[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 203 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14985-H14993]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   SUNDRY MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

  Sundry messages in writing from the President of the United States 
were communicated to the House by Mr. Edwin Thomas, one of his 
secretaries.

[[Page H14986]]


   BASING BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS ON MOST RECENT TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC 
               ASSUMPTIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 132) affirming that budget negotiations 
shall be based on the most recent technical and economic assumptions of 
the Congressional Budget Office and shall achieve a balanced budget by 
fiscal year 2002 based on those assumptions.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 132

       Whereas on November 20 the President signed legislation 
     (Public Law 104-56) committing Congress and the President to 
     ``enact legislation in the first session of the 104th 
     Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal 
     year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office'';
       Whereas Congress has approved legislation that achieves a 
     balanced budget in fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the 
     Congressional Budget Office;
       Whereas congressional Democrats have offered alternative 
     budgets in the House and Senate which also achieve balance in 
     fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget 
     Office;
       Whereas the commitment to enact legislation in the first 
     session of Congress requires action now in negotiations;
       Whereas the negotiations have no preconditions on levels of 
     spending or taxation, except that the resulting budget must 
     achieve balance by fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the 
     Congressional Budget Office;
       Whereas the Congressional Budget Office has updated its 
     technical and economic assumptions following a thorough 
     consultation with government and private experts; and
       Whereas the Congressional Budget Office has begun 
     consultation and review with the Office of Management and 
     Budget: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     current negotiations between Congress and the President shall 
     be based on the most recent technical and economic 
     assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office, and that the 
     Congress is committed to reaching an agreement this year with 
     the President on legislation that will achieve a balanced 
     budget by fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional 
     Budget Office.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, given the situation that we find ourselves 
in in the country and in the negotiations relative to the budget, this 
is an important resolution. It is an important resolution because I 
think it affirms what the intent of this House is and what the intent 
of the Congress is with regard to our budget. It makes it clear that 
this Congress is determined to have a balanced budget within 7 years, 
and it is going to do so based upon the honest numbers generated by the 
Congressional Budget Office, based upon the most recent technical and 
economic assumptions. That is the right course of action to take. It is 
the way in which this country has to move.
  Why a resolution? Why do we have to do it through resolution? Well, 
because throughout this year we have had a situation where the 
administration has refused, yes, refused, to be serious about balancing 
the budget. Back in January of this year, the administration publicly 
opposed an amendment to balance the budget. In February, we found out 
why. In February, they submitted their budget, and we found out that it 
maintained deficits of $200 billion a year as far as the eye could see. 
In April, the administration did nothing. In May, they did nothing, 
despite the fact that through that period of time Congress was 
beginning work toward moving toward a real balanced budget.
  In June, just before we brought the balanced budget conference report 
to the floor, the administration submitted their 10-year outline of a 
balanced budget. The problem was that it was not a real budget. It was 
a press release. But nevertheless, from that time on they have been 
trumpeting the fact that they have a balance budget on the table.
  The other problem with that balanced budget was the numbers did not 
add up. They were not good numbers. They were not honest numbers. It 
was simply a press release.

                              {time}  1630

  Then in July and August, the administration once again did nothing. 
In September, they did nothing. In October, they did nothing. In 
November, there was no activity until we got to a crisis point with 
regard to a continuing resolution, whether or not the Government would 
continue to operate.
  Then all of a sudden, the President decided that he would inject 
himself into the game. What he did was he signed a continuing 
resolution; in other words, a resolution to keep the Government 
running, that said that his administration was going to participate in 
balancing the budget by the year 2002, using honest numbers. However, 
when we got to the negotiations we found out that the administration 
really did not mean that. They started talking about 7 years meant 8 or 
9 years, that the Congressional Budget Office was sometime later on, it 
did not really affect the negotiations up front.
  Since the time that that continuing resolution committing the 
President to a balanced budget has been signed into law, the 
administration has done nothing. Now, we come down to a date when, 
again, the Government is shut down, the administration is concerned 
about getting another continuing resolution, and what they are 
suggesting to us is we ought to just continue this pattern of 
negotiations.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution says how that negotiation will take 
place, with real numbers.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not an important resolution. It is one of not 
great relevance, but I will still vote for it, but it gives us an 
opportunity to visit a little bit about some objectives and numbers 
being used.
  Let me first say that this discussion of honest and dishonest 
numbers, or by implication dishonest numbers, is simply not the case. 
When CBO reestimated outlays for two of the major programs, Medicare 
and Medicaid, they moved closer to the assumptions of OMB, not further 
away.
  On the other hand, there are legitimate differences on projected 
revenues over 7 years, and the reality is in the first few years, they 
are relatively minor and they escalate in importance, because for the 
first time we are looking at 7 years rather than 5.
  The reality is, within the first 3 years of revenue estimates, the 
estimates between CBO and OMB are virtually identical. So what we have 
are some disagreements of people of good intent, making relatively 
minor differences in judgment, but which escalate into significant 
numbers over a 7-year period of time. And the reality is when we get to 
the table, as we should have been for the last several weeks, and talk 
about the substance of the budget, how we structure Medicare, how we 
structure Medicaid, how we deal with welfare reform, do we give the 
store away in taxes to the affluent and wealthy in the country, as the 
Republicans want to do, that we could work these things out.
  I personally think in the end when we have a 7-year plan adopted, it 
should be based on relatively conservative economic judgments. But I 
also think we need to look at the flow of how dollars flow. I hear my 
good Republican friends get so excited about these slight variations in 
economic estimates, which we need to talk about, but I also observe 
what they do with the budget to make it come in balance. They have a 
tax cut that explodes in costs after the first 7 years.
  The features of the tax plan that favor the wealthy in this country, 
the actual cost starts out modestly, and then it explodes. But one of 
the interesting things is, the cost of this tax cut keeps growing 
through 2001. Then, miraculously, it dips in 2002. And then it 
escalates very rapidly in 2003.
  Is that sound planning for a balanced budget? No, just a gimmick to 
hide their tax cuts for the most affluent in this country. I have seen 
lots of estimates of how benefits will flow under programs like 
Medicaid to our States, and a very interesting pattern happens when I 
ask my State officials what will happen.

  The first 2 or 3 years, relatively little impact. Then it falls off 
the table. No consistent flow for reforms of Medicaid 

[[Page H14987]]
in the 50 States in this country, but rather an accommodation maybe to 
the Governors, who are so enthusiastic about the Republican plan, who 
will all be reelected or have quit their current term of office before 
the harshness of their cuts take place; again, not a sensible flow of 
dollars, but rather designed to accommodate some of their friends in 
the early years and then the harshness comes later.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we have lots of work to do. The only way we are 
going to solve it is to sit down at the negotiating table as people of 
good will, trying to find a rational answer, being cautious on our 
assumptions for the future, because to project 7 years into the future 
is not easy.
  But we also have to make sensible judgments that flow in the long 
term, that do not all of a sudden call for the drastic cuts in the last 
year or two, or tax cuts that escalate in cost beyond the 7 years of 
this budget resolution, or gimmicks in the last year that hide the true 
cost of the tax cut for the rich in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``yes,'' but let us get serious. That is 
what counts.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, [Mr. DeLay], and say what counts is the vote.
  Mr. DeLay. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman yielding me this 
time. I would just say to the distinguished ranking member that all of 
that can happen if the President would just honor his commitment, and 
that is the reason for this resolution, is to restate what the 
President put into law and has yet to honor. So I rise in support of 
this resolution and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support it.
  The American people are watching us today, and they are not amused. 
They want the President to stop his political posturing and get down to 
the business of balancing the budget now. The stock market has already 
expressed its desire to see us negotiate a balanced budget, and what 
happens on Wall Street has a very direct impact on what happens on Main 
Street.
  Today, Wall Street expressed its doubts about the administration's 
sincerity on a balanced budget. The markets have seen the President 
veto the first balanced budget in 26 years. They saw him veto two 
sending bills just today and keep the Government closed.
  The lesson is very clear: The price of failure is too high. This vote 
today is simply one more way to reassure the American people that we 
will not back down. We are resolute on our promise to balance the 
budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has waited long enough to start shopping 
about his ideas. He has flown across the world making peace in 
different countries. Now it is time for him to make peace with the 
Congress. Support his resolution and send a message to the President 
that we are serious about balancing the budget. Support this resolution 
and show the American people that the Congress can work together in a 
bipartisan fashion to balance the budget now.
  Let us deliver the children of this Nation a Christmas present they 
can really use, a balanced budget, using honest numbers.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to my friend, the gentleman 
from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. CBO 
numbers, OMB numbers. Listen, as far as the American people are 
concerned, if Bill Clinton can keep the deficit coming down the way he 
did each year of his administration thus far, he could use Sesame 
Street numbers.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\3/4\ minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people want us to balance the Federal 
budget. If possible, they prefer that we do it in 7 years, but that is 
not the question here today. What the American people do not want us to 
do is slash Medicare. They have made that abundantly clear. They do not 
want us to abolish Medicaid, and they do not want us to cut nursing 
home care.
  What they do not want is for us to cut education and to eliminate 
funds for our environment, but that is exactly what the Republican 
budget does, and that is why about 75 percent of the American people 
oppose it.
  The American people know that these cuts are not being made to 
balance the budget or to reduce the deficit; they are being made for 
one reason and one reason only, to pay for tax breaks, 50 percent of 
which go the wealthiest people, the wealthiest individuals and 
corporations in America today.
  Now, the Treasury Department did a study. Nearly 50 percent of their 
tax breaks go to people making over $100,000 a year or more. Under the 
Republican plan, if you are family earning $350,000 a year, you get a 
tax cut of about $8,500. If you are family earning $30,000 a year, you 
get a tax increase of about $381. In fact, under this plan, some big 
corporations may not have to pay any taxes at all.
  Now, to pay for it, their budget makes deep cuts in Medicare, in 
Medicaid, in education, and in the environment. That is what this 
debate is all about. We Democrats believe that you can balance the 
budget in 7 years without making these deep cuts, and we have offered a 
plan to do just that, because we know that the cuts being proposed in 
this Republican budget will have a devastating, a devastating, effect 
on working families.
  Do not take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Listen to what Consumer 
Union says. These are the people that put out Consumer Reports. You 
read about them when you want to buy a washing machine. You want to buy 
an automobile, you get Consumer Reports, buy a TV. These people put out 
a report. Consumer Union is a highly respected company. Listen to what 
they have to say in their latest study.
  ``What Congress isn't telling you is families of nursing home 
residents may face financial ruin under the Federal Medicaid bill.'' 
This report says if the Republican budget passes, ``36 million 
Americans will lose Medicaid protection they have now, and an estimated 
395,000 long-term care patients are likely to lose Medicaid payments 
for their nursing home care next year.''

  Mr. Speaker, it costs an average of about $38,000 a year for nursing 
home care. Where are middle-class families going to get that kind of 
money to pay for the care for their parents? Most families do not earn 
that much in a year.
  Again, listen to what this report says: ``Under the Republican bill, 
adult children may be held financially liable for nursing home bills of 
their parents. Family assets, including homes, may be sold or seized to 
pay for nursing home bills. No one is guaranteed Medicaid nursing home 
eligibility as they are now. Families may be forced to spend their life 
savings on long-term care of a loved one, their whole life savings.'' 
That is what the Consumers Report says about the Republican budget, 
what it will do to working families.
  The Washington Post today on the front page of the paper had the same 
article basically. They said, ``Medicaid costs may hit home. GOP plan 
could make families pay.''
  Mr. Speaker, again, that is not Democrats talking, that is the 
Washington Post. That is Consumer Reports.
  Mr. Speaker, we all want to get to a balanced budget, but if we get 
to a balanced budget by the year 2002 we have to make sure that the 
budget stays balanced. My friend from Minnesota has eloquently made 
this point time and time again: Their budget does not do that. Did you 
ever wonder why they keep talking about 7 years? Let me tell you why, 
because they do not want you to ask what happens in years 8, 9 and 10. 
This chart here indicates what happens in years 8, 9 and 10.
  Their tax breaks explode, they go through the ceiling. They erupt in 
years 2003, 2004 and 2005. The red lines indicate here on this graph 
how they explode. What good is it to be in balance for 1 year? We work 
this hard to get to balance in the year 2002, and then we give it all 
away in the next 3 years with these exploding tax cuts.
  How are they going to pay for this if they are going to give these 
tax cuts? If they are going to give the tax cuts, how are they going to 
pay to get their budget in balance? Are they going to cut more 
Medicare, are they going to cut more Medicaid, are they going to cut 
education?
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have rejected this Republican 
budget, and the American people see through 

[[Page H14988]]
this resolution. We can all vote for this resolution today, but it is 
really not worth the paper it is written on. It will not get the 
Government open, and it will not put people back to work. It will not 
get us back to the negotiating table, and it will not get us a balanced 
budget. We should be at the table right now talking about how we are 
going to save Medicare, Medicaid, and education, instead of passing 
meaningless resolutions that get us nowhere.
  The American people want the Government to get back to work. They 
wanted negotiators to get back to work. They sent us here to take care 
of their priorities, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we should be doing 
that exact thing, taking care of their priorities, and their priorities 
are in education for the children, environment for the future, and 
saving Medicare and Medicaid.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the State of North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick].
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, This resolution simply reaffirms the 
commitment that was made in November by Congress and the administration 
that we would achieve a balanced budget not later than the year 2002, 
as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. Those estimates are 
simply more conservative.
  This resolution does not commit anyone to any one set of proposals or 
policy. Very simply, we have always stressed that everything is on the 
table, and that is still the same today. The only thing that is not is 
that we will achieve balance in 7 years, by 2002, using real numbers.
  President Clinton, in February of 1993, in his State of the Union 
Address said, and I quote, ``I will point out that the CBO was normally 
more conservative in what was going to happen and closer to right than 
previous Presidents have been. Let us at least argue about the same set 
of numbers so the American people will think we are shooting straight 
with them.''
  We have a moral reason to balance this budget by the year 2002. It is 
going to lower interest rates by at least a couple of percentage 
points, and that makes a big difference to young couples like my son 
and his wife who are just buying a new home. That is going to save them 
thousands and thousands of dollars on their mortgage.
  Also, our new granddaughter, who was just born last week, is not 
going to have to pay $187,000 in interest just on the interest of the 
debt over her lifetime. It will make a big difference for all the young 
people in our country. So I urge everyone today to please support this 
resolution.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Orton] my good friend.


  modification to house concurrent resolution 135 offered by Mr. Orton

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us could be improved if 
we added one paragraph at the end that stated: Further resolved that 
negotiations should resume immediately and continue until agreement is 
reached, and that during negotiations the operation of the Federal 
Government shall continue under continuing resolution.
  I ask unanimous consent that that language be added to the resolution 
before us.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object. First of all, 
is it appropriate under the----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). The gentleman will suspend. 
First, the Chair must inquire, does the gentleman from Ohio yield for 
the purpose of the gentleman from Pennsylvania's objection?
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I am reserving the right to object to his 
unanimous-consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot entertain the request 
unless the gentleman from Ohio yields for the purpose.
  Mr. WALKER Mr. Speaker, I object.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I believe we should try to keep the 
Government open as we do this, and I think this would do it.
  So I would urge my colleague, my friend, the chairman of the 
committee, to consider such language so that we can constructively get 
the negotiations back on track and, in fact, continue until we all 
reach the resolution that we want.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], my good friend.
  (Mr. DIngell asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the objection just raised to the unanimous-
consent request from the gentleman from Utah says everything. This 
document is nothing more or less than a political document. It says 
something that everybody can vote for, but it accomplishes absolutely 
nothing about what it is we are here to do.
  Basically, it simply says we think we ought to balance the budget in 
7 years. But it says absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever about 
getting the government back to work. We have nine cabinet departments 
and the EPA which are now shut because the Republican Members walked 
out of the discussions with the President and the Democrats. That is 
why the Government is shut down. This will cost about $160 million to 
$600 million a day. We do not know exactly what the precise numbers are 
but that is what it is.
  The hard fact is the Republicans have said this, speaking through 
their principal spokesman, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich]. 
We will cooperate with the President to reach an agreement but we will 
not compromise.
  How does one cooperate without compromising? The answer is it cannot 
be done. And the answer is this resolution does not do anything to 
resolve the problem of a country which is incapable of having its 
government function on its behalf because of the behavior of the 
Republican Members of this body who have, first of all, walked out of 
the compromise; second of all, objected to a meaningful improvement in 
what it is that this House would do with regard to the resolution 
before us; and, last of all, they are going to keep the Government shut 
down.
  I do not know how long it is that they are going to do it but, again, 
Mr. Gingrich has some interesting things to say. He says, I do not care 
what the price is. I do not care if we have no executive offices and no 
bonds for 30 days. Not this time.
  Well, the Republicans want to shut this place down. They want to shut 
the Government down. They want to eliminate Government services and 
they want to pass a tawdry resolution like this which accomplishes 
nothing.
  I would urge that the Members consider perhaps the changes made by 
the gentleman or that we consider the fact that this legislation is 
significantly lacking in that it does not say we are going to try to 
see to it that Medicare is protected, that Medicaid is protected, that 
education is protected, that the poor and the unfortunate are not going 
to be cast into deep and dark hardship just before Christmas.

  I would observe to my colleagues that just before the holidays is a 
time my Republican colleagues usually choose to shut down the 
Government. Why they are so stricken with the holiday spirit and why 
they seek to do so at such time is beyond my ken, but I would again 
observe to my colleagues that the burden for governing this country and 
the burden for seeing to it that the Government runs is on the 
Republicans Members who have shut the Government down, who are denying 
the people the access to their Government agencies and denying them the 
working of programs which we all recognize are needed for the good of 
the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to recognize the fault is 
over there. The fault is on those who are shutting this Government down 
and presenting us, instead, with this nonsensical piece of whimsy which 
accomplishes nothing in the public interest and does nothing to get the 
country going again.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays], a very distinguished member of the Committee 
on the Budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, we all want to balance the budget in 7 years 
or less? That is not true. We all want to balance the budget? That is 
not true. If we all wanted to balance the budget, it would have been 
balanced years ago. We have been having deficits for 30 years because 
everybody says they want to balance the budget, they just do not vote 
to balance the budget.
  For the last year we have put forward a plan. We have put forward a 
plan the other side may not agree with, but we 

[[Page H14989]]
have put forward a plan. And now we are waiting for theirs. Until we 
get their plan, it is hard to negotiate. Because we have one plan on 
the table, which they do not like, so they need to show us their plan.
  The plan they do not like increases earned income tax-credit spending 
from $19 to $25 billion over 7 years. That is an increase any way we 
look at it, but they call it a cut. Here in Washington maybe it is a 
cut, but out where I live, when we go from $19 billion to $25 billion, 
it is an increase.
  The school lunch program goes from $5 to $6.8 billion--over 7 years. 
Not a cut, but in this place people call it that. The student loan goes 
from $24 to $36 billion. It is a 50-percent increase, but the way they 
seem to call cuts, I guess it is a cut when it goes up 50 percent. 
Medicaid goes from $89 to $127; Medicare from $178 to $289 billion.
  No; I am not married to balancing the budget in 7 years. I would like 
to do it in less. If the Democrats did not want a tax increase, that is 
fine. But then why did they all vote for a tax cut? If they did not 
want a tax cut, why did they vote for the tax cut? Why did they vote 
for the penalty tax elimination for seniors, if they did not want to 
cut taxes? They vote one way and then say something else. It gets a 
little tiring.
  The bottom line is we have put forward a plan. We intend to move 
forward, however long it takes. We will do it with the President's help 
or we will do it without the President's help, but we have done our 
job. Now it is up to the Democrats to do their job.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I have never been as disappointed in the 
President, my President, as I was this past Friday when it became clear 
he had reneged on his pledge to a 7-year balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, a deal is a deal, a commitment is a commitment, and a 
law is a law. The last 30 days have been spent reinterpreting the 
language of the agreement that the President made to Congress and to 
the American people.
  This resolution's sole intent is to confirm once again Congress' 
commitment to balancing the budget by the year 2002 using real numbers, 
numbers that both the Congress and the administration have agreed to 
use.
  I join my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], in 
asking where is the President's plan? This is not a game of dare. In 
fact, it is not a game at all. It is a fundamental debate over whether 
this Congress will ever again have the discipline to balance its books. 
And what is at stake is enormously important, and that is the economic 
future of America. It is the future for our children and our 
grandchildren. Support this resolution.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding me time.
  I rise in strong support for this resolution. It reaffirms what we 
said before that we wanted, and that is to have a balanced budget in 7 
years, by the year 2002.
  My colleagues might say, why do we need to do that? We voted on that 
a long time ago. We voted on that more than a month ago. But ever since 
we voted for that, the administration and the people down at the White 
House have been trying to move the goal post. They have been saying, 
well, we can come close to it or we want to use a little different 
figures.
  This President signed a law. He signed a law saying he would 
negotiate. He would negotiate to balance the budget in 7 years. And 
that is all we are saying that we want to do here tonight. Everything 
else is on the table. We have said that continuously. All the other 
issues are on the table. The only thing not on the table is that we are 
going to balance the budget by the year 2002, 7 years, and we are going 
to do it using real numbers. No gimmicks, no games. We are going to do 
it using real numbers scored by the Congressional Budget Office.
  Let us get on with it so that we can get people back to work, we can 
get the American people a balanced budget, which is what they want, by 
the end of this year.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, where do we stand on time here?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has 
9\1/4\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] 
has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend 
debate 5 minutes on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Hawaii?
  Mr. KASICH. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the 
gentleman why he would like to do that?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I know that there are a number of 
speakers, due to the nature of the business on the floor, who would 
like to have perhaps a minute to contribute to the debate.
  Mr. KASICH. Is the gentleman going to be very charitable to us?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I am the essence, the heart, the soul of charitable 
endeavors.
  Mr. KASICH. Then, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Hawaii?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, nearly 1 month ago, the President 
and leaders of Congress signed a pledge to a 7-year balanced budget 
using honest numbers. Today, one week until Christmas, President 
Clinton has shut down the Government and broken his word to America's 
families, workers, and children.
  We pledged a 7-year balanced budget for our children. We committed to 
preserve Medicare for our parents. And we vowed to reduce taxes for our 
families.
  We kept our promise to present a balanced budget. We provided a 7-
year balanced budget because it will benefit all Americans. Our 
balanced budget will reduce interest rates. More Americans will be able 
to afford new homes, cars, and college education. And as interest rates 
fall, job creation will rise. A balanced budget will mean an estimated 
6.1 million new jobs over 10 years.
  We kept our word to preserve Medicare and prevented it from going 
bankrupt. The Balanced Budget Act protects Medicare's solvency for a 
generation. And we kept our commitment to make Government spend less so 
that families can keep more of what they earn.
  The same President who presented no plan to balance the budget during 
the 2 years when his party controlled both the White House and Congress 
vetoed the first balanced budget in 26 years. The same President who 
signed a pledge to offer a real balanced budget of his own has 
presented no balanced budget plan.
  We must keep our word to balance the budget. Not just because we keep 
our promises. Balance the budget for our children, for our parents, for 
our country.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). The gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Sabo] has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich] has 13\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I see one reason why this 
resolution is so important is because so many people say that they 
would like a balanced budget, but do not mean it. Mr. Speaker, I would 
say to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], is it not 
interesting that when we talk about a balanced budget, we are talking 
about all revenues coming into the Federal Government covering all of 
the expenses that are going out. But still, this is such a modest 
proposal, and we cannot even get a modest proposal through.
  Mr. Speaker, if we fail to do this little bit toward getting this 
balanced budget now, it could be a generation before anybody is brave 
enough to try again.
  Mr. Speaker, in this proposal of a balanced budget, even after 7 
years in the year 2002, we are still borrowing 

[[Page H14990]]
$100 billion from Social Security and the other trust funds. How deep 
in debt should this country go? We are spending the money that our kids 
and our grandkids have not even earned yet.
  Let us be brave. My colleagues cannot say they want a balanced budget 
and then pretend to have rosy scenario scoring from somebody else, just 
so that they do not have to cut spending.
  If we are going to achieve this goal of having fiscal responsibility 
and stability, and if we are going to bring interest rates down, then 
we have got to do it. I know it is hard. Politicians are used to doing 
more and more things for people, even if they have to borrow money, 
because when we talk about the budget, people's eyes sort of glaze over 
and they do not understand it.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is that if interest rates will go down, because 
we balance the budget, we are going to see this economy take off like 
it has never taken off before. Let us just do it. The American people 
want it. Everybody says they want it now. That is good news. Vote for 
this resolution that says use CBO scoring. Have a balanced budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit].
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution as a 
cosponsor of the resolution. I think that we have to recognize that 
numbers do matter in this debate, and it is important for us to be on 
the same page when we start evaluating the budget and start talking 
about numbers.
  Mr. Speaker, I frankly think we ought to put this issue behind us and 
agree to the CBO numbers, agree to the 7 years, so that we can get to 
the debate of Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, and the other 
important programs in the budget.
  I think it would be the best thing we could do today for us to put 
this number debate to rest in the House and in the Senate, so that we 
could get to the important parts of this budget, and that is the public 
policy part of it.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of the Members, let us get this over 
with. Vote in favor of the resolution so that we can get to the serious 
part of this debate.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in favor of the concurrent 
resolution that says that we will balance the budget in 7 years, that 
we will use honest numbers, as the President asked of us earlier this 
year, the Congressional Budget Office numbers.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say in particular to my colleagues that like 
an NBA basketball game, we are entering the final 2 minutes where all 
the action takes place. There are many here who work on the Hill that 
are interested in being with their families, none more than myself. But 
I want to remind all of us that from Valley Forge to Vietnam, great men 
and women have made serious sacrifices for our country to ensure the 
freedom and the future of this country for our children and for the 
very country itself.
  Mr. Speaker, now is the time for us to make what is a relatively 
small sacrifice; to be willing to stay here and get the job done, to 
balance the budget in 7 years as we have been dedicated to doing since 
we stepped foot on the Hill on January 4, 1995.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of 
the concurrent resolution.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I will support this resolution as well. I 
believe that numbers do matter, but I also believe that priorities 
matter.
  Mr. Speaker, we passed a continuing resolution 25 days ago. We said 
in that continuing resolution we would use 7 years and CBO numbers, and 
that we would protect future generations, ensure Medicare solvency, 
reform welfare, provide adequate funding for Medicaid, education, 
agriculture, national defense, veterans, and the environment. Mr. 
Speaker, we should have that language in this resolution.
  Also, the Speaker and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] just 
quoted some efforts in a press conference by the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Upton] and myself, circulating a bipartisan letter that 
could be helpful in this. I say in my letter, Mr. Speaker, and 
reminding the Speaker of the House, that our letter reflected what is 
also not in this resolution: That the Government should remain open 
under a CR and that everything should be on the table, including tax 
cuts.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is 
recruiting speakers, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Hawaii 
[Mr. Abercrombie], that kind and gentle soul. He may generate some 
speakers for the other side.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I take the gentleman at his word, but I 
happen to know he does not have Christmas in his heart.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Hawaii always has Christmas 
in his heart.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] as a Christmas present to my dear friend.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, am I to take it from the just-concluded 
remarks that I am now to deliver a short lecture on the Christmas 
spirit?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1 minute to make his 
remarks, and that of course was not a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that I will be able to 
maintain the spirit of the discussion here on the floor. After all, 
Christmas is a magical time. Christmas is a time of fantasy, and 
inasmuch as this resolution is a fantasy and it will take magic to 
actually balance the budget, as opposed to the hard work that is 
necessary, I suppose one could be for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to be against it, because my 
reading of the Congressional Budget Office numbers are that using the 
honest numbers that are attributed to it is that the budget cannot be 
balanced by the year 2002 under the present methodology.
  We might be able to accomplish it over the long term by some other 
method, but simply to pass this resolution to perpetuate the mythology 
of a balanced budget, I think, is not in our interest.
  I have a letter, for example, dated December 14 from the 
Congressional Budget Office that the deficit in the general fund for 
this year will be $270 billion. So, I wish you 270 billion dollars' 
worth of a Merry Christmas at this time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I have a hard time 
laughing at what is going on, because there are two things lacking in 
this resolution. Two weeks ago, we passed a concurrent resolution that 
essentially kept the Government going and indicated that we would have 
a 7-year balanced budget based on CBO estimates, and also said that we 
would protect and preserve Medicare, Medicaid, the environment, and 
education.
  Mr. Speaker, we only have the 7-year balanced budget in this 
resolution. We do not have the continuing resolution because the 
Government is shut down and we do not have the prioritization to 
protect Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment.
  I will support this resolution because I do support the 7-year 
balanced budget, but I do think it is wrong not to include the 
continuing resolution to keep the Government open. It is certainly 
wrong for the Republicans to not come forward with a plan that protects 
Medicare and Medicaid, puts money back into those programs, and 
eliminates the tax breaks for the wealthy in order to finance adequate 
funding for Medicaid and Medicare.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Franks].
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, a moment ago my good friend, 
the gentleman from Hawaii underscored the experience and the warmth of 
the Christmas holiday season. Regardless of our religious affiliation, 
every single American, every single family looks forward to this time 
of the year to renew their relationships with friends and family to 
celebrate together.
  But I believe, Mr. Speaker, what we have seen is that some traditions 
are 

[[Page H14991]]
very, very difficult to break, and that is what we are confronting 
tonight. As exalted and as precious as the Christmas tradition is for 
our country, we notice there are some traditions which yield only very 
painfully to change. The 26-year tradition of this institution calling 
on our children and grandchildren to pay the debts of this Government 
is a tradition that simply must end.
  Mr. Speaker, nothing would be truly more in the Christmas spirit than 
allowing the next generation to escape from the liabilities of people 
who cannot keep their bank book.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the American public is tired of all of us 
precisely because of what is going on, on the floor right now. This 
resolution is meaningless.
  Basically, the 7 years have been agreed upon and the CBO numbers are 
agreed upon in general. Both sides of the aisle have some smoke and 
mirrors in some places as we talk about CBO numbers. That needs to be 
cleared up. Instead of this meaningless resolution, where basically 
people have agreed, we need to be talking about a continuing 
resolution.
  The Republicans will not agree to a continuing resolution to keep the 
Government going, to keep it operating, because essentially they are 
trying to do their negotiation through the resolution. They need to 
stop this crap and get on with the business of negotiating.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Committee 
on the Budget. Mr. Speaker, we have now spent almost an hour debating 
what is essentially a joint resolution, a statement of politics. We 
have essentially agreed on the policy. We all know that.
  Yes, there are some differences; yes, there are allegations on both 
sides. But the fact of the matter is that seven appropriation bills 
have not been passed and signed by the President, and a third of the 
Government, or more, is shut down.
  We could have spent this hour putting the Government back to work; 
not saying that we would not address the balanced budget, because my 
colleagues on the other side have the votes not to adjourn until we do 
so.
  But why we have to, time after time, use as a bludgeon on this 
institution and the country the shutting off of services to the 
American public is frankly beyond me.

                              {time}  1715

  We can do it even tonight if the leadership on my colleague's side 
decides to do so. Pass a continuing resolution based upon the last one, 
which was your choice of numbers, and send it to the President, and he 
will sign it, and we will open the Government tomorrow and serve the 
American public.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], distinguished minority leader 
and my friend.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, in my view this resolution is a colossal 
waste of time. I believe that a few weeks ago we voted on language that 
was essentially the same. This is repetitive. We voted on language that 
said the President and the Congress shall enact legislation the first 
session of the 104th Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later 
than fiscal year 2002, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, 
and the President and the Congress agree that the balanced budget must 
protect future generations, ensure Medicare solvency, reform welfare, 
provide adequate funding for Medicaid, education, agriculture, national 
defense, veterans, and the environment. Further, the balanced budget 
shall adopt tax policies to help working families and to stimulate 
future economic growth.
  Now after this was enacted, our friends on the majority side say the 
condition for even sitting down to talk, which is what we have to do to 
try to reach a budget agreement, is that the President has to put down 
a budget that meets CBO revised in 7 years. Why is there not an equal 
precondition on our part to sit down, that we have a recognition of the 
priorities that are important to the Democratic Party, Medicare, 
Medicaid, environment, education, and so on?
  At this rate we are never going to do other than waste time on the 
floor with resolutions like this. We are not going to ever sit down at 
a table as rational adults and begin to talk about our differences, 
which are fundamental. The gentleman from Ohio has said we are not 
making these things up. These are fundamental differences. But the only 
way we are going to get through it is if we can finally sit down at a 
table and have that conversation. We are not even going to be able to 
sit down unless we get rid of preconditions, your preconditions or our 
preconditions.
  Finally, let me say that all of this worry about CBO and OMB and all 
the talk on this side, and I admire the work that has been done to try 
and balance the budget; it is hard to do. But I will just remind 
Members that in 1990 we had a budget summit and with the best of 
intentions and the best of faith on both sides, we believed, and I 
looked at the documents the other day, that the deficit in 1995 would 
be $29 billion, as measured by CBO.
  We had another budget in 1993 that I know we all remember that the 
President brought and that all Democrats voted for that supposedly cut 
the deficit in half and did. So after two budgets, the first of which 
said that the deficit would be $29 billion in 1995, by CBO, we did not 
make it.
  Why did we not make it? It was not because of bad faith. It was not 
because we did not negotiate. It was not because anybody meant for 
there to be a deficit of over $300 billion this year or $165 billion 
after the 1993 budget deal. But because there is no way to 
prognosticate what the deficit is going to be 7 years from now, even 5 
years from now. It is humanly impossible.
  So let us gather some humility about what we are doing. Let us gather 
some good faith about what each of us is trying to do. Let us sit down 
and go back to the resolution we passed 2 weeks ago, and let us look at 
both sides of the equation. We are not here just talking about how to 
balance the budget by CBO in 7 years. We got to talk about Medicare and 
Medicaid and education and the environment and whether or not we should 
be trying to do this with a tax break for the wealthiest Americans paid 
for by cuts on the poorest Americans and middle-class Americans. That 
is what we have to talk about.
  It is going to be hard to get it done. So let us stop wasting time 
with resolutions like this. Let us get to the table, and let us get the 
job done for the American people.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just suggest where we are. We are voting on a 
resolution that reconfirms the agreement we made 27 days ago that we 
would have a little contract, a little contract. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania understands little contract out there in Pennsylvania, he 
knows we make a contract. It is like going to buy a Christmas tree. You 
say, I will give you $12 for that tree and you deliver it to my house. 
The guy says, ``yes''. So you give him the $12, and then he delivers 
the tree.
  Now, if you give him the $12 and the tree does not show up, then he 
is crossing the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha]; that would be 
a bad thing to do. Second, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] 
would never go do that, would never go and buy a tree there again 
because you understand the contract. We have got a point we live by; 
they got a point they live by.
  Now, we made a contract 27 days ago. The contract was simple. We 
said, we will lay down a plan to balance the budget using real numbers, 
not cooking the books, real numbers, like a family. Whether they sit 
down and add up the checkbook at the end of the day after they add up 
the checkbook, it comes out right, using real math, not cooking the 
books.
  We said we are going to do that, and we are going to try to recognize 
some priorities. I want to tell my colleagues about one of them. I want 
to tell my colleagues about Medicaid because this is the best part of 
Republican compassion.

[[Page H14992]]

  Let me say what this is all about. The Governors of our country, the 
majority of them, 31 of them, they represent 70 percent plus of the 
American people. They say, we can figure out a way to serve the 
disabled, the poor, the children, the elderly. And we can do it better 
if you just let us have a chance to design the program the way we 
wanted to design it so that we can show true compassion in our States 
that the old one-size-fits-all philosophy is rejected. I mean, I have a 
shoe, it is size 6, and every foot has to fit in it. That is the way 
Medicaid works now.
  What our Governors are saying, and, frankly, increasing numbers of 
Democratic Governors as well, are saying, ``Hey, Congress, stay out of 
this. Let us design a system that will take care and provide quality 
services to the poor and the disabled and the senior citizens. Do it 
more effectively, more compassionately.''
  We met that provision in this contract. But the bottom line on the 
contract is a 7-year balanced budget using real numbers. The President 
agreed to do that 27 days ago. And we do not have it.
  The Republicans have not left the table. We told the White House, you 
come with a real offer to get inside the box so we can have some 
negotiations and then we will be back. And it is not up to the 
Republicans. We had an amendment here that we should reopen the 
Government. It is the President that does not want to open the 
Government. It is on the President's shoulders about whether the 
Government opens or not because all the President has to do is live up 
to the contract. That is all he has to do. Put a plan down, meeting his 
priorities.
  He can spend all the money on welfare. He can zero out the Department 
of Defense. He can give Hazel O'Leary three or four jets. We do not 
care. Just make sure the numbers add up.
  Now, if we were not living up to our side of the contract, I would be 
embarrassed because I could not go out and I could not tell people that 
we were trying to keep our end of it.
  The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren, has his daughter here. 
Young lady, when your daddy makes a contract with you and he says, if 
you do this, if you make good grades in school, I am going to give you 
an allowance. If your daddy made that deal with you and you made good 
grades and he did not give you an allowance, you would be upset with 
him, would you not? You would be. You are right, you would be.
  Let me just suggest, let me just suggest one thing, now that his 
daughter is here. The gentleman from Texas is a great Congressman. He 
is leaving. We ought to show him how much we appreciate his service in 
this body, with his daughter sitting right here.
  Let me just suggest one or two other things. Our plan to balance the 
budget does not have exploding tax cuts or anything else. My colleagues 
in this body, our spending goes from a combined $9.5 trillion in 
spending over the last 7 years to a $12 trillion increase. Medicare, 
Medicaid, they all go up, and they all go up significantly. We show 
true compassion in balancing the budget and letting people have some of 
their own money back.
  Let me tell my colleagues what this is all about. This is a message 
to the President. This was scripted to keep the rhetoric out. This was 
consulted on by Democrats in this body. Why did I insist upon It? I 
insisted upon it because this is not a jab in the eye of the President 
of the United States, but it is a message. It is a message to the 
President of the United States that the decent, hard-working, 
bipartisan membership of this body thinks that we ought to put this 
little girl's future first. We should balance the budget in 7 years. We 
should use real numbers. We can fight about our priorities.
  Mr. President, this is not jabbing you in the eye. It is just saying 
to you, Mr. President, keep your side of the contract; and, if you will 
do that, we will move forward.
  So what I would suggest is, for everybody, including the Democrats 
who totally disagree with our priorities, please come to the floor and 
send the message to the President to keep his side of the contract. Let 
us sit down and negotiate with the same set of numbers, the same set of 
books, with only one thing in mind: the future and the economic 
survival of the United States of America.
  Let us pass the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 132.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic devise, and there were--yeas 351, 
nays 40, not voting 43, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 866]

                               YEAS--351

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--40

     Abercrombie
     Becerra
     Borski
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Engel
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     
[[Page H14993]]

     Martinez
     McDermott
     Meek
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Rahall
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Serrano
     Thompson
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams

                             NOT VOTING--43

     Baker (LA)
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Callahan
     Chapman
     Coburn
     Cramer
     de la Garza
     Dickey
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Hunter
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Maloney
     McDade
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Mfume
     Molinari
     Owens
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Schroeder
     Stockman
     Tejeda
     Towns
     Vento
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                 (1751)

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Fowler and Mr. Edwards for, with Mr. Yates against.

  Mr. GUTIERREZ and Mr. PASTOR changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  Messrs. FATTAH, WISE, WARD, and REED changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
suspended and the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________