to our citizens by way of 
development and community work?
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, we are going to debate a 7-year balanced 
budget for the United States of America in 3 hours. We spent 4 hours on 
shrimp-turtle excluder devices, yet they cannot give us another hour or 
two to debate a balanced budget for the United States of America.
  I am a balanced budget Democrat, but this party would have us believe 
there is only one path. They do not allow any alternative. They are 
giving us a bigger and better business-as-usual budget. More money for 
the Pentagon, more weapons we do not need, B-2 bombers that do not 
work, more tax cuts for the wealthy.
  There is another way to balance the budget, but you are going to go 
after the Pentagon, get rid of cold war weapons that we do not need, 
that do not work, challenge corporations to give up welfare, do away 
with agriculture subsidies, even cut back on foreign aid, and maybe 
charge royalties for mining on Federal land.
  But that takes on the rich and the powerful who have been running 
this city for a quarter of a century, and that party does not have the 
guts to do it, and they will not even let us offer one alternative. Not 
even one alternative on the floor of the House.
  A balanced budget, yes. Seven years, yes. Let us have an alternative. 
Let us have a balanced budget.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, we will consider the rule that is a bad 
rule. Why is it a bad rule? It is a rule that does not allow for the 
full opportunity nor opportunity to perfect this bad bill that is 
coming before us.
  Why is it bad? It is bad because it has gotten worse as the 
Republican conferees have looked at it. To give an example, in the 
Committee on Agriculture as we were considering food stamps for the 
poor, we are now requiring them to work 20 hours a month below the 
minimum wage, just for food stamps. An amendment offered by me in the 
Committee on Agriculture, a bipartisan amendment, approved, taken out 
in the rule. Because why? You want to make people suffer.
  Why do you need to balance the budget on the backs of the poor? Why 
do you today balance the budget on the backs of senior citizens? Why do 
you need to balance the budget on the backs of children? Taking food 
from them in school lunches, making this extreme budget.
  We say you are going too far. It is too far to expect that you should 
be compassionate? It is extreme to deny poor people an opportunity 
live? This is a bad rule, a bad bill. We should reject it because we 
want to reject it for America.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Owens].

[[Page H13153]]

  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, it is 11 a.m., almost, on November 17, 1995, 
and the American people are confronted with the last dirty details of a 
barbaric plot to murder Medicaid. Medicaid and Medicare are 30 years 
old. The plot is on to destroy 30 years of compassionate policy which 
promotes the general welfare.
  Yes, there is some phony, used car salesmen language in the bill 
which talks about eligibility for pregnant women and children, but why 
trade an entitlement for Medicaid for some phony talk about eligibility 
administered by the States? It was the States that gave us the sick and 
ill with no protection before, and now we cannot trust the States to 
take it up after the entitlement is gone.
  American voters, put your common sense to work. Do not trade an 
entitlement for some used car salesman language about maybe the States 
will enforce some kind of eligibility and keep health care. We do not 
want to go backward 30 years. We have Medicaid entitlement now. Let us 
keep the Medicaid entitlement.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Egan, 
IL [Mr. Manzullo], chairman of the Subcommittee on Small Business 
Procurement, Exports, and Business Opportunities.
  (Mr. MANZULLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, we have heard incredible words today. 
Cruel, inhumane, barbaric.
  I will tell you what is cruel, I will tell you what is inhumane. If 
we look at the President's budget last year, there was a chapter called 
Generational Forecasts. That states because of the $5 trillion debt, 
that children born after 1993, if there are no policy changes, by the 
time they enter the work force, will have an effective local, State and 
Federal tax rate of between 84 and 94 percent. This country is going to 
collapse under the tremendous burden of debt. That is cruel. That is 
inhumane. That leaves our children no future.
  If you want to give our children a future, pass the rule, pass the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1995, and allow our children not to live under a 
system that takes away all of the money they want to earn.
  Mr. Speaker, the American dream is at stake today. This is an 
opportunity to balance the budget. Let us do it for our children.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule. The Republicans met in 
secret the last few weeks and they hammered out this budget deal 
without Democratic participation, and what happened is that a bad 
budget bill got even worse.
  The Gingrich Republican budget reconciliation conference report cuts 
Medicare by $270 billion in order to pay for a $245 billion tax break 
for the wealthy, despite the fact that the Medicare cuts are 3 times 
greater than what the trustees recommended in order to make Medicare 
solvent.
  The Medicare premiums for seniors are doubled. At the same time the 
wealthy are being given huge tax breaks, working Americans will get a 
tax increase, that is a tax increase for working Americans, of $32.2 
billion cut in the earned income tax credit, $9 billion more than the 
House-passed bill. And upon the date of enactment of this legislation, 
Medicaid is repealed and 36 million Americans will lose guaranteed 
health insurance and long-term care.
  The worst part of it in my opinion is this Republican bill repeals 
the current law guarantee of payment for those widows. They will not 
have their Medicare part B premiums paid.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Morris, IL [Mr. Weller], a very eloquent new Member of Congress.
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the rule. Is this not 
why we are here? Is this not why we were sent to the Congress, to 
balance the budget, just like every American family? Republicans and 
moderate and conservative Democrats agree. Only the tax-and-spend 
liberals stand in the way.
  We have a plan to balance the budget in 7 years. We increase spending 
for Medicare 50 percent over the next 7 years, we reform welfare, we 
provide tax relief for working families, and the calls and letters that 
are coming in are overwhelmingly in favor of the Republican plan.
  My calls and my letters are 5 to 1 in favor of balancing the budget. 
Let me share the following:
  Bill Lincoln, Morris, IL, says ``There are many interest groups that 
will resist any changes. They speak for a select group but our decision 
must be based on what's best for America.''
  Thirty-one employees of a shopping center, a retailer in Calumet 
City, River Oaks Shopping Center, point out that each of us now carries 
an $18,000 responsibility for the national debt and pay hundreds of 
dollars in additional taxes every year just to finance that interest.
  The people ask us to balance the budget. Let us do what our job is. 
We have a plan. Let us adopt it.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the letter from Mr. Lincoln for the Record:

                                                 October 30, 1995.
     Hon. Jerry Weller,
     Longworth Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Weller: I hope that Congress continues 
     to pursue and is able to pass a balanced budget agreement. We 
     cannot continue to take in more money each year and then 
     increase the deficit by spending more than we take in. There 
     are many expenses that must be investigated including foreign 
     aid, farm subsidies, non-profit organizations, welfare etc. 
     There are many interest groups that will resist any changes, 
     they speak for a select group, but our decision must be based 
     on what's best for America.
       I'm glad to see that Medicare reform is underway. Many 
     seniors, including myself, recognize that something must be 
     done. There is no way the program can support itself with the 
     low premiums being paid into the system. There is nothing 
     available anywhere with the coverage provided at these rates. 
     You can't secure anything worthwhile for nothing, and those 
     receiving the benefits can't expect someone else to pick up 
     the tab. And that seems to be what is happening.
       The present Congress has or is in the process of passing 
     much needed legislation and I hope will continue with the 
     reform process and get things back where they belong.
       Thank you for allowing me to express my concerns.
           Yours truly,
                                               William P. Lincoln.

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Rules is 
right, Republicans have been waiting for this day for a very, very long 
time. This bill is precisely what the Gingrich Republicans are all 
about.
  What it does, the Gingrich plan provides a massive tax break for big 
corporations and rich people, paid for at the expense of seniors' 
health, education for our children and protection of our environment. 
The Gingrich budget plan is an unconscionable assault on the future of 
middle-class Americans.
  It raids $270 billion from Medicare to finance a lavish $245 billion 
tax break for people who do not need it. It slashes investments in 
education, guts environmental protection, exposes pension funds to 
corporate raiders, and raises taxes on working families, and it pays 
off Gingrich Republicans' high roller political supporters. They will 
talk to you today and will make pious speeches about this budget for 
our children. This is the worst assault on this Nation's children 
probably in the history of this country.
  Vote against the rule, vote against this awful bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise against this rule and against the bill. Against 
the rule because it unnecessarily restricts the amount of time on this 
debate and it unnecessarily restricts our ability to deal with it in a 
responsible manner, to propose an alternative. It is a bad rule for 
those reasons.
  Why? Why are they doing that? They are doing that simply because they 
do not want the American people to understand what is in this bill. How 
it will take away from those who need it and give to those who do not 
need it?

[[Page H13154]]

  First of all, it cuts Medicare by $270 billion, doubles the premiums 
of Medicare to senior citizens, at the same time giving a tax cut of 
$245 billion. Most of it will go to people who do not need it and for 
the most part have the good sense not to want it.
  We have a responsibility in this House to provide for the best 
economic conditions possible for the American people, to provide for a 
growing economy and for growing economic opportunity. This bill does 
precisely the opposite. It will shrink the economy and will shrink 
economic opportunity. It slashes away at student loans, making it much 
more difficult for children to get a decent education and for families 
to better themselves.
  This is a bad bill. It is a bad bill for all of those reasons. It is 
bad for the economy, it is bad for opportunity, it is bad for health 
care. It will have a major impact on the Nation's hospitals, forcing 
perhaps 25 percent of them to close. Furthermore, it will transfer 
spending responsibility from the Federal Government to the local 
governments.
  So while Members of Congress can brag about cutting people's taxes, 
local taxes will go up, State taxes will increase, and real property 
taxes will increase to make up for the deficit that is being created by 
this bad piece of legislation.

                              {time}  1100

  So once again, those who can least afford it will be asked to bear a 
larger burden of the responsibility of this society to care for the 
needs at the local level. That means higher real property taxes, and it 
is a retrogressive piece of legislation.
  Vote against the rule, vote against the bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Scottsdale, AZ [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the House, we have a 
simple choice today: Do we want to continue to shackle the American 
public with ever-rising taxes, with suffocating regulation, with more 
and more taken from their paychecks? Do we want to continue to enslave 
future generations to a debt that is simply unconscionable? Or are we 
willing to vote yes on the rule, yes to a balanced budget?
  I do it for all the children of the Sixth District of Arizona, for 
all the children of America, and especially for John Micah, who in 2 
weeks will be 2 years of age and who, if we do nothing to stop this 
unconscionable, continual slide into the abyss, will pay over $185,000 
in taxes during the course of his lifetime just to service this gross 
national debt, which basically is a crime against future generations.
  My colleagues, vote for the rule, precisely for the people you 
champion. Vote for the rule to empower those who need better economic 
opportunities. Vote for the rule to empower future generations and 
current American citizens. Vote yes on the rule and yes on a balanced 
budget.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This is a bad rule supporting a bad bill. The Republicans tell you 
that the balanced budget is the most important thing before Congress 
today. So I ask you, why do they only give us 2 hours to debate it? 
They said when they talked about the continuing resolution, if you want 
to debate the balanced budget, we will have that debate. Some debate, 2 
hours.
  Now, look, I am willing to buy into a balanced budget. I voted for 
the continuing resolution, so I am on record, but not their balanced 
budget. Their balanced budget does grave harm to our country.
  I cannot accept giving $245 billion to the wealthy people in this 
country. I cannot accept cutting $270 billion out of Medicare that 
serves our seniors. I cannot accept cutting funds in education, and I 
cannot accept cutting student loans.
  We can have a balanced budget. Let us end corporate welfare. Let us 
end unnecessary spending. We do not need all of those B-2 bombers. The 
Defense Department did not ask for them.
  We can have a balanced budget. We cannot have their balanced budget.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Winter Park, FL [Mr. Mica], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil 
Service.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I am really appalled at what 
we hear here on the floor about what we are doing.
  When all else fails, I always say read the bill. I rise in support of 
the rule. The rule and the bill, in fact, provide student loans, which 
are currently at $24 billion to go to $36 billion in 2002; Medicaid to 
go from $89 billion currently to $124 billion, Medicare from $178 
billion to $273 billion. And they call these cuts?
  It does not matter in education if students cannot read. It does not 
matter if in Medicaid we force, in my State, the institutionalization 
of senior citizens with no alternatives. And it does not matter in 
Medicare, in Florida, if we have a billion dollars' worth of waste, 
fraud, and abuse, and we give seniors no other choice.
  I urge the passage of this rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  (Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise today to 
oppose the rule and the bill, and I say to my friends on the other side 
of the aisle that we in the Coalition, as you know, strongly support 
balancing the budget in 7 years. We have done it. We have put a budget 
together that gets to balance in 7 years, borrowing less money than you 
do. We do it in a different way, we think, in a more sustainable and 
humane way.
  I think the most encouraging thing that has happened is we heard the 
Speaker say a day or two ago that everything is on the table. And we 
just want to say to you that we are ready, willing, and able to work 
with you to get this job done. We voted with you the other night on the 
continuing resolution, and once this veto is over with and we get down 
to negotiating, we are looking forward to sitting down with you and 
working this out.
  We are disturbed that we were frozen out of things such as the 
agriculture changes and some of these other areas. We are hoping we can 
get past this current situation and sit down and work out a balanced 
budget that will be good for the American people.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our very able colleague, 
the gentleman from Tupelo, MS [Mr. Wicker], the president of the 
historic freshman Republican class of the 104th Congress.
  (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a momentous day for this 
House of Representatives.
  For the first time in 26 years we are going to do what Congress 
should have done every year--pass a balanced budget.
  I know the debate is going to focus on some shared sacrifice, and 
certainly Americans have always been willing to do their part. But I 
also hope during the 2 hours of general debate we will talk about the 
benefits to every American of balancing the Federal budget.
  The Federal Reserve Chairman has made it clear that interest rates 
will drop significantly if we will just come to grips with the budget 
deficit. That means lower house payments, lower car payments, and 
reduced tuition loan costs for families all across America. That 
translates into more disposable incomes in the pocketbooks of every 
American.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe in bipartisanship, and I am thankful for the 
72 Democrats who earlier this year voted for a balanced budget 
amendment. I thank heaven for the 48 Democrats who voted for a balanced 
budget using CBO scoring on the continuing resolution.
  I call on my colleagues to debate this bill today as Americans. Let's 
do it for the future of our country. Let's do it for every child in 
America. Let's balance the budget.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans say that 
this bill is the culmination of a revolution. I agree. But let me tell 
you what I know about a revolution. A revolution kills, and this bill 
kills old people and 

[[Page H13155]]
those on Medicare. It kills poor people and the middle class. It kills 
young people. It kills sick people. It kills students, and it kills the 
priorities of this Nation. That is what this revolution does.
  The second thing I know about a revolution is that you never have a 
debate about it, and this rule gives us no opportunity to debate it; 2 
hours and we are out of here.
  We have spent more time yesterday talking about who would take us to 
lunch than we are talking about this revolution today. This is an 
abomination, and we ought to be ashamed of ourselves.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from him 
Albuquerque, NM [Mr. Schiff], who was a conferee on this historic 
balanced budget and conference committee.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the 
bill.
  But I want to say right now that, given the fact that the President 
of the United States has already threatened to veto this bill if it 
arrives on his desk, that I am willing to negotiate every specific 
detail in it with the President of the United States on only one 
condition, and that is that the President of the United States also 
offer a budget in the same framework, meaning using Congressional 
Budget Office figures for Government income projections and on a 7-year 
time basis.
  The President of the United States has previously agreed to both of 
those terms. But without those terms, then there is no way to do a 
side-by-side comparison.
  If the President or anyone else is going to suggest that we raise 
spending in any of these categories, they should show where that 
spending is going to come from.
  That is why I urge the President to sign the continuing resolution, 
agree to a 7 year balanced budget, and put his spending priorities 
before us so we can do a specific side-by-side comparison.
  Mr. BEILSENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a long, complicated, detailed 
explanation of this budget at the beginning of this discussion just 
today. But let me tell you why you will hear all of these mind-numbing 
details. You will hear that for one simple reason: to take attention 
away from the bottom line of this budget, and the bottom line of this 
budget is $245 billion in tax breaks, over half of which goes to the 
top 12 percent of income earners in America, a budget which, in fact, 
increases tax payments for the lowest-income people in America.
  Let me repeat that: Over half of the tax breaks go to the top 12 
percent of American income earners; at the same time there are 
increases in tax payments because of the earned income tax credit, 
something that is very hard to explain but it is a fact.
  What that causes is increased tax payments by the lowest of our 
income earners. That is why you hear all of these details: to avoid the 
real issue.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the first time 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Thibodaux, LA [Mr. Tauzin], my friend who has joined the 
party with which he has been in agreement for many, many years.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule.
  I want to pose a hypothet for you. Suppose today banks in America 
were lending money to parents who want to spend more than their income 
to have a good time tonight, and they were lending it to them with a 
mortgage on their children's income, children yet unborn. You and I 
would rush to the floor with a bill to make that illegal. We would not 
allow the banks in America to loan money to parents based upon a 
mortgage on their children's income.
  Yet your country does it day in and day out every time we pass a 
budget, and that ought to be made illegal.
  This rule begins the process of saying it is illegal for America to 
spend our children's money in advance of them even earning it for us to 
have a good time today.
  It is a good rule. We need to pass it. For those of you who oppose it 
because you are afraid of a tax cut for Americans in this bill, the 
blue dog Democrats offered us an alternative budget earlier this year 
with no tax cut. It got only 60-something votes. That calls into 
question the commitment of people in this House.
  Are we intent on making that practice illegal or not?
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, for his 
generous allocation of time.
  Two minutes is not much time when you are getting up to talk about $1 
trillion. This, my friends, is $1 trillion stacked up right here on 
unnumbered pages in very small print, smaller than usual, and held 
together by rubber bands.
  Now, I have seen in my 33 years here some pretty atrocious 
legislating, but this tops it all by unforeseen margins or unmeasurable 
margins.
  I last saw this last night stacked up in the Committee on Rules at 
about 9 o'clock at night. Nobody, no human being, has ever read all of 
this. Let me repeat that. If anybody can challenge me, get some time 
from the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] and you can answer me. 
No human being has ever read all of this.
  I do not know exactly what is in it. Nobody knows exactly what is in 
it. we can only suspicion what is in all of this.
  The question is not about what we are doing or when we are doing it, 
but how we are doing it.

                              {time}  1115

  All of us agree the budget ought to be balanced. All of us agree that 
it ought to be balanced as soon as possible without damaging the 
economy. The question is how do you do it?
  The Republican strategy has been to balance it on the backs of the 
sick, let me repeat that, the sick, whether you are young or old, 
whether you are middle age, but balance it on the back of the sick, the 
old, infants and children, and the working poor, and to give a handout 
to those who do not need it of a $250 billion tax cut. That is the 
wrong way to do it. That is what is wrong with all of this.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Mount Holly, NJ [Mr. Saxton].
  (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, in light of significant changes that were 
made to this provision in the conference, I am able to rise in strong 
support today of this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of this rule and of the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1995. This historic legislation will place this 
Government on a path to a balanced budget in 7 years. If passed this 
bill will cut taxes for every middle-class working family. In fact it 
will remove 3.5 million working families from today's tax rolls 
altogether. This bill also ensures that Medicare and Medicaid will be 
secure for many years to come.
  Over the last 4 weeks I have cast votes to show my concern on how the 
Medicare legislation in this bill treated Medicare dependent hospitals. 
I am happy to say, that after many days of discussions, the bill has 
been modified so Medicare dependent hospitals are not longer treated 
unfairly. This development has allowed me to vote for passage of this 
landmark bill.
  Let me touch for a minute on why the passage of this legislation is 
paramount to all Americans.
  The boost to our economy when we pass this balanced budget bill will 
be extraordinary. I know this from my work on the legislation. Over the 
last year I have been one of the architects of the historic economic 
growth provisions in this bill. Along with the majority whip, Tom 
DeLay, I co-chaired the task force on economic growth and regulation 
reforms. If passed, this bill will energize our economy. Mortgage and 
car interest rates will be lower, hundreds-of-thousands of jobs will be 
created and income will increase for all working Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to send a message to 
future generations. When the time came for tough choices and 
leadership, we in Congress stepped forward and did the right thing.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Windsor, CA [Mr. Riggs], a valued member of the 
Committee on the Budget and vice chairman of the California delegation.

[[Page H13156]]

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to correct a misimpression left by my 
good friend from California [Mr. Beilenson] earlier, who I know has a 
very clear regard for the truth. The fact is the President's budget, 
when put to a vote in the Senate, lost 96 to 0. Sixty-eight Democrats 
out of 199 voted for their own version of a balanced budget plan on 
this floor. Forty-eight Democrats voted for the continuing resolution, 
committing all of us to work toward a balanced budget in 7 years.
  Unfortunately, I would say to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson], the Democrat Party seems to be more interested in passing 
along to America more debt, rather than the American dream to our 
children.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from California, I have not 
made any such assertions. I think his remarks were referred to someone 
else.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield such time as he may 
consume to my friend, the gentleman from Bentonville, AR [Mr. 
Hutchinson], a member who came from the State of Arkansas and plans to 
keep his promise.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, families are important, and this 
Balanced Budget Act recognizes that. The $500-per-child tax credit for 
middle income Americans is a deserved dividend from our budget 
balancing effort. Families deserve a rebate on that huge 1993 tax 
increase that we imposed upon them, and this bill gives it to them.
  If it is a family with two children making $30,000 a year, this 
Balanced Budget Act will cut their Federal tax liability in half. If 
they are a family with two children making $25,000 a year, this 
Balanced Budget Act will eliminate their Federal tax liability.
  So if you do not think families are as important as they were a 
generation ago, then oppose this rule and oppose this budget. But if 
you believe that families are the foundation of society, if you believe 
that middle class families are squeezed to the breaking point, if you 
believe that parents are better custodians of their resources than 
politicians, then vote for this rule and vote for this Balanced Budget 
Act of 1995. It is pro-family, and the families of America deserve it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pine 
Bluff, AR [Mr. Dickey], another Arkansan who is going to keep his 
promise to balance the budget.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, a plywood worker in Bearden, AR, works 45 
hours a week. He does not make enough money, so he gets a maintenance 
job at the same plant and works 10 hours on the weekends. His wife 
works, his daughter works at a 7-Eleven, and his son has a paper route. 
He makes $500 a week, and he looks down when he sees what he gets. He 
gets $245.
  We are forgetting this person in this discussion. The balanced budget 
amendment is for that person, for his incentive, for him to sit and say 
my tax dollars are not going to the proper use, they are going to 
illegal aliens, they are going to criminals, they are going to people 
who do not work. They are going to people who have children and get 
paid for having children. We are going to lose these people in the 
process if we do not balance the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I plead with my colleagues and with the American people 
and the voters, that we pay attention to the middle class worker.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on the other side of the aisle some of the 
most decent people in America have decided to register and to be active 
as Republicans. But even for those people, things can happen in the 
middle of the night that they do not know. Right here in this bill that 
was drafted and went before the Committee on Rules last evening, there 
is a provision in here that takes $32 billion away from working poor 
folks.
  I would hate to believe that you are so in love with balancing the 
budget and the $245 billion tax cut that you got to take away $32 
billion from people who despise welfare, who reject getting on the 
public dole, but want to work each and every day.
  The earned income tax credit was put into law by Republicans and 
Democrats and expanded by President Clinton, and nobody takes issue 
with the fact that it encourages people to work, it gives incentives 
for people to work, and allows them to say that not on my watch would 
my family have to go on welfare.
  This bill goes beyond that. It makes an appeal to the senior citizens 
who have to work that make under $9,000, for the young people that are 
just starting out, and these people have to be under the poverty line.
  What more can we ask if you are talking about keeping kids out of 
drugs, out of crime, keeping them working, except to give them the 
incentive. Turn back the rule, turn back this, and let these people 
work without having to think about going on welfare. Shame on you.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we are hoping very much we will have the 
opportunity to make Bill Clinton a better President. I would respond to 
my pal, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Charles Rangel], by saying if 
you look at the EITC, we have an increase from $19 to $28 billion, and 
the $32 billion to which he referred is actually less than what the 
General Accounting Office said was fraud in general.
  But let us look at some other facts right here. Contrary to a lot of 
the rhetoric we have been hearing, this measure will see us spend $12.1 
trillion over the next 7 years. It increases spending in Medicare, 
Medicaid, school lunches and student loans, contrary to what the 
President has said when he claims it brings about cuts.
  This package is not, is not, a massive tax cut for the rich. Eighty 
percent of the benefits go to people who earn less than $100,000 a 
year, and we truly can in fact bring about a Government which is 
compassionate.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the greatest compassion of all is to ensure that we 
are not passing onto the backs of future generations the responsibility 
of paying for the pattern of profligate spending.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge an aye vote on this rule and the package, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 193, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 810]

                               YEAS--230

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     
[[Page H13157]]

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

                               NAYS--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     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
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     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
     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
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Becerra
     Brewster
     Collins (IL)
     Fields (LA)
     Harman
     McDermott
     Neumann
     Talent
     Tucker

                              {time}  1143

  Mr. BOUCHER and Mr. GORDON changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________