[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 183 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13157-H13181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1145
      CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2491, SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET 
                       RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. KASICH submitted the following conference report and statement on 
the bill (H.R. 2491) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 
105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996:
  (For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of 
November 15, 1995, as corrected by the following:)

       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.'''.

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 272, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2491) to provide for 
reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of the concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal year 1996.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to the rule, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
November 15, 1995, at page H12509 and prior proceedings of the House of 
today.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] each will be recognized for 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], a member of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, there comes a time for every family in 
America where parents pass on, leaving their children with hopefully 
some lessons learned, maybe a house, at least some prayers and love. 
Imagine, however if you could, that once you leave this Earth and your 
children and your grandchildren are called to the reading of the will, 
they are told the unimaginable news that the parents who claimed to 
have loved them so very much left them nothing but a mountain of bills 
and debt, and that in fact these children and grandchildren will have 
to work the rest of their lives to pay off the uncontrolled spending 
habits of their parents.
  None of us in this Nation would ever dream to do this. Yet this is 
just what we have done for the last 30 years. Today we say no more, no 
more to a child born today having to spend close to $200,000 over the 
course of their lifetime in taxes to just pay interest on the debt. 
Every American deserves a better future.
  Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget is the right thing to do now, not 
after the next Presidential election.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, may I first again congratulate my friend from 
Ohio in successfully bringing to this House his vision and the vision 
of the majority, a budget for the next several years. I know it is not 
easy. It involves lots of tough decisions. I do not agree with your 
product, but I respect your ability to bring this product before us 
today. However, I must say to the majority, I think the fact that we 
are only spending 2 hours debating a bill of this magnitude is really a 
disgrace to this institution.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout this year, Congress has been locked in a 
profound debate over two competing visions of America's future and what 
those visions mean for American families, workers and the most 
vulnerable among us.
  Today with this budget we have a clear statement of what the 
Republican vision for America is all about. This budget is their answer 
to complex questions about the role of Government and about the best 
way to balance the Federal budget.

[[Page H13158]]

  It is an answer that affluent Americans will welcome. It is an answer 
the wealthiest and most powerful interests in our society will receive 
with open arms, because they will be enriched by the policies this 
budget represents.
  For millions of Americans, this budget is no answer at all. For them 
it does not represent the best of American values. Instead, it 
represents a one-sided attack on lower and middle-income citizens who 
will see the doors of opportunity close as chances to better themselves 
disappear.
  Under this budget, millions of low-income families will see the 
safety net that ensures them adequate food, shelter and medical care 
shredded.
  So I say to my Republican colleagues, you must now justify your 
budget to the American people. You must tell them why $245 billion in 
tax breaks is fair when you impose new taxes on low-income workers. You 
must explain to them how making it difficult if not impossible for 
millions of our citizens to obtain adequate health care is the type 
policy that will renew America.
  Americans will also want to know how your extreme cuts in nutrition, 
education, job training, transportation and research will move this 
country forward when we have many years of evidence that these 
investments enhance our economic future and the well-being of our 
society. And you must explain how eliminating work incentives and 
reducing work opportunities will assist us in our efforts to move 
people from welfare to work.
  I find the answers you have provided in this budget are not only 
inadequate, but also mean-spirited and destructive of our society.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the most troubling aspects of the Republican 
budget is that it will escalate the 20-year trend that has pushed 
income inequality in this country to its highest level ever. Clearly we 
can do better for our families, our workers and our economy.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this Republican budget and to begin to 
work together to forge a balanced budget that is fair to all Americans 
and that strengthens our Nation's economy and America's future.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I almost hesitate to come to the floor because I do not 
want to be perceived as crowing. But I would commend to everybody in 
this Chamber and everybody across these great United States to try to 
get yourself a copy of the Washington Post editorial from yesterday. It 
talks about the fact that we have an obligation and a responsibility, 
and let me just read one little paragraph here, one little snippet:
  ``The Democrats led by the President chose instead to present 
themselves as Medicare's great protectors. They have shamelessly used 
the issue, demagogued on it, because they think that's where the votes 
are and the way to derail the Republican proposals generally.''

                              {time}  1200

  They further go on to say that there is a need to deal responsibly 
with middle-class entitlement programs, and they say at the bottom of 
the editorial, ``To do otherwise is to hide, to lull the public, and to 
perpetuate the budget problem they profess to be trying to solve. Let 
us say it again: If that is what happens, it will be real default.''
  This editorial lays out the challenge not just to the Democrats but 
to the Republicans as well the need to restrain ourselves as we 
approach Federal spending.
  Folks, let me just have you take a look here. We have $9.5 trillion 
in Federal spending over the last 7 years in this country, $9.5 
trillion. If you started a business at the time of Christ, if you lost 
$1 million a day 7 days a week, you would have to lose $1 million a day 
7 days a week for the next 700 years to get to $1 trillion.
  The national debt is $5 trillion, and over the last 7 years we have 
spent $9.5 trillion. Over the next 7 years, under the plan on the floor 
today, by slowing the growth in Medicare, slowing the growth in 
welfare, slowing the growth in education, all of them growing, just not 
growing as fast, we are going to go from $9.5 trillion to $12 trillion, 
a $2.5 trillion increase in Federal spending.
  The question is, ladies and gentlemen, can we preserve the extra 
trillion? That is fundamentally the question. And to bring it down to 
the family, when you set $100 aside out of your paycheck for your kids' 
college education, when we set that $100 aside in that savings account 
for our children's future, we would not try to figure out every gimmick 
and every explanation we can use to spend that $100, because that is 
the hundred bucks we are setting aside for our children, because we 
think setting it aside is going to give our children an opportunity.
  As consumers today, of the Federal spending that goes on, we will be 
able to consume $2.5 trillion more than what we consumed over the last 
7 years. The question is just like we set that $100 aside in that 
little kitty for your children's education, can we set that $1 trillion 
aside for our children's future so they will have decent jobs and a 
decent chance at a college education and a decent home? If we do, they 
are going to have success. If we do not, they are going to have 
success. If we do not, they are going to live in one-room shacks, and 
they are going to pay a fortune for it, and they are going to have 
trouble getting jobs.
  We must pass this Balanced Budget Act bill today. Preserve the future 
of America. Consume slightly less and guarantee something for our 
children.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, unlike some Members on the other side of 
the aisle who spoke of this being the day they have waited for years to 
see, I feel like the young boy who waited for Christmas only to find 
lumps of coal in his stocking.
  How I would love to celebrate a common sense, compassionate, honest, 
fair balanced budget. I would have loved having an opportunity to 
participate in the conference which produced this budget. Even though I 
was one of the overall conferees, I got my first glimpse of the package 
this morning, first from some lobbyists who evidently had first dibs at 
the information and then finally summary information compiled by my 
ranking member.
  I would love to celebrate a budget that speaks to the need for 
reaching balance before using more borrowed money to allow for tax 
cuts.
  I would love to celebrate a balanced budget that takes seriously the 
impact which this level of Medicaid savings will have on the 
underserved in rural and inner city America. I make reference to the 
letter I received just this morning from the Texas Hospital Association 
urging all Members of the Texas delegation to vote against this 
conference report because ``the various health care provisions in this 
legislation are not in the best interest of patients, communities, and 
those who provide their care.''
  I would love to celebrate a balanced budget that holds harmless the 
most vulnerable in our society: seniors in nursing homes, lower income 
working families trying to stay off of welfare, disabled individuals.
  The other party has implied that unless Members support this 
reconciliation bill, one opposes a balanced budget. That's simply not 
true. We presented hard evidence here on the House floor that that is 
not true. We presented a CBO-scored 7-year balanced budget which didn't 
destroy Medicare, Medicaid, EITC, student loans, children's nutrition, 
and so many other programs. Our budget would require shared sacrifice, 
but not at the expense of compassion.
  I do commend Chairman Kasich for the incredibly hard work he has done 
in putting together a package. I offer tremendous praise for the way he 
has moved the debate in this country toward a balanced budget. But this 
is not the balanced budget we need.
  President Clinton has stated clearly that he intends to veto this 
reconciliation bill and I support him in that decision. But just as 
strongly, I will follow by urging him to work toward finding the middle 
ground which protects some of his priorities and principles, remaining 
within the framework of a time-certain balanced budget. I support every 
Member of this body, Democrat or Republican, who refuses to accept 
defeat in finding a commonsense resolution of our disagreements, rolls 
up 

[[Page H13159]]
their sleeves, and moves toward a balanced budget.
  I will vote ``no'' today but this campaign is far from over today. I 
hope that the next time we come to the floor for this debate, I will 
have the privilege of standing shoulder to shoulder with both my 
chairman and my ranking Member in supporting a balanced budget solution 
that we all can be proud of.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and also my 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], for yielding to me.
  I would like to associate myself with each of the points that the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] has made.
  I, too, will vote ``no'' on this particular budget reconciliation, 
not because I am opposed to a balanced budget but because we have not 
sat down as a bipartisan group in this country in this body with the 
President to talk and listen to one another and identify the people's 
priorities.
  I agree that we must balance the budget, that we must do it within a 
time certain. The budget which we have proposed on the floor of the 
House, in fact, would take us to balance in 7 years under CBO scoring, 
and I urge the President to come to the table on those issues.
  But also let me just say the country is looking at us today with 
amazement because we are not even talking or listening to one another. 
We are not talking to the President. We are not talking, Democrats and 
Republicans, and the people out there are fed up.
  I also commend Chairman Kasich. He has worked with me and others on 
the committee over the years in the minority and also in the majority. 
But it is time today to set aside partisan bickering. It is time today 
to stop arguing between the President and the Congress. It is time 
today, and I offer to Republicans, to Democrats, to the administration, 
anyone who wants to come in and sit down. The budget which we put 
forward on this floor 10 days ago is where we are all going to have to 
come in the end game anyway.
  Let us sit down and start agreeing on where we agree, identify where 
we disagree, and come to agreement. That is what the public wants. That 
is what I urge.
  I hold out the hand in offering to any of the Republicans, and we 
have been meeting with several on both the sides of the aisle, let us 
start identifying those things, let us get it done. Let us get the 
Government back working and solve these problems.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise and associate myself with the remarks 
of the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Utah and 
congratulate them on their efforts.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Camp], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. Camp asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, let's drop the rhetoric. Let's instead focus 
on what we are accomplishing today.
  We are balancing the budget for the first time in 26 years. We 
promised the American people a balanced budget and the Balanced Budget 
Act is about keeping that promise.
  Consider this: A balanced Federal budget means as much as 2 percent 
lower interest rates.
  Families will save over $37,000 in interest on the average home 
mortgage; $900 on the average car loan; and $2,167 on the average 
student loan.
  Our opponents call us cruel. But what is truly cruel is sticking 
every child born this year with a lifetime bill of $187,000 just to pay 
the interest on that monster that is our national debt.
  All Americans will benefit from a balanced budget.
  If we accomplish this task, we will provide a brighter future and a 
better America for our children, our seniors, employers, veterans, and 
every American.
  Mr. Speaker, we have kept our promises for America's families, for 
America's future.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey], a member of our committee.
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, no wonder the majority is only allowing 2 
hours to debate this conference report. They don't want the American 
people to hear the harmful things their budget will do to education; to 
seniors and their families; and to middle-income workers. But I am 
going to tell you, my friends, about the part of this bill that I know 
best--welfare reform. As the only Member of this body who has actually 
been a single, working mother on welfare, I know that the welfare 
provisions in this bill will not work. I have lived it.
  This bill does nothing, absolutely nothing, to get families off 
welfare and into jobs that pay a liveable wage. There is no education, 
no job training, and not nearly enough child care and health care.
  Mr. Speaker, the choice comes down to this. We either punish poor 
children, as this conference report does, or, we invest in families so 
they can get off welfare permanently. Let's do what is right for our 
children. Vote against this conference report.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
  (Mr. LARGENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, for 40 years we have wandered in the 
desert, and today we find ourselves at the River Jordan, and it is time 
to cross.
  For too long, we said we were going to balance the budget, and yet we 
have not done it. Today is the time we make a historic first step in 
that direction.
  I have had the opportunity over the last 20 years to talk to 
America's young people all across the country, and sadly I am here to 
report that this is the first generation of young people, when asked on 
a survey, do you think in your lifetime that you will ever be better 
off than your parents are, this is the first generation of young people 
who say, ``No, I do not think I will be.''
  Our young people today have lost their hope. They have lost their 
future. It is time to address that. That is really what this debate is 
about, is about providing for a vision, a future and a hope.
  What we see today is a collision of visions for what America will 
look like for the next generation. What will America look like with a 
balanced budget? How about in the words of Alan Greenspan, a 2-
percentage-point drop in the inflation rate?
  Mr. Speaker, I would just urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 for our children, for our future, for the 
next generation.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend for yielding me this 
time.
  I oppose this budget. It is based upon the wrong premises. It is 
based upon a large tax cut for the wealthy while we are wallowing in 
debt, asking our seniors to pay more for their health care and get 
less, and extreme cuts in education and the environment.
  There is a better way. The Coalition budget would balance the budget 
in 7 years with less borrowing and debt, with reasonable appropriations 
for Medicare and for education programs.
  I ask my colleagues to reject this Republican budget. Let us truly 
work together in a bipartisan way and support a budget that will 
balance the budget in 7 years with less extreme cuts. We can do it if 
we were only willing to work together in a bipartisan way.
  Vote against this Republican budget.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. Speaker, I thank the budget chairman for giving me 
time. 

[[Page H13160]]

  Mr. Speaker, one of my local papers, the Cincinnati Post, put it well 
in a recent editorial: ``Now is our best chance to bring fiscal sanity 
to Washington.''
  Mr. Speaker, if we do not roll up our sleeves and get to work on 
getting this budget under control, I think we will not only have missed 
a chance to save the next generation, I think we will have perhaps 
missed the last best chance. If we continue to ignore the problem, the 
debt in this country is going to grow from about $4.9 trillion today to 
almost $7 trillion 7 years from now.
  If, on the other hand, we can get our act together and get this 
budget under control, if we grasp the historic opportunity before us, 
we can give our kids and grandkids the same shot at the American dream 
that we have had and our parents had. Specifically, we are going to see 
lower interest rates, we are going to see higher productivity, we are 
going to see lower inflation, and we are going to see higher take-home 
pay. That is what this is all about, giving them the same chances we 
have had.
  Let us grasp this opportunity. We have a plan here today to do it. 
Let us do it.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from new 
York [Mr. Houghton].
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I came here in 1987. I was worried about 
the slide into bankruptcy. I have been in business. When you are in 
business, you have a problem; you get at it, fix it, and move on to the 
next one. But we did not do it, and I blame myself as much as I blame 
anyone else here.
  But my worry now is we are going to get tangled up in partisanship 
and personalities and be thumbing our nose at one another and not get 
the job done. You cannot look at the economic and budget outlook report 
of the Congressional Budget Office, you cannot look at the Bipartisan 
Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, and not realize we are really 
in bad shape, because now we should be building a surplus. And why? 
Because of the baby boomers.
  We have everything working for us. We have the demographics, we have 
the Depression babies, we have the peace dividend, we have got the 
economy. But we are not doing it. We are borrowing, at the very time we 
should be building a surplus.
  Some will say there is a better way, and I am sure there is a better 
way. But there has always been a better way. That has been our problem. 
I think we ought to get at this, and I do not think we should duck the 
issue. Why not now?
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1995.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak today in favor 
of our balanced budget bill. It is a decisive step forward on the road 
to getting the country's finances back in order.
  This budget represents our commitment to the future and the economic 
well-being of America's children and grandchildren. Our budget will 
save the Medicare Program for bankruptcy; end welfare as we know it; 
and return a few dollars to the pockets of those who earned them.
  As chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, I have focused on 
the way our balanced budget will affect both the young and the elderly. 
We are providing a $500 per child tax credit for middle-class families. 
As a father and grandfather, I know how important this credit is.
  But, we did not forget the elderly and the infirm in this budget 
either. Part of our original Contract With America was the Senior 
Citizen's Equity Act. We have been successful in getting part of that 
into this bill.
  I wish that we could have included the increase in the Social 
Security earnings limit in the balanced budget bill. We passed it in 
the House but the other body has different rules and for technical 
reasons it did not make it into this bill.
  Nonetheless, we are committed to increasing the earnings limit and I 
have a separate bill which the leadership has committed to bringing to 
the floor before we end this session of Congress. We will raise it.
  Our budget is a well considered plan to help all Americans. It is not 
the extremist nightmare that Mr. Clinton wants everyone to think that 
it is.
  The bill before us contains a very important provision to help those 
who are terminally ill or chronically ill. It allows them to sell their 
life insurance policy and receive the proceeds tax free.
  Allowing the terminally ill to have access to their insurance 
proceeds prior to their death lets them spend the rest of their life in 
dignity. Mr. Speaker, that is not extremism; that is compassion.
  Mr. Clinton likes to talk about extremism. Well, I don't think that 
it is extremism to give a $1,000 above-the-line deduction for custodial 
care of elderly relatives in a taxpayer's home; that is compassion.
  Our bill provides capital gains tax relief which benefits the young 
and old alike. Encouraging and rewarding investment in our country is 
not extremism in my book; that is wise policy.
  Our bill expands the availability of IRA's which allows the young to 
plan for their senior years. Planning ahead to take care of yourself 
and your family is not extremism; that is smart thinking.
  The only ones who will find this balanced budget extreme are those 
addicted to doing things the same old way. To the far left, I am 
certain that it is their worst fear and they will say anything to kill 
it.
  To the rest of us, this is a smart budget filled with good policies 
and it sets this Government on the right path. I urge my colleagues to 
support this balanced budget for all Americans.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].
  (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, there is one reason and one reason only 
that we are here today. Whether some in this Chamber recognize it or 
can admit it, one reason brings us here today: Unless we have the 
courage to pass this balanced budget, all too soon we will have no 
revenue to fund the good programs our Nation needs.
  We all want America to remain the strongest country in the world. We 
want our children to grow up healthy, well educated, drug free, and 
prosperous.
  We just can't achieve these goals without first addressing the 
deficit. Otherwise, we, our Nation and our children's future will be 
strangled by runaway deficits.
  Former Democratic Senator Paul Tsongas made this clear when he noted 
that ``The Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform shocked 
even cynical inside-the-beltway types by pointing out that, on the 
current path, entitlement programs plus interest will cost more than 
all Federal revenues by the year 2012.''
  All of the rhetoric, the acrimony, and the accusations that have been 
aired here in the past few weeks--even this Government shutdown--will 
be a small price to pay if we balance this budget, if we have the 
foresight to look beyond the obstacles of today and secure the future 
for our children and their children.
  We must pass this landmark legislation to balance our Federal budget 
and begin to honestly address our Nation's problems.
  Support his bill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida, Mr. Sam Gibbons, the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I never picked up $1 trillion or even $1 
million in my life, but this bill represents a $1 trillion change, and 
none of us in here know it. This is the biggest monument to 
mismanagement of legislative times I have ever seen.
  This debate, instead of taking a total of 2 hours, should have been 
finished in July, had not the Speaker mismanaged this place over a 
much-extended period of time.
  It is impossible to read this. I first saw it last night about 9 
o'clock. It is unnumbered pages printed in extra small print, not the 
normal size print. The pages are unnumbered. As you can see, it is held 
together with rubber bands.
  This is their glorified piece of legislation. We know very little 
about it except we know that their priorities are wrong. Their first 
priority is to give a 

[[Page H13161]]
crown jewel to everyone, which is a $250 billion tax cut. They tell us, 
but they produce no evidence, that it goes to middle-class people. 
There is no evidence available to any Member of Congress to sustain 
that allegation. I do not believe it is true.
  One of the principal things in here is a family credit, but 33 
percent of all the families in America with children, who qualify on 
demographics and everything else, do not get one penny out of that, 
because they do not pay the right kind of taxes. They pay taxes, but 
they just do not pay the kind the Republicans define as being the right 
kind to pay. So 33 percent, and they happen to be in the lowest income 
category, do not get anything out of that so-called crown jewel.
  Now, I do not know what all the hidden things are in here. It will 
take years to search those out with a microscope. But I assume they are 
in here. They have always been in here. That same virus has infected 
every piece of legislation that I have ever seen in this House, and I 
am sure they are in here. But it will be years before anybody is ever 
able to search it all out, except the lobbyists who got them put in 
here.
  Now, it is not when we balance the budget, or whether we balance the 
budget; it is how we balance the budget. The Republican priorities lay 
the burden upon the sick, the old sick, the young sick, and the middle-
aged sick. They lay the burden upon the poor. They lay the burden upon 
the working poor. That is not the right way or how to balance the 
budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the House and Senate Republicans have been meeting in 
secret for almost a month now to resolve the differences between two 
horrible bills, trying to arrive at a single version of this budget 
reconciliation bill that will be acceptable to Republicans in both 
bodies. They have come up with a bill that they should be ashamed of. 
This Republican budget bill that Speaker Gingrich controlled so tightly 
represents a heartless attempt to balance the budget on the backs of 
our Nation's infants and children, our sick, our elderly, and the 
working poor. That is not what I was elected to this honorable body to 
do. It is not what the American people need or want us to do on their 
behalf. I strenuously oppose this budget bill. I urge all Democrats to 
reject it soundly.
  Now that the Republicans have come out of their secret meetings on 
this budget, we are able to see just how extensive the damage is to 
ordinary Americans: cuts totaling $561 billion in programs designed to 
ease the burdens and miseries of the poor, the aged, the young, and the 
struggling. The Republican budget wreaks havoc all across the board: 
cuts totaling $82 billion in sustenance income for families with 
children through the welfare program, including cuts of $40 billion in 
food for women and children through food stamp and other nutrition 
programs; cuts of $165 billion in health care for the elderly through 
the Medicare Program; cuts of $32 billion in rewards to work effort for 
low-wage earners through the earned income tax credit; and excessive 
cuts in student loans and veterans' benefits.
  I am a strong proponent of reducing the deficit. As a grandfather, I 
want to protect this country's legacy to future generations. But our 
legacy should include a large heart and a helping hand for those most 
in need.
  The greatest injustice of all is that these budget cuts are much 
deeper than they would need to be if the Gingrich Republicans were 
simply acting to shrink the size of Government, as they disingenuously 
describe their actions to the American people. These cuts are much 
deeper because the Republicans have used this budget as an opportunity 
to bestow generous tax cuts totaling $245 billion disproportionately 
benefiting their already-well-off constituencies and Republican special 
interests. This excessive tax cut is unnecessary. It is an insult to 
the spirit of decency and fair play that ordinary Americans know to be 
one of our best characteristics as a people.
  It is a cruel irony that all this suffering and injustice is unlikely 
to accomplish the goal the Republicans are claiming: a balanced budget 
by the year 2002. The Republicans' claims are based on a foundation of 
sand. Many of their savings are based on assumptions, rather than 
actual legislative changes. Most of these assumptions will not come 
true, in reality. One of the assumptions that they make much of in this 
Republican budget is that enacting a balanced budget will have very 
salutary effects on the economy, such as lower interest rates and 
higher economic growth. However, the Federal Reserve, the Nation's 
ultimate arbiter of interest rates, doesn't see it that way. Although 
Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan strongly favors greater budget 
discipline, Fed officials were described in the Washington Post earlier 
this seek as being ``unhapp[y] * * * with widespread anticipation that 
a deal to balance the budget, even 7 years down the road, will be 
rewarded by a cut in the Fed's * * * interest rates.'' A Fed official 
was quoted as saying ``Monetary policy should certainly not respond now 
to the mere possibility that the budget will be balanced in the next 
century.'' Republican claims that their senseless budget will result in 
a healthier economy are hokum. Why would the economy be reassured and 
energized by these Republicans who cannot get their business done in a 
timely manner, who will not keep the Government running efficiently, 
and who play a game of Russian roulette with the good name and pristine 
reputation of our very Nation by scoffing at the idea of financial 
default?
  Children will suffer the most under this Gingrich Republican budget. 
Of the total cuts of $561 billion in the programs that serve the 
vulnerable populations listed above, $284 billion cut from programs 
that primarily benefit children. Most of those benefiting from the 
nutrition programs are children. Almost half of those served by 
Medicaid are children. Seventy percent of all Americans on welfare are 
children. Eighty percent of those receiving an earned income tax credit 
are families with children. Treating children this way is inhuman.


                                welfare

  Between one and two million American children will be pushed into 
poverty by the hard-hearted welfare policies contained in this 
conference agreement. And those children who are already poor will have 
their lives made more miserable. These cuts are too deep. This bill is 
simply too tough--too cruel--to children.
  It leaves the safety net we have built for our children in tatters, 
replacing the safe haven we have provided with the luck of the draw. 
New, poorly defined ``block grants'' are created. The money is capped, 
and guaranteed. Guaranteed--not to the children--but to the States. The 
Federal Government promises to give those poor, needy States a big pot 
of money. And what do we ask in return? Not much.
  States get to spend the money for a set of purposes that are broad 
enough to drive a truck through. And, mark my words, before long, we'll 
learn that they have figured out how to finance highways with these 
block grants. The Gingrich Republicans call it ``flexibility.'' I call 
if ``irresponsibility.'' Americans will call it cruel.
  Of course, there are a few rules. But only those favored by the 
extreme Gingrich Republicans who want to impose their view of morality 
on everyone. Then, ironically, we can no longer trust the States to do 
what is right. We have to micromanage them or, at the very least, give 
them a series of complicated hoops to jump through before they get to 
make their own decisions. And, along the way, we have completely lost 
sight of what should be our basic goal--protecting children.
  Here's one example that demonstrates my point. After much pushing and 
prodding by Democrats, the Republicans finally agreed to leave foster 
care payments for abused children intact. They wanted to take away this 
safety net for abused and neglected children. Under this conference 
agreement, we keep them safe from physical harm but there is no 
guarantee that we can offer them anything else. No child in foster care 
will be assured of the services they need to make returning home safe 
or adoption a reality. States will help them if they can. If they run 
out of money, kids may be left in limbo. Year, after year. That's 
cruel.
  This conference agreement cuts more than $80 billion out of programs 
serving poor families with children. At the same time, the taxes of 
these families are increased by more than $32 billion. This is an 
unfair double whammy for the poor and working poor families in this 
country. Yes, the budget needs to be balanced. Thanks to the leadership 
of a decade of Republican Presidents this country has mired itself in a 
sea of deficits. The American people want change. But they do not 
except America's children to be first in line to pull us out of the 
mud.
  That would be cruel. I won't be a part of it.


                         Medicare and Medicaid

  The aged and the sick are also among those who will suffer as a 
result of this Republican budget. Millions of seniors who have 
contributed to this society for decades will pay more for or receive 
less health care or both because the Republicans are bludgeoning the 
Medicare Program. Those who receive their health care through the 
Medicaid Program, either in the emergency rooms of hospitals that serve 
the poor or in nursing homes all across this country are at risk of 
receiving no health care at all as a result of this Republican budget.
  Medicare beneficiaries' premiums will be increased under this 
Republican plan. Beneficiaries will have only tough choices--as the 
Republican plan makes traditional Medicare more expensive and doctors 
less assessable. Making traditional Medicare ``wither on the 

[[Page H13162]]
vine'' as the Speaker has said the Republicans want, will not make life 
easier for our Nation's seniors.
  The Republican bill is full of additional outrages. It provides 
antitrust exemptions for physician groups which put beneficiaries at 
risk for even higher costs. Their bill guts critical protections 
against physicians referring patients to entities with which they have 
an ownership or employment relationship. The bill makes it harder to 
impose fines on those who submit fraudulent claims to Medicare. On top 
of all this, the Republicans want to squeeze payments to hospitals and 
doctors so hard that rural and inner-city hospitals will close, and 
doctors will stop taking care of Medicare patients.
  Too many bad provisions to enumerate add up to an even worse bill.


                               Tax Issues

  Working Americans who earn little enough to be eligible for the 
earned income tax credit are admonished by the Republicans to stay in 
the work force, to work longer and harder, to take personal 
responsibility; but the cuts in the earned income tax credit deliver a 
different message. Their message is that the rewards to work are 
diminished, the return for one's effort is considerably smaller. Is 
that any way to encourage the very actions that one promotes? The 
Republican conundrum--or one of them--appears to be that economic 
incentives to be productive matter if you are a wealthy taxpayer or 
corporation that needs capital gains or special industry tax relief, 
but not if you are an ordinary wage-earner who benefits from the earned 
income tax credit.
  The reduction of $32 billion in the earned income tax credit [EITC] 
will result in tax increases on 13 million families of workers who earn 
less than $28,500 a year. At least 4 million of them earn less than 
$10,000 a year.
  This tax increase reduces the incentive to work for low-income people 
who are working and struggling hard to stay in the work force--the very 
thing Republicans have said they want those people to do. It makes no 
sense. Nor does it make any sense at all to have families who make less 
than $28,500 foot the bill so that wealthy families can receive tax 
break that may be almost as large as the annual salaries of some of 
those targeted families.
  The Republicans claim that 73 percent of their crown jewel tax cuts 
will go to families with incomes of $100,000 or less. That is 
obfuscation on the Republicans' part. They claim this because they 
ignore these deep cuts in the earned income tax credit--just as they 
ignore the plight of those Americans who receive these credits. 
Distorting the facts like this is unworthy of their role as legislators 
and national leaders.
  Also, I am deeply disturbed that the conference agreement includes a 
provision which allows companies to take billions of dollars out of 
their workers' pension funds. The provision included in the conference 
report is a slightly modified version of a proposal that was defeated 
by a vote of 94 to 5 on the Senate floor. I would have thought that 
this overwhelming and bipartisan vote of disapproval would have been 
sufficient to ensure that this unwise proposal would not be included in 
the conference report.
  Based on revenue estimates of the conference report provision, it 
appears that the Joint Committee on Taxation anticipated that as much 
as $20 billion will be removed from pension plan funds by employers 
under this proposal. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has 
estimated that as much as $100 billion could potentially by withdrawn 
under the proposal. The benefit of this provision will be enjoyed by 
corporate America--the risks will be borne by employees and the 
American taxpayers.

  As in the case of the pension reversion proposal, the Republican 
conferees would have been wise to adopt the Senate provision on 
expatriates. The Senate proposal was adopted on an overwhelming and 
bipartisan basis. It is deeply disturbing that the conference did not 
take this opportunity to stop a few wealthy Americans from gaining tax 
benefits through the act of renouncing their allegiance to a country 
whose economic system benefited them extraordinarily.
  One of the troubling aspects about the congressional consideration of 
the expatriate legislation involves the revenue estimates of the Joint 
Committee on Taxation. Most outside tax experts have considered the 
expatriate provisions included in the Senate version of the 
reconciliation bill as being a far more effective answer to the problem 
of tax abuse through expatriation than the provisions adopted by the 
House. The Treasury Department consistently has estimated that 
provisions similar to those included in the Senate bill would raise 
several times more revenue than the provisions included in the House 
reconciliation bill. However, the Joint Committee has estimated that 
the far more effective Senate provision will raise little more than 
half the revenue raised by the House bill.
  I am also concerned that the Republican budget agreement would repeal 
the low-income housing tax credit at the close of 1997. The low-income 
housing tax credit has helped more than 800,000 poor families afford a 
decent place to live. It encourages investment in residential housing. 
It has helped to revitalize urban and rural neighborhoods and boosted 
local economic activity. The National Governors' Association has urged 
Congress to retain the credit as a permanent incentive for the reliable 
and efficient construction of low-income housing units. The Republicans 
have not explained adequately why they think this credit is corporate 
welfare that should be cut. And those hundreds of thousands of families 
know otherwise. The credit merely has provided a helping hand to those 
who need it. How can this be characterized as a benefit to corporate 
America? Repealing an incentive for investment in housing for the 
poorest among us is nothing more than a hit-them-when-they're-down 
attack on America's needy.
  I have always believed that we must be particularly sensitive to the 
needs of Puerto Rico and our other possessions because they do not have 
voting representation in the Congress. It has always been my position 
that any changes to the section 936 credit should maintain, to the 
maximum extent possible, real incentives for economic development in 
Puerto Rico. I believe that a credit focused on economic activity in 
Puerto Rico would accomplish that purpose. The conference report 
provisions phasing out the section 936 credit are not designed to 
maximize economic development in Puerto Rico. By not focusing the 
credit on economic activity in Puerto Rico, the conference report only 
benefits companies such as the pharmaceutical companies and soft drink 
companies which claim large credits under section 936 because of their 
income from intangibles, but often have relatively little employment in 
Puerto Rico.
  As I have stated earlier, the Republican conference report provides 
substantial reductions in programs designed to protect the poor and 
defenseless in our society. I believe that it is inappropriate in such 
a bill to include tax reductions such as those promised in the Contract 
With America that disproportionately benefit the wealthy and powerful 
in our society. I also believe that it is shocking that the Republicans 
also have used this bill as a vehicle to do special interest 
amendments. They have included a variety of narrowly targeted 
provisions.


                              TRADE ISSUES

  On trade provisions, I am disappointed that the conference agreement 
does not include an extension of the trade adjustment assistance 
programs for workers and firms for an additional 2 years through the 
fiscal year 2000, as adopted on a bipartisan basis in the Committee on 
Ways and Means. I am also dismayed that House Republican conferees 
reduced the extension of the Generalized System of Preferences program 
for 2\1/2\ years as provided in the House bill to an extension for only 
1\1/2\ years.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are any telephone 
numbers in there of the previous staffers, as there was in the 
Democratic budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Ramstad].
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is it. This is the moment of reckoning. The entire 
Nation is focused on Congress, and the taxpayers of America expect us 
to balance the budget now.
  No more excuses. No more gimmicks. No more playing the Medicare card.
  As the Washington Post's lead editorial put it yesterday, ``If the 
Democrats play the Medicare card and win, they will have set back for 
years--for the worst of political reasons--the very cause of rational 
government in behalf of which they profess to be behaving.
  ``The question is whether the President and the Democrats will meet 
or flee their obligations,'' continued the Post's editorial.
  Let's be straight with the American people. The question is very 
clear: ``Do you support a balanced budget in 7 years?'' Yes or no.
  In other words, do you think the Federal Government can get by with 
increasing spending $12 trillion over the next 7 years instead of a $13 
trillion increase?
  Is there anybody here who really believes that we must spend $13 
trillion more instead of $12 trillion?
  Defenders of the status quo say we're mean spirited because we're 
only increasing spending by $12 trillion.
  Let me tell you what's really mean spirited.
  What's really mean spirited is to continue mortgaging our children's 
and grandchildren's futures.
  What's really mean spirited is to continue spending more money than 
we 

[[Page H13163]]
take in--which has jeopardized the financial future of our great 
Nation.
  What's really mean spirited is to promise more than we can deliver, 
simply for political gain.
  Let's pass the Balanced Budget Act of 1995.
  The people of America and our children and grandchildren deserve 
nothing less.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this Nation badly needs welfare reform, a 
system that moves the parent from welfare to work without punishing the 
child. The interdependency is indeed so vital for the parent and for 
their dependent children. This goal is so vital that it must be shaped 
essentially by what will make a new system really work, not 
overwhelmingly by what will save money in the short term in order to 
plug a big number into an overall budget package. It is so vital that 
it must become law, meaning sufficient bipartisan support to be enacted 
and signed by the President.
  These welfare provisions fail in both regards. Absolutely failing to 
even consult, let alone work on a bipartisan basis, the majority has 
crafted a bill with provisions too weak on getting people off welfare 
into work and are very potent in hurting kids. Instead of moving toward 
the Senate bill and improving on it in several important areas, it 
embraces House provisions that will hurt kids more than putting their 
parents to work.
  This bill, among other things, would cut food stamps by $34 billion, 
substantially cut payments to 500,000 needy families with seriously 
handicapped kids, weaken even further than the Senate bill, State 
maintenance of effort provisions, thereby reducing the likelihood of 
moving people into productive work. It would prohibit payments to even 
very elderly, needy legal immigrants and school lunches to kids of such 
immigrants, and leave working families out in the cold in times of 
recession.
  It is time to work on a bipartisan basis. House Democrats showed 
their commitment to welfare reform when we voted unanimously for a bill 
that was strong in getting people off of welfare into work, with clear 
time limits for people to do so without punishing their children. It 
provided for broad State flexibility as to how to carry out the 
national interests in moving parents off welfare into work.
  The legislation that we pass must reflect the values and beliefs of 
the American people. We can and must do better. We must put together a 
bill that will reform our broken welfare system.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1995. It is time we balance the budget for everyone in 
this country and our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day for America. It is a historic 
day because today we are keeping our promise to the people of this 
great Nation for a better future.
  This Balanced Budget Act brings more change to the way Washington 
operates than any other legislation in the last half century. It 
eliminates deficits over the next 7 years and does so honestly and 
fairly. And in doing so, we ease the crushing burden of Federal debt on 
our children.
  A balanced budget will not only keep the national debt from going 
higher and higher, it means help for folks right now. Balancing the 
budget will lower interest rates which will mean lower mortgage rates, 
lower car loans costs, lower rates on student loans, and more jobs.
  For instance, according to DRI-McGraw/Hill, an independent economic 
consulting firm, fixed rate mortgages would drop by 2.7 percentage 
points and adjustable rate mortgages would drop by 1.7 percentage 
points by 2002. This would boost home values by 8 percent, existing 
home sales by 11.5 percent, and housing starts 65,000 each year.
  This bill keeps other promises as well, including our promise to 
preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare. It saves Medicare from 
bankruptcy while still substantially increasing spending on this 
important health care program. It is security for our seniors who have 
planned for their retirements with the hope that Medicare will be 
there. And it is security for baby-boomers who know we are committed to 
a sound Medicare system when they retire.
  We deliver on our promise of tax relief for America's families and a 
cut in the capital gains tax to spur job creation and economic growth. 
According to the congressional Joint Economic Committee, a $500 per-
child family tax credit means families with children earning less than 
$25,000 will see their entire Federal income tax liability eliminated. 
Families with incomes of $30,000 will have 48 percent of their Federal 
income tax liability eliminated.
  And capital gains tax relief means jobs and economic growth. 
Investment will not happen without capital, and capital will not be 
freed up without tax relief. Economic growth and more jobs means more 
tax revenue.
  Despite what our critics say, we can balance the budget and still 
give relief to our hardworking and overburdened taxpayers. And one 
thing we know for sure, increasing taxes has not produced balanced 
budgets.
  The American people want a smaller, more efficient government, but 
Washington has failed to deliver. However, with this bill we begin 
slimming an overweight Federal bureaucracy including eliminating an 
entire Cabinet level agency--the Commerce Department.
  Mr. Speaker, the Balanced Budget Act is the right thing for America 
and America's families. We must keep our word to balance the budget. 
Most important, we must keep alive the American dream for the sake of 
our children. I urge my colleagues to vote for this historic bill.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, all we hear from the other side 
are distortions. The President would have you believe that our budget 
is draconian, that we are going to have massive spending cuts.
  Wrong. Stop the scare tactics. Tell the truth. Under the Balanced 
Budget Act the Federal Government will spend $12.2 trillion. That's a 
lot of money.
  Now, you know how much we spent the last 7 years? $9.5 trillion. We 
are going to spend almost $3 trillion more over the next 7 years than 
we did the last seven.
  The MediScare crowd keeps talking about Medicare cuts. Again the 
scare tactics. Tell the truth.
  Today we spend $4,800 for every senior on Medicare. In 7 years we 
will spend $6,700. That's a $1,900 per person increase. There are no 
cuts.
  The fact is this is a fair budget. It's a huge budget. But, we show 
some fiscal restraint. We have kept our promises for America's 
families--for America's future.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Stark].
  (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk just for a moment about 
the Medicare issue. It has been suggested we do not need to fix 
Medicare. Actually, that would not be such a bad idea, because if we 
did not fix Medicare, 26 million more uninsured would not lose their 
insurance as they will under the Republican bill.
  Twenty-six million Americans will become uninsured as a result of 
this $270 billion. Marie Antoinette would have called it a 
decapitation; you want to call it a cut. It is a reduction. Twenty-six 
million people are going to lose their insurance. Nine million people 
get 80 percent of the tax cuts you are giving them. So you are giving 9 
million of the richest people $250 billion, and you are taking 
insurance away from 26 million.
  Thirty-seven million people will pay more in part B, and the doctors 
will be able to balance their bill, which means you take the lid off. 
Doctors can charge the Medicare beneficiaries whatever the traffic will 
bear. The referral fees that the doctors can get are no longer limited, 
so the doctors can own labs, x-ray labs and physical therapy labs, and 
they can sell their patients like pork belly options to get referral 
fees and kickbacks.

                              {time}  1230

  The most unethical practice that was denied some years ago is being 
reinstated by the Republican bill.
  The Republicans are destroying the fee-for-service medical system and 
the choice, and they are destroying the nursing homes for so many, and 
the 

[[Page H13164]]
ability through the Medicaid cuts for so many of the lower-income 
seniors who need nursing home care in their dwindling years. This is 
what they are doing with their fix.
  If the Republicans think that the Democrats want to fix the system 
that works well, they are wrong. They are wrong to cut $270 billion for 
the tax cuts for the rich.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I want to correct one thing the last speaker 
said. I am sure it was an inadvertent error on his part when he talked 
about all the benefits of the tax changes going to the rich. This chart 
makes it very clear. Sixty-five percent of the tax relief benefits go 
to people with incomes below $75,000. Sixty-five percent of the tax 
relief goes to those working Americans.
  We know that rich people, middle-income people, and poor people all 
have children, and it is all of them that will get the bulk of this tax 
relief, because most of the tax reductions go to people that have 
children. So the tax relief goes to middle-income families. And let us 
not be fooled by anything else that says it goes to the rich. It does 
not. It goes to middle Americans.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is also incorrect about what we 
are doing with Medicare. We are spending more. We are spending 40 
percent per beneficiary and 54 percent more in total. In fact, we are 
going to spend over $674 billion more in the next 7 years than we did 
in the last 7 years.
  Only in Washington when we spend so much more money do people call it 
a cut. The earned income tax credit will go from $19.8 to $25.4 
billion. The School Lunch Program is going from $6.3 to $7.8 billion. 
The Student Loan Program is going from $24 to $36 billion. The Medicare 
Program is going from $178 to $289.
  Mr. Speaker, only in Washington when we spend so much more money do 
people call it a cut.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Matsui].
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the last speaker there, that, 
yes, seniors will get more money. They are going to get about $6,600 
per capita per year on their health care benefits under this proposal. 
The problem is that for those people that have private insurance, they 
are going to have a massive increase as well.
  In fact, we will be spending, in the year 2002, $6,600 on that senior 
citizen, 75, 85, 90 years old, but we will be spending $7,700, $1,100 
more, on somebody 30 years old. What do you think will happen to senior 
citizens? They will be given second class health care at a time when 
they need it.
  The gentleman from Ohio referred to a telephone number in a budget. 
That was in 1981. I was thinking, that was the last time the 
Republicans had effective control of the House on a budget. That was 
the year when they said in 1984 they would balance the budget, increase 
defense and cut taxes. Look what happened. We have budget deficits that 
are running $200 to $300 billion a year mainly because of the extremism 
on that side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues about these special interest 
provisions that have gotten into this budget. There is a pension 
provision in this budget. This pension provision is going to affect 13 
million workers and retired people over the next 7 years. It is going 
to allow major corporations to take out billions and billions of 
dollars. By their own estimate, $20 billion, in order to pay for 
increases and bonuses to management employees, limousines if they want, 
leverage buyouts.
  That is what this bill is really all about. It is a special interest 
bill that takes from senior citizens, middle-income people and gives to 
the very, very wealthy. This bill is an outrage to the American public 
and there will be a price to pay for it in 1996.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MATSUI. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the last speaker why, if 
the Medicare figures are not cuts, why does the Congressional Budget 
Office score them as 280 billion dollars' worth of cuts? It is their 
budget office that scores them as cuts.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to the previous speaker that I believe in the previous Congress 
he was talking about, Tip O'Neill was the Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1995. And I say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], and 
I am going to say it very clearly, because I think this will be the 
final answer the gentleman has needed for all these months on this 
debate. There has been a concerted effort over the last few weeks to 
frighten our senior citizens by making them believe they would lose 
Medicare benefits. We all know this is absolutely false.
  The difference between the President's plan, if Members will look at 
this chart, and the Republicans' plan is $4 a month. That is right. 
Under our proposal the Medicare premium would rise to $87 a month by 
the year 2002; at the same time the President's proposal would have 
seniors paying $83. Four dollars difference. Where is the beef? There 
is no argument here. Four dollars difference between the President and 
our plan.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, if Members will look at the next chart, I call 
their attention to this chart because Medicare has risen from $15 in 
1986, the premiums that is, to $46.10 in 1995. The whole idea that we 
are raising premiums is a red herring being used solely for the purpose 
of scaring seniors. Mr. Speaker, it is triple, though, under Democratic 
rule.
  So I rise in support. We have kept our promises for America's 
families and America's future and for senior citizens.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-
Allard] has 40 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hobson] has 45\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. McCrery].
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about fraud and abuse in the 
Medicare Program. This bill takes a four-pronged approach to reducing 
fraud and abuse.
  First, it greatly increases beneficiary and provider participation in 
identifying problems. Second, through computerization and other 
preventive measures, it greatly increases Medicare's ability to prevent 
payments for fraudulent, abusive, or erroneous claims and to identify 
billing schemes early in order to avoid large losses.
  Third, it greatly increases enforcement efforts by establishing 
mandatory funding for coordinated efforts of the Office of Inspector 
General, state fraud control units, and the FBI.
  Finally, it increases deterrence by strengthening civil and criminal 
penalties for defrauding Federal health care programs.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, makes Medicare fraud less of a possibility in 
the future. Everybody knows that there is massive fraud in the Medicare 
Program. This bill gives us the tools to get rid of it, saving billions 
of taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas].
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and finally 
provide specific numbers certified by the Congressional Budget Office. 
Completely worked out. Here is the plan.
  Currently, Clinton's trustees say the part A Medicare trust fund is 
going broke next year. It is going bankrupt in 2002. The Democratic 
folks chuckle about that. They say that is no problem we have solved it 
in the past. Yes, the way they solved it in the past was to increase 
the payroll tax. They have taken it from young people to give to 
seniors. Generational shift.

[[Page H13165]]

  We say we are not going to do that anymore. We will look at a program 
that was created in the 1960's and bring it up to date. We talk about 
opening it up, through choice by seniors, to new exciting programs, 
like the provider-sponsored organization. Local doctors, local 
hospitals, coming together. Not some outside the area operation, but 
local doctors and local hospitals creating community-based managed 
care.
  That is what we do. We preserve, we protect and we strengthen 
Medicare.
  The Democratic plan that was sponsored in the Committee on Ways and 
Means and lost, creates an enormous negative $300 billion right at the 
time we have to deal with the baby-boomers coming on board. This plan, 
certified by CBO, carries us beyond 2010 in a positive position. That 
is part A.
  Everybody knows we hold the part B premium at 31\1/2\ percent, the 
amount they pay today. We said, yes, we think that is a reasonable 
contribution on the part of the seniors. Hold the line. The President's 
plan, as Members can see, marching down looking at the numbers in 2002, 
shows $83. CBO certified our part B premium will be $88.90; $5 is all 
we ask. The 40 million seniors who will be in Medicare at the time are 
asked for $5 each. And what that does, Mr. Speaker, is create a program 
that creates a balanced budget in 7 years.
  What do we do with the various institutions under our plan? Hospitals 
get $652 billion over the next 7 years. Home health, $151 billion, That 
is up almost 9 percent. Skilled nursing facilities get $91 billion. 
That is up over 8 percent. The physicians, the doctors, they get $315 
billion over the next 7 years. That is an 8 percent increase. 
Outpatient hospitals get $111 billion. That is an 11-percent increase. 
Direct medical education to our teaching institutions, $32 billion. 
That is up 12 percent. Clinical labs get $47 billion. That is up 9 
percent.
  Those are increases. Those are hundreds of billions of dollars that 
go into Medicare to help our seniors. By opening up part A to choice 
and by asking our seniors to hold the line $5 apiece in 2002, we 
preserve, we protect and we strengthen Medicare and we balance the 
budget. Those are real numbers. Those are numbers certified by CBO. 
Support the plan.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, yes, let us talk about the payroll tax. 
We know that hurts working families, and that is why we have the earned 
income tax credit.
  I am told by the other side of the aisle that reducing this worker 
wage credit will not cause any pain. I have worked on this program for 
many years and I know that you cannot reduce $32 billion out of a 
program, 15 percent out of a program, literally 1 year of payments out 
of a program and not have pain.
  Who are these families? They are 13 million families in America, and 
if my colleagues can believe it, they are families with high health 
costs, they are families with more than two children, they are widows 
with children and single heads of households that are dependent on 
child support enforcement.
  This part of the bill is very bad because it increases the 
discrimination about wages against hard-working families. This is 
something that is happening in this country, the distribution of income 
is becoming more and more unfair. This increases it. It should not 
happen. This should not be in this reconciliation bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing from the other side of the aisle that no 
one gets hurt if you reduce the tax credit for working Americans by $32 
billion. This is impossible. You cannot reduce a $225 billion program 
by $32 billion--a 15-percent cut--a full year of payments--without 
hurting 13 million families who are in effect getting a tax increase if 
this happens. These are families with three or more children; families 
with high medical expenses; widows with children; families dependent on 
child support; Why are these families being hurt? They are being hurt 
to pay for tax reductions for the very well off. This is another step 
toward wage discrimination for working Americans. This continues to 
widen the gap in wage distribution. This part of the bill is very 
harmful for the future of America and its hard working families.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Ganske].
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the remarks from the 
gentleman from California. As a physician, I am very concerned that 
seniors get the facts straight. This year the average monthly Social 
Security benefit is $702. Next year the average monthly Social Security 
benefit will be $720. That is an increase of $18.
  So even if Medicare premiums go up $7 per month, next year they will 
obtain $10 more in benefits. That is an increase by any definition. By 
maintaining the same share seniors currently pay for their premiums, 
not increasing their share, their premiums will go from $46.10 to $87 
in the year 2002. But, Mr. Speaker, their Social Security benefits will 
increase from $702 a month to $965 a month.
  Today, after paying their premiums, seniors have $656 to spend. In 
2002, they will have $878. Mr. Speaker, that is the fact.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume 
to the gentlewoman from California, [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican budget plan, which is an assault on American families.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Gingrich budget bill. 
This bill does not reflect the values of the American people.
  A budget is a statement of values; the way we spend our money 
demonstrates our priorities. This Gingrich budget cuts Medicare by $270 
billion to finance a $245 billion tax break for corporations and the 
wealthiest Americans. The budget bill coupled with the Republican 
appropriations bills slashes funding for education, guts environmental 
protect and declares war on the American worker. These are not American 
values.
  California families would be hard hit by $72 billion in cuts over the 
next 7 years in Medicare, Medicaid, earned income tax credit, food 
assistance, and student loans. The magnitude of these cuts can be 
grasped by comparing the reductions to the budget of the State of 
California which is $57 billion this year. These extreme cuts are 
equivalent to wiping out all State spending for the next 15 months.
  The Gingrich budget slashes Medicare funds to California by $36 
billion over 7 years. Such dramatic cutbacks in Medicare funding would 
inflict excessive new premiums on 3.6 million California beneficiaries, 
and force low-income seniors into managed care. The cut of over $8 
billion to California hospitals would decimate vital safety-net and 
teaching hospitals.
  The Gingrich budget repeals the Medicaid program which provides 
health security to low-income Americans, 5 million of whom live in 
California. Half of the beneficiaries are children, 15 percent are 
people with disabilities, and 12 percent are elderly. Medicaid 
currently covers 26 percent of children in California and pays for more 
than half of all nursing home care.
  The Medicaid program is replaced by a block grant program where 
States would determine eligibility requirements and the types of 
benefits to be provided. Federal payments to States would be cut by 
$170 billion or 30 percent from projected spending under current law.
  Consumers Union estimates that the Medicaid provisions in this budget 
will result in 12 million Americans losing health insurance coverage. 
Because public hospitals and trauma centers are dependent on the 
Medicaid program, all Americans would suffer a loss of essential health 
care when they need it most, while experiencing a serious, medical 
emergency.
  The last Congress engaged in an intensive debate on how to provide 
universal health care coverage. Unfortunately, due to the complexity of 
the issue and the partisan nature of much of the opposition, no 
legislation was adopted.
  Nonetheless, there was a shared goal by most Members of Congress to 
expand health care coverage. Now, the Gingrich budget is about to take 
the most dramatic step backwards for guaranteed health coverage in 
American history.
  In California, over 2 million low-income, working taxpayers will have 
their taxes raised by the Republican budget through cuts in the earned 
income tax credit. Let me emphasize that these are working families. In 
fact, under this budget, taxes go up for families with incomes below 
$30,000. It is wrong to raise taxes on working families to finance tax 
breaks for businesses and the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans.
  This budget has a devastating impact on children. Indeed, nearly 2 
million children in California will have food stamp benefits cut. Over 
half of the disabled children in the State will lose Supplemental 
Security Income [SSI] 

[[Page H13166]]
benefits. Funds for foster care and adoption services are also slashed. 
These cuts are mean-spirited and cheat children out of good health, 
good nutrition, and a bright future.
  Student loans for higher education are also threatened by the 
Gingrich budget. The highly successful direct lending program would be 
severely limited. In fact, only 6 of California's 183 colleges and 
universities would be allowed to participate in this important program. 
Higher education for thousands of young people will no longer be 
affordable.
  This budget threatens the health, welfare, and education of 
California's working families. These cuts simply go too far.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal budget is a statement of our national 
values. This Gingrich budget is extreme and does not meet the test of 
fairness demanded by the American people. It reaffirms the Republican 
Party as the party of wealth, power, and privilege. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this Gingrich budget.

                              {time}  1245

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we should, should help families 
who work hard and play by the rules for this reason. For this reason, I 
oppose the Republican proposal.
  This Republican plan raises taxes on 32 million hard-working American 
families and gives a tax break to the richest people in America. It is 
Robin Hood in reverse.
  The Republicans cut school lunches, student loans, and environment. 
About this, there can be no doubt.
  Republicans attack Medicare. The elderly may have to choose between 
paying their doctors and paying their rent.
  Why do the Republicans steal from our children, the elderly, and the 
poor? They say they want to help families, and then they raise taxes on 
32 million working American families and give a tax break to their 
wealthy friends. This is extreme, this is radical; this is mean, just 
plain mean.
  Where is the decency? Where is the sense of right and wrong? Where is 
the morality? This proposal is mean-spirited. It is just plain wrong.
  Vote no on this mean, extreme proposal.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].
  (Mr. BASS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1995.
  Mr. Speaker, I come here to urge those who support balancing the 
budget to vote for the Balanced Budget Act of 1995.
  First, those who oppose balancing the Federal budget want us to 
believe that balancing a budget means cutting funds for child nutrition 
programs.
  This is false. In fact, under the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, 
Federal spending will increase for school lunch programs--from $4.509 
billion in 1995 to $6.406 billion in 2002.
  Second, those who oppose balancing the Federal budget want us to 
believe that balancing a budget means cutting funds for seniors health 
care.
  This is false. In fact, under the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, 
Federal spending will increase for Medicare--from $178 billion in 1995 
to $289 billion in 2002.
  Third, those who oppose balancing the Federal budget want us to 
believe that balancing a budget means hurting the poor.
  This is false. In fact, under the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, 
Federal spending will increase for Medicaid from $89.2 billion in 1995 
to $127 billion in 2002.
  Fourth, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 balances the budget in 7 
years, protects our children's future, protects our seniors, and still 
provides a safety net for the poor and needy. Please support the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1995, for the future of this country and the 
future of our children. Under the GOP budget, Federal spending will 
increase from $1.514 trillion this year to $1.857 trillion in 2002.
  Fifth, I would like to take a minute and share with you some of the 
comments from just a few of my constituents who called in support of 
balancing the budget in 7 years with honest numbers and to get this 
Government running again.

       Ernest H. Bridge, East Unity.--Today is the second day of 
     the ``Shutdown'' and I've heard many radio reports which 
     indicate that people are upset and blame Congress for ``not 
     doing its job''; however, nobody I've talked with expressed 
     anything but satisfaction that you've stood up to the White 
     House on this issue. I encourage you to stand firm on this 
     issue and I believe there are far more of us who believe in 
     the importance of the issue than there are who buy into the 
     President's pandering for re-election votes.
       Richard and Marilyn Horton, Grantham.--Please hang tough on 
     the budget resolution. Don't give into the President. As 
     members of AARP and other senior citizens we do not agree 
     with the President and support the Republican budget plan. 
     Shut it down for a while.
       Steven S. Hall, North Woodstock.--Please continue to hold 
     the line with the White House and President Clinton on the 
     budget. Please do not blink.
       William Thompson, Litchfield.--I support the Republicans 
     budget plan, and hope you will not give in to the President 
     on reducing the deficit in seven years.
       This battle will go down in history and I hope we the 
     people win. Do not give in to the President in this fight for 
     the future of our country.
       Ruth Becker, Nashua.--Stand tall and firm and do not give 
     in.
       John Elliot, Weare.--The sooner you get the Federal Budget 
     balanced, the better it will be for all your constituents as 
     well as all Americans.

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today's debate is about whether we 
will put an end to something for nothing Government.
  Something for nothing Government continues liberal spending programs 
today but forces our children to pay for them tomorrow. Candidate 
Clinton promised an end to something for nothing, a 5-year plan to 
balance the budget. Three-quarters through his term, President Clinton 
has no balanced budget plan, just $200 billion deficits as far as the 
eye can see.
  The President would continue 25 years of larger Federal budgets and 
smaller family budgets, rising red ink and declining private 
investment.
  This Congress will end something-for-nothing Government by passing 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. It put the Federal Government on a 
modest diet so that our children can have a future of plenty.
  Support this balanced budget and, for the first time since Neil 
Armstrong walked on the Moon, we will put deficits behind us.
  Make this balanced budget the law of the land and we will reduce what 
the Government spends to increase what the family keeps.
  Support the Balanced Budget Act of 1995: Keep our promises to 
America's families, to America's future.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Payne].
  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
California for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my Republican colleagues for bringing 
to this floor a budget that is balanced in 7 years. This is a goal that 
I strongly support, and it is one that is essential for our Nation's 
economy.
  However, Mr. Speaker, the problem is that there is something very 
wrong with this bill, $245 billion in tax cuts at the very time that we 
have a $200 billion deficit, meaning we have to borrow more money to 
pay for these tax cuts. This is business as usual here in Washington, 
doing something that is popular today and letting our children and 
grandchildren pay the bill.
  Further, these tax cuts force us to risk the Nation's entire health 
system by reducing the rate of growth of Medicare and Medicaid below 
that which it can sustain. One of the consequences of this in rural 
areas such as mine is that rural hospitals may close and without these 
hospitals, it will be increasingly difficult to live and prosper in 
rural areas.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree that we should balance the budget in 7 years. I 
have voted for the coalition budget that does that, but this is the 
wrong way to achieve that goal. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson], 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it boils down to politics. That is all it is about at 
this point. It is amazing just how well and how perfectly the 
Washington Post got it on November 16.
  They said, quote:

       The Republicans stepped up to Medicare as part of their 
     proposal to balance the budget. It took guts to propose that. 
     But Bill Clinton and the congressional Democrats were handed 
     an unusual chance to deal constructively 

[[Page H13167]]
     with the effect of Medicare on the deficit, and they blew it. Led by 
     the President, the Democrats chose instead to present 
     themselves as Medicare's great protectors. They have 
     shamelessly used the issue, they have demagogued on it, 
     because they think that is where the votes are and the way to 
     derail the Republican proposals generally.

  Let us talk about what is at stake for a moment, and this is where 
the Post has really gotten it right. They say, quote, ``We have said 
some of this before, but it gets a lot more serious. If the Democrats 
play the Medicare card and win, they will set back for years for the 
worst of political reasons the very cause of rational government that 
they profess to believe in.''
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said this afternoon about 
this mean-spirited proposal. That really shocks me as to why there are 
not more Americans that are just outraged in believing that we can get 
a $245 billion tax cut, balance the budget, and no one is hurt. They 
will come to this well and have us believe that this thing is just 
painless because there are no cuts involved, they are merely reducing 
the rate of growth.
  There is an old saying that figures do not lie. But they also say 
that liars sure know how to figure. If we do not believe that the $270 
billion cuts in Medicare are going to hurt, why do we not go to the old 
folks and ask them? We do not have to listen to the politicians, the 
Republicans and the Democrats. If there is some senior citizen going to 
a doctor under Medicare part B, go to that doctor and ask, what do they 
intend to do with the reimbursements? If you know somebody that is 
working and they work day in and day out and they still cannot get 
above the poverty line, ask them, what does the earned income tax 
credit mean to them and what does stealing $32 billion in tax relief 
mean to them.
  If we really want to believe that it does not hurt, ask, why are we 
cutting $146 billion out of Medicaid? Go to the hospitals that serve 
these people, the ones that are on the brink of closing, the last place 
that a poor person can go for health care, and ask them.
  But finally, go to the churches. Go to the synagogues, go to the 
places of worship, as we find Catholic Charities attempting to provide 
these services for our sick, for our aged, for our disabled. Go to the 
Protestant Council where they provide the services for these people 
that have these things. Ask the priests, ask the ministers, ask the 
nuns.
  It is wrong, we know it is wrong, and I hope that our consciences 
bother us.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I went to those places during the 
campaign. I am a freshman in this body of Congress, and I will say, one 
place I went to is Lyndon, KS. It was a grade school, and I was asking 
the grade school students there how much each of them owes here, how 
much each of those children owes of the Federal debt.
  They would say, I do not know. I said, it is over $18,000.
  A little fourth-grader held his hand up. He held his hand up and he 
said, ``How do I owe $18,000? I have not spent anything.'' And he had 
not. We have.
  That is what is cruel, that is what is immoral, and that is what we 
are trying to stop today, continuing adding to that poor little fourth-
grader's debt.
  The President says he balances this budget; this is his plan, about 
25 pages of press release to balance the budget. We support balancing 
the budget. Here is a real document, a real plan.
  I say, it is time to stop arguing about this, it is time to get down 
to the specifics of balancing a budget in 7 years with CBO scoring.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Herger].
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, the current trend in deficit spending cannot 
be sustained. Without the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, Americans will 
experience increased interest rates, higher taxes and a lower standard 
of living for our children and grandchildren. Past spending has left a 
$5 trillion legacy of debt to future generations. For example, a child 
born today will pay $187,000 in taxes just to pay for interest on the 
debt and a 21-year-old faces a bill of $115,000 in taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come to say ``no'' to fiscal 
irresponsibility and say ``yes'' to an economically sound and 
rejuvenated America. It is our moral imperative to vote for this, the 
first balanced budget in 26 years. Mr. Speaker, we have kept our 
promises for America's families, for America's future.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont 
[Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, let us move forward to balance the 
budget, but not through savage cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' 
needs, children's needs, education, and environmental protection.
  Yes, let us move forward to balance the budget, but not by giving 
huge tax breaks to the rich, building more B-2 bombers that the 
Pentagon does not want and by continuing to spend $125 billion a year 
on corporate welfare.
  Yes, we can balance the budget, but not on the backs of the weakest 
and most vulnerable people in our society.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
[Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, can anybody look at a 1,754-page bill that 
finally brings fiscal responsibility to Washington, DC and say, there 
is only one way to write that bill? Well, that is what the Republican 
majority is telling us. No Democratic alternative will be allowed.
  I have a plan to balance the budget in 7 years. I just happen to have 
very different priorities than the majority. I do not want to give more 
tax breaks to large corporations and repeal the corporate alternative 
minimum tax; and I do not think most Americans think that is the way to 
balance the budget.
  I do not believe we have done so well at the top that we should give 
them tax breaks. I do not believe we should continue agriculture 
subsidies. I do not believe that we should continue to give away 
Federal minerals for free.
  I believe we should begin to assess royalties. There are responsible 
ways to get us to a balanced budget in 7 years without cutting student 
loans, without cutting Medicare, without cutting veterans' benefits.
  I have produced such a plan. I voted on a similar plan when we 
brought the budget to the floor, but that vote will not be allowed 
today. They are saying there is only one way, their way, which is 
business as usual, serving the same powerful interests that have run 
this country for 25 years.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  (Ms. DUNN of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
measure, the first serious measure in decades to balance the Federal 
budget.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, suppose I told you Congress could take 
action today that would save the middle-class family $37,000 every time 
they buy a home. Suppose I told you today that Congress could take 
action that would save middle-class families $900 every time they buy a 
new car. Suppose I told you Congress could take action today that would 
save middle-class families $10,000 every time they pay back a student 
loan.
  If I told you that we could do that in the Congress in one bill, I 
would guess that most middle-class families would think that they got a 
pretty good deal.
  Well, I can tell you just that. Pass the Balanced Budget Act and 
every middle-class American family will begin benefiting now and will 
benefit well into the future.
  The President cannot say the same. He has decided to take what may be 
the very first firm stand in his entire political career, and that 
stand is against a balanced budget.

                              {time}  1300

  The President has never given us a balanced budget. He has never 
balanced the Federal budget. He is doing everything he can to stop a 
balanced budget.
  If we win our balanced budget today, families will get $37,000 in 
mortgage savings. With the President you lose. If we win, every family 
buys a new car for 

[[Page H13168]]
$900 less. With the President, you lose. If we win, every family 
finances a college education for $10,000 less. With the President, you 
lose. Support the balanced budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we all believe in achieving a balanced 
budget. But, oh, the sins that we can hide under that framework.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill imposes a $32 billion tax increase on low-
income working Americans earning $18,000 to $20,000 a year, while 
giving a $14,000 tax break to someone earning $350,000. The bill 
eliminates home heating assistance for low-income people while 
providing funds for nuclear weapons testing. It eliminates the 
assurance that will help people pay for the cost of nursing homes for 
grandma and college loans for their students, but the rich will get a 
lot richer. That is what this republican budget is all about.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, this so-called reconciliation is not about 
balancing the budget, it is about rewarding those who finance the 
Republican Party. If that weren't true, then why were there no cuts to 
the hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare?
  For decades, the insurance industry has wanted to sink its teeth into 
Medicare, and if this plan passes, you can bet your grandma's bed-pan 
they'll get their wish.
  The Republican leadership is proud to have opposed Medicare in 1965. 
What makes you think they want to save it in 1995?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], a member of the Committee on the 
Budget and one of our leading experts on housing.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, the last few days in this Chamber 
have been difficult for us. We have clashed in increasingly bitter 
tones that obscure the crispness of the question before us. And that, 
Mr. Speaker, is: Are we prepared to promise a higher standard of living 
for our children and grandchildren? That question is at the heart of 
the debate about what the Balanced Budget Act is really all about.
  I think of my two young daughters, Molly and Kelsey, and the future 
they face. There are two clear paths before them. If we stay on this 
path and deliver a future of unsustainable spending, crushing debt, and 
huge increases in taxes, their hopes and dreams may never materialize. 
In the end, that path leads America to fewer opportunities and a lower 
quality of life for the smallest among us.
  Or we can take another path; a brighter path filled with hope and 
opportunity. It promises an America where our children can live better 
lives than we, the dream of every parent.
  Let's keep our promise to do the right thing, the moral thing. Let's 
balance the budget and grow hope for all of America's children and 
America's future.
  Despite the tough choices we have had to make to balance the Federal 
budget, I am proud to say that we have kept our commitment of service 
to the American people. When asked, the House Banking Committee was 
able to more than double its contribution to deficit reduction. But 
rather than cut housing programs, the committee went the extra mile and 
gave much-needed outlays to the Appropriation Committee to put more 
money into those critical programs that provide crucial housing 
assistance for America's seniors and disabled, as well as the Nation's 
homeless and vulnerable populations. We have proven that we can do what 
is right for our children by balancing the Federal budget--and still do 
what is right for our parents and grandparents by providing them with 
access to clean, affordable, and healthy homes.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this mean-
spirited Republican budget.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have before us today is the naked shift of 
wealth at its very worst. We are robbing working class Americans to pay 
for tax breaks for the wealthy. Yes, $245 billion for the wealthiest 
families in this country. While the Republicans are lecturing us on 
welfare reform, they are destroying programs like the earned income tax 
credit, the low income housing tax credit, education, job training, 
programs that help get people off welfare.
  Today's vote marks the end of an era. Gone will be the world in which 
mothers and fathers hoped and dreamed that their children's lives would 
be better than their own. Today with this vote that dream will cease to 
exist. I urge a vote against this attack on working men and women.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick].
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, as the debate rages over our moral 
obligation to balance the budget in 7 years, we need to remember to 
whom we owe this obligation.
  It is our children, grandchildren, parents, and millions of 
hardworking Americans who simply cannot bear the burden of debt any 
longer.
  These are real people, not statistics or public opinion polls. Real 
people like George Sigmon, a senior citizen from my hometown of 
Charlotte who called yesterday to urge us to stand firm and let me know 
that he is behind us 110 percent; retired Navy veteran Charles Peterson 
of Bessemer City, NC; Donny Loftis of Gastonia, a furloughed Federal 
employee; Betty Stiles of Cramerton, who wants us to stand our ground; 
Abraham Ruff of Kings Mountain, a disabled veteran who supports our 
efforts so much that he has decided to switch his party affiliation 
from Democrat to Republican; and Marion Harris of Charlotte, an 80-
year-old woman who supports the GOP effort to balance the budget in 7 
years and urged us to help save Medicare for her 50-year-old son.
  These people are depending on us to do what we were sent here to do, 
balance the budget in 7 years.
  Let us not let them down.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Trade and leader in the House.
  Mr. CRANE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a letter to Members that I received 
today, but it is representative of many that I have received in the 
past 48 hours:

       Dear Representative Crane: I am writing to thank you for 
     standing up for the future of America. My wife and I have 
     twin sons that are waiting to be born any day now. I just 
     want you to know that because of your strong stand in this 
     budget battle with the White House, my boys will have a 
     bright future. They won't have to worry about using their 
     most productive days to pay off the nation's debt. Instead, 
     they can use their talents and abilities to build a stronger 
     country.
       In the coming days the temptation to compromise will be 
     great, but please don't give in. Know that what you are doing 
     is right. Regardless of the media hype and the opinion polls, 
     the truth that you stand for will be vindicated. Neither my 
     boys nor the rest of their generation will ever get a chance 
     to thank you, but they will surely owe you a debt of 
     gratitude. Someday they will read in their history texts 
     about the Second American Revolution, the Congress of 1995 
     and I will be proud to say that my Congressman, Phil Crane 
     played a key role in it.
       Thank you for being our congressman and having the courage 
     of your convictions. Our thoughts and prayers are with you 
     during these trying times.
           Sincerely,
                                           Chris and Danna Herden.
       Mundelein, IL.

  Mr. Speaker, because of debate time constraints, I wish to extend my 
remarks in strong support of the conference report for H.R. 2491, the 
Balanced Budget Act.
  Unlike many of our friends on the other side of the aisle and the 
current occupant of the White House, both of whom have shifted the 
blame and offered excuses for not balancing the budget, we Republicans 
today are implementing legislation which will eliminate the Nation's 
budget deficit in 7 years. Over the last couple of years the President 
has announced publicly that he supports a balanced budget in 5, 7, 8, 
9, and 10 years. Not only does the President continually change his 
mind on the number of years we should take to balance the budget, but 
he has not yet agreed to any plan which actually balances the budget in 
any length of time.
  In contrast, Republicans have been willing to make the tough choices, 
knowing that some sacrifices must be made to get our Nation's finances 
in order. Before today, Congress quite literally has been mortgaging 
the future of our children and grandchildren, and this insane practice 
must stop.
  I recognize that the bill now before the House is not perfect. Like 
any piece of legislation crafted by a committee of men and 

[[Page H13169]]
women and containing hundreds of provisions, any one of us would 
construct this bill differently to suit the needs of our own 
constituents.
  For example, while some have objected to the tax cuts in the bill, I 
believe that we owe Americans a reprieve from the tax increase 
President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress imposed on the American 
people in 1993. In fact, the tax relief portions of this bill come $100 
billion short of repealing that largest of tax increases in history. 
Over the 7 years of this budget, the $245 billion in tax relief amounts 
to only $35 billion per annum. As vice chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, I can unequivocally state that our $5 trillion debt came as 
a result of Congress spending too much money, not because Americans 
have been taxed too little.
  While it is not as much as I would like, H.R. 2491 does in fact 
provide significant assistance for Americans most in need of tax 
relief. The bulk of the tax cuts, 61 percent to be precise, will go to 
Americans earning between $30,000 and $75,000. I feel particularly 
proud that H.R. 6, the American Dream Restoration Act, which I 
sponsored, is part of the tax relief portion of this reconciliation 
bill. This legislation will provide working parents with a $125 per 
child credit for parents this year and a $500 credit for each of their 
children beginning in the 1996 tax year. Furthermore, the bill offers 
some mitigation of the marriage tax penalty. In addition, the bill 
offers the opportunity for Americans to establish American Dream 
Savings IRA-type accounts to save for their retirement, purchase a 
first home, pay for health expenses, provide for periods of 
unemployment, or pay for education expenses.

  H.R. 2491 also offers other significant and important tax cuts. Too 
often, politicians think tax dollars belong to Congress, not to the 
American people. This bill allows Americans to keep more of their own 
money to spend or save as they wish. For example, under this bill 
capital gains taxes on individuals will be cut in half. This will free 
up capital for entrepreneurs to create small businesses and more jobs, 
thus creating more taxpayers, which means more dollars for the U.S. 
Treasury. However, I would like to add that my principal concern is job 
creation, not ensuring more money for the Treasury.
  On balance, H.R. 2491 is a well-crafted, long overdue piece of 
legislation. The bill recognizes the necessity for balancing the 
budget, and it does so by placing the onus on Congress to prioritize 
and reduce Federal spending, rather than by increasing the burden on 
overtaxed working Americans.
  Many of our Democrat colleagues have alleged that we are delivering 
draconian budget cuts which will impoverish millions of Americans. Only 
in Washington can spending increases be labeled as cuts--Federal 
spending under this plan will actually increase by 27 percent over the 
next 7 years. This budget act will, however, begin making necessary 
cuts in unnecessary Federal spending.
  Balancing the Federal budget offers significant economic benefits for 
all Americans in the form of lower interest rates. According to a study 
by the National Association of Realtors, the average 30-year, $50,000 
home mortgage financed at 8.23 percent will drop by 2.7 percentage 
points, saving homeowners $1,081 annually and $32,430 over the life of 
the loan. Lower interest rates will also make car loans more affordable 
and will lower the cost of student loans.
  For all of these reasons, I believe it is incumbent on me and all of 
my colleagues to pass H.R. 2491. We must keep the promise to our 
children and grandchildren to stop billing them for our extravagant 
spending. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of 
the Balanced Budget Act conference report.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard], a member of our 
committee.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, today we are taking final action on a 
budget that forces us to abandon a vital American principle of fair 
play. Instead of pursuing the goal of ``shared sacrifice'', the 
majority rips gaping holes in key social safety net programs--imposing 
new burdens on children, seniors, and the poor, while granting a $245 
billion tax break for the wealthy.
  This budget is grossly unfair because it takes $165 billion from 
Medicaid in order to eliminate the minimum tax on corporations. This 
could cause over 2 million seniors to lose their Medicaid coverage for 
long-term care.
  It is unfair because it enlarges corporate tax deductions, while 
taking away $82 billion from welfare, pushing over 1.2 million children 
into poverty and denying Federal benefits to elderly legal immigrants.
  And, it is unfair because it gives families earning $350,000 a 
$14,000 tax cut, while increasing taxes for low-income working 
Americans by cutting the EITC by $32 billion, affecting 60,000 working 
families in my district alone.
  I urge a ``NO'' note on this budget ``wreck-conciliation.''
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to make the point to my colleagues 
because we have heard a lot of discussion about the impact of the 
Balanced Budget Act on families. In fact, the President has gone so far 
as to claim that the Balanced Budget Act will negatively impact the 
lowest income people in America. In fact, he has claimed that it 
actually constitutes a tax increase.
  I want everyone to know that because of the efforts on this side of 
the aisle, we were able to insert language in the conference report 
that makes sure that no American family is worse off as a result of the 
Balanced Budget Act and almost every American family is better off 
through the combination of the earned income tax credit, which goes to 
the poorest families in America, and our new $500 per child tax credit.
  Just a final thought for the family with an income of $30,000 a year, 
whether it be a single parent or two-parent family, with two dependent 
children. That $500 per child tax credit constitutes a $1,000 tax break 
for that family each and every year until those children reach the age 
of 18. That is real tax relief for American families.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], a member of our committee.
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the 
statement made by my colleague just a moment ago involving the earned 
income tax credit. Most of the people in my district do not make 
$17,000 a year, so they will not even be qualified or eligible for any 
savings through that particular method.
  I think that this whole argument on the budget is driven by two 
things: One has to do with the fact that some people feel in their 
minds that $245 billion is just a pittance for someone to give as a tax 
cut. It is not a pittance, because you are using it to cut the good 
things that government has been able to do over the years for the poor, 
the elderly and the disadvantaged. I think that as a group we must be 
sure that we do not let this happen.
  I do not want to support this reconciliation budget. It is not 
reconciling anything. This has been in the figment of one or two men's 
minds in this Congress. Why do we have to have 7 years? I am in favor 
of balancing the budget, but why does it only have to be on the 
intuitive meanness of one or two people?
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support balancing the Federal budget. Last 
spring I voted for a budget that would do so in 7 years.
  But I strongly oppose the so-called Balanced Budget Act that we are 
considering today. The fundamental problem with this bill is that it 
pays for a $245 billion tax cut at the expense of the most vulnerable 
in our society, the sick, the elderly, the working poor, and our 
children.
  Let me give some examples of how my constituents are being forced to 
pay for this tax cut. I believe in this entire balanced budget 7-year 
frenzy cut.
  The Republican budget cuts Medicare by $270 billion and Medicaid by 
$163 billion over 7 years. To the majority, a cut of $443 billion in 
simply an abstraction. Let me translate it for you. These Republican 
cuts mean a cut of about $200 million for the hospitals in the Miami 
area--including Jackson Memorial Hospital, one of the best public 
hospitals in the Nation. These Republican cuts mean that next year our 
senior citizens will be paying $8 a month more for part B Medicare 
premiums than they are paying this year. By the year 2002 they could be 
paying $90 a month--$47 a month more than they are paying now. While 
these increases may not seem like a lot of money to the wealthy 
Americans who are getting the big tax cut, they are a lot of money to 
retirees living on fixed incomes.
  The Republican budget also cuts Federal loans for college students by 
$5 billion over 7 years. This translates into higher costs for 7,700 
students in my congressional district.
  The major tax increase in the Republican budget is a $23 billion 
change in the earned 

[[Page H13170]]
income tax credit. The EITC was signed into law by President Ford in 
1975 in order to help people move from welfare to work. This $23 
billion tax increase translates into higher taxes for 46,000 hard-
working low income families in my congressional district.
  The Republican budget cuts off food stamps and other public benefits 
for legal United States residents in order to save $21 billion. There 
are tens of thousands of legal United States residents in my district 
who work hard and pay taxes. They should not be penalized in order to 
pay for a tax cut for the wealthy.
  In order to save $82 billion over 7 years, the Republican welfare 
bill will stop all assistance to families after 5 years. It will 
require adults to work after receiving welfare for 2 years. The 
majority doesn't say what will happen to these people when their time 
is up. The United States Catholic Conference has the answer. It says 
the welfare provisions will increase poverty, punish legal immigrants, 
and encourage poor people to have abortions.
  Mr. Speaker, we can work together to balance the budget. But we 
cannot work together to have the elderly and the poor pay for a $245 
billion tax cut.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Balanced 
Budget Act.
  We can no longer, as a nation, afford to turn our back on the moral 
imperative of balancing the Federal budget. Today our Nation is $4.9 
trillion in debt, and that amount is rising. By 1997, the interest on 
our debt alone will total $270 billion a year--a full 17 percent of the 
Government's tax revenues.
  We can continue business as usual, as some of my colleagues 
apparently desire. We can continue to reject responsibility for dealing 
with this monumental problem, as the President seems to want. We can 
continue to foist our Nation's debt off on our children and 
grandchildren, and wash our hands of this sorry state of affairs.
  The alternative is to take responsibility, to make the hard 
decisions, and to come up with solutions. The Balanced Budget Act of 
1995 does that, responsibility, over a 7-year period.
  Mr. Speaker, we can no longer hide our heads in the sand. I intend to 
do what is right for America's families and for America's future, and 
support this landmark legislation.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Clay], the ranking member of the Committee on Economic 
and Educational Opportunities.
  Mr. CLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement is a cruel and heartless 
charade, agreed to behind closed doors, that places the burden of 
financing tax cuts for the rich squarely on the backs of children, the 
poor, the elderly, and students.
  From child care, to school lunch, to protections against child abuse, 
to access to higher education, the details of this agreement are 
illogical and unconscionable.
  Republicans all but eliminate a cost-effective student loan program 
for one simple reason: Big banks don't like the competition.
  The direct loan program is better; it's cheaper for the taxpayers; 
it's simpler for students; and it's easier for schools to administer. 
The Republican giveaway will mean $8 billion in windfall profits for 
special interests.
  While banks get a statutory monopoly, students get a statutory 
mugging.
  Over 1,200 schools and 1 million students will be thrown out of the 
program.
  This legislation is not about balancing the budget, as the 
Republicans claim. It is about hijacking the U.S. Treasury to finance 
tax cuts for the rich.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation steals more than $100 billion 
from programs designed to protect our Nation's most vulnerable citizens 
from poverty, hunger, child abuse, and joblessness. The cut that angers 
me the most is the $6 billion that the Republicans steal from child 
nutrition to finance their tax cut for the rich.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this ugly bill.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my dear friend, the very 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble].
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, the past three decades the Congress has been 
a sloppy steward of tax dollars. Our country has been spent into the 
poor house, and we have mortgaged children's futures.
  But old habits die hard, Mr. Speaker. Many in this House resist 
change, so they attack the Republican plan by using fear tactics, laced 
with deception and half-truths and cleverly direct this message to 
vulnerable senior citizens: Tell Americans Republicans are cutting 
Medicare; tell Americans Republicans are eliminating school lunches; 
tell Americans Republicans will contaminate air and water; tell them 
anything that will frighten them even if you have to distort the truth.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to exercise discipline as we go 
about cleaning up this fiscal mess. If we fail to pass the Balanced 
Budget Act, there will be no Medicare, no school lunches, no water to 
drink. We have had an extended dance, Mr. Speaker. The fiddler must be 
paid.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to my 
colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to say to my colleague, 
the gentleman from North Carolina, it is not scare tactics. It is the 
truth. That is what scares our senior citizens all over this country. 
It is the truth. That is what is scary.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 20 seconds to 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that balancing the budget in 7 
years is right and necessary. I think this is absolutely the wrong way 
to do it.
  Under this plan, senior citizens will pay more for their health 
insurance. There will be fewer reading tutors in our school systems. 
There will be fewer people inspecting the quality of our air and water. 
That is what is going to happen.
  Now, is it necessary? I do not think so. And one of the most 
egregious examples of where we could cut but are not cutting in this 
plan is through the Republican abolition of the direct lending program.
  Understand this, ladies and gentlemen, abrogation of direct lending 
is nothing more than a $6 billion giveaway to the banking industry of 
this country. In the next couple days or weeks we are going to come 
back here and we are going to pass a 7-year balanced budget. One of the 
ways that we will do it, and should do it, is to say no $6 billion 
giveaway to the banking industry of this country. Put the reading 
tutors back in the schools. Put the pollution inspectors back in the 
helicopters back over the ocean and do not raise taxes on janitors to 
give $6 billion away to banks.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee 
on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I want to make very sure everybody 
understands that we had a different target in conference. We had a $10 
billion savings before we went to conference. We only had to come up 
with $4.9 billion after we went to conference.
  What does that mean? That means that not one student or one parent 
will pay 1 cent more for a student loan under this bill. Where do we 
get our savings? From where the gentleman just said we were going to 
give it to them; we are taking it from them. As a matter of fact, we 
get 70 percent of our savings from the guarantee agencies, from the 
secondary market, from the banks. We do that by increasing their share 
of the risk when students default.
  Then there are people who say, oh, well, we, should continue this. We 
ought to say thank God that we are going to stop this nonsense because 
what we are doing, if we continue according to CBO, is costing the 
taxpayers another $1.5 billion in direct lending. And who pays for 
that? Of course, the taxpayer. Because there is no one out there to 
collect, no one out there to service, and so we will change 

[[Page H13171]]
that and save money. And also in child care and in nutrition programs, 
there will be a 4 percent increase every year. As a matter of fact, 
when we get to the year 2000, it is 5.4 percent.
  With a significantly lower budget target of $4.9 billion we were able 
to put together a package of savings proposals which do not increase 
costs in any way for students or parents. Not one student or one parent 
will pay 1 cent more for a student loan under this bill than they pay 
today.
  Seventy percent of the savings under this agreement come from the 
banks, guaranty agencies, and secondary markets participating in the 
guaranteed loan program. We achieve these savings by increasing their 
share of the risk when students default on their loans, by increasing 
the fees these parties pay the Federal Government and by reducing the 
funds they receive for administrative purposes.
  The minority are concerned that 1.9 million direct loans will not be 
made next year. We should all be saying, thank God. That means the 
Department of Education will not lend $10 billion next year and not 
increase the Federal debt by $10 billion. Instead, banks across he 
country who know how to make and collect loans will make the 1.9 
million loans. And if any of those students default on their loans, 
instead of the Federal Government being on the hook for 100 percent of 
the loss, the Federal Government will only pay out 91 cents, 81 cents, 
or 71 cents on the dollar depending on the circumstances. I continue to 
be amazed that the President and the minority prefer the Federal 
Government to assume 100 percent of the risk on loan defaults rather 
than letting the private sector share the loss.
  I hope that it is obvious to everyone--except maybe those of you who 
believe that Federal aid should keep up with college tuition which has 
been growing at a rate surpassing inflation for well over a decade--
that this reconciliation package does not spell disaster for 
postsecondary education in this country. Congress will continue to 
provide billions of dollars in aid for needy college students who wish 
to pursue a postsecondary education.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a real turkey, and the American 
people should beware. The Republicans are about to serve the public a 
turkey left outside for special interests to pick on, and because of 
reckless, last-minute closed-door deals, this turkey was not cooked 
long enough. If you buy this turkey, it will make you sick.
  It cuts Medicare by $270 billion to pay for a tax break for the rich. 
It increases taxes on working families by $32 billion. It drastically 
cuts corporate taxes and permits corporate raids of pension plans. It 
cuts child nutrition. It cuts school lunches. It cuts student loans. It 
cuts nursing home care, doubles seniors' Medicare premiums, kills the 
environment.
  We should move toward a balanced budget. But who says that 7 years is 
so special? Seven years is an arbitrary time.
  If it is going to cause so much pain, we ought to abandon it.
  This bill is typical Republican nonsense. If you are rich, you win. 
If you are a senior citizen, a student, a middle-class person, a poor 
person, a working poor, or the rest of America, you lose.
  It should be defeated.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, the last time we had a balanced 
budget and the Federal Government operated the way we all have to in 
our personal financial lives, the way 90 percent of the States have 
to--with a balanced budget--I was 12 years old. I do not want my 10-
year-old daughter to come to me 25 years down the road and say she 
remembers when we could have balanced the budget and we blew it.
  Friends, in our budget we are spending almost $3 trillion more in the 
next 7 years than we have over the last 7 years. This is not about 
Medicare. It is not about student loans. It is not about welfare. It is 
about getting this administration and the Democrats to come to the 
table and commit to a budget that will balance in 7 years, scored by 
the Congressional Budget Office.
  What is the fear of them not wanting to do that? The fear they do not 
have taxpayers' dollars to spread around for political gain the way 
they have over the last 30 years, the fear they will have to distance 
themselves, they will not be able to tax and spend and borrow. It is 
amazing, if you do not have a plan, all the trick plays and all the 
deception and all the lies that are used trying to cover up for 
weakness. The other side's weakness is they do not have a plan. They 
have not had one in the last 25 years.

  I ask for bipartisan support of this balanced budget.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this murder of 
Medicaid.
  Mr. Speaker, we must defeat this bill and stop the murder of 
Medicaid. Today Medicaid guarantees 9 million children and adults with 
disabilities the health and related services they need to lead healthy, 
productive, and independent lives. That guarantee is wiped out by this 
legislation. Each State would decide whether and the extent to which 
they provide services to persons with disabilities. The savage, $165 
billion cut this bill imposes on the program makes it certain that 
hundreds of thousands of persons with disabilities will lose all 
coverage and millions more will lose some of the health services and 
benefits they now receive. Many persons with severe disabilities who 
are now living independently in the community will be forced back into 
institutions and isolation.
  The impact these cuts will have on families is severe. Consider Dee 
and Zack Klyman of Nevada. They have adopted three children with severe 
disabilities, Michael, Markeeta, and Shiniri. Each of these children 
was disabled as a result of abuse and neglect; the Klymans took them in 
and gave them a loving home. Medicaid now pays for all of the extensive 
medical services these children need. On their own, the Klymans could 
not afford these services. If the Republican butchery of Medicaid 
succeeds, the well-being of this family will be threatened. How will 
they cope with the thousands of dollars of medical bills their children 
generate every month? Will the family survive? What will happen to 
these three children?
  The States cannot be trusted to take care of the people with 
disabilities that they refused to care for before Medicaid was created.
  We must stop this destruction of service to people with disabilities. 
We must stop this murder of Medicaid. We must defeat this monstrous 
legislation.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  (Mr. MINGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
extreme reconciliation budget. Like my colleague, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma, I would like to have a balanced budget in 7 years, but we 
need to talk about it without the $245 billion tax cut, and without the 
extreme cuts to Medicare and education.
  The Republican budget has its investment strategy backwards. It 
pushes tax cuts more than it pushes the balanced budget effort. It sets 
priorities wrong. We need to support a balanced budget, but not to the 
extent of the cuts in education.
  In the Republican budget, and my chairman of the committee was right, 
we are only cutting student loans $4.9 billion over the next 7 years. 
That is too much. We need to not take away from our future. Education 
is our future.
  If we cut education funding, then we are taking away the future of 
our Nation.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley].
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Speaker, you know, last January we voted on the 
balanced budget amendment, which passed in this body by 300 to 123, 
including 72 then-Democrats who supported the plan.
  It is interesting to me that just barely 2 days ago 48 of those 
supported the clean continuing resolution, but 20 did not, and not only 
of the 20 who did not support the continuing resolution, another 127 
who in January said all we needed to do was muster the political will 
to make the tough decisions, could not make the tough decisions when it 
came to coming to the issue that we are now confronting.
  The Democratic Party has not offered a substitute. All you are doing 
is 

[[Page H13172]]
whining about how much we need to spend here and there. You have not 
offered any specifics other than the fact you want to spend more.
  When we look at the last 3 years, we have gone into deficit another 
$800 billion, and now we are looking at deficit indefinitely. I think 
it is incumbent on the moniority party to start talking with action 
instead of complaining about what we have done. We have done the heavy 
lifting. We have made the tough decisions. We are going to get this 
country on the track to a balanced Federal budget.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
  (Mr. CLINGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, the madness has gone on too long. Enough is 
enough.
  We need to stay focused in this debate on the goal that we are all 
trying to achieve, and that is a balanced budget within the next 7 
years.
  Each year since 1969, the Federal Government has failed to live 
within its means, spending more money than it collects in taxes and 
borrowing to make up the difference. For 26 years we have piled more 
and more on to the national debt, which now stands at an unfathomable 
$4.9 trillion. In Washington, this is business as usual. In the real 
world it is a lousy business.
  Our budget is a looming fiscal crisis. Everybody agrees with that on 
both sides of the aisle, and balancing it is a necessity, not a luxury.
  Interest on the debt is $235 billion, or 17 percent of the budget. 
That is outrageous, and it is growing. In 1997 we will spend more on 
interest payments than national defense. Only Social Security will 
receive more money. That is terrifying.
  Every tax dollar obviously that we are forced to spend on the old 
debt is a dollar we cannot spend to fight crime, battle poverty, 
conduct research on disease, protect the environment, or defend the 
Nation. If we do not begin to rein in the growth of Government, 
spending on entitlements and interest will consume all tax revenues in 
just 17 years.
  Anyone can see that this rate of spending is absolutely 
unsustainable. Furthermore Mr. Speaker, the deficit and the mounting 
national debt is an albatross around the neck of our economy. The 
Government's dependence on borrowing crowds out private investment, 
stifles job creation, and limits economic growth and opportunity.
  Balancing the budget will significantly boost our economy and is 
going to unlock vast opportunities by reducing long-term interest rates 
by at least 2 percent. Families will pay less for mortgages, for 
student loans, for car loans, and credit card payments. Businesses will 
be able to expand, create jobs, and improve their international 
competitiveness. These are all enormous pluses that will be achieved by 
this balanced budget.
  A balanced budget is going to create 6.1 million additional jobs and 
increase per capita income an extra 16 percent over the next 10 years. 
That is worth fighting for. That is worth voting for.
  No Government program, or all of them put together, can provide the 
American people as much in benefits as a balanced budget can.
  Finally, and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, we have got to budget, as 
has been said here, because our current spending practices are 
compromising the standard of living and the future of our children and 
our grandchildren. Long after we are gone, future generations are going 
to be left holding this enormous bag.
  We have an obligation to preserve the legacy of the dream for them, a 
dream that says our children will live better than we do, a dream that 
says America's best days are ahead of us, not behind us.
  Our commitment to balancing the budget and saving our children is 
reflected in the legislation we have right here today to vote on, the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1995. This bill is going to balance the budget 
by 2002, not by slashing Government as our Democratic colleagues 
charge, but by slowing the Government's rate of growth from 5 percent 
to 3 percent a year.
  The President claims he, too, wants to balance the budget and he has 
his own plan which will accomplish it in 10 years instead of 7. It is 
just not true, Mr. Speaker. According to CBO, the President's plan 
leaves us with $200 billion in deficits as far as the eye can see, 
according to the CBO numbers. The President insists his plan is more 
reasonable, less harsh, but if it never gets to a balanced budget, he 
can avoid making the tough decisions needed to control spending. 
Congress cannot have an honest discussion or negotiate with the 
President until he truly commits to balancing the budget and offers a 
credible plan that gets the deficit to zero.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Speaker, this is a defining moment in this Nation's long history 
and our long experiment in democracy. It is a defining moment that we 
cannot now falter and fail.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, in comment to my last two 
Republican colleagues, No. 1, the coalition did have a plan to balance 
the budget with less debt than the Republican plan. Unfortunately, 
under the rules of debate today, approved by the majority, you did not 
allow it to be considered.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume 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 do believe we can achieve a sensible 
balanced budget that does not deny access to direct student loans to 41 
schools in Texas or penalize 13 million working families by devastating 
the earned income tax credit.
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us for consideration today the budget 
reconciliation conference report. This legislation has been heralded by 
the majority as a miracle remedy for the many ailments afflicting our 
Nation's Government. However, I stand before you this morning to bring 
to your attention the truth about this so-called miracle; it is a 
fiscal fiasco for many citizens of our country.
  The Medicare reform provisions within the bill are very similar to 
that which was passed by this body in October; $270 billion is still 
cut, premiums still rise, and hospitals, doctors, and other health care 
professionals still get the shaft. The fraud and abuse provisions are 
weak--far weaker than they should be and far weaker than they could be. 
Although substantial new criminal penalties are imposed, the 
legislation actually makes it harder for the Federal Government to 
prove fraud for the purposes of imposing civil monetary penalties. In 
fact, in many ways, this language is more heinous than the earlier 
version. This entire reform plan has gone from bad idea to terrible 
legislation, to horrible reality and it is a nightmare that many 
seniors will have to live through, for they have no other choice.
  The Republican Party declares itself, sometimes, to be the party of 
working Americans, but many items within this bill strongly contradict 
that assertion. A prime example is the earned income tax credit or 
EITC. The cuts in the EITC will raise taxes on 13 million working 
families. It is suggested by Republicans that the family tax credit 
that the bill provides will more than make up for the tax increases 
stemming from the EITC cut. How can this be the case when 8 million 
families will be net losers? Families with three or more children lose. 
Hard working taxpayers with large medical expenses lose. Widows with 
children who receive Social Security benefits lose. And finally, why 
should childless workers be penalized? They lose too. So I ask again, 
is this the party of the middle class? To pay for numerous tax cuts for 
wealthy Americans and corporations, the Republican revolution has 
revolted against the Americans, working and middle class Americans, and 
raised taxes on those families and individuals who make less than 
$28,500 per year. Further, 41 schools in Texas will be denied access to 
direct student loans and 57,118 students will lose access to direct 
student loans.
  I am someone not easily disturbed, but the Speaker's statements 
earlier this week have troubled me greatly. As a backdrop to this 
debate is the almost complete shutdown of the Federal Government, 
affecting the lives of thousands of good, trusting, and hard working 
Government employees. There are many reasons for this predicament, but 
evidently the Speaker's hurt feelings are one of the primary reasons. 
Because he felt slighted by the President, he is willing to hold the 
entire country--

[[Page H13173]]
the budget and the lives of thousands of people--hostage. Right now we 
know that over 3 million Americans are being hurt because of this 
Government shutdown.
  In the end, the truth is irrefutable--the Republican budget cuts 
Medicare by increasing premiums, and raises taxes on working families 
to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. The President has promised to 
take his pen and veto this legislation. Common sense tells us we can 
balance the budget but with the right priorities: education, Medicare, 
and the keeping of the earned income tax credit for working Americans. 
I call upon my colleagues to stand firm, declare that the values within 
this reconciliation bill are not America's, and vote against this 
budget and for a real balanced budget with the right priorities.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Bishop].
  (Mr. BISHOP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I support a balanced budget, but not the 
Republican balanced budget. While I object to this unfair and unjust 
budget plan for many reasons, nothing is more objectionable than the 
way it treats farmers.
  They called it ``Freedom to Farm.''
  But for millions of America's farm families, this extreme new policy 
will be known as the ``Freedom-to-go-broke'' act.
  It abandons the Government's historic policy of helping promote a 
stable farm marketplace. It puts U.S. farmers at a disadvantage in 
competing against subsidized foreign producers. While it may give a 
windfall to a few big food manufacturers, it threatens the very 
survival of many food producers.
  The Budget Reconciliation Act is really a confused mixture of 
agriculture proposals. It continues a peanut program, but it slashes 
the support price too deeply. It does nothing for the dairy program, 
which remains under attack. And it kills the programs for cotton, corn, 
wheat, and rice.
  We need to reform our national farm policy, not destroy it. But 
that's exactly what this bill does. Defeat it. It is unfair and unjust 
to America's farmers.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, on January 1, 1971, I was sworn in as a Member of 
Congress, and on that same day I introduced my first piece of 
legislation, and that was a constitutional amendment to mandate a 
balanced budget. That is why I ran for Congress. I feel it is the most 
important contribution that we can make to our children's future, and 
now to my 11 grandchildren that have come since then. We can do no 
less, and today we have that opportunity, after 25 years.
  The Balanced Budget Act recognizes that tax dollars belong to hard 
working American people. They do not belong to the Government, and, as 
we reduce the size of Government, it is appropriate that we give a 
dividend to these working Americans. They deserve it. They have been 
overly taxed, and even the President admitted in my hometown of 
Houston, TX, that his tax increases in 1993 were too much.
  Seventy-three percent of our tax reduction package goes directly to 
American families, and the balance of it goes to increasing jobs to 
improve the economy. Our tax relief package benefits middle income 
families the most. Sixty-five percent of it goes to families earning 
under $75,000, and 80 percent goes to families that have a combined 
income of under $100,000.
  The Balanced Budget Act saves Medicare from bankruptcy and gives 
seniors voluntary new choices so they, not the Government, can control 
their important health care decisions.
  The Balanced Budget Act fundamentally reforms welfare by stressing 
personal responsibility and work, and removing the dependency trap that 
has enslaved generation after generation of Americans.
  This country, through Government, has spent over $5 trillion in the 
last 30 years on the war against poverty, only to lose the war and be 
in worse shape today than ever before. That must change, and we do 
change it.
  While it is easy to talk about balancing the budget and to profess to 
support one, of course, for many of my colleagues over here, it is 
never the right one, and it will never be the right one, we, the 
Republicans, are the ones who are willing to make the tough decisions 
and do what we are doing today.
  Sadly, this is because the President and his party still believe that 
an ever-expanding Federal Government is the best hope that we have to 
solve our problems. The President, who resists balancing the budget by 
refusing to begin the work required to get to one, clings to the notion 
that the Government must take more tax dollars from its citizens so it 
can spend them on more and more Government programs. And when you cut 
through the inflammatory rhetoric that we have heard on the floor, when 
you cut through the misinformation and the excuses and the class 
warfare, it becomes very clear that the Democrats just are not serious 
about reducing Government spending.
  Oh, yes, they talk about the rich in their class warfare rhetoric, 
and how we help the rich. Mr. Speaker, it takes $280,000 to create one 
job on average in the United States, and I guarantee you that those 
Democrat colleagues of mine who are against the rich would like to take 
all of that away from someone who has $280,000 and destroy a job.
  Yes, there are many Democrats who voted to support a balanced budget 
in this Chamber, and I commend them. This is not a Republican or a 
Democrat issue, it is about the future of America.
  And do we have a perfect plan? No. There will never be a perfect 
plan. But it is a real plan, yes, scored by CBO numbers, the numbers 
the President stood right here in February of 1993 and said are the 
only real numbers.
  Is it politically dictated? No. It involves tough choices to turn 30 
years of the thrust of government around and move it in another 
direction. Had it been politically easy, it would have been done by 
previous Congresses. It would be in place today. But it is the right 
thing to do.
  Let me read to you from the Washington Post editorial of yesterday, 
and the Washington Post normally is not on the side of Republicans, on 
the deficit:

       The budget deficit is the central problem of the Federal 
     Government and one from which many of the country's other, 
     most difficult problems flow. The deficit is largely driven 
     in turn by the cost of the great entitlements that go not to 
     small special classes of rich or poor but across the board to 
     almost all Americans in time.''
       ``You'll hear the argument from some that this is a phony 
     issue; they contend that the deficit isn't that great a 
     problem. The people who make this argument are whistling past 
     a graveyard that they themselves most likely helped to dig.

  Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, our leadership is committed to 
see this through to the very end. And, yes, all Americans will bear a 
part of this fair share as we move to a balanced budget. But we will 
step directly or indirectly on the toes of every American. It cannot be 
done without it. The question is, will you be with us to the very end?
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, this debate really is not about a balanced 
budget, because the majority of our colleagues on both sides now have 
said they are for a balanced budget, and I also support a balanced 
budget, but I support the Democratic alternative.
  This debate is about how we balance the budget, who pays and who 
gains; who will bear the pain, who will bear the cost, and who will 
benefit from that. This is really about making hard choices, but also 
it is about making fair choices.
  When you consider rural America, you must understand this budget is 
not fair to rural America. Consider $13.5 billion coming out of the 
budget just out of agriculture alone, an area that is already suffering 
from reduction in prior years. That is not fair to rural America. It is 
not fair to farmers, who indeed are the bread basket for this country, 
allowing us to have affordable food, good food, and a variety of food. 
We are pulling the security from farmers away. Also, consider that more 
poor people are indeed in rural areas.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a fair budget. It certainly does a 
disadvantage to 

[[Page H13174]]
rural America. We should reject this bill, because it is unfair to all 
America, and particularly rural America.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
the conference report. On the basis of the flawed natural resources 
provisions in title XIII alone, Members should reject this misguided 
legislation.
  This is not a serious effort to balance the Federal budget. The 
conferees have both ignored opportunities to raise real revenues by 
reducing wasteful subsidies, and missed a chance to improve the 
management of our public resources.
  Instead, this conference report resorts to sacrificing a national 
wildlife refuge to oil exploitation, sanctioning the continued giveaway 
of mineral-rich public lands at a fraction of their fair-market value, 
and providing even more corporate welfare for subsidized irrigators. 
This bill undermines serious efforts at reform, such as those that have 
passed the House on a bipartisan basis in recent years, by providing 
inconsequential revenues to qualify their proindustry, 
antienvironmental policies for the sound efforts at modernizing 
resource management and saving the taxpayers billions of dollars.
  The President has remained firm in his commitment to veto any budget 
reconciliation bill which would open the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge to oil and gas development. To include ANWR in this bill not 
only denies Members an opportunity to full debate and amendments under 
an open rule, but is an exercise in futility.
  The majority of the revenues in this title are assumed to come from 
oil and gas leasing of ANWR. But don't bank on it. There's a phoney 
bait and switch going on here.
  To start with, don't believe the accuracy of CBO's assumption of $1.3 
billion in Federal revenues from ANWR. Those estimates were based on 
old projections of $40 a barrel oil, currently less than half that 
price. By contrast, the administration projects just $850 million in 
Federal revenues, assuming a 50-percent share goes to the State of 
Alaska.
  What the conference report doesn't tell you is that the State of 
Alaska currently is entitled to a 90-percent share under the Statehood 
Act of 1958, and Congress may not be able to change that entitlement 
unilaterally to 50 percent as the conference report proposes. If an 
all-but-guaranteed lawsuit reduces the Federal share to only 10 
percent--a lawsuit predicted by the senior Senator from Alaska as well 
as the chairman of the House Resources Committee, among others--the 
Treasury would receive only $260 million instead of the estimated $1.3 
billion, using CBO's estimates.
  And if the administration's lower estimates are correct, then the 
Treasury will only receive $170 million. That's one-tenth the amount 
purported to be in the reconciliation bill.
  The conference report further resorts to trickery in the sections of 
the bill addressing mining law. The conferees pretend this is real 
mining reform and that the taxpayers will finally get a fair return 
from those who have profited royalty-free from public minerals for the 
past 123 years.
  But on Wednesday of this week, 230 Members voted to recommit the 
interior Appropriations Conference Report in part because the mining 
provisions in the budget bill were deficient. Now, these very same 
provisions that Members have rejected are back before us today--
insulated from amendment.
  The mining language purports to abolish the patenting of public lands 
for pennies. What the conference report really does is to grandfather 
both the existing patent applications and many existing claim holders, 
exempting them from any royalties. Patent holders would only have to 
pay for the public's resources based on the surface value of the land, 
which is like selling Fort Knox for the value of the roof.
  The few mining companies that don't make it through the patenting 
loophole don't need to worry much either. They would pay only the 
surface value for the mineral-rich land. The 5-percent net royalty is 
so riddled with deductions that payments would be just $12 million over 
7 years according to CBO. Twelve million dollars for billions of 
dollars in gold, silver, and other valuable minerals. By contrast, in 
1993 the House passed a comprehensive mining reform bill that would 
have collected $90 million annually according to CBO.
  The conference report also includes more corporate welfare for 
western irrigators. It approves a prepayment proposal that will allow 
water districts to prepay at a discounted rate the highly subsidized 
debt that they owe the treasury for reclamation projects, thereby 
exempting themselves from the requirements of Federal reclamation law. 
That means that these farmers, who have grown rich on the subsidies 
provided by the taxpayers of this Nation that were intended for small 
farmers, would be relieved from paying the unsubsidized cost for 
Federal water that is delivered to more than 960 acres of irrigable 
land.
  By allowing prepayment at a discounted rate, the notorious irrigation 
subsidies will be locked in place forever. Only the largest wealthiest 
irrigation districts will be able to participate in this program.
  This bill also contains a very harmful and unwise decision to 
transfer land from the Bureau of land Management to the State of 
California for use as the Ward Valley low-level radioactive waste 
disposal facility. This issue has been under intense debate and 
scientific scrutiny for some time. The National Academy of Sciences 
review panel raised some concerns about the safety of the site and 
recommended additional tests before moving forward with the 
construction of the facility.
  Secretary Babbitt was involved in final negotiations with the State 
of California, but those talks broke apart when the State inexplicably 
refused to provide assurances that the safety tests would, in fact, be 
conducted by the State prior to construction. And since those talks 
broke off last month, additional scientists have admitted concealing 
information about radioactive seepage at another facility run by the 
Ward Valley contractors in Nevada.
  This provision is wholly inappropriate to the reconciliation bill 
because the tiny amount of funding involved--$500,000--is insignificant 
in budgetary terms. This is a fig leaf being used to drag through a 
major policy decision that could have serious safety implications for 
million of Americans. The Senate version of this amendment was removed 
for procedural reasons, but it has sneaked back into this 
reconciliation bill. It is yet another example of the Republican 
majority trampling over sound science and environmental concerns to do 
the bidding of private industry.
  It is instructive to note is what is not in this legislation. We 
could have ended double subsidies to farmers who receive federally 
subsidized water to grow surplus crops that we are paying other farmers 
not to grow. We could have eliminated below-cost national forest timber 
sales that cost more to administer than they raise in revenue. I 
offered these amendments and others in the Rules Committee which would 
have raised over $1.5 billion in 7 years--more than even the illusory 
revenues that the conference report assumes from ANWR.
  Simply put, the natural resource provisions of this legislation are 
an outrageous abuse of the public trust. The President will be fully 
justified in vetoing the conference report.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I am deeply troubled by what the Gingrich budget will 
mean for Americans across the country. As a member of the New York 
delegation, I am alarmed by its impact on New York.
  New York hospitals are the best in the world. Our hospitals are the 
city's crown jewels and the Gingrich budget plan smashes them to bits.
  The Gingrich budget will also mean hardship for the elderly who 
depend upon Medi- caid for nursing home care. Under this budget, low-
income seniors who must look to Medicaid for assistance will have no 
guarantee of help from the Federal Government.
  This budget hurts seniors in other ways. I tried to offer an 
amendment this spring to repeal the 1993 tax increase on Social 
Security benefits. I urged the Republican leadership to offset the cost 
of this repeal by keeping the corporate minimum tax. Last year, the GOP 
promised to repeal it. Today, the truth comes out--under the Gingrich 
budget, tax relief for seniors is jettisoned so that multimillion 
dollar corporations can avoid paying any taxes at all.
  My colleagues, the Gingrich budget also hurts women and children--
across America and across New York. Hundreds of thousands of children 
in New York will receive less assistance for food, medical care and 
other basic needs. Under this budget, many disabled, abused and 
neglected children will no longer be able to count on the Government 
for help.
  This budget does not reflect the priorities of the American people. 
The more they learn about the Gingrich budget, the less they like it. 
The American people have a sense of fairness and so do I. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this unfair budget plan.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong objection to 
this 

[[Page H13175]]
conference report, and particularly those pertaining to agriculture, on 
which I was a conferee.
  Mr. Speaker, this reconciliation bill is a flawed piece of 
legislation. It was flawed when it left the House, the conference 
process was flawed, and thus the final product is flawed. To best 
illustrate this point, I would like to discuss the agriculture portions 
of this bill.
  I have served on the House Agriculture Committee for 22 years and 
have participated in four farm bills during that time. I served as a 
subcommittee chairman on the committee during much of the 1980's. 
During my service there, I have been impressed by the open, 
deliberative process that we have used when considering legislation. In 
fact, the deliberative process has been so thorough that at times I 
have complained about the painfully slow progress we made.
  My service on the House Agriculture Committee has also been marked by 
a spirit of bipartisan deliberations. We have been bipartisan because, 
beyond our party affiliations, we all serve on the Agriculture 
Committee because we are concerned about the food and agriculture needs 
of our country. As a result, even in the midst of partisan turmoil 
elsewhere in the House, we on the House Agriculture Committee have been 
able to find common ground in the service of our constituents.
  Now all of that has changed. The Agriculture Committee was split at 
the start of our deliberations on our portion of the reconciliation 
bill and we were split at the end. We were unable to find common ground 
and did not report out any legislation. Then, without notice and 
without public hearings, a new agriculture reconciliation proposal was 
included in the reconciliation bill. We did not have time to adequately 
examine it ourselves, let alone get informed analysis done on the 
proposals.
  We passed that bill with assurances from the Speaker that any 
problems could be worked out in conference. Well, I was appointed as a 
conferee on the Agriculture title of the reconciliation bill and I can 
tell you that nothing was worked out because we never met on this 
title. Instead, a group of Republican staff, Republican Members and 
Senators, and Lord knows which special interest representatives, met in 
secret and produced the provisions that are before the House in the 
conference report on the reconciliation bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we don't know what is in this bill nor do we know what 
the impacts of these provisions are. I would like to illustrate this 
point with one provision I found in the conference report.
  This legislation allows a farmer to get payments on 85 percent of a 
farm's contract acreage. Then it changes current law and allows a 
farmer to plant any crop on the remaining 15 percent of his or her land 
without any loss of payments, in effect, providing Federal payments for 
farmers who want to expand into growing other crops, such as fruits and 
vegetables. Now this may not seem like a problem, unless you are from 
California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, or any other State with 
significant fruit and vegetable production. For fruit and vegetable 
producers in those States, this change is unfair because it subsidizes 
farmers who want to get into this market while providing no support for 
those who already grow fruits and vegetables full time.
  We debated this provision in the 1990 farm bill and looked carefully 
at the impact that it had on fruit and vegetable production. In the 
end, we decided that this provision penalizes fruit and vegetable 
producers by creating Government subsidized competition that would 
destabilize the fruit and vegetable market. We viewed it as a one-way 
subsidy for farmers of program crops: they got a base payment from the 
support programs while fruit and vegetable producers, with no program 
crop history, could not qualify for payments.
  In the 1990 farm bill, we decided that if a producer moved to fruit 
and vegetable production on his or her program crop acreage, they had 
to forego Federal payments on that acreage. We made a clear policy 
statement that as long as fruit and vegetable production was 
unsubsidized, we wouldn't subsidize program crop producers seeking to 
enter that market.
  Now, without any hearings, nor any testimony as to the need for the 
change, the reconciliation conference report reverses the decision we 
made in 1990, a decision made after long deliberation and thought. The 
agriculture provisions in this bill are wrong, as this example points 
out, and are the natural result of a close and secretive process. Any 
of my colleagues who have fruit and vegetable production in their 
districts should oppose this provision and this bill. And the rest of 
you should take note and beware of other secret provisions that have 
been slipped into this bill.
  My colleagues should also note those agriculture provisions that have 
been slipped out of this bill. Specifically we should note that the 
contentious provisions to reform the dairy program were mysteriously 
dropped somewhere along the way because the Republicans could not solve 
their differences. I was willing to roll up my sleeves and try to find 
a compromise on this program. I support deregulation of the dairy 
industry in a reasoned way that protects producers from sudden changes 
and transitions in our dairy production to a free market approach. I 
have worked for years to balance the diverse interests of the dairy and 
dairy products industry in my State and looked forward to working on 
this long-overdue reform of Federal dairy programs.
  But I was denied that opportunity, the dairy producers in my State 
have been left in limbo with no clear indication of where they should 
be going. The Speaker promised we would work these differences out in 
conference. Now we are being told we will work them out sometime next 
year. Worst of all, the projected savings from deregulating the dairy 
program, nearly $1 billion, had to be made up elsewhere, out of child 
feeding and nutrition programs.
  I regret having to come to the floor of the House and complain about 
the content and process of this bill. These problems would have been 
avoidable if we had followed tradition and taken this bill up under the 
orderly, deliberative process that I have been a part of during my 
service on the House Agriculture Committee. I regret that I will have 
to oppose this bill because of these problems.
  Mr. SABO. Mrs. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Republican plan, which sets 
the wrong priorities for our Nation and irresponsibly puts cutting 
taxes ahead of balancing the Federal budget.
  The real debate is not about whether we balance the budget, but about 
how we do it. We must be fair, we must be responsible, and we must 
preserve our Nation's commitment to the elderly, families, and young 
people.
  I'm proud to have voted for a balanced budget plan--the Orton/
Stenholm plan--that reflects these priorities and values. This plan 
would balance the budget without cutting or raising taxes; restores 
funding to Medicare and Medicaid, and fully funds vital investments 
such a education and medical research. This plan includes tough cuts in 
government and real welfare reform.
  This plan we are voting on today fails the test of fairness. It fails 
the test of priorities and values.
  It is unfair to America's senior citizens to target Medicare and 
Medicaid for more than half the cuts needed to balance the budget and 
cut taxes by $245 billion. It is irresponsible to cut student loans and 
other education funding when education is more critical than ever to 
succeeding in the new information-age economy. And it is wrong to raise 
taxes on families earning $25,500 or less, while reducing taxes for 
higher income earners.
  I am especially concerned about the impact of the proposed Medicare, 
Medicaid, and National Institutes of Health cuts on the quality of the 
health care we receive in this country. These cuts would devastate 
medical education and research, reduce the availability of specialized 
care for all Americans and any care at all for some people, and 
increase costs for all of us through higher insurance costs and local 
property taxes.
  In my district alone, this budget will result in the loss of $1 
billion or more to Texas Medical Center hospitals such as Hermann, St. 
Luke's, Ben Taub, M.D. Anderson, Methodist, and Texas Children's 
Hospital. These world-class facilities are critical to training our 
future doctors and to conducting research into diseases such as cancer, 
heart disease, Alzheimer's, and AIDS.
  There is no doubt that medical education will suffer under this 
Republican plan. This plan would cut $9 billion total from indirect and 
direct medical education funding, the costs associated with training 
our new physicians. Indirect medicate education would be reduced from 
7.7 to 5.0 percent in 2002. Direct medical education would be reduced 
by capping the number of medical students and reducing reimbursements 
for subspecialty training, such as cardiology. There would no longer be 
any adjustments for expanding the number of medical students. As our 
population ages, it is likely we will need more physicians. This bill 
takes us in the opposite direction.
  The Republican plan would create a new medical education trust fund 
totaling $13.5 billion. I support the concept of an all-payer trust 
fund for medical education. However, I am concerned about the structure 
of this trust fund. The Republican plan would reimburse medical schools 
according to a complex formula. Fifty percent of their reimbursement 
would be based upon the number of MedicarePlus enrollees treated at 
their hospitals. If a hospital does not treat a sufficient number of 
managed care MedicarePlus patients, they would lose money. This is a 
backdoor effort to reduce patient choice by coercing hospitals into 
treating Medicare patients only through managed care. Managed care 
enrollment should be voluntary, not coerced. 

[[Page H13176]]
The other 50 percent for medical education would be based upon the past 
spending on IME and DME funding. Again, this formula does not provide 
for any changes in medical education programs, so any new programs 
would not receive Federal funding.
  This bill not only harms Medicare and medical education but it may 
destroy Medicaid. It completely repeals the entitlement of health care 
to poor women, children, and the disabled as well as long term care for 
senior citizens. It replaces it with a block grant formula which 
punishes high growth states such as Texas by some $5 billion, at the 
expense of New York and Pennsylvania. I am deeply concerned about the 
Medigrant program that would replace Medicaid. For those hospitals that 
treat a large number of Medicaid patients, there will no longer be 
guaranteed payments for carrying for these patients. The necessary 
safety net for the elderly, children, and the disabled will be 
eliminated. Current law provides guaranteed coverage for pregnant 
women, children, elderly, and the disabled up to 185 percent of the 
federal poverty line. The net effect of these Medicaid cuts will be to 
reduce coverage for our most vulnerable families. For Texas Children's 
Hospital, where 50 percent of their patients are enrolled in Medicaid, 
this plan would reduce reimbursement by $100 million. Texas Children's 
Hospital will continue to treat uninsured patients, but they will no 
longer be reimbursed by the federal/state Medicaid program for these 
costs. As a result, local property taxes and private employers will pay 
more to pay for this uncompensated care. More working families will 
seek services, with no funding to pay for their necessary care.
  I am not alone in my opposition to these Medicare and Medicaid cuts. 
Today, I received letters from the American Hospital Association and 
the Texas Hospital Association in opposition to this Republican plan. 
Texas hospitals are extremely concerned about the $36 billion budget 
gimmick, the ``failsafe'' provision, in the Republican plan. Under this 
provision, the Secretary of Health and Human Service would 
retroactively reduce reimbursements to health care providers. If a 
global budget is exceeded, all providers would be subject to more cuts. 
Hospitals would no longer be guaranteed sufficient revenues to treat 
Medicare and Medicaid patients. In the changing health care 
marketplace, there will be no ability to recoup these costs from 
private insurance payers. As a result, jobs at Texas Medical Center are 
at risk. I believe the net result will be hospitals closures and health 
care layoffs.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget. I urge the President to 
veto this budget. And then I hope we can work together in a bipartisan 
fashion to balance the budget fairly and responsibly.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
conference report, particularly the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and 
what it will do to the Texas Medical Center.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].
  (Mr. DOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, as one of the 68 Democrats that did support 
a 7-year balanced budget, I rise in strong opposition to this.
  We just heard the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], one of the 
leading Republicans, say this was not a perfect bill. I want to spend 
some time talking about one of the most imperfect parts of it, and that 
is what relates to the agriculture section.
  All of us know we need to make some reforms in our agriculture 
programs. We have to define what is the appropriate role of government 
in farm policy. Most of us would agree it is to provide a safety belt, 
it is to try to expand trade, it is to try to provide for additional 
research. But the Republicans have come to the conclusion that the 
appropriate role of government in farm policy is to have taxpayers 
write checks for $36 billion over the next 7 years.
  This $36 billion is going to be paid to landowners for no other 
purpose than they have farmed a program crop in one out of the last 7 
years. This $36 billion is not going to farmers based on need, it is 
not going to farmers in those years of low commodity prices. It is only 
going just simply because they have enrolled in a program in the last 7 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, this is bad policy.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, rural America should never forget what 
treatment has been given to agriculture in this budget. The act before 
us repeals what has been farm policy for nearly 50 years, and it does 
so with a proposal that has never had a single hearing or even received 
a passing vote in any committee of this Congress.
  Rural America does not yet know what is coming at it in this 
proposal, but three consequences are immediately clear: It is a 
transitional plan to the complete elimination of farm programs; it 
removes the safety net for family farmers when market prices collapse; 
and it cuts the support for our agricultural exports to an amount way, 
way below what our international competitors will be using to support 
their exports.
  It is clear what the results over the long haul will be: Loss of 
export markets for our products, lower prices for farm commodities, and 
family farmers forced off the land by the thousands all across this 
country.
  We can and we must do better than this. After the veto, I look 
forward to working with friends on both sides of the aisle to build a 
farm program that will work for rural America.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Agriculture.
  (Mr. de la GARZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to make it clear that today's 
debate is not about balancing the budget: I support balancing the 
Federal budget. Today's debate is about the priorities we set in going 
about achieving a balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, it is because of the priorities that are established in 
this reconciliation bill that I sadly must oppose this conference 
agreement even though it achieves a goal I have long desired of this 
Congress--that of achieving a balanced budget. The process itself under 
which this bill has been considered has inevitably cost it its ability 
to be signed into law. It is a travesty that when the very thing 
Americans want most--responsibility in Federal fiscal affairs--that 
objective is being compromised by backroom deals orchestrated by 
Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget approved this year was bad. It 
called for a huge tax cut to be paid for through drastic reductions in 
health care and major cuts in food and farm programs. That terrible 
budget yielded an even worse result in the package we have before us: 
It slashes health care for our seniors, devastates programs that 
provide assistance for children in poverty, and totally eliminates the 
farm programs that have so successfully safeguarded our Nation's food 
security. And it is easy to see how the Republican leadership took it 
from bad to worse.
  All Americans know that at its very core, our form of government 
depends on openness. Good policy development requires a fair 
opportunity for all sides to be heard. We have this terrible bill 
before us because that basic principle has been abandoned.
  In this agriculture deal--engineered by Speaker Gingrich and Mr. 
Armey--there are a shocking number of instances where Democratic 
principles were cast aside:
  There has not been one hearing on this proposal in either the House 
Agriculture Committee or the Senate Agriculture Committee and it 
eliminates farm programs.
  Not one subcommittee has had the opportunity to consider this bill's 
provisions: and it eliminates farm programs.
  Only the full House Agriculture Committee has debated this plan--and 
a bipartisan majority of the committee defeated it.
  Nevertheless, agricultural policy experts Gingrich and Armey took 
what was defeated in the Agriculture Committee, made their own 
modifications in the plan--and forced it into the reconciliation bill.
  The one proposal a bipartisan majority of the Agriculture Committee 
did adopt--one to help ease the burden on rural communities by making 
additional infrastructure improvement loans available--was arbitrarily 
stripped out by Gingrich leadership.
  Subsequently, conferees were appointed in the traditional way--
Members from the majority and the minority.
  But the agreement was reached and Democratic conferees were 
completely shut out of the negotiations. Not only that--even the 
Republican conferees never once met until after the Speaker cut his 
deal: and what does this deal do? It completely eliminates farm 
programs; without debate; in the dark of night; behind closed doors; a 
deal manufactured by the Gingrich-Armey leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, there are no provisions related to the dairy program in 
this bill. The way that happened is a case study in how wrong things 
can go when we attempt to develop national 

[[Page H13177]]
policy without any input from the American people. From the start, the 
dairy farmers themselves knew and understood that all farmers would 
have to bear some of the burden of the cuts. They made several 
different proposals toward that end. Normally, then, what we would do 
is convene our subcommittees and our committee, we would have hearings 
to talk about the pros and cons of the different proposals; we would 
debate; we would argue; and we would vote. But this year: We did not 
have any hearings related to the specific proposals, the members of the 
Dairy Subcommittee, did not meet and did not consider any alternatives; 
the full committee only had the 1 day of markup and that was to discuss 
all farm program issues; and the members of the conference committee 
were never once convened to discuss how dairy policy should be 
addressed. As a result, the current dairy program will become extinct 
even sooner than programs for other commodities, all for the lack of a 
fair, honest, and open debate.
  Mr. Speaker, all of the shortcuts the leadership has taken in order 
to be in a position to ram their priorities through Congress have 
gotten us very lost. By making its policies in the dark--by rejecting 
the most basic values of our deliberative system--the Gingrich 
leadership has imperiled our Nation's food production system, 
endangered seniors and children in poverty, and compromised the very 
trust of the people who put them in office.
  Mr. Speaker, for nearly an entire year, the Republican leadership in 
this Congress has neglected the Nation's business, precipitated a 
crisis of unprecedented proportions, and completely ignored the will of 
the American people. The American people do not want this bill, and 
that is why the President will veto it. Let us hope that when the 
Republican leadership gets a second chance, it will act to earn back 
the trust of the people in their Congress.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, this Republican reconciliation conference is 
a complete abdication of our responsibility to the majority of citizens 
of this Nation. The underlying legislation represents the most 
fundamental shift of priorities from poor and working Americans in two 
generations.
  Mr. Speaker, today at Howard University there is an African-American 
leadership summit, where African-American leaders are gathered to talk 
about how they can turn their communities around, how they can get 
young people working, how they can get them in school, how they can 
grow their communities and create businesses. But guess what? This 
budget goes in the opposite direction. It thumbs its nose at those who 
are trying to do something about poverty and children. It thumbs its 
nose at senior citizens and those who want to do something about 
medical care in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget needs to be rejected. It probably will not, 
because the Republicans are on this mission to cut no matter what the 
consequences are. I ask the Members of this House to reject this 
conference report.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time, and I came back to speak because I was here a few 
minutes ago and made a reference to this bill being a killer bill and 
got a rash of phone calls from the American people saying that they 
objected to my use of the word killer.
  I want the American people and my colleagues to understand that this 
is a killer bill. The truth cannot be avoided. This bill will kill 
elderly people by depriving them of medical care. It will kill young 
people by forcing them into poverty and denying them food. It will kill 
the priorities of our country, which I understand to be compassion. It 
will kill student loans.
  This is an outrage and we ought to reject it for that very reason.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a Member of the Republican Party 
say that no family would be hurt by the $32 billion in EITC cuts when 
combined with the child credit. I want everybody to know that is simply 
not true.
  Hurt would be, for example, families with more than two children; 
families who receive Social Security; and also would be hurt would be 
childless workers earning less than $9,500. Treasury said there would 
be 8 million net losers under their bill. Workers. The truth is the 
Republican plan hurts working people, period.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill because it makes crippling 
cuts in vital programs like Medicare, Medicaid, student loans and the 
earned income tax credit. The bill goes too far, too fast because it is 
driven by numbers not by policy. This budget is about political 
objectives, not about the health and well being of American citizens.
  I have attempted to offer specific, constructive amendments that 
would have improved this bill. But, like other Members, I was locked 
out of the process. The conference report deals with issues that 
disproportionately impact Florida.
  But they have ignored me because they are afraid of the truth about 
what these cuts will do to the elderly, the working poor, and children.
  It is my job as a Representative of Florida to consider what will 
happen to real people as a result of all of this number crunching. And 
I am going to do my job.
  Real people will suffer. Florida has a significantly larger elderly 
population than Pennsylvania and Ohio, yet in this conference report, 
we will get fewer Medicaid dollars than either of these two States.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference 
report. I want to address the two health care programs that I think are 
going to be very adversely affected by this legislation; Medicare and 
Medicaid.
  In both of these programs we will see deep cuts in the Federal 
payments without any assurance that there will be sufficient amount to 
actually deal with the high cost of health care, especially for those 
people to whom we promised protection for health care costs; the 
elderly and the poor.
  The proposal may destroy Medicare as we know it, where the elderly 
have a choice of their own doctor at the present time. They also have a 
choice now of an HMO or other managed care plan, if they want it. What 
I hate to see is the lack of a choice because people will be forced 
only into an HMO whether they want it or not because they cannot afford 
anything else.
  In the Medicaid Program deep cuts are going to be very devastating to 
the poor, who have nowhere else to turn. They are very vulnerable and 
the safety net is going to be cut out from under them. I urge a ``no'' 
vote on this conference report.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder].
  (Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this is the reason I came to Congress, to 
help get our economic House in order. And on behalf of my grandson. 
Thomas, I am proud to support the Balanced Budget Act of 1995.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  (Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Balanced 
Budget Act.
  In the early 1950's, Adlai Stevenson quipped that Republicans, in 
general, had to be dragged screaming into the 20th Century. Judging by 
the opposition of the President to even a minimal balanced budget plan 
by the year 2002, it appears Mr. Clinton will have to be dragged 
screaming into the next century, for surely a balanced budget by the 
year 2002 is not asking too much.
  I came to Congress in 1985. The national debt was then $1.4 trillion. 
For 10 years I toiled in a Democrat-controlled House. The national debt 
grew to $5 trillion. Gross interest incurred on that debt for fiscal 
year 1995 was $335 billion and is estimated by CBO to be just under 
one-half trillion in 2002. The share of that debt for every man, woman, 
and child in America is now $19,063. For 25 years in a 

[[Page H13178]]
row, this Congress has steadfastly refused to balance its budget.
  Mr. Speaker, this Balanced Budget Act is deemed revolutionary by 
some. But that is only because it must be compared with such an odious 
budget performances of past Congresses. As our colleague, Mr. Kasich, 
has pointed out, this budget plan is relatively mild. It calls for 
$12.1 trillion of spending over the next 7 years, a $2.6 trillion 
increase in spending over the previous 7-year period. If we keep up our 
previous pace of spending we would spend $13.3 trillion. So we are 
decreasing increases of spending by $1.1 trillion over 7 years.
  That is hardly draconian. In fact, under this bill Congress must add 
another 6 consecutive years of deficit financing before finally coming 
to a zero deficit in the year 2002, not counting money borrowed from 
trust funds. The national debt 7 years from now--even with this 7-year 
balanced budget plan--will swell to approximately $6.6 trillion.
  Of course, this bill is not perfect. And whenever budget cuts are 
suggested, anecdotal stories of course abound of predicted suffering to 
be inflicted upon vulnerable people. The chant we now here from the 
Democrats is that we are for a balanced budget but of course not at the 
expense of agriculture, or children, or the elderly, or the middle 
class, or education, or the environment, or defense, or the 
infrastructure, ad infinitum. It's time, however, to finally pass a 
balanced budget plan and to remember that all of the debt and interest 
on the debt will have to be paid by our children and grandchildren. 
There's nothing anecdotal about that. It's a fact.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about brinkmanship. It is not about 
who has more power, or the bigger ego. And, believe me, it is not about 
who sat where on Air Force One.
  This historic struggle between the Congress and the President is 
about one thing, and one thing only: whether we are going to balance 
the Federal budget. It is about whether we are going to saddle our 
children with additional trillions of dollars to the national debt. It 
is about how much government we want, how much in taxes we want to pay.
  This is the essence of the revolution in Washington. It is, indeed, 
revolutionary that Congress would pass a specific plan to balance the 
budget in 7 years. That has never happened in the three decades that 
Washington has run up deficit after deficit, and trillions of dollars 
in debt.
  Voters sent a message last November that they wanted change. Clearly, 
they wanted Congress to change business as usual and stop the flow of 
red ink. Well, now the Congress is delivering the biggest change of 
all: a balanced budget. It is delivering on what it promised on the 
Capitol steps in September 1994. We are serious about balancing the 
budget. We are serious about not doing it by raising your taxes. And we 
are serious about curtailing the growth of Federal spending. That is 
causing quite a fracas in a town that is built on unrestrained spending 
and red-ink and borrowing as far as the eye can see.
  The die was cast for the current showdown when we made that promise 
and were given the votes in Congress to do it.
  Balancing the budget isn't just about keeping our promises, however. 
It's about leaving a better life for our children. Consider: A child 
born today will pay $187,000 in taxes just to pay their share of 
interest on the debt. A 21-year old faces a bill of $115,000. Our 
children and grandchildren will face lifetime tax rates of over 80 
percent to pay our debts.
  Balancing the budget isn't just about accounting and tidy books. 
Budget deficits sap private investment, drive up interest rates, and 
debt service costs the average taxpayer nearly $800 a year in taxes. 
Ending these deficits is the most important economic program Congress 
can enact.
  Economists predict balancing the budget would lower interest rates up 
to 2 percent. Families, farmers, small businesses--everyone--will see a 
tremendous benefit from balancing the budget. A 2 percent drop in 
interest rates would mean a family with a $75,000 mortgage would save 
$37,000 in interest over the life of the loan. A student with a $11,000 
student loan would save $2,160 in interest. A family buying a $15,000 
car would save $225 per year in interest.

  One of the frustrations of being involved in this debate is seeing 
the disconnect between what Congress is actually doing versus how the 
battle is being reported in much of the major media. But, eventually, I 
trust that the American people will come to understand what the real 
issue is. The facts and the truth have a way of getting out.
  Let me try to speed up that process.
  First, Congress will today pass a specific 7-year plan to balance the 
budget, and send it to the President for signature. It is revolutionary 
that Congress is passing such a plan; but it does not take 
revolutionary changes or draconian cuts to achieve such a balanced 
budget. In most cases, it takes allowing the rate of growth only.
  Most Federal social spending--including Medicare (up 6.2 percent per 
year) and Medicaid--will continue to rise sharply. Overall, Federal 
spending will rise 3 percent per year, slightly above inflation. Even 
with the tax cuts--most of which will be for families with incomes 
under $100,000--tax revenues to the Government will rise automatically 
41 percent over the next 7 years due to economic growth. Is it not 
reasonable to ask that Government get along with 41 percent more 
revenue over the next 7 years? I think so.
  Is the 7-year plan perfect? No. I don't agree with every provision. 
But there is no such plan detailing $1.1 trillion in savings that could 
be perfect in anyone's eyes.
  Second, Congress is not shutting down the Government. Congress passed 
a funding bill that would keep the Government operating until well into 
December. The President says he will veto it because of unreasonable 
riders on the bill. What are they?
  You be the judge as to whether they are unreasonable conditions: (1) 
we want the President to agree--in principle, not necessarily on the 
specifics--that we should balance the budget in 7 years; (2) that we 
should use real numbers set by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office, not phony, smoke and mirrors numbers; and (3) that about 10 of 
the Federal Governments 1,200 programs that Congress wants to 
eventually terminate should receive 60 percent of their normal funding 
for the next 20 days. Apparently, the President won't sign the bill to 
keep the Government going at full speed in objection to all three.
  Now this really is curious. On October 19, 1995, the President said:

       I think there's a way for me to meet their stated 
     objectives which is a balanced budget in seven years * * * 
     That's what I hope will happen, and I'm going to leave the 
     door open for that.

  That would seem to put him in complete agreement with the 7-year 
balanced budget goal. With respect to using Congressional Budget Office 
[CBO] real numbers, the President himself has said he thinks we should 
use CBO numbers. On February 17, 1993 he said:

       This budget plan * * * [uses] the independent numbers of 
     the Congressional Budget Office. Well, you can laugh, my 
     fellow Republicans, but I will point out that the CBO is 
     normally more conservative on what was going to happen and 
     closer to right than previous presidents. I did this so that 
     we could argue about priorities with the same set of numbers. 
     I did this so no one could say I was estimating my way out of 
     this difficulty.

  You may wonder why it is important to use real numbers. The 
difference between the CBO estimates and the President's in determining 
how much spending must be curtailed to balance the budget is over $800 
billion over 7 years. Our entire plan to balance the budget saves about 
$1,100 billion dollars. Thus, by using rosy economic assumptions, the 
President could claim he could virtually balance the budget without 
making any changes in the growth of Federal spending.
  Mr. Speaker, I think columnist George Will summed it up best:

       For years, the public has pounded its milk cup on its high-
     chair tray, demanding ``change'' and an end to ``politics as 
     usual'' * * * Now both are occurring, and the public is * * * 
     not recognizing that this is what politics looks like when 
     the stakes are high and serious politicians take them 
     seriously * * * It concerns how much government we want.

  I urge my colleagues to support the Balanced Budget Act.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay], the very honorable majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I hope the American people are watching this 
vital debate, and if they are they will understand why we are so 
frustrated and have been so frustrated over all these years.
  The American people have heard from the other side of the aisle, the 
President and his party, stand before them time and time again, all day 
long, claiming that they are for a balanced budget. Yet for 40 years, 
the 40 years that they have been in control, they have yet to balance 
the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, they are not for balancing the budget, and Americans 
will hear what they are saying. They are for more spending. They are 
against what we are doing because they want more spending. They want to 
be able to raid the bank accounts of American families to pay for their 
agenda. That is what this is all about. That is what this debate is all 
about.
  This conference report signals a new era for the Federal Government, 
an era of fiscal responsibility, of lower taxes, and of healthier 
economic growth. As a Nation, we are poised to enter a new century. The 
choice the Congress makes today is very simple. We can enter the 21st 
century with a more efficient Federal Government, with a secure 
Medicare system, with a reformed 

[[Page H13179]]
welfare system, and with a Tax Code that actually favors families; or 
we can enter the 21st century with a government hobbled by waste and 
fraud, a Medicare system on the verge of bankruptcy, a welfare system 
in a state of moral decay, and a tax system that hits families the 
hardest.
  Mr. Speaker, by the year 2002, we can have a Federal Government with 
a balanced budget; or we can continue down the present path towards 
total fiscal catastrophe.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has chosen to shut the Government down 
rather than negotiate with us about a real 7-year balanced budget. That 
is an unfortunate choice, because even the President recognizes the 
virtue of fiscal responsibility.
  But in shutting down the Government, the President has unwittingly 
helped the American people understand what this fight is all about.
  According to the Office of Management and Budget, much of the Federal 
bureaucracy is not essential; 99 percent of the HUD Department, 96 
percent of the EPA, 89 percent of the Department of Education and 99 
percent of the National Archives have been declared nonessential.
  Many taxpayers across the country wonder: ``If these folks are not 
essential, why do we have to pay them?''
  Frankly, that is the question we have been grappling with in our 
efforts to balance the budget. If the administration itself agrees that 
most of the bureaucrats it hires are not essential to making the 
Government run, why shouldn't we make some efforts to cut Government 
spending?
  The President can say no to cuts all he wants, but to get to a 
balanced budget, cutting nonessential Federal spending must be part of 
the equation.
  Let me address the most important aspect of this legislation; the tax 
cuts. The Democratic coalition's budget does not have tax cuts in it. I 
wonder if the American people know why? Because they want to spend more 
money. They want to spend more money and take it away from the American 
people and the American family.
  Much has been said about our tax relief for families, but little of 
it has been true. Here are the facts. Seventy-three percent of our tax 
cuts are aimed at families. These tax cuts include a $500-per-child tax 
credit. They include a $5,000-per-child credit for families that seek 
to adopt. They also include a $1,000 deduction for families who care 
for their ill parents at home.
  Clearly, Mr. Speaker, clearly, despite the rhetoric, this is tax 
relief for middle-class families. Many people ask why do we need these 
tax cuts? Well, my answer is very simple. If we are to rely on the 
family to be the backbone of our civilization, we cannot continue to 
tax it out of existence. The American family deserves a break today.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for their hard work on this 
historic balanced budget. When our children and our grandchildren look 
back on this day, they will salute us for making their debt load 
lighter, their standard of living higher, and their future brighter. I 
just urge my colleagues to vote for the balanced budget so we can keep 
our promises for America's families, for America's children and for 
America's future.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for their hard work on this 
historic balanced budget.
  When our children and grandchildren look back on this day, they will 
salute you for making their debt load lighter, their standard of living 
higher and their future brighter.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, so 
we can keep our promises for America's families, for America's 
children, for America's future.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. Wyden].
  (Mr. WYDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Today the debate is how to reach a balanced budget over the next few 
years in a manner that is reasonable, humane, and efficient. The bill 
before us today is neither reasonable nor humane nor efficient.
  The new majority's road map to a Federal balanced budget takes 
America to a lot of places we do not want to go and a lot of places we 
should not even want to visit. These detours leave behind the poor, the 
elderly, and the disabled. These detours ensure that there will be a 
lot more wasteful military boondoggles. These detours ensure that there 
will be a lot more sweet days for the polluters. My colleagues, that is 
not right.
  Let us vote for a balanced budget that brings money home that we are 
now spending defending the Germans and the Japanese. Let us make the 
polluters pay their fair share. That is the way to balance the budget.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hobson] has 13 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Florida 
[Mrs. Meek] has 15 minutes and 35 seconds remaining.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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, we are all getting frustrated with these 
games. And a lot of Federal workers, a lot of Americans, are being 
unfairly inconvenienced and victimized by this stalemate. The world is 
watching and laughing at us. The President cannot even travel to 
negotiate with Asian leaders because of this madness.
  Many of us have voted for a balanced budget many times, including 7 
years, but this conference report is an excellent example why we do not 
want to support this type of balanced budget: Excessive Medicare and 
Medicaid cuts, tax increase on working families, gutting the 
environment, massive cuts in education, excessive hits on rural areas. 
All for what? To pay for this tax cut of $245 billion.

                              {time}  1400

  This is why many of us are frustrated right now. How can we support a 
balanced budget in 7 years, if this is what it is going to be? How 
about another balanced budget? The coalition budget or other 
alternatives? A bipartisan alternative? What is happening here is 
frustration, and a lot of people are paying for this frustration.
  Mr. Speaker, somewhere in this Chamber there lies a lot of common 
ground that Members from both sides can agree on.
  We all want to balance the budget.
  Members know that reaching a balanced budget--without the tax cuts--
will strengthen the economy by lowering interest rates and allowing 
Americans to refinance their homes, pay off debt quicker, and increase 
the savings rate that is so critical to long-term growth.
  Members agree that the Medicare Program is in danger--but we know it 
can be saved from insolvency with moderate changes.
  Members on both sides of the aisle, including myself, have voted for 
a balanced budget that saves Medicare without the burden of huge tax 
cuts.
  Members agree that there is common ground from last year's health 
care debate that will lower the cost of Medicare without raising 
premiums.
  Mr. Speaker, some people may want a crown jewel, but Americans need 
steady jobs, affordable homes, better health care, and a promising 
future.
  Let us vote down this conference report--take out the tax breaks--and 
craft a bipartisan balanced budget plan that the American people 
support.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Gingrich budget severely hurts seniors 
in order to provide hefty tax breaks for the wealthy. Seniors are asked 
to pay more to get less. The bill is bad for America. It is also bad 
for New Jersey.
  My four Republican colleagues who voted ``no'' on this budget before 
should still vote ``no'' today. As the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Smith] said in today's papers in New Jersey, our State will lose $12 
billion, half in Medicare and half in Medicaid, over the next 7 years. 
Hospitals will close. Seniors will be forced into HMO's where they lose 
their choice of doctors, many seniors will simply have no health care 
coverage because of the doubling of part B premiums, and low-income 
seniors, those that Speaker Gingrich promised on the floor previously 
will have their part B premiums paid for, they have no guarantees under 
this budget bill that that part B premium will be paid for.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is about promises broken. The promise that we 
made 30 years ago in Medicare will no longer exist. I urge my 
colleagues, vote ``no,'' 

[[Page H13180]]
and I urge President Clinton, veto, veto, veto.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, several speakers for the other 
side have indicated that farmers and ranchers of America want more of 
the same of our existing agricultural policy. Well, I am a farmer and I 
will tell my colleagues that farmers do not want more of the same ag 
policies that have held prices down in this country.
  If we can compete, if farmers and ranchers compete, we have got the 
most efficient, effective ag industry in the world. Farmers want a fair 
return at the marketplace. They do not want the kind of policy that 
puts on limited prices, embargoes, and holds down the price that they 
would otherwise get.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, 
the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, this budget is not balanced. It has a $63 
billion increase in defense and a $245 billion handout to the wealthy, 
but it is balanced if you think about the cuts, cuts for children. Just 
look at the cuts. Over $170 billion in Medicaid, that is going to hurt 
children. Food stamp cuts, $34 billion, that is going to hurt children. 
The low-income housing credit cut by $3 billion, that hurts children.
  And look at the savings, savings. Well, the savings include $5 
billion cuts in student loans. Those are our children. And the earned 
income tax credit, that helps low-income families and those low-income 
families, many of them, have children. It is cut.
  It is cut and it is cut and it is cut when it comes to children. But 
it is up, up, up, when it comes to defense and wealthy families.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the children of 
America.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, many of you have visited me down to the 
Potomac, and it is a mystery about the sea when you see a sail boat, 
one sailing one way and another, another with the same prevailing wind. 
A poet once wrote: ``One ship sails east, another west, with the 
selfsame winds that blow. 'Tis the set of the sail, not the gale, that 
determines which way we go.''
  With this measure today we set the sails in a direction of a balanced 
budget in the direction of a balanced budget in the year 2002, in the 
direction of a solvent Medicare Program, in the direction of a smaller 
Government.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let me urge my colleagues to join with us today in 
setting this directional sail toward a shore that means prosperity and 
a better America for all.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, as we talk about budgets, we are not just talking about 
numbers. No matter how wide and how large the Federal budget is, and 
one can go through the thousands of pages, at the end of the day it is 
a statement of our values as a people.
  I voted for a balanced 7-year budget. I do not think that is the 
issue, but I think the issue truly today is how we bring balance to our 
Nation. What kind of America do we want to see? Do we want to bind the 
generations together? Do we want to apply some morality to these 
figures, to these numbers? Do we speak to those who are in the autumn 
of their lives and say, yes, you count, and we are not going to count 
you out? Do we say to our Nation's children that we bring morality to 
them? Why would any Member of Congress rob two out of five children of 
this great Nation of ours of their own means of health insurance? Why 
would we rob our future by cutting student loans?
  So today, America, what kind of a budget do we want, one that binds 
us together or tears us apart?
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey], the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just take a moment to thank 
the members of the Committee on the Budget, on both sides of the aisle, 
and, indeed, the members from both sides of the aisle on all of our 
committees. To put together a Balanced Budget Act that is this 
comprehensive is not an easy balance. We have all worked hard, and we 
have worked hard all year on the matter.
  There are differences of opinion. There are differences of 
expectations of what the outcome will be in the lives of the American 
people, and it is recognized on both sides as big change. Most of us on 
my side of the aisle think that this is big change for the better, a 
new direction, a new beginning, a revitalization of the American spirit 
and the American economy and the American people. Many people on the 
other side of the aisle are concerned that it might be something other 
than that and would prefer to stay with Government growing and 
Government governing as it has done in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, in any event, as we have watched this work done by the 
Congress of the United States, we must recognize beyond a doubt this is 
serious business. This is hard, serious work with enormous consequences 
in the lives of Americans for generations to come and, yes, it should 
be taken seriously.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess it is for that reason that I have to say I 
regret the extent to which the public rhetoric regarding this work has 
been so often hyperbolized, full of misrepresentations and 
exaggerations and, frankly, all too often language that has been 
designed purposely to scare very real Americans.
  We have worked hard and we have worked together and we have worked 
seriously to provide here a Balanced Budget Act that will give us in 
the next 7 years a steady, consistent movement to balance, to stop this 
awful, debilitating growth in the debt of the U.S. Government that is 
strangling the American economy, and we think we get there.
  We have in this process enacted tax cuts to encourage growth for jobs 
for the real American citizens, particularly our youngsters when they 
finish college, and to give tax relief to the American family, and we 
know it is real and we know it is fair and we know it is equitable.
  We have, in fact, accepted the challenge to fix Medicare, to save it 
for another generation, and to be prepared in the year 2002, at the 
time its trust fund is broke, to have an economy and a Federal 
Government budget that can handle the new stress that will follow.
  We have given real welfare reform to inspire greater growth in 
families, greater commitment and opportunity for work, greater chances 
for self-sufficiency for families and people that have for too many 
years been, quite frankly, victimized by this.
  Will it work? How will it work? There can be different notions, 
different ideas, different concerns, and different projections on that. 
But let nobody doubt for a moment that this is our best effort to do 
what we see as the right and necessary thing to do. We have been 
governed by our best motives, our hardest work, our best effort and, 
quite frankly, our most sincere prayers.
  We know this is the right thing to do, we know it must be done now, 
and we know we cannot run away from it. So if Members are faint of 
heart or devoted to a vision that most of us think has failed, they are 
free to vote no at this historic moment. But if Members believe in the 
American people and believe in the future of the American people and a 
Nation where they are made more free to control their own destiny by a 
Government that has had the ability to recognize their goodness and the 
decency to respect it, I ask them to vote yes today and change this 
Government so it can be back in step with America.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask, how much time 
do we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hobson] has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Sabo] has 11 minutes and 35 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].

[[Page H13181]]

  (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I think we can certainly make it clear 
that the issue here is not about balancing the budget. The majority of 
the people in this body, and I think the American people, have stated 
that they want the assurance of the future and through that they want 
to see a balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate here today is about fairness. It is about a 
plan of priorities that are fair and common sense in the approach about 
balancing the budget of this Nation.
  The Republican plan is fundamentally unfair, making unnecessary 
reductions. They are not needed in order to balance the budget of this 
Nation. There is, however, an alternative plan that was offered; one 
that is very fair, common sense, and reasonable: The coalition plan. 
That plan places deficit reduction as a top priority, while protecting 
all Americans, especially rural Americans in the State of Arkansas.
  The Republican plan is unfair. It is unfair to rural health care. It 
is unfair to agriculture. It is unfair to education and to veterans. We 
need to come together, put aside the pettiness of partisan politics, 
and come up with something that is fair and common sense for the 
American people.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Deutsch].
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to focus that 1 minute on Medicare 
in this budget and go through three things very clearly.
  No. 1, the Republicans continue to say it is unprecedented, Medicare 
is going to go bankrupt in 7 years. The chart right here points out the 
fact, and a lot of times my colleagues on the other side do not like to 
listen to facts, but the fact is in 12 of the last 30 years that 
Medicare has existed in actuarial life was less than 7 years. It is not 
unprecedented. We have done things to deal with the actuarial change.
  No. 2, is $270 billion in cuts. Where did that come from? That number 
has nothing to do with the actuarial soundness of Medicare. It is a 
derived number from the budget deficit that they need. And in fact if 
it had anything to do with Medicare, it would stay in the Medicare 
trust fund, which it does not do in the Medicare proposals in the 
reconciliation bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the third and final thing is that the truth of this 
program, the bottom line, I think I will let the Speaker speak for 
himself: ``We don't get rid of Medicare in round one because we don't 
think that's politically smart, and we don't think that'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 going to voluntarily leave 
it.''
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill once said, in a tribute to 
the Royal Air Force, ``Never in the field of human conflict has so much 
been owed by so many to so few.''
  Under the Gingrich budget, it can only be said that the reverse is 
true. Never have so many given so much for such a privileged few.
  The Republicans are giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy while hard-
working, low-income individuals and families get hit with a $32 billion 
tax increase. They are repealing the alternative minimum tax, returning 
us to the days when some of America's most profitable corporations paid 
no taxes whatsoever. They are going to allow employers to treat their 
workers' pension funds like corporate checking accounts. They would 
blacken the soul of the land of opportunity by cutting funding for 
child nutrition programs and student loans. How are you supposed to get 
a job in the 21st century when you cannot get a decent education or a 
decent meal in the last decade of the 20th century?
  They would slash nearly a half trillion dollars from Medicare and 
Medicaid, putting the health of millions of seniors and poor children 
and disabled Americans at risk. They would nearly double Medicare 
premiums and eliminate those current law guarantees that the poorest 
seniors get help paying those premiums.
  Millions of seniors in poverty, many of them widows, depend on 
Medicaid to pay for their Medicare premiums, deductibles, and 
copayments. The last time I pointed that out on the floor in this 
budget, that it would clobber poor seniors, the Speaker ran to the 
floor and said that I was either ignorant or misinformed. Well, guess 
what, I was right and he was flat wrong. And when I challenged him to 
fix it, he turned his back on the seniors of this country.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, this ``my way or the highway'' galloping 
Gingrichism is going to have a commonsense answer. You are wrong, Mr. 
Speaker. Stop it or America's seniors and working families will stop it 
for you.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, as you know, earlier this year we had 
to fight off the high one provision that would have taken away what we 
promised to our veterans. I am inquiring, I would like to inquire and 
will yield to the Committee on the Budget spokesperson, as to whether 
or not it is true, as Congressional Quarterly is now reporting, that 
the cost of living increases for military retirees for 1996, 1997, and 
1998 have been removed from this budget?
  Is it a fact, and I will yield to anyone on the Republican side who 
represents the committee, is it not a fact, as Congressional Quarterly 
is now reporting, that they are taking away the equity payments of 
cost-of-living for our military retirees starting this year, after 
promising they would have it because civilians had it?
  Mr. Speaker, has there been an answer to my question?
  So we may take it that military retirees will not get their cost of 
living adjustment.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, the COLA's will be there. I am on the 
Committee on National Security. The COLA's will be there. We must not 
put out anymore misinformation.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, a defining moment for the new Republican 
majority, to have a balanced, a fiscally balanced budget that is 
morally bankrupt is not the result of the work that I think the good 
intentions, perhaps, they started out with. I rise to oppose the Budget 
Reconciliation Act.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I yield to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] for the answer to the question 
of whether the military COLA's are back to April or not?
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, because of the accursed, the dreaded and the 
hated Byrd rule, the COLA's were taken out in reconciliation. But in 
our authorization bill on the Committee on National Security, formerly 
the Committee on Armed Services, they will be there. It will happen. 
Some of us will fight to the political death to make sure that they are 
there.

                          ____________________