[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6247-H6253]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CONFERENCE REPORT ON HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 178, CONCURRENT 
               RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1997

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 450 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 450

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 178) establishing the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 1997 and setting forth appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dreier] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from South 
Boston, MA [Mr. Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. All time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the 
conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 178, the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997, which sets out a 
fiscally sound and responsible path to a balanced budget in 6 years. 
The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
its consideration. The rule provides that the conference report will be 
considered as read and provides 1 hour of general debate divided 
equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the most important things we can do for future 
generations of Americans is balance the Federal budget. Big government 
liberals controlled Congress for decades

[[Page H6248]]

leaving two legacies that plague America's children. One is a welfare 
state that impoverishes millions, trapping them in lives of despair, 
dependent on ineffective bureaucratic institutions. The second is a $5 
trillion Federal debt that drags down our private sector economy and 
forces scarce resources--scarce Federal resources--to be used to pay 
interest on debt rather than to solve problems.
  Last year, Congress passed the first balanced budget in a generation. 
It was designed to address these critical problems. That balanced 
budget let the President meet his two major campaign promises from 
1992, providing a middle class tax cut and ending welfare as we know 
it.
  Finally, it is worth noting that the balanced budget saved Medicare 
from the bankruptcy that the Medicare trustees now foresee as being 
just 5 years away, just 5 years away.
  Mr. Speaker, the President lobbied to kill the balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution over in the Senate. President Clinton 
vetoed the balanced budget that was passed last year by this Congress. 
He vetoed the middle class tax cut. He vetoed the welfare reform plan 
twice. He vetoed legislation to protect Medicare. In the words of our 
dear friends at the Washington Post, he encouraged Medagogues to 
``scare America's senior citizens for political gain.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, some might say it is unfair to claim that this veto 
pattern reflects the President's views on these issues. He claims to 
support a balanced budget. At least two of the eight Clinton budgets 
released at assorted times over the last year and a half were balanced, 
at least in a technical sense.
  The President claims to support tax cuts and has announced a dozen or 
so ideas for tax cuts over the past 2 years, even some of them in the 
past 2 weeks, as we have all seen. Of course, the only tax bill that 
the President has actually implemented and signed is the largest tax 
increase in American history.
  He says he wants to reform the welfare system. The President spoke at 
length recently in support of the Wisconsin welfare reform plan. 
Regrettably, the administration has failed to approve the 
implementation of even that same Wisconsin reform plan.
  Mr. Speaker, if nothing else, this budget process is showing the 
American people who is serious about the issues of balanced budgets, 
tax cuts, and welfare reform. While the President down there at 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue talks, the Congress delivers serious, thoughtful, 
responsible proposals.
  This budget conference report sets out a 6-year budget plan that 
results in a balanced budget by the year 2002. It accomplishes this in 
a responsible manner that results in lower deficits each year than 
those proposed by the President.
  The President's version of a balanced budget is just the opposite. It 
is a budget fiction that proposes to dramatically increase spending for 
5 years and then slash spending in the last year to balance the budget.
  That proposal is a joke that mocks the efforts of those who are 
serious about addressing our chronic budget deficits to save the future 
of our children.
  Recent testimony before the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees on discretionary spending illustrates the budget games being 
played by the Clinton administration. In short, the administration 
budget proposes to increase spending for 1 year in areas such as 
veterans and space programs, putting off all the cuts to the following 
years. The administration's own representatives claim that these budget 
numbers are not serious, that the President only cares about the first 
year's spending proposal and that cuts in the coming years will be 
abandoned each year as the time comes. In this way, the budget is 
scored as reaching balance in 6 years, but the administration's own 
officials say it will never come to pass.
  Clearly, the balanced budget proposal offered in the conference 
report on House Concurrent Resolution 178 is the only serious balanced 
budget offered to the American people. Of course, the American people 
deserve more from the Federal Government than a balanced budget. We 
must address the fact that American families now pay a higher 
percentage of their income in taxes, 34.2 percent, than at any time in 
American history. This balanced budget cuts the tax burden on American 
families by $122.4 billion.
  This budget also solves the problem of the impending bankruptcy of 
Medicare which, as I said, the administration has indicated is just 5 
years away. It does this by updating a Federal health care program 
largely unchanged since its creation over three decades ago. By 
bringing Medicare into the 21st century, America's seniors will be 
offered increased choices and the potential to add new areas of 
coverage.

                              {time}  1915

  Medicare spending grows by 6.2 percent per year, increasing spending 
per beneficiary from $5,200 in 1996 to $7,000 in 2002. By addressing 
this problem in a serious manner, rather than following the Washington 
status quo band-aid method, Medicare will be healthy for at least 10 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a cliche to say Talk is cheap. The President has 
proven time and again that talking about balancing the budget, cutting 
taxes and reforming welfare is easy to do. However, he has also proven 
that getting the job done is very hard. He has had both Democrat and 
Republican Congresses to work with, and he has failed miserably with 
both. There is no other option.
  On the other hand, the failure to match talk of balanced budgets with 
action is very expensive; it is very difficult. We are passing a 
massive debt burden on to the children of this country, and we are not 
preparing them to pay the bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
support this rule and to support the conference report so that we can 
move forward and proceed with the concrete actions needed to match 
words with deeds.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the following:

   [The Budget Conference Report for Fiscal Year 1997, June 12, 1996]

                  Making Life Bettr for All Americans

   (Prepared by the House Budget Committee, John R. Kasich, Chairman)


                      balances the budget by 2002

       Reverses the trend of heaping debt on our children and 
     grandchildren.
       Will save the average family $2,200 on the cost of a 
     student loan, $900 on an auto loan, and $37,000 on the 
     mortgage of a small home.


                    provides much-needed tax relief

       Provides desperately needed tax relief for middle-income, 
     working families with children, who are paying more in 
     Federal, State, and local taxes than they spend on food, 
     clothing, and shelter combined.
       Puts an extra $1,000 in the hands of a family of four.
       Helps improve the standard of living and savings rate for 
     American families, who for years have seen their real incomes 
     decline.


                  maintains a strong national defense

       Stabilizes national security while reversing the 
     administration's damaging defense cuts.
       Makes funds available for a cost-effective and reliable 
     missile defense to protect the American people.
       Provides funding for a 3-percent military pay raise, 
     increased construction of family housing and child 
     development centers for dependent children of the military, 
     and full funding of readiness objectives.


                       expands veterans' benefits

       Provides $10.6 billion more than the President over 6 years 
     to provide veterans' medical care, to conduct prosthetic 
     research, to run the National Cemetery system.
       Improves other services for veterans: raising disabled 
     veterans' auto allowance; improving compensation for 
     surviving spouses; extending back benefit payment limits; 
     providing scholarships for college seniors; converting 
     certain education benefits to the GI Bill; making permanent 
     the Alternative Teacher Certification Program; and funding 
     the Pro Bono Program; at the Court of Veterans Appeals.


                    Preserves and Improves Medicare

       Ensures that hospital care will be available to seniors and 
     disabled beneficiaries by saving the Medicare Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund from imminent bankruptcy, extending its 
     life for 10 years.
       Increases Medicare spending per beneficiary from an $5,200 
     in 1996 to $7,000 in 2002, without raising deductibles or 
     copayments.
       Keeps the Medicare Part B premium at the current 25 percent 
     of program costs.
       Expands the health care options Medicare beneficiaries can 
     choose from: remaining in traditional Medicare or choosing 
     HMOs, point of service plans, provider service organization, 
     medical savings accounts, and fee-for-service plans.
       Opens the potential for new benefits, such as preventive 
     services, prescriptions or eyeglasses.


                           improves education

       Protects loans for college, allowing growth in total volume 
     from $26 billion this year to $37 billion in 2002.

[[Page H6249]]

       Saves taxpayers money by capping the government-run direct 
     lending program and achieving modest savings from lenders in 
     the guaranteed lending program--but no student will be denied 
     access to a loan because of this.
       Protects education for disadvantaged students (Title I), 
     Special Education, Head Start, Pell Grants, and Impact Aid.
       Delivers more job training with fewer dollars by 
     consolidating 70 separate programs.


                        enhances law enforcement

       Increases the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund in 1997 by 
     almost $600 million compared with this year.
       Fully funds the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty 
     Act of 1996, giving the Federal Government significant new 
     resources to fight domestic and international terrorism.
       Protects the Nation's borders by supporting the Immigration 
     in the National Interest Act.


               protecting our parks and natural resources

       Provides additional funds each year to improve the National 
     Parks.
       Recommends safe drinking water and strong clean water 
     programs.
       Calls for Superfund reforms and provides funding to 
     facilitate hazardous waste cleanup.


                      reforms welfare and medicaid

       Encourages States to move families off of welfare and into 
     the workforce.
       Provides $4.5 billion more than current law to assist 
     persons on welfare in obtaining child care so they can enter 
     the workforce.
       Allows States to consolidate 12 separate child protection 
     programs to better address the problem of child abuse and 
     neglect.
       Improves the collection of delinquent child support by 
     establishing uniform State tracking procedures to find and 
     crack down on deadbeat non-custodial parents.
       Improves the system for establishing paternity in cases of 
     out-of-wedlock birth to increase the likelihood that fathers 
     of illegitimate children will contribute to their children's 
     well-being.
       Allows States to offer health insurance to millions 
     uninsured people.
       Eliminates Federal micromanagement of Medicaid.
       Allows States greater flexibility to tailor health programs 
     to their needs while protecting vulnerable populations.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and my dear friend, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dreier], for yielding me the customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to see that, for the second year in a 
row, the Republicans in this Congress are proposing Medicare cuts to 
pay for tax breaks for the very rich.
  Although these cuts are much better disguised this year than they 
were last year, they nevertheless are still there.
  And, make no mistake about it: this $168 billion Medicare cut is to 
pay for at least $122 billion in tax breaks for the very rich, just 
like last year, and that is too bad, Mr. Speaker. It is too bad that, 
after this country responded to last year's bad ideas with a resounding 
``No,'' my Republican colleagues are still determined to cut billions 
from Medicare to help pay for billions in tax breaks for the richest 
Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, this was a terrible idea last year, and it is an even 
worse idea this year.
  This Republican budget plan will cut Medicare by $1,100 per senior by 
the year 2002, all to pay for those same tax breaks for that same very 
rich group. Seniors will get fewer services for their money; doctors 
will be allowed to overcharge; low-income children could be denied 
health care; and many hospitals could close.
  Mr. Speaker, I, and the rest of the country, want to ask my 
Republican colleagues to stop this horrible budget. It will have very 
bad consequences for the most needy Americans, especially children and 
senior citizens, and no tax cut for the rich, Mr. Speaker, is worth 
that price.
  I would also like to ask my Republican colleagues to please talk to 
Speaker Gingrich and ask him not to rob Medicare for seniors and pass 
out tax breaks again to that very elite group, the very richest 
Americans, particularly when working Americans earning less than 
$28,000 are going to see their taxes rise under this bill.
  For all their talk of reversing the deficit, Mr. Speaker, my 
Republican colleagues have come up with a budget that will actually 
raise the deficit --now listen very closely--the budget that we have 
before us now will actually raise the deficit $40 billion over the next 
2 years. This budget will reverse the remarkable progress that 
President Clinton has made in lowering the deficit from $290 billion to 
$130 billion.

  Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible, it is shortsighted.
  And that is not all this bill does, Mr. Speaker. The Republican 
budget will limit student loans. Now please listen to this figure: 
forcing 700,000 students out of the student loan program this year 
alone. It will freeze Superfund cleanups, leaving dangerous toxic waste 
in our land and our water. And I am disappointed to see that my 
Republican colleagues are including that same poison pill of Medicare 
cuts they did in last year's budget. They are going down the exact same 
road that they did last year, a road that ended up in unprecedented 
Government shutdowns and unprecedented wastes of taxpayer money. In 
fact, my Republican colleagues have even added a section to the budget 
just in case they cannot get their work done. They would actually add 
$1.3 billion to the deficit in this budget to govern themselves in case 
they decide to shut down the Government again.
  So make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. Any Member who votes for 
this conference report is voting to increase the deficit by $40 billion 
over the next 2 years.
  Now I want to repeat that so nobody has any false ideas. Any Member 
who votes for this conference report is voting to increase the deficit 
by $40 billion over the next 2 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget. We should 
protect our Medicare. We should protect our student loans. We should 
not raid them for tax cuts for the rich.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say it is very interesting that the term ``rich'' has 
been used, and I understand that momentarily we will be getting a 
report on the number of times it was used, but I would like to say that 
in looking at this budget proposal there is nothing in here for a tax 
cut for the rich. We have the family tax credit, per child tax credit, 
$500 in here, and I do not know that that is a great big windfall for 
the rich. It is for the working American out there.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to read from the record before 
the Committee on Rules. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Solomon] 
says:

       Any other questions of the witness?
       Mr. Linder (questioning): ``Will capital gains cuts come in 
     next?''
       Mr. Kasich: ``It will be in the loophole-closing section.''

  So do not say there is no tax break for the very rich in here.
  Mr. DREIER. So it is completely paid for.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Claremont, CA, 
and the vice chairman of our Committee on Rules, for his excellent 
opening statement, and I guess I should not be taken aback by the 
speech I have just heard by my good friend, the ranking democrat from 
Boston, MA [Mr. Moakley], but, yes, he mentioned that we are helping 
the very rich, he says that six times, and he says we are cutting 
Medicare six times.
   Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, isn't that funny?, because the 
liberal New York Times says that is not so. The liberal Washington Post 
says that is not so. The liberal Los Angeles Times says that is not so. 
And editorials all across this country say that is not so and it is 
not.
  Now I also want my colleagues to keep track of those that are going 
to get up and speak tonight on that side of the aisle accusing us 
Republicans of raising a deficit, because my good friend, Mr. Moakley, 
appears on the list of the biggest spenders in the Congress, according 
to the National Taxpayers Union, and so will just about every other 
speaker that rises against our budget today. Keep that in mind, my 
colleagues.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me begin by first commending the Committee on

[[Page H6250]]

the Budget and particularly its chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich], for making the very tough choices necessary to balance this 
budget. While this conference report does allow the deficit to go up 
from $145 billion this year to $153 billion next year, it does get us 
to a balanced budget by strictly adhering to the balanced budget 
glidepath that we adopted last year, and that is why I am such a strong 
supporter of this budget here today. This predicted increase follows 
the extraordinary work at cutting spending done by the Committee on 
Appropriations last year, over $30 billion, the largest single-year 
reduction in spending since World War II. Cutting that spending early 
on in this glidepath actually reduced the deficit for last year more 
than was originally predicted.
  Nevertheless, I believe any increase this year can be further reduced 
by cutting more spending during the appropriation process. That is what 
we did last year after we adopted the budget, by passing our 
entitlement reforms and by producing a stronger economy as a result of 
our continued dedication to a balanced budget. The result of that 
dedication, Mr. Speaker, has already brought about a deficit that is 
the lowest percentage of the GDP since 1974. That is decades ago.

  I would also note that the Committee on the Budget of the 104th 
Congress, under the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], 
has produced only budget resolutions with a glidepath to a balanced 
budget demonstrating their deep-rooted dedication to getting our fiscal 
house in order, and that is what this debate is all about today.
  As we all know, this has not always been the case around here. In the 
past there have been efforts to reach a balanced budget by setting 
statutory deficit reduction levels, like the Gramm-Rudman statute in 
1985, but the Democrat-controlled Congress proved unable to maintain 
the path to a balanced budget, and the quest for that goal was 
abandoned after just 2 years. This conference report before us today 
continues to press toward our balanced budget mark for the second 
consecutive year, and we will keep doing it for 5 more years in a row.
  In March, the Congressional Budget Office projected that absent any 
substantive spending reform, the Federal budget will carry a deficit of 
$209 billion in the year 2002. However, under the budget blueprint 
before us today right here on this floor, in the year 2002 we will see 
the death of the deficit. In fact, this budget provides a $5 billion 
surplus in that year, and, as my colleagues know, I just can hardly 
wait for that to happen.
  This budget also contrasts sharply with the Clinton administration's 
budget, which is being sold as leading to a balanced budget on this 
floor tonight. As we all know, the President's budget, when added up by 
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, still falls short of that 
balanced budget. In fact, it leaves the budget $81 billion in deficit 7 
years down the road.
  So what did we gain after all this over 7 years? Nothing. A balanced 
budget is achieved only after adding in the President's contingency 
proposals, which call for $67 billion in unspecified spending cuts, 
and, my colleagues, that is a copout because, if we do not specify, we 
know we are never going to get them down the road. It also provides for 
a sunset of his tax proposal so that he raises taxes once again in the 
years 2001 and 2002, well after he leaves office. His budget is going 
to raise out taxes even after he is gone.
  We are not going to let that happen, my colleagues. In stark 
contrast, this budget resolution is backed up by a series of 
assumptions showing with great specificity how it is possible to 
implement these numbers in the resolution.
  For example, and my colleagues all ought to listen to this back in 
their offices or wherever they are tonight, this budget resolution 
calls for tax relief of $122.4 billion centered around, and not for the 
very rich now, not that term my good friend Mr. Moakley likes to use, 
but it is centered around a permanent $500 per child tax credit for 
middle-class American families. Is that for the very rich? It sure is 
not in my district. It has teeth by calling for comprehensive, yet 
responsible reform of the Nation's failed welfare system, and we are 
going to get that, my colleagues. We are going to drive that through 
this year, slowing the growth of the Federal welfare spending by $53 
billion.
  I mean that is what we have been attempting to do here for the last 2 
years. Tonight we are going to get it done.

                              {time}  1930

  Also with Medicaid for the poor, spending is growing at the 
unsustainable rate of 9 percent a year. This budget slows that growth 
of Medicaid spending by $72 billion over the next 7 years by allowing 
it to go from $96 billion in 1996 to $140 billion in 2002.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget also ensures the provisions of quality 
medical care for senior citizens of this country by, listen to this 
now, because this is what the New York Times, the Washington Post, and 
all the editorials across the country say; not cutting Medicare, but by 
increasing Medicare spending per beneficiary from $5,200 in 1996 to 
over $7,000 in the year 2002. It preserves Medicare from its pending 
bankruptcy. That is what the media out there and what the American 
people are asking us to do, to preserve Medicare. This budget does it.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this budget reflects Congress' emphasis on 
national priorities such as strengthening our national defense, 
enhancing veterans' benefits and medical care, boosting law enforcement 
and crime prevention, improving the quality of education, and 
preserving student loans, preserving it so we do not fund it by deficit 
spending, protecting the environment and the Nation's parks, advancing 
basic research to create new knowledge, and transitioning agriculture 
to a market-oriented system, something that has been long overdue; and 
we do it in this budget.

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I just feel compelled to answer the question, 
why are Republicans seeking to balance the budget and provide tax 
relief for middle-class Americans; why, why, why, are we doing this? 
Contrary to the claims of the Democrats, it is not because we oppose 
popular Government programs, not because we seek to pay off influential 
political friends, or not because we lack any compassion or care for 
those less fortunate. In fact, it is precisely because we are 
compassionate and because we favor increased economic opportunity and 
mobility for all Americans that we are doing this.
  We firmly believe slowing the growth of spending, lowering taxes, 
increasing family responsibility and transferring portions of 
Government from Washington to the State capitals and local governments 
will create a better society for all. That is what we believe in.
  To further demonstrate how the Republican vision provides this 
positive change, just consider some of the benefits of balancing the 
budget, as determined by not us, not the Republicans, but by the 
Federal Reserve and the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint 
Economic Committee. Listen to what they say. The Republican balanced 
budget, and the American people ought to listen to this, because 
sometimes we wonder what will a balanced budget do for the average 
American family, first of all, it lowers long-term interest rates by at 
least 2 percent on mortgages, auto loans, school loans, and credit 
cards. Think about that, Mr. and Mrs. America. It allows the private 
sector to create 4.25 million new jobs over 10 years. That is really 
what we ought to be about here in this Congress is helping the private 
sector create new jobs.
  It increases per capita income by 16.1 percent. What American family 
cannot use that? It adds $235 billion more revenue to the Federal 
Government and $232 billion more revenue to State and local 
governments, both without raising taxes. That is the way Government 
ought to function, not raising taxes.
  It adds an additional $32.1 billion in real disposable income to put 
in the pockets of the American people. It adds an additional $66.2 
billion in consumer spending. That creates jobs by creating 
this spending. It adds an additional $88.2 billion in capital 
investment, so badly needed, especially by small business, which 
creates 75 percent of all the new jobs in America every year. It 
provides the average family with $2,300 economic bonus. It raises real 
incomes of American families by 10 percent due to permanent balanced 
budgets. It frees up crowded-out capital for private investment and job 
creation. It strengthens the American dollar. It accelerates long-term 
economic growth.

[[Page H6251]]

  This is not me saying this, this is the Federal Reserve and the 
Congressional Budget Office saying this. It lowers inflation and 
unemployment. That is what we are all about. It increases productivity 
and exports of American goods. It strengthens financial markets, both 
stocks and bonds. It frees up our annual $200 billion in interest 
payments for other priority items in the budget, for those people that 
truly need help, because we are reducing that annual deficit dollar 
that we have to pay every year.
  It expands the Federal tax base, thereby increasing Government 
revenues. It prevents future tax increases to finance a growing 
Government, because we are shrinking that Government and returning it 
back to the States. It strengthens U.S. credibility in international 
markets. It ensures the long-term ability of governments to be 
compassionate. It turns America around and stops our fiscal decline.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying this budget restores the 
moral responsibility on fiscal issues. It saves our children and 
grandchildren from bankruptcy, and it strengthens the American family 
by preserving their future. Mr. Speaker, these benefits are not 
economic statistics or intellectual theories, they are basic kitchen 
table benefits for every American family in this country.
  I commend my Republican colleagues for their resilience and 
dedication to their core principles, and the chairman, the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], for his leadership, and for putting wheels onto 
the efforts to fulfill this vision that I have just outlined for 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, every Member of this Congress ought to come over here 
and vote for this rule and vote for this bill. It is the right thing to 
do for our children and grandchildren. Please come over here and 
support it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to note that one of the previous 
speakers mentioned the House passage of the Wisconsin welfare reform 
proposal last week. As Members know, what happened last week is the 
House passed the waiver request sent in by the State of Wisconsin, 
eliminating the 30-day public comment period.
  The Milwaukee Journal carried a story yesterday that hidden in those 
waiver requests were provisions that allowed employers to scale back 
employment for regular workers, to cut their hours, to cut their 
benefits, to interfere with their scheduled promotions in order to hire 
welfare recipients. The main Wisconsin bureaucrat who was supposed to 
be in charge of administering the program said in the Milwaukee 
Journal, ``Gee, we had no idea why that provision is there.'' The main 
legislative sponsor in the proposal in the State assembly was quoted as 
saying that he did not know that that was in the waiver request until 
he read it for the first time over the weekend.
  Today, Wisconsin announced that it was a big mistake and that they 
were going to have to change their waiver request. What this means is 
that the proposal which the House voted to bless just a week ago tells 
workers that we do not like the fact that welfare workers are going to 
be unnecessarily gobbling their tax dollars, but instead we are going 
to allow them to unnecessarily gobble their jobs. I do not think those 
workers are going to be very pleased about that.
  I think what happened last week, in fact, showed the wisdom of those 
in the House who supported the substitute that we proposed, which asked 
to maintain the regular waiver process, and which allowed the public to 
continue to be able to comment for 30 days so just that kind of problem 
could be avoided.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out it was not any Wisconsin politician 
who discovered the problem, it was a member of the general public, a 
member of the press. So much for rubberstamping what we get sent by 
legislators these days.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule. Once again, the 
Republican leadership is determined to make unnecessary cuts in the 
Medicare Program in the name of tax breaks for the wealthy. Incredibly, 
this Republican budget actually increases the deficit while making 
major changes in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs that will 
ultimately destroy their effectiveness. If there is any doubt about 
that, I would mention that one of my colleagues from the other side, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], actually passed out a Dear 
Colleague yesterday where he asked the Members, his colleagues, not to 
vote for the budget resolution, the conference report, because it 
increases the deficit from $145 billion in fiscal 1996 to $153 billion 
in fiscal 1997.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a budget that cuts Medicare and 
blatantly raises the deficit after so much progress has been made. We 
have been through 4 years now where the deficit has steadily been going 
down. Yet, at the same time now, our Republican colleagues are saying 
to us that is OK, we are going to raise it again for another year or 
possibly beyond, but at the same time we are going to make these 
drastic cuts in Medicare and Medicaid that primarily pay for tax breaks 
for the wealthy.
  Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt about it, these cuts go into a 
slush fund that will be used for tax breaks for the wealthy.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this budget proposal. 
First of all, I am not voting for a budget proposal that actually 
raises the deficit in the first 2 years, meaning that we are going to 
have to borrow more and put it on the national debt in order to pay for 
it over time.
  Second, I am not voting for a proposal that cuts Medicare and 
Medicaid far more than is necessary, presumably to pay for tax cuts, 
and some of those tax cuts, if not many, are going to end up in the 
pockets of the wealthiest. In West Virginia we did an analysis. Three 
hundred twenty-five thousand senior citizens could see their Medicare 
premiums or other costs, out of pocket, increased somewhere between 
$800 and $1,000 by the year 2002. Three hundred sixty thousand West 
Virginians are on Medicaid, of which one-quarter of our children depend 
upon Medicaid, yet this program is being cut far more than is 
necessary, probably in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest. 
The Tri-County Health Clinic in Rock Cave, WV, I think said it well, 
its administrator, when he said, ``This means a reduction in 
uncompensated care, a reduction in services and increased charges, a 
reduction in the community services.'' This is not a good budget.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a sad time to come to the floor of the House, 
primarily because I would like to say that we have done better than we 
did last year. Maybe we will entertain the opportunity for not closing 
the Government down, but it is like a second place finish; better than 
a third place finish, but not good enough.
  This bill increases the deficit, this budget. It likewise says to 
seniors, the heck with you on being able to stay with your physician. 
The heck with you in terms of the Medicare costs that are increasing, 
for we are not going to provide you with the resources for good health 
care.
  As millions of Americans are trying to educate their children, we 
begin to cut Medicaid so those families who need nursing home care for 
their parents have no help. Likewise, we say to throngs of children and 
pregnant women that ``Your health care is not at the cornerstone of our 
concerns.''
  Then what the Republicans do is something quite interesting. It is 
called magic. They have a big pool of money that is unnamed, called tax 
breaks for the rich, the crown jewel of the contract, hidden and 
unseen. That is what the budget resolution is all about. I would ask my 
colleagues to vote it down.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report that we have before us is a lot 
like a second place finish in a race--it's better than third place 
finish of the House-passed bill, but its not good

[[Page H6252]]

enough. There is indeed more money in this conference report than the 
bill passed out of this body, but there are budget reductions and 
policy changes which I not only find objectionable but horrible. 
Seemingly in almost all areas, but especially the entitlement programs, 
this budget resolution directs policy changes which I can only believe 
will cause much greater harm to those it is supposed to help.
  While Medicare is no longer slashed by $270 billion as it was last 
year, the CBO has projected that under the current Republican plan, not 
enough money is spent to maintain the current level of benefits. As 
common sense will tell any of us, that means this Nation's seniors will 
be shortchanged, and less care given. And while part B premiums will 
stay at 25 percent, this legislation will allow providers to engage in 
balance billing--the charging of seniors above what Medicare will pay.
  Under these Medicaid provisions, the Federal Government will abdicate 
its responsibility, and millions of low-income children, pregnant 
women, disabled people and senior citizens will be denied access to the 
basic health care which we all take for granted. States will be allowed 
to reduce their maintenance of effort requirements and define who they 
consider to be ``disabled.''
  May I remind my colleagues, that it is Medicaid which helps millions 
of American families pay for the nursing home care that their parents 
need. Without that help from this Government, those families will be 
saddled with these additional costs, just as they are trying to cope 
with the price of college education for their children, increased 
uncertainty about their jobs and ever increasing burdens that American 
families will face at the turn of the century.


                                veterans

  And Mr. Speaker, may I say woe to our distinguished and honorable 
veterans, for this conference report provides small increases to 
several veterans' programs, including the Montgomery GI bill education 
benefits, the alternative teacher certification program, the pro bono 
legal program at the Court of Veterans Appeals, surviving spouse 
compensation, and the auto allowance for severely disabled veterans. 
But overall, it reduces veterans' programs by $5.3 billion over the 
next 6 years.


                                welfare

  The most harmful provision of this bill is its welfare provision. 
This package will effectively eliminate the Federal guarantee of 
assistance for poor children in this country for the first time in 60 
years.
  The Republican budget folds 20 separate child protection programs 
into two block grants at a time when GAO and others report that current 
resources are failing to keep pace with the needs of a national child 
protection system in crisis. Under this plan, funds could be inadequate 
to respond to rapidly increasing reports of abuse and neglect, and 
insufficient to protect abused children and find them safe, loving and 
permanent homes. The plan potentially guts accountability for State 
child protection systems, over 20 of which are operating under court 
mandates for failing to provide adequate service to abused and 
neglected children.
  Once again, the Republican majority has produced a budget that fails 
to provide adequate resources for work programs and child care which 
are critical to effectuate a transition from welfare to work. The 
Republican plan significantly increases the need for child care while 
reducing the resources for child care services as well as the funds 
available to States to improve the quality of care.
  Mandatory welfare-to-work programs can get people off welfare and 
into jobs, but only if the program is well designed and is given the 
resources to be successful. The GOP plan is punitive and wrong-headed. 
It will not put people to work, it will put them on the street. Any 
restructuring of the welfare system must move people away from 
dependency and toward self-sufficiency. Facilitating the transition off 
welfare requires job training, guaranteed child care and health 
insurance at an affordable price.
  Even though this resolution presents us with a balanced budget, it is 
the wrong balance of needs and responsibilities. I urge rejection of 
this Republican vision of America and ask my colleagues to reconsider 
our priorities and our future.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, we have just heard described a pie-in-the-sky budget 
that can do just about everything but leap tall buildings. The fact 
remains, Mr. Speaker, that the budget they are presenting increases the 
deficit. The people who claim to be deficit hawks, the people who claim 
to want to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, are in fact 
presenting us with a budget today which will increase the deficit by 
$40 billion in the course of the next 2 years. What they have done is 
front-loaded this budget with tax breaks for the wealthy. Those front-
loaded tax breaks will kick in, and that will cause us to increase the 
deficit, also causing us to make deep cuts in Medicare.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, this budget contains cuts in Medicare far deeper 
than the President's budget and far deeper than the coalition budget, 
which 40 newspapers said is the only true budget. With these deep cuts 
in Medicare, seniors will experience a loss of choice of their doctors. 
Seniors will experience higher out-of-pocket costs. Seniors will 
experience a reduction in the quality of their medical care. They will 
also lose the benefits of Medicaid and the protection for nursing home 
care.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad budget, a pie-in-the-sky budget that 
increases the deficit.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in 
opposition to this budget.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget, though the numbers may be a little better, 
actually the results are the same. It is more of the same all over 
again. In spite of the Republicans saying that they got it, that 
Medicare was a concern and they are trying to save it, I will have 
Members know that if the Medicare cuts persist, rural hospitals where I 
am from will more than likely go out of business, because over half of 
their revenues now are dependent on Medicare; so indeed, pushing this 
budget will see the demise of rural hospitals, where health care is 
already in a deficit.

                              {time}  1945

  In addition, Medicare is bad but Medicaid is even worse because we 
depend more on Medicaid for care for women and children. Three out of 
every five children in rural areas depend on Medicaid.
  Moving toward this budget means that you deny poor children and 
mothers an opportunity to have health care. This is the wrong budget. 
In moves in the wrong direction. I urge defeat of the rule and also 
defeat of the budget.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
  Mr. KLINK. I thank the gentleman from yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused. I was listening to my colleagues 
on the other side talking about this budget and what it is going to do. 
We have just gone through 4 consecutive years of lowering the deficit. 
This began in 1993 with a very tough vote for some of us on this side 
of the aisle. Not one Republican voted for that budget back in 1993. In 
fact they stood up one after the other preaching doom and gloom, that 
the country was going to fall apart.
  This is the first time since FDR and Harry Truman that we have had 4 
straight years of deficit reduction. It was started by President 
Clinton. In fact, the budget today would be balanced if we were not 
paying the interest on the debt of 12 years of Reagan and Bush running 
up the debt, quadrupling the deficit in this country. If it were not 
for the interest on the Reagan and Bush debt, the budget indeed would 
be balanced.
  Here come the Republicans. Not one vote did they give us in 1993, but 
they are telling us, ``If you allow us to increase the deficit next 
year, we'll balance the budget 6 years from now. If you allow us to 
increase the deficit the following year, we'll balance the budget.''
  Mr. Speaker, I call this the wimpy budget: You will gladly pay us in 
2002 if we give you a vote today.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair inform my dear friend, Mr. 
Dreier, and myself how much time we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley] has 17 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier] has 9 minutes.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  Mr. WARD. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for the time to speak 
on this rule and to speak on the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, after the Clinton administration has worked so hard to 
reduce the deficit by over 50 percent, this

[[Page H6253]]

budget actually raises the deficit a billion dollars. Instead of being 
fiscally responsible and reducing the deficit, the Republicans are 
cramming tax breaks into the first 3 years of their 6-year budget. The 
deep changes in the projected growth of Medicare will turn the balance 
against our seniors. Life will be different for our seniors when they 
must pay doctors and hospitals up to 40 percent of the cost of their 
medical procedure and when rural hospitals have to close because they 
rely on Federal funds.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on this budget.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to yield myself 10 seconds 
to respond to the statements of my dear friend from Kentucky and before 
that to the statements of my friend from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle voted for budgets which increase, at an even 
higher level than this one, the deficits over the next 2 years. They 
are higher each of the next 2 years. We cannot forget that.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, actually the fact of the matter is a lot of us on this 
side of the aisle, and none of us on that side of the aisle, voted to 
cut the deficit in half in the first year of the Clinton administration 
by putting a gas tax on.
  One of the reasons we got into all this trouble is somebody decided 
then they would lift it. Everybody wants to lift taxes and not cut 
programs. But the bottom line here for, I think, Americans is to hear 
this body talking about how we have to have a constitutional amendment 
to balance the budget, we have to do all of that, but we cannot balance 
the budget here.
  Here we are considering a deficit that is going to be higher than the 
one we have this year. How can we have a higher one next year than the 
one we have this year and then stand there and say it passes the 
straight-faced test, to stand around and look at people and say, 
``We're really for balancing the budget.'' This does not work.
  The real issue is not whether you are for amendment, it is whether 
you can get the deficit under control. I urge a ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise and thank my colleague 
from Massachusetts for yielding me the 1 minute, and oppose the 
resolution, for many reasons, including the unnecessary deep cuts in 
the Medicare needs totaling $168 billion.
  I also oppose the resolution because it increases the budget deficit 
by enacting fiscally irresponsible tax cuts costing $176 billion. After 
3 years of progress on deficit reduction in which the President kept 
his promise in cutting the deficit in half, the Republicans now want to 
reverse the trend and add $23 billion to the deficit next year.
  Three years ago Republican after Republican came to this well to talk 
about the sky would fall if we passed the President's economic plan in 
1993. Since then the deficit has been cut in half and millions of jobs 
created. Instead of continuing the work that was started in 1993, the 
Republicans want to give tax cuts and raise the deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the Republicans should listen to the majority 
leader now in the Senate, Trent Lott, who said that one solution to the 
budget problem is to reduce the tax cut. I would hope that we would 
remember that the budget is so important. We need to make sure we 
prioritize.

                          ____________________