[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6253-H6268]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The membership should avoid references to
Senators.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
(Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to echo the words of those that we
have heard from this side. I, too, rise in opposition to this budget
which unnecessarily makes deep cuts in Medicare, in agricultural
programs--we just went through that bill--and others.
I say unnecessarily because it is not necessary to make these cuts in
order to balance the budget by 2002. We have proven that through the
coalition budget. You do not have to have the big tax cuts. All you
have to do is forget the big tax cuts and then you do not have to make
those cuts. But on the other hand, I see where Speaker Gingrich and the
Republican radical right, they not only want to make cuts in Medicare
and agriculture and other things, but they also still insist on giving
the big tax cut to the wealthy.
I rise strongly in opposition to the budget.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], chairman of the Subcommittee on
Legislative and Budget Process.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. I thank my distinguished colleague from greater
metropolitan San Dimas, Claremont County, CA, for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I guess after listening to the commentary and the steady
string and the balance of time, I am beginning to understand those
polls that are coming out in the newspapers these days that show
Americans trust Republicans a lot more to handle the budget and
economic matters than they do others. I am not sure what the Boston
Globe is showing but then again, they do not always get the word up
there as I understand there is a lot of snow.
I think it is important to say, yes, we could have done a lot more,
and we will. Yes, we could have gone a lot further in this budget
resolution. But I am extremely proud of this budget resolution because
it goes a very, very long way toward the goals that we have said we
espouse. It shows that we will stick to our convictions and that we
will stay on a glide path towards balancing the budget by 2002, even in
the face of election-year politicking which is creeping into this
conversation, and despite the very manifest intransigence from the
White House and, some might say, from the President's party in the
people's House.
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the members of this
committee have demonstrated unending persistence, in my view, in
presenting this budget. His hard work ensures that this Congress will
keep faith with the American people, continuing on course for a
balanced budget, something we started last year under the Contract With
America and are moving forward in an orderly way.
Of course, we still hope the President will join us in this effort--
it is not too late--taking the concrete action necessary to match his
words of resolve that we hear so often and we fail to see the actions,
as my good friend from California has pointed out.
Although President Clinton vetoed major components of our budget last
year, we did make significant progress toward our goal of balance by
our sheer staying power on this, enough so that this year we can still
fulfill our promise that by 2002 we will no longer be adding annual
deficits to the huge national debt we have and leave to our children
and grandchildren and great grandchildren and their children.
This budget assumes the termination or privatization of 130 low-
priority or unnecessary Federal programs, while outlining responsible
reforms to preserve and strengthen Medicare. And, yes, I care about
that because I am going to need it. I am getting close. And, yes, the
people I represent are very interested in Medicare in my part of the
world.
This is a crucial component needed to save that program from certain
fiscal disaster, which is what will befall it if we stick with the
status quo. In addition, this budget provides for revamping Medicaid
and welfare to give greater flexibility and control to the States,
shrinking the size and scope of the Federal bureaucracy so that people
closer to home can implement programs to meet their unique needs. And
this budget paves the way for tax relief for American families so that
Americans can keep more of what they earn, a good idea.
Mr. Speaker, the rule providing for consideration of this budget is
the
[[Page H6254]]
standard one for budget resolution conference reports and it deserves
everybody's support. But while we are making progress--and we are
making progress, I want to point out--just listen to our friends on the
Democratic side of the aisle.
After 40 years of Democratic House rule and multi-trillions of tax
dollars later, supporting even bigger bloated government, Republicans
can report a major achievement to the American people. We now have the
biggest spenders in the House publicly asking for lower deficits, and
that is an achievement. We are proud that they have come around to that
point of view. Now if we can just get them to ask for lower taxes, we
will have indeed accomplished our mission.
I urge support of the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has given a very trying
speech, but the still has to admit that this budget package that he is
pushing forward raises the deficit by $40 billion over the next 2 years
after President Clinton has reduced it over the last 4 years.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
[Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
rule, and I do this on behalf of the millions of seniors across this
great country of ours that will be hurt by this budget and its sweeping
cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
The stakes in this debate are high, very high, because Medicare and
Medicaid have provided essential support to our seniors so that they
may live in some dignity. Today 37 million seniors depend on Medicare,
and we in the Congress have a solemn obligation to make sure that they
can count on it. People who work hard and save for a lifetime should
have the chance for a dignified, a secure, a safe and a decent
retirement, and Medicare must be protected.
Think about the difference that Medicare has made in the lives of
seniors. In 1959 only 46 percent of Americas seniors had any health
insurance in this country. Today 99 percent are covered. In 1966 the
poverty rate for seniors was almost 30 percent. Today fewer than 10
percent of our Nation's elderly live in poverty.
Despite these great achievements, Medicare and Medicaid are one more
time on that chopping block. The budget conference report that we
consider tonight proposes $168 billion in cuts in Medicare over the
next 6 years.
These cuts are not to be used for the solvency of the Medicare trust
fund or to contribute to the needed deficit reduction that we have been
talking about. In fact, by their own admission, the Republicans have
said that this budget resolution will increase the deficit. A number of
their members have said that it will increase the deficit.
{time} 2000
These cuts are to be used to finance tax breaks, including those that
are skewed, to help the most privileged people in our society. This is
plain wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to reject
these cuts. It truly is unacceptable for us as a society to sacrifice
America's seniors' security and their standard of living.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Schumer].
(Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this budget has a lot of problems, and they probably
almost all stem from the fact that our friends on the other side of the
aisle have tried to do it alone. There is no element of bipartisanship
here and, as a result, the budget gets skewed. A small wing at the
right end of the party has to be placated and, therefore, the budget
drifts away from what the American people want.
Let me tell my friends we speak from experience. We tried to do a
budget in 1993 without any Republicans, and while we were able to pass
it and squeak it through, it ended up being, most people I think would
say, a mistake to not do it in a more bipartisan way.
And so I would say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, rip it
up, start over, reach out to the many of us on this side who have voted
for a balanced budget, who believe we must balance the budget, and if
we can do it in a bipartisan way, we can get a lasting document rather
than a political one.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah [Mr. Orton].
(Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. A little
over a year ago this battle was first joined as we began talking about
cutting taxes, dramatically cutting taxes, even before we started
locking in any sort of plan to balance the budget.
A promise was made at that time, because there were many people on
both sides of the aisle who said the most critical thing to do is
balance the budget, and the promise was made by the majority that we
would not cut taxes unless, and until CBO certified that in fact we
were obtaining a balanced budget; that we had everything locked in, all
of the laws passed to get us to balance.
This budget plan not only increases the deficit by a net $27 billion
over the next 3 years, but the very first part of three reconciliation
bills that will be sent forward, which tag a $122 billion tax cut to
the welfare and the Medicaid cut plan, according to the Republican
numbers, will increase the deficit an additional $33 billion. That is
$60 billion higher deficits through the first reconciliation plan. It
is $30 billion over the baseline in the Republican budget. That is what
CBO says.
And the Republican baseline budget actually increases in the first
fiscal year, next year, from $130 to $153 billion; the year after that
from $130 to $147 billion.
And so here we are, promises made, promises broken, is the actual
theme of this Congress, because we promised the people we would not go
forward cutting taxes without it being part of an overall plan to
balanced the budget. Reject this rule and reject this bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, the Honorable Joe Kennedy.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I think when we look at
what is contained in this budget bill perhaps what is the most onerous
and difficult to accept, aside from the mean-spirited cuts on welfare,
the tough spirit that we have toward the cleanup of toxic waste, the
limitations on student loans, the tax increases on working families
while providing tax breaks to the wealthy, underneath all of these
provisions is probably the most devastating provision of all, and that
is the terrible effect that this budget will have on the veterans of
this country.
Having served for 10 years on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and
watching as we see a health care system for our Nation's veterans that
has been chronically underfunded, seeing a $570 million cut, $100
million less in outlays, $700 million less in budget authority, when we
recognize that we did not ask our veterans when they went off to war,
when they stood up for America, how much it was going to cost in terms
of their own lives, we just sent them into battle. But once they come
back, what we are not doing is we are saying that their budget has to
fit within the budgetary aspects of all of the considerations of the
House of Representatives and the Congress of the United States.
What we say to them is a broken promise, a promise that said we will
take care of your health care needs if you are willing to go off and
fight for this country, but when you come back, what we are saying is
we are no longer going to meet that obligation. What we are going to do
is to see whether or not the health care budget of the VA fits within
how much money we are willing to raise in taxes and fits into how much
money we want to provide the wealthiest Americans in the form of a tax
cut.
That is what is going on here. We will be sending veterans home, we
will be raising the number of veterans that are not going to be served
by this by 48,000 over the course of the next 10 years. Forty-eight
thousand veterans are going to be cut as a result of the actions taken
in this budget. It is an outrage.
We should reject this budget and we should send this budget back to
the
[[Page H6255]]
budget cutters and tell them to cut somebody other than our Nations'
veterans.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend the gentleman
from Jonesville, WI [Mr. Neumann].
(Mr. NEUMANN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and commend the
chairman for putting this out. I would also like to issue some praise
for the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from
Ohio, John Kasich, tonight. I have the greatest respect for this man,
of any man, and it is only after very, very careful thought and
consideration that I rise to oppose the budget deal tonight because of
the fact that I do have such great respect. And all the people in
America should respect the gentleman from Ohio and praise him for the
work he has done. But tonight I feel compelled, even with this respect,
to rise and speak against the budget, because tonight we have an
historical occasion staring us in the face.
In 1990, I sold my business to run for Congress because I had watched
what past Congresses had done on balancing the budget. They had pleased
the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, and in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act
they were going to balance the budget by 1991. They went 1 year, then
they went off their track and it started going back up again. Then they
revised the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act and they went 1 year and it
started going back up again.
I want to make sure everyone in this room and all my colleagues can
see this because we are at this historical point once again this
evening. Once again this evening we are at this point. We have been
successful in our first year of reaching our budget targets, we have
been successful at bringing the deficit down, and we have done it
without raising taxes, like was done in 1993. We do not have to raise
the taxes.
What are we going to vote on this evening? This evening we are going
to vote on a bill that puts this thing going back up again. We are
going to vote on a bill that sends the deficit from $145 billion in
1996 back to $153 billion in 1997.
I cannot emphasize how strongly I feel about this. I had a great
business out there in the private sector, and I could still be doing
that business, providing jobs for 250 people, but I came to this city
because I knew that Congress had to be different if we were actually
going to balance the budget. Tonight I ask my colleagues to have the
courage of their convictions.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot let this happen. Tonight is a vote about the
courage of our convictions to keep the deficit going down and to be
different from past Congresses.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the last speaker for his wisdom.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Olver].
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us is little more than a
repeat of last year's attack on rational national public policy. Tens
of billions of dollars in overspending on defense, raising taxes on
working families whose only sin is to make less than $25,000 a year,
and a large tax cut on the front end of what is supposed to be a
balanced budget glidepath.
Think what happened to the Federal budget during the Reagan era. This
chart shows the very low, nearly balanced budgets until we get into the
1980's. The 1980's deficits were touched off by an up-front tax cut and
promises of future spending cuts, promises which went unkept. The
result is $5 trillion of accumulated debt to pass on to our children
and to our children's children.
When we begin our balanced budget plan with a big tax cut, as this
bill does, we invite failure.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is going to give me more
time, so whatever we are doing we can come up with it. This is all I
have of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the gentleman who
promised those cuts after the tax cuts went into place? Who promised
those spending cuts?
Mr. OLVER. The President. The President, as part of his plan.
Mr. DREIER. Article I, section 7 of the Constitution places all that
authority right here in this room.
Mr. OLVER. As the gentleman understands, the Senate of the United
States was in the hands of the Republican Party, his party. As the
gentleman also understands, the bill was also, was also passed in this
House by the whole of the gentleman's party, then in the minority, plus
a modest number of the Democrats, not with the Democratic leadership.
Mr. DREIER. Has the Democratic Party ever passed a balanced budget?
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the Republicans then make
extreme cuts in health care, in education, in job training, in
environmental protection, in research and development, in public
transportation and economic development, and they leave the Nation in
the year 2002 with over $6 trillion of debt and no revenue to pay it
back because they have cut up front the revenue that would be possibly
usable for paying that debt back, and that leaves us with $240 billion
at least of interest payments on that debt year, after year, after
year, without hope of an end to it.
But such extremism really is not necessary to balance the budget.
Both the coalition budget and the President's balanced budget prove
that. So I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and this blueprint
for failure. Vote no on this rule and on the conference report.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Moakley] has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier] has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend, the
gentleman from Tucson, AZ [Mr. Kolbe], a free trader.
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The last speaker just said
extreme budget cuts. We have heard that. How many times have we heard
that? But we know that is not what we are talking about here. Let us
keep our eye on this ball during this debate that we are going to have
in the next hour when we actually talk about the conference report and
not about the rule, and I will have an opportunity to talk about some
of that.
But the bottom line is that we are changing the direction of
government. My friends over on this side just cannot seem to come to
terms with the fact that the election 2 years ago was about changing
the direction of this government. And that is what we are doing with
this budget, we are giving power back to people, power back to
families, power back to states, power back to localities.
We are changing programs so that they are streamlined. We are getting
the Federal Government out of these programs. We are putting more money
back in people's pockets rather than taking it out, bringing it to
Washington and sending it back to States.
{time} 2015
That is what this is all about. It is not about a number, whether it
is up a little bit, down a little bit. We know these numbers can change
dramatically as economic conditions change. This budget is about
changing the direction of government, and I urge that we support the
rule and support the conference report.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Woolsey].
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
Remember when your mother said ``You can tell a lot about someone by
the company he or she keeps?'' Well, this rule is keeping company with
a pretty shady budget resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the new majority just can't keep its hands off Medicare.
For the second year in a row, they are trying to pay for special
interest tax breaks by forcing drastic cuts in Medicare.
After shutting the Government down twice and, after the near collapse
of their legislative agenda you would think they would learn.
[[Page H6256]]
Well, my friends, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
remain clueless. They remain clueless that seniors are not willing to
pay more to receive less.
They remain clueless that their plan will force hospitals to close
all over our country.
So get a clue, ladies and gentlemen. Remember what our mother would
say: Vote down this rule and reject it's pal, ``the budget resolution''
a resolution that harms our seniors to help special interests.
Vote against this rule!
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have talked about reduction of deficit. I want to
reemphasize so that all the Members in the Chamber and those in their
offices will know. President Clinton reduced the deficit from $290
billion to $130 billion, a reduction of $160 billion. That I want
everybody to know. This budget increases the deficit by $40 billion
over the next 2 years.
So, Mr. Speaker, anybody who votes for this budget, amongst the other
things it does, this does increase the deficit by $40 billion over the
next 2 years. I hope the rule is not adopted.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, my good friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] earlier had criticized this budget as not
being helpful to veterans. I guess according to the Almanac of American
Politics, I am one of those Members, over the last 18 years, most
supporting to veterans according to them.
Mr. Speaker, this budget is helpful to veterans. The President's
budget recommends no improvement to veteran's benefits. That is a fact.
This budget that my colleagues are going to be voting on has a number
of improvements, including raising one-time auto allowances for
veterans, allowing a surviving spouse to retain compensation, providing
a $500 scholarship for college seniors of veterans. It goes on and on
and on.
Mr. Speaker, this budget is good for veterans. I say to my
colleagues, come over here and vote for this rule and then vote for the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record:
Veterans
Outlays (billions) FY 1997 spending totals on veterans
programs:
Budget Resolution Conference Report: $39.561 billion.
President's proposal: $39.557 billion.
Six Year Total on veterans programs:
Budget resolution conference report: $234.271 billion.
President's proposal: $228.088 billion.
The President's budget recommends no improvements in
veterans' benefits. The Congressional budget agreement
recommends seven extra improvements:
(1) Raising the one-time auto allowance for veterans with
service-connected loss of one or both hands or feet, or other
severe disability from $5,500 to $10,000;
(2) Allowing a surviving spouse to retain compensation or
pension payment pro-rated to the day of death instead of
cutting off at the end of the previous month, as required by
current law;
(3) Extending current law limits on payment of back
benefits to surviving spouses of those who die while their
claim is being adjudicated from one year to two years;
(4) Providing a $500 scholarship for college seniors of
vets with at least a ``B'' average under the GI Bill or the
Post Vietnam Era Education Assistance Program (VEAP);
(5) Improve educational benefits by converting those
participating in VEAP education benefits program to the
Montgomery GI Bill;
(6) Making permanent the Alternative Teacher Certification
Program, which encourages veterans to become teachers; and
(7) Funding the Pro Bono Program at the Court of Veterans
Appeals.
Both the Congressional and the President's budgets extend
the expiring VA OBRA 1993 provisions of current law; repeal
the Gardner decision, bring VA liability for disabilities as
a consequence of VA medical care more closely parallel to the
private sector liability law; and repeal the Davenport
decision (This 1995 decision by the Court of Veterans Appeals
invalidated VA regulations that based a veteran's entitlement
to vocational rehabilitation services on a finding that the
veteran's service-connected disability materially contributed
to the veteran's employment handicap).
For VA discretionary spending, the President's budget
recommends $102.2 billion in budget authority spending over
the next six years, compared with $107.6 billion under the
conference agreement. But, the Clinton budget still does not
balance. To balance his budget, the President would have to
cut VA spending by an additional $515 billion.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing here that my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle do this almost, not quite but almost as
well as President Clinton does when it comes to this issue of twisting
and twisting and twisting.
The budget before this House balances within 6 years, and it has
lower deficits each year than the President's budget, the budget that
was voted for by my colleague on the other side of the aisle.
My friend from California talked about Medicare. The budget before
this House does not cut Medicare. That charge is fiction. It increases
Medicare spending from $5,200 per beneficiary to $7,000 per
beneficiary.
This budget does cut taxes and we are proud of it. It cuts taxes for
families. Mr. Speaker, 89 percent of the tax cuts go to families
earning less than $75,000 per year.
We have had the Congress controlled for decades by my friends on the
other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, and tragically, they have never
brought a balanced budget to us. We have done it for the first time in
three decades and they have the temerity to come down here and
criticize us for doing just that.
The fact of the matter is we need to pass this thing now. The big
spenders are opposed to a balanced budget, even though they say they
are for it. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, pass this rule, pass
the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232,
nays 190, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 235]
YEAS--232
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
[[Page H6257]]
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--190
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bevill
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--12
Berman
Boucher
Calvert
Chapman
Frelinghuysen
Gillmor
Hayes
Lincoln
McDade
Moran
Rose
Wilson
{time} 2038
Mr. GORTON and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. CHRISTENSEN and Mrs. CHENOWETH changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 450, I call up
the conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 178)
establishing the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the
fiscal year 1997 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). Pursuant to
House Resolution 450, the conference report is considered as having
been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
Friday, June 7, 1996, at page H6007.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Franks].
(Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last year we passed the first
balanced budget in a generation. While the President vetoed that plan,
this Congress has changed Washington forever.
The debate today and from now on is not whether we need a balanced
budget, it is about the best way to achieve one. The plan before us
tonight has one overriding goal: To save our children's future. It does
so by empowering people to become self-reliant. It reduces the power
and influence of Washington over our everyday lives.
{time} 2045
Then it spends less while enabling families to keep more of their
hard-earned money.
This Congress has already made dramatic progress. Over the past year
we have fought for and won the largest reduction in Washington spending
since World War II, a savings to taxpayers of $43 billion. That amounts
to a savings of $688 for the average American family of four.
This budget will stop forcing our children to pay for our reckless
spending.
It makes the most sweeping changes in 30 years by shifting money,
power and influence out of Washington and back into the hands of the
American people in the States and in their communities. Under this plan
States would have the freedom to develop welfare programs that require
work, that promote personal responsibility and break the cycle of
welfare dependency. Parents, principals and local school boards would
have the authority and responsibility for public education, not the
civil servants in Washington, DC, local decisionmakers, not faceless
Washington bureaucrats, would have the power to design Medicaid
programs that are tailored to meet the very special needs of the poor
and the elderly.
And while we meet the Federal Government's important
responsibilities, this plan helps America's families move ahead by
providing for a well-deserved $500 per child family tax break.
Equally important, Mr. Speaker, this budget continues our attack on
wasteful Washington spending. It eliminates over a hundred unnecessary
Federal programs, and it puts an end to billions of dollars in
corporate welfare and special-interest tax breaks.
Tonight I urge my colleagues to support this budget and continue on
our efforts to save the American dream.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I
am not really certain what this resolution is. I know one thing for
sure: It is not a blueprint for how we deal with the budget over the
next 6 years. It may be a document for how we deal with the politics
over the next several months, but I am not certain. But there are some
things I know for sure from reading the document, and that is that it
increases the deficit in the next 2 fiscal years.
Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago I had the privilege of presenting a budget
resolution in this House. The deficit was something like $294 billion,
and I do not expect my Republican friends to say that they were wrong
and that our plan worked or anything like that. But I see this
resolution which increases the deficit for the next 2 fiscal years, and
I think back to 1993, and I wonder what would have happened if we had
come to the House floor and said, ``We have this great budget
resolution that is going to reduce the deficit over the next 5 years.
But, folks, in 1994 the deficit is going to go up; 1995, the deficit is
going to go up, but trust us. In the last 3 years it will go down.''
I think my Republican friends would have laughed us off the floor,
and probably should have. That is not what our plan did in 1994. It
brought the deficit down from $294 billion. Now we are looking, and
last we are told, $130 billion in 1996.
But our colleagues come with this document that says trust it, trust
them. They are going to raise the deficit in the next 2 years and then
some good things will happen. I have seen those promises come and be
broken too many times in the past.
So to my friends I say it is a resolution that is not going to work,
does not do what they say it is going to do, but even after all of
that, it still has all those little ingredients in there that is sort
of mean to people, and there are different things that hit different
ones of us.
I heard the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] talk about
what it does to veterans. I happen to
[[Page H6258]]
have lots of elderly women who live in my district, not very much
income, income between $7,700 and $9,300; and I looked at their
Medicaid reform, and their Social Security premiums are going to be up
by over $500 a year because they change the requirements of Medicaid.
That is over 5 percent a year for people who are struggling to pay a
food bill, and what I discover in many cases, worrying with these
little changes whether they can continue to give 5 or 10 bucks a week
to church, and those folks again are their targets.
So they have a plan that increases the deficit, is not going to work,
but keeps picking away at the most vulnerable in our society. We should
say ``no'' to this budget resolution.
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I would choose to remind my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle, including the previous speaker, that there are two
budgets before this House that the American people are taking notice
of. One is the one prepared by the majority in this body, the other one
comes from the White House. The fact of the matter is that in each of
the 6 years covered under the terms of this budget resolution the
congressional budget has lowered deficits in each of the next 6 years
than in the 6 years covered by the President's budget. Lowered deficits
in the Republican budget each and every year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, we heard already this evening, the very clear
differences between these two budgets. These two budgets, the one
presented by the White House, by the Clinton administration, and that
one which has been prepared by the majority in the House and the Senate
are very different in the philosophy they suggest for this country. I
think our budget reflects what the American people said they wanted to
have in this last election: less government, returning responsibility
to citizens. But tonight I want to focus my comments on one part of
this. That is the tax relief that we provide to families, the $500 tax
credit that we give to families, an opportunity to keep some of the
money, their hard-earned money, in their pockets. We say, ``Earn more,
keep more, and do more yourself.''
Mr. Speaker, we say that one should not have to send that money to
Washington, one should not have to give it up, one should not have to
take it out of their family's well-being, out of their education, their
health care, their housing and recreation. They should not have to send
it to Washington to support Washington's programs. We say, ``Keep some
of that money yourself.''
And that is why this is so fundamentally different from the
President's proposal. The President's budget gives some very small
amount of tax relief but then takes it all away, takes it all away in
the year 2002 in order to balance the budget. It takes all the tax
relief away. We say this tax relief should be permanent. We say
American families should know they can have these dollars in their
pockets, that they can keep this money so that they can spend it on
what they know is best for their families.
Tax relief is critical to the growth, the economic growth, of this
country. Tax relief is not just something to do if there is a surplus.
It is about giving money back to people, about reducing the size of
government, about saying that people have a better idea of what they do
with the dollars they earn than the Federal Government does.
That is why tax relief is a critical cornerstone of this legislation,
and that is why this budget conference report should be so supported by
this body. I urge its support.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the budget
before us tonight and would like to remind my colleague from New Jersey
there is a third budget that we all ought to be supporting. This
rhetoric of talking only about the majority and the President reminds
me that there was one budget that received bipartisan support that
reduced the deficit over the next 6 years. The budget before us tonight
increases the deficit by $63 billion over the next 2 years over the
constructive alternative put forward by the minority side of the aisle.
I do not know why we cannot bring ourselves to talk about the one
budget that continues the 4 years of success of bringing down the
deficit.
As someone that was here in 1981 that worked in a bipartisan way to
help my colleagues on this side when their President, my President from
their side of the aisle, was in charge, I only say this: ``Fool me
once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.'' To buy into another
budget that postpones 82 percent--82 percent of the budget deficit
reduction is postponed until the year 2000, 2001 and 2002--how anyone
can come to this floor tonight and say that they are serious about
deficit reduction and talk about the President's budget that has been
defeated, and the coalition budget that has been defeated, the only
honest budget that reduces the deficit every single year starting this
year and next year in an election year.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Because I am a little confused here, Mr. Speaker,
because for a year and a half I have been hearing about how the
Republicans have cut too much. Now tonight I am being reeducated, and I
find out that we are not cutting enough.
Can the gentleman from Texas explain it to a freshman who is
confused? How do we on one hand cut too much, and we are too savage for
a year and a half, and now I hear the ranking member saying that we are
going too far. If the gentleman can clarify that point, I would
appreciate that.
Mr. STENHOLM. I will be happy to answer the gentleman's question. For
of the last year and a half all we have talked about is CBO scoring,
CBO scoring, CBO scoring. The President finally submitted a budget that
was CBO-scored and balanced, but that did not suit the gentleman, did
not suit me.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. And was it not back-loaded with cuts? Would the
gentleman yield? Was that back-loaded with cuts?
Mr. STENHOLM. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. OK. My question is this: The gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Stenholm] was attacking the Republican budget, saying all the cuts
was the end. Now the gentleman is talking about the President's budget.
Mr. STENHOLM. No, sir. No, sir. I take back my time.
Mr. Speaker, I take back my time.
Mr. Speaker, I only have a minute remaining. I will answer the
gentleman's question.
What I am saying tonight is if my colleague is concerned about
reducing the deficit, there is only one budget that has been before the
House this year that will reduce the deficit by $150 billion more than
what we are considering tonight. We were precluded because we do not
have the votes; that is clear. And for anyone to stand on the floor
tonight and to say that we are concerned about the deficit and then
look at the CBO scoring for the budget and the comparison with the
coalition, the Republican budget deficit goes up to $153 billion in
1997. The coalition budget stays the same. That is the bottom line and
the fact.
{time} 2100
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari].
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, this is our chance, this is our historic
opportunity to return the future to our children, to give the American
people more of their money back, to reform welfare and Medicare, to be
honest with taxpayers, to balance our budget.
For all these very real reasons, I believe there is no more
compassionate vote that we can cast. Every generation's success depends
on us tonight, if we do the right thing. If we do the right thing, our
newest generation will not be saddled with interest payments on the
debt of nearly $200,000. If we do the right thing, senior citizens will
see an improved, responsive, and solvent
[[Page H6259]]
Medicare. If we do the right thing, today's working families will see
their interest payments go down as tax credits for their children go
up, all if we have the courage to do the right thing. Americans will
finally see their dreams and believe in their hearts and souls that
they will have the ability to reach them.
Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by stating that it is sad in this
Chamber that we are debating another budget that did come up in the
past, and unfortunately only 89 Members supported that budget, with the
majority of the Democrat Members, including their leadership, failing
to have enough confidence to engender their support. Tonight we have
the majority of our Members on both sides of the aisle believing in a
balanced budget and one proposal that will achieve that in the near
future if we can in fact do the right thing.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, will the newest mother in the
House yield?
Ms. MOLINARI. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the
gentlewoman, she is looking out for her children, her child, but she is
increasing the annual operating deficit. That is not balancing the
budget, that is increasing the deficit.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, we have a budget that is compassionate,
that reaches a balance by the year 2002, that restores tax credits to
new mothers and families throughout this Nation. That will save
Medicare for my little girl by the time she grows old. I am proud to
vote for this budget.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference report on
the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution. As a conferee, I am pleased
that we were able to increase overall nondefense discretionary spending
by $3.5 billion over the House-passed resolution. But, make no mistake
about it: This budget contains the same lack of vision and assault on
investment spending, that we saw in the fiscal year 1996 Budget
proposal, which has been rejected by the President and the American
public. In addition, this budget turns back the clock on deficit
reduction. For the fourth straight year in a row, the deficit has
declined. Let's not reverse this trend and act to increase the deficit
by $60 billion in 2 years. The stakes are too high.
The overall adjustment in domestic discretionary spending is an
improvement. But, the budget before us today still assumes a sizable
tax cut for the wealthy; deep reductions in Medicare and Medicaid and
critical investment programs to off-set the tax cut; and a sizable
increase in taxes for working individuals. The $3.5 billion offers some
relief, but it should be pointed out that if this 6-year plan is
adopted, the purchasing power of overall nondefense discretionary
appropriations will be 24 percent below fiscal year 1996 levels. This
will require deep cuts in education, environmental protections,
biomedical research, nutritional assistance, and criminal justice. At a
time when we should be enhancing our investment in these programs, we
are acting to impose an overall reduction of 24 percent by the year
2002.
While the agreement assumes tax cuts targeted to the affluent, it
does not treat working families and individuals the same way.
You can call the cuts in the earned income tax credit an adjustment,
but this adjustment will result in approximately a $18.5 billion tax
increase for working families and those individuals struggling to
remain self sufficient. If we truly want real welfare reform that
rewards work, we cannot reduce the size of the very tax credit which
does reward work. This budget proposal is filled with these types of
contradictions and inconsistencies. And that is why we should reject
this conference report.
We can balance the budget without implementing radical and
unnecessary Medicare and Medicaid cuts and dismantling the core social
responsibilities of the Federal Government. I beg my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this conference report and send a message that extreme
policies will not work. We can do a better job.
Mr. FRANK of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, a lot of Americans know talk is
cheap with a lot of politicians. I think it is good that we review what
has actually happened in the last couple of years. Two years ago,
nobody on the other side of the aisle was talking about the need for a
balanced budget. They were saying, it was reasonable to borrow and
spend for investment.
Mr. Speaker, let me review for the American people what happened
about a year and half ago. Republicans took the majority. They cut $9
billion out of the 1995 budget. Then in 1996 we had a budget that was
$23 billion less than the 1995 budget. This budget deficit has come
down for these last 2 years largely because of tough decisions on
spending cuts. The deficit was reduced in 1993 and 1994 because of a
huge tax increase.
Let us review for the American people what is happening in terms of
the real reduction in the size of the Federal Government. I think one
way to measure that is as a percentage of GDP [Gross Domestic Product].
If we look at what happened in 1995, we had about 22 percent of GDP. In
1996 we had about 21 percent of GDP. This resolution that came out of
conference committee has 20.4 percent of GDP. That is the lowest
percent of GDP since 1974.
This is a budget that moves us aggressively in the right direction.
In 1996 we passed a budget resolution that said we were going to have
$4 billion more spending in 1997 than this conference report
resolution. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the tough guys as far as cutting
spending. I voted for many more spending cuts in Budget Committee than
were in this resolution. I said let us put pressure on this President
and have the kind of budget that is going to be fair to our kids and
our grandkids.
That did not happen because the President vetoed our legislation to
balance the budget. Fifty-four million dollars' worth of publicity by
the liberals ended up leaving many Americans in doubt. Some Republicans
and a lot of the Democrats decided it was not politically popular to
cut spending. Today let us really roll up our sleeves and just do it--
this conference report in 6 years balances with a budget that is 18
percent of GDP--the lowest since 1965.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to vote for this budget. Let us move
on and get to a balance. Be fair to our kids, do what's right for
America.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Utah [Mr. Orton].
(Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the budget conference
report, House Concurrent Resolution 178.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric over the past 1\1/2\ years about
balancing the budget--and we will hear more tonight.
I want to share with my colleagues a few facts rather than rhetoric.
While the American people are told that this proposal will balance
the budget--the fact is that budget deficits increase dramatically and
immediately in this Republican budget plan.
CBO currently projects that this year's budget deficit will be $130
billion.
The Republican budget will increase the deficit next year by $23
billion; and the year after, by another $17 billion.
While Republicans increase the deficit by $27 billion through the
rest of this century the coalition budget cuts the deficit by $72
billion. The Republican budget will result in $100 billion more public
debt over 3 years--$150 billion more debt over 6 years than the
coalition budget.
The American people are told that this is a real plan which will
actually result in a balanced budget. The fact is, that 82 percent of
the deficit reduction will only come in the last 3 years of the plan--
after the turn of the century--when some future Congress will make the
tough choices to achieve those cuts.
If Democrats, who actually cut the deficit in half in 3 years, had
proposed this plan, they would be laughed out of this Chamber. I ask my
Republican colleagues, if Democrats had proposed this plan, would any
of you vote for it?
So much for balancing the budget--so much for cutting the deficit.
Tonight,
[[Page H6260]]
Congress is going to increase the deficit and borrow hundreds of
billions of dollars more from our children. Why? So they can pander to
the voters with a tax cut 6 months before standing for reelection.
Stay tuned--in the next few weeks you will see more promises broken.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, this budget plan is the only plan, only plan, that
fulfills the commitment to balance the budget by 2002 with lower
deficits than the President's budget in every single year. It provides
a $500 per child tax credit for working families. It in fact reforms
Medicare. It preserves it and protects it, and it will extend the
solvency of the trust fund for the next 10 years, a trust fund we all
know is not going broke by 2002. It is probably not even going broke by
2001, but will go broke before the end of this century, according to
the worst-case scenario of the trustees' plans.
It has broad coalition support from a large number of groups that
represent the entire spectrum of thinking: The NTU, Citizens Against
Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform, the United States Chamber
of Commerce, the United States Seniors' Association, Associated
Builders and Contractors, and so forth, and so forth.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Woolsey].
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I, for one, give the new majority credit
for finding creative things to do with cold leftovers. Mr. Speaker, the
budget they are serving the American people today is nothing but a
warmed-over version of the same misplaced priorities that were rejected
and sent back to the kitchen last year. That is right; take away the
sugar coating and you have caps on the direct student loan program,
caps that will increase costs and add red tape, and over 7 million
college students in the year 2002 will be left behind.
Minus the garnish, we end up with the same welfare plan, still weak
on work, still tough on children. When we remove the trimmings on this
turkey of a budget, we have another Medicare plan that will make
seniors pay more for less while their hospitals close. And make no
mistake, Mr. Speaker, those Medicare cuts are being made in order to
put the cherry on top of the Contract With America, or the crown jewel,
as Speaker Gingrich calls it: huge tax breaks for special interests.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a blueprint for balancing the budget, it is
a recipe for disaster. I say to the new majority, they can keep their
cold leftovers, their mashed Medicare, chopped children's programs, and
rotten welfare reform. The American people want a new menu.
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to respond to the last speaker
who said we are cutting education, that we are cutting student loans.
It is not true. Mr. Speaker, under our budget proposal, the total
volume of student loans will go from $26 billion in 1996 to $37 billion
in the year 2002. I do not know how that is translated into a cut, but
it is not a cut where I come from, in Arizona.
We are going to save taxpayers' money by capping the Government-run
direct lending program and achieve some savings from lenders in the
guaranteed lending program, but we are not cutting the volume of
student loans, and do not let anybody tell you we are.
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson], a member
of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, my third grandchild was born June 1, and as
I welcome him into the world, I can't help but wonder what kind of
future he will face. How much will prices rise during his lifetime?
Will the country still be a place of opportunity? Will there be a
thriving economy to support his generation?
When I think about the answers to these questions, it becomes
increasingly clear to me that the best thing I can do for my new
grandson is to vote ``yes'' for the conference agreement on the budget
resolution.
We're a year into balancing the budget, and the sky has not fallen
like some said it would. Our budget has matured over the past year, but
the quality of the debate about it has not. We moved on while our
critics hung on to year-old arguments that don't fit the facts. They
claim the sky is falling because they know it is easier to generate
fear than understanding.
Our budget is about conquering fear--conquering the fear that the
next generation will have less opportunities than we've had. Over the
past year, we've taken some good ideas and made them better. We've
listened to our critics, and where they made a valid point, we
compromised. And we've watched President Clinton distance himself from
outdated ideas about big government and embrace Republican ideas as his
own.
But let's be clear: There are some real differences. President
Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and would raise them again in his latest
budget. We provide permanent tax relief. President Clinton would
increase discretionary spending over the next 3 years, and put off
decisions about cuts to his successor. We decrease discretionary
spending every year.
The most dramatic difference, however, is that President Clinton and
our friends in the minority tell you to fear our budget and to put your
faith in Washington spending and bigger Government. Instead, we take a
view they consider extreme--we put our faith in the American people.
Protect our children's and grandchildren's future and shift power,
money and influence out of Washington and back to Americans. Join me in
passing the 1997 budget resolution.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons why
commonsense people would oppose this conference report. Just look at
the $158 billion cut in Medicare and $72 billion cut in Medicaid, with
all of the problems in that.
I want to talk about the huge tax increase on almost 7 million
hardworking American families who have chosen work over welfare. The
original House bill contained a $20 billion tax hike and the original
Senate bill contained a $17 billion tax hike. Do Members know what they
did? They separated the two and cut them up, so now they comeup an
$18.5 billion tax increase.
They told us in the Committee on the Budget during the markup that
this is essentially the same tax increase as the one in last year's
reconciliation bill. The President vetoed that. That is history. This
chart shows the details. As I said before, who will be paying those
taxes? Let me tell the Members who is going to pay those taxes: 2.7
million workers with incomes below $10,000 will pay a higher average
tax; 1.8 million workers with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000 will
pay a higher tax under this Republican budget.
{time} 2115
Look at it this way. Almost half of these workers have children. The
Republicans are doing a good thing when they put in this $500 per child
tax credit, but they have taken it away. They gave back and they took
away the rest of it.
I am saying that this conference report should not be passed by this
Congress. We owe it to the American public to be sure that the balance
budget is a true balanced budget and the tricks should not be
tolerated.
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the distinguished vice
chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, the reason this budget should be passed this
evening is not just numbers. It is because it has real effects on real
people. Under the budget before the House this evening, real people
will get to earn more, keep more and do more. That is what we should be
all about.
If we listen to what the other side is telling us, remember what
their economics is doing to real people. According to Investors
Business Daily, under the Clinton economic program we are now back to a
situation where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting
poorer.
[[Page H6261]]
Let me quote from Investors Business Daily. They point out that
during the Bush years the average real pretax incomes for the very top
income earners dropped, but they shot up in the first 2 years of the
Clinton administration. As a result, the top 5 percent saw their
average incomes climb more than $30,000 between 1992 and 1994, a 21-
percent hike, even after controlling for inflation. The bottom fifth,
meanwhile, saw their average real incomes barely budge over those
years, and they are about $1,000 lower than they were in 1989.
The typical measure to gauge what happens to middle-income wage
earners shows that their actual income has dropped slightly despite 2
solid years of economic growth. As for the poor in this country, we are
now at 14.5 percent of the population at the poverty rate in 1994, the
last year for which the data is available, and that is higher than all
but 3 years of the Reagan and Bush administrations.
This is a program which is creating an economic disaster. The rich
are getting richer, the poor was getting poorer, and the middle class
is getting squeezed.
What do the Democrats tell us? The Democrats tell us that in their
budget, in the Blue Dog budget, no tax break for middle-class
Americans. Zero. Why? So they can spend more. And the Clinton budget
actually increases taxes. They want to actually increase taxes and
squeeze the middle class more.
In our budget, what we are doing is, we are giving a tax break to
middle class Americans. We recognize that it is wrong to squeeze the
middle class in the midst of economic recovery. We realize that what we
ought to have is a situation where people earn more, keep more and do
more. That is what we ought to be doing. That is how we affect the
lives of real people in this society.
What the Democrats are telling people is that they are going to
concentrate only on numbers, bring only numbers before the House, let
the rich get richer, let the poor get poorer, and squeeze the middle
class. That is their recipe. That is what the Clinton administration
has been doing. We have got to stop that here tonight.
This is a budget that balances the budget over the next 6 years, that
allows people a tax break so that we do not squeeze the middle class,
that allows us to move toward a situation where people earn more, keep
more and do more. That is what we should be all about in this society.
Pass this budget, reject what the Democrats are telling us.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Sabo] for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my friend that the reason the
wealthiest Americans are doing better is they are the ones who buy the
T-bills and in effect loan money to the government, so that the rest of
us can pay more in interest payments as the Nation gets deeper in debt.
The budget you are proposing tonight increases the annual operating
deficit and gets the Nation deeper in debt. If the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] will remember, just a few months ago he voted
to raise the Nation's debt limit from about $5 trillion to almost $6
trillion. I, on the other hand, did not.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, all of those debates seem to be about black
and white, Democrat and Republican. There is a gray area called the
Blue Dog Democratic Coalition budget that borrows less, cuts spending
and the deficits immediately, and we do not hear much about it.
We tried to get it to the floor a time or two. There are not many of
us, 21 or 22 at last count. We have tried to come here and master a
difficult situation and not be held hostage by it, Democrat and
Republican, black, white, blah, blah, blah. People are tired of that.
We have a plan, the Coalition plan, that begins deficit reduction
immediately. This does not. This asks the American people to borrow
more money next year and the next year and does not reduce the deficit
until the year 1999 and 2000. That is not what our country is about. We
are trying to get our financial house in order. The Coalition budget,
as has been alluded to before, borrows $150 billion less than this bill
right now we are going to vote on.
It seems to me a clear choice. If we want to balance the country's
books, there is a way to do it. As the Nashville Tennessean, one of my
hometown papers, said some time ago, conservative economics and a
compassionate government are not mutually exclusive. It can be done.
Twenty-three major publications across this country have recommended
this to the Congress and we cannot get it to a vote. I wish Members
would consider it.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I look at the Republican
proposal tonight and I see that the deficit goes up next year, not like
the Blue Dog Democratic alternative which they refuse to consider. This
reverses for the first time a 4-year downward trend of deficit
spending, the first time we have had that since the Truman
administration. This begins more deficits in order, of course,
ultimately to do better. I think we have all been through that before.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] talks about real people.
Let me tell my colleagues about some of the real people who are really
hurt in this budget.
The Republican budget is going to increase taxes on millions of
working families earning less than $28,000 a year. Their tax credit
does not go to 33 percent of all the children in this country. Why?
Because it is not a refundable tax credit. That means their parents do
not pay enough taxes to benefit.
Who are the real people? They are seniors who earn between $7,700 and
$9,000 a year, who are going to pay $500 more because their Medicare
premium part B will not be paid for by Medicare. Those are the real
people who are hurt in this budget.
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from New Jersey for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to focus on the real world,
because I represent a slice of the real world, the Sixth Congressional
District of Arizona. As a private citizen, now that I am a newcomer to
Congress, I watched what happened here for the better part of 4
decades.
The real debate tonight needs to be put in perspective. Who is really
balancing the budget, despite the articulate arguments of the minority
within the minority that wants no tax relief for the American people?
The majority on that side, the liberal folks, did not want to do a
thing, did not want to touch it. The deficit would have been
astronomical.
Now our President, who tells us the era of big government is over,
does a little bit better but he does not really lower these deficits,
nor does he provide the kind of commonsense tax relief that the real
people of this country deserve. Instead, it is this budget resolution
which delivers. Lower deficits, balancing the budget, lower taxes. That
is reality, that is the truth. Vote ``yes'' on this plan.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Stenholm].
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I wish the chart were still up because I
really get frustrated when I continue to see always talking about lines
that do not represent the facts based on CBO.
Let me remind my friend from Arizona, a majority of Democrats voted,
rollcall 177, for a budget that balanced and has the line going down in
a true and honest way. A majority on this side voted for that budget.
And quit saying they did not.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the budget
resolution conference report.
We will hear much today about the majority's $500 per child tax
credit for families with annual incomes of less
[[Page H6262]]
than $110,000. But there will be omission after omission.
Because it will not be made clear that millions of American families
who earn far less than $110,000 will not benefit from the tax credit.
Why? Because they earn far too little. Fully one-third of American
families will receive no benefit at all.
Unfortunately, the majority will not discuss its $18 billion tax
increase on working families with children as a result of deep cuts in
the earned income tax credit. Raising taxes on working American
families trying to raise children on less than $30,000 is plain wrong.
And unfortunately, there will not be much discussion about the 1.8
million children who will lose health care coverage as a result of the
majority's punitive welfare reform package. And it is anyone's guess
how many more children will lose coverage as a result of the majority's
$72 billion Medicaid block grant proposal.
Let there be no mistake, every Member in this Chamber cares about
children. But this conference report is no friend of children. Support
America's children. Oppose the conference report.
Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich].
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that whenever we come to
budget discussions and a balanced budget that the minority party seems
to trot out the blue dog budget, which was created by 20 Members of the
minority party and supported by not much more, in order to show that
they are so much for a balanced budget.
It strikes to me the issue. I think what the American people used to
decide is who is really serious about balancing this budget.
Now we come back to the budget resolution that we have before us. It
includes tax cuts, something that I support and I think something that
is very, very necessary in order to generate economic growth and get us
to a balanced budget sooner, even if that means increasing the debt in
the second year.
I am not real happy about the fact that the Senate stuffed about $2.8
billion more worth of spending in this bill. But the American people
need to realize who they are going to trust to eventually get to a
balanced budget in 7 years. It sure as heck ain't going to be these
people. It is going to be us. That is why I support this budget
resolution and I support every other member of this conference in
supporting it so that we can go on and continue on toward a balanced
budget.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, once again our Republican friends
demonstrate they do not know up from down. Talk is not cheap in this
body, Mr. Radanovich, because the gap between the reality and the
rhetoric that has come out here tonight is several billion dollars
extra this year and several billions dollars next year because you
increase this budget deficit during all the time you have this great
talk about trust and care and concern for future generations.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. No, I will not. With 1 minute to speak, there is the
matter of correcting the misstatements that you just made.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. Regular order, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). The gentleman
from Texas does not yield.
Mr. DOGGETT. You have had your opportunity to misrepresent the facts,
including the fact that only a handful of Democrats supported the
conservative coalition budget when well over a majority of our caucus
supported that budget. It gets the budget deficit down this year, it
gets the budget deficit down next year, and every year until it
achieves true balance. It does not talk. It has real action in the
numbers and the real numbers.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. It does all of that without wrecking the Medicare
system.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I know you want to let Medicare wither on the vine. You
let Medicare wither on the vine.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Bill Clinton vetoed that budget, I say to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Regular order. He has not vetoed this budget, because it
was never offered, and you know it, just like your last
misrepresentation, sir.
point of order
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The point of order is that two Republican
Members in this debate have violated the rules by interrupting Members
when they did not have the floor in a limited time. That is
inappropriate, and I ask that you enforce the rules against it.
{time} 2130
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that I
would ask my colleagues to let the other side have their say. We do not
want to be interrupted, we do not need to interrupt them, and we will
have a good debate.
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me first commend the gentleman from
Ohio, Chairman Kasich, and the members of the Committee on the Budget
for doing an outstanding job in bringing this budget together and bring
it to the floor tonight. Let me also thank and congratulate virtually
all of my colleagues in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle,
because for the first time in the generation Members from both sides of
the aisle, virtually everyone in the House, is debating how to balance
the budget.
Over the last 25 years there has not been much discussion of this
issue on both sides of the aisle, and that is the big change that has
occurred over these last 18 months. The agenda in Washington is a lot
different now than it was because we are talking about how to balance
the budget, not the age-old debate that went on here about whether we
should balance the budget.
For months Republicans in Congress have talked about doing the right
thing for our children's future, balancing the budget, stopping the
borrowing from their futures and giving them a chance to live the
American dream. Why? Because today's kids will not be able to live the
American dream if they have to pay back everything that big government
has borrowed from them.
All of us have seen the most expensive credit card in the history of
the world, a credit card that has a $5 trillion balance and budget
deficits of another $150 billion a year for as far as the eye can see;
$260 billion a year is the interest cost on this credit card and we
have all got one. It is our voting card.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the most unconscionable thing that we
are doing to our children and their children because it will not be
those of us in this Chamber that pay off the debt on this credit card;
it will be our kids and our grandkids.
That is why over the last year and a half Republicans in Congress
have kept our word. We have passed legislation last year that would
balance the budget by the year 2002, that would have reformed welfare,
would have saved Medicare for the next generation and given the
American families tax relief.
But instead of being constructive, the White House and their liberal
allies have waged a campaign of fear and demagoguery. But once again we
are keeping our word and, unfortunately, we believe the White House is
continuing to play games. No one in this Chamber can doubt the fact
that the President's budget is nothing more than a joke. Nobody in this
room and nobody in this town believes that we can balance the budget
the way the President has tried to present to all of us.
The resolution that we have here before us tonight shows the hard
work that we have all been at on both sides of the Chamber, and it also
shows that we are able to have the courage to
[[Page H6263]]
make the tough choices that it is going to take to balance the budget
by the year 2002. No gimmicks and no blue smoke and mirrors; honest
choices, tough choices for the American people.
It preserves and protects Medicare for another 10 years. And if we do
not do something, we all know what will happen. It is not only going to
wreck Medicare for senior citizens, it will wreck the Federal budget in
the future and provide more payments, more debt for our kids, and for
theirs. This budget reforms welfare and it reforms Medicaid, moves
power out of Washington and back to States and local communities where
real reform can come, where we can actually be more compassionate in
helping our fellow citizens.
But most importantly, our $500 per child tax credit lets American
families earn more, keep more, and do more for themselves and for their
children. And ladies and gentlemen, if we are serious about moving
power out of Washington, the way we have to do it is to move money out
of Washington and allow the American people to keep more money in their
own pockets.
As I said before, our opponents, especially at the White House, are
playing games. Last weekend's Washington Post, I think, outlined it
pretty clearly in Dave Broder's column when he pointed out the
President it telling us and the American people he is willing to make
tough choices to balance the budget, but in fact is telling his own
administration do not worry about it.
Let us do the right thing for our children's future and pass this
budget resolution.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to suggest this
budget the Republicans present tonight not only increases the deficit
for the first 2 years but it is also loaded with gimmicks. The tax cut
all of a sudden costs less in 2002 than it does in 2000. Medicare cuts
explode in the last year.
Nonattainable. The defense budget increases in the early years in and
then decreases below the President's number in the last few years. I
could go on and on.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that fanaticism consists of
redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.
The aim of the Republican Party is to reduce the deficit. They have
forgotten what they were aiming at, and that is why the freshmen
Republican foot soldiers have been revolting against their Gingrichian
generals over the last 24 hours because the budget they have here on
the floor increases the deficit.
They have forgotten their Holy Grail of reducing the Federal deficit.
And why? Why? As the new majority leader in the Senate said today,
because we do not want to touch the tax breaks for the rich. So, in
other words, they have given up on the Holy Grail of reducing the
deficit in order to protect the crown jewel of tax breaks for the rich.
Now, I think if the American people understand this debate, they
would want a no tonight on this Republican rejection of a balanced
budget.
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to
merely remind the previous speaker and all the speakers on the other
side of the aisle that each of the next 6 years the Republican budget
carries lower deficits than the President's budget.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Mica].
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, we have been here and we have done that. These
folks on this side has 40 years to get the finances of this Nation in
order.
We are here tonight, we have presented a balanced budget. The first
thing this side did when we took over was we cut $20 billion worth of
spending over the last Democrat Congress' spending. Last year we cut
$23 billion, and we have already heard the President taking credit for
reductions. The only reason these reductions have taken place is
because we have been here and we kept our word.
We came here and we did what we said we were going to do, and tonight
we are going to do it again. We are going to bring the finances of this
Nation in order. They may have to do it kicking and screaming and using
false statistics and accusations, but we are sobering up and tonight is
part of that process.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has
10\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Franks] has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my friend
from New Jersey, although he has disappeared, our numbers would show
the President is actually $100 million less in deficit than the
Republicans are in 1997, so the 6-year claim, I think, is slightly off
in the first year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rarely disagree with my
good friend from Massachusetts who preceded me, but he was much too
harsh toward the Republicans. He should not have chided them for voting
for a budget that would bring the deficit up rather than down next
year. They have learned.
Last year, they tried to impose themselves on the U.S. Senate, their
colleagues over there, and what happened but a shutdown of the
Government, a lot of political problems, a lot of governmental
problems. They have learned the advantage of flexibility, of
compromise. A year in Washington makes a difference.
The firebrands of last year have become now those who listen to
leadership, who back down, who accommodate. And when they are told we
need to have the deficit go up, when they are told we have to put
several billion dollars more in, when the Senate says that, the
president of the freshman class says he does not like to but he will
accommodate.
I do not think my friend should be so harsh. I think when the
firebrands of yesteryear learn flexibility, accommodation, compromise,
deferring to their elders across the hall so they can help the
Presidential campaign of our recently departed majority leader, they
should be encouraged.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the
gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown].
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, to whom God has given much, much
is expected. These cuts in Medicare and Medicaid are simply
unacceptable.
Well, I know my Republican colleagues do not like the word ``cuts,''
so let me try this. This gutting of Medicare and Medicaid is simply
unacceptable, especially when they are the result of a huge tax break
for the wealthy.
This budget conference proposal cuts Medicare funds by $168 billion
over the next 6 years, and the Medicaid fund by $72 billion. Approving
this budget is promising this country that in the next 6 years the most
needy people in this country will not receive health care.
Perhaps the most confusing of all these proposals is the cuts to
student loans. More than 35 schools in my State, the great State of
Florida, including the University of Florida, will be hurt by these
cuts.
Let me close by saying once again to whom God has given much, much is
expected.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from North
Carolina, Mrs. Clayton.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I would disagree a little bit with my
colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank. I would say that the
Republicans did not hear, or maybe they did not listen and did not want
to hear the American people when they said indeed that what they were
doing in the budget was extreme. They wanted the deficit to go down,
but they did not like their priorities.
Indeed, the Republicans refuse to hear because again they are cutting
Medicaid, Medicaid severely, $72 billion in the next 6 years, which
will hurt pregnant women, hurt children, hurt those in rural hospitals.
It means they have not heard the American people when they do not want
these extreme priorities.
What we do on the budget says volumes about who is important and who
is not, and what the Republicans have said through this budget
resolution is if you are poor and live in rural areas you are not
important; if you are wealthy and if you are healthy and you want to be
in a health plan, then you have all the benefits.
[[Page H6264]]
I would say that is the wrong priority. I urge a no vote on this
budget resolution.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], my good friend the ranking member, and I forget
the name of that committee these days. It used to be Energy and
Commerce. He does a great job.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, well, it is deja vu all over again, or,
more likely, Reaganomics part II: Increase spending, lower taxes, and
hope the big budget deficit goes down. But it does not.
Under the Republican plan, and I hope my Republican colleagues will
listen to this, the budget deficit increases by $23 billion the first
year and by $17 billion in the second year. After 4 years of declining
budget deficits under the leadership of President Clinton, the
Republicans have decided to change course.
I studied this well 3 years ago and listened to my Republican
colleagues complain about the awful things that might happen under the
Clinton budget plan. In fact, Speaker Gingrich said it would actually
increase the budget deficit. Well, the Republican budget deficit is
going to increase under this proposal. They were wrong then and they
are wrong now. They are fiscally irresponsible.
I would point out that this is a fiscally irresponsible budget. I
urge my colleagues to vote no on it, and I quote a great former
President of the United States, Gerry Ford, in describing situations
like this, who said, ``Things are more like they are now than they have
ever been.''
{time} 2145
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk for my 1 minute about my
Republican colleagues' mind-boggling inconsistencies. They say they
invented deficit reduction; they come here with a budget that increases
the deficit. They are suffering from amnesia or arrogance. Who was
President when these deficits exploded?
And in 1993, many of us had the courage to vote for deficit reduction
and every Republican voted ``no.'' And one of them comes forth now and
says under Democrats, the rich are getting richer and the poor are
getting poorer. But what are they suggesting? Increasing taxes on poor
working families.
Now, Mr. Speaker, their message does not ring. There is economic
prosperity under Democrats. We have to do better. We cannot trust the
party that will make it worse.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I am kind of curious what happened tonight
to the House Republican voices who have been saying all week that it is
wrong to pass a budget that increases the deficit over the next 2
years. Since those voices have gone silent tonight on the Republican
side, let me say it: This budget increases the deficit over the next 2
years, and it is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, what a difference a month makes. Just last month, House
Republicans bragged their VA budget included $100 million more for
veterans' health care than the President's budget, yet somehow between
giving our Memorial Day speeches and writing our Fourth of July
speeches, the Republican leadership cut VA discretionary programs,
important programs for veterans by $645 million.
One month ago, they claimed and bragged about the fact they were
spending more money than the President's inadequate budget for VA
health care. And yet this budget has cut VA health care dramatically by
freezing VA health care programs.
Mr. Speaker, this budget will leave our Nation's veterans out in the
cold, and it is wrong.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this budget, and I
remind my colleagues that we had a chance to vote for a budget that
would balance without increasing the deficit in the short term. That
proposal was supported by a majority of the Democrats in this House.
That is right, a majority of the Democrats.
Mr. Speaker, to hear my colleagues get up from the other side of the
aisle and talk about it as if it did not happen sorely disappoints me.
I do not understand why we cannot stand here and tell the American
people the truth. I do not understand why we cannot stand here and tell
the people what this budget will do.
I know why the majority will not do it: Because it increases the
deficit before it brings it down. I read in the paper today, ``It is
like gaining weight before you start to diet: So it feels better.'' I
heard that from a Republican colleague of ours. I will let that speak
for itself.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Stenholm].
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, again we are getting to the end of the
debate, and I think it is awfully important to have the record and all
of our colleagues clearly understand that there was one vote this year,
it was rollcall No. 177, in which a majority of my colleagues on this
side of the aisle voted for a deficit reduction package that lowers the
deficit, the total debt compared to what we will be voting on in a
minute, by $150 billion less.
Mr. Speaker, I too have a grandson, and I fail to understand how we
are going to do more for the grandchildren by borrowing more money over
the next 6 years than if we just bit the bullet and started having some
honest discussions about how we are going to meet some of the
differences that we have across the aisle and do it in a more rational
way, but that seems to have escaped us tonight.
But I think it is awfully important to understand that if we want the
deficit to come down every year, not go up for the next 2, we do not
vote for this resolution tonight; we vote ``no'' tonight. We go back to
conference and we say let us get serious about deficit reduction.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution. We can do
better than passing a budget resolution in 1996 that increases the
deficit for the next 2 years. We have had lots of Members talk about
how it can be done. It has been offered. It has been voted on. It has
not passed, but it can be done.
Mr. Speaker, I have had hopes through this session, starting back in
1995, that somehow before this year was over we would continue on the
track we started in 1993 which involved very substantial deficit
reduction and find some way across the aisles to pass a real budget for
1995 and now 1996 to put our fiscal house more in order, brought us to
balance, made sensible and practical reforms of a whole series of
programs which need to be done.
I told my Republican colleagues early on this in process that I hoped
at some point we will get beyond ideology and would get to pragmatic
solutions. I still have a glimmer of hope that somehow that can happen
between the Congress and the President and before we adjourn in 1996. I
tend to be an optimistic person. That optimism is dwindling week by
week.
One thing I know for certain, and that is that this budget resolution
and how it was put together does not represent that hope for a solution
of our basic fiscal problems in 1996. It continues the ideology. It
does not continue and move to pragmatic solutions to problems. I am not
sure what happens tonight. I expect it passes. I expect it will be used
for a variety of political purposes the next several weeks, the next
several months. But somehow if we are not this year, we will be back to
this problem in 1997.
We have to find answers that are real, that are pragmatic, not
ideological. And, unfortunately, we are not moving closer this evening.
I think we are moving further away. And I frankly think this country
would be much better served if we simply voted ``no'' tonight and
started all over again in real attempts to reach across the partisan
aisle to face more problems that still confront us in this country. So
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we came here 18 months ago to do a few things dramatic
things:
[[Page H6265]]
balance the budget in real numbers; tax relief for America's hard-
pressed families who spend more money paying off the tax man than they
do on food, clothing, and shelter.
Mr. Speaker, we also wanted a strong defense. But we wanted to
transform the very operation of this government by transferring power,
money and influence out of this city. Now we hear all of this talk
about all of these numbers. Let us get to the bottom line.
The President of the United States spends $190 billion more, $190
billion more than the Congress. And the blue dogs, they spend $57
billion more over the next 6 years than we do. Know why? Bigger
government. Bigger government. They believe in bigger government.
Now let us talk about the other side of the formula here. Tax cuts.
Tax relief for Americans. Not only does the President spend $190
billion more in Washington than we do, but he only gives Americans $6
billion worth of tax cuts. The blue dogs spend $57 billion more than we
spend in Washington spending, and they have zero tax relief for
America's families.
We not only spend much less, but we give Americans more in their
paychecks. And, frankly, that is what it comes down to. About the size
of this government and about the size of people's paychecks and about
individual empowerment to let people keep their money rather than
taking their money and giving it to government.
That is the bottom line. Mr. Speaker, if we want to tax more and we
want to spend more, then defeat our resolution, but if we want a
smaller Washington and less taxes, we come to the floor and we proudly
vote for this resolution.
Now, last year we passed a $23 billion cut in Washington spending. We
denied the bureaucracy $23 billion. Guess what? It had never been done
before. Never been done before. I have been here 14 years. For the
first 12 years we did not get a dime. But in the course of just 1 year,
we brought the liberals who believe in Washington kicking and screaming
to the trough, and guess what? At the end of the day we cut spending
under the Republican program.
Now, did we get the entitlements reformed? Were we able to shift the
power and the money and the influence and say to people locally, ``We
want you to design local solutions for local problems? Oh, yes, we
passed it, and, guess what? The President vetoed it. Know why? Because
he does not want to give Americans, he does not want to give Americans
their power back. And neither do liberals in Washington. They do not
want people to write welfare at home.
Now, I would suggest that we have got a ways to go. We have got to
get these entitlements done, but I want to tell an interesting story.
In Tennessee, Tennessee got to write their own Medicaid plan. They got
to do what was going to work in Tennessee. And guess what happened?
They saved money, they saved the Tennessee education program, and they
covered more people who needed health care. Know how they did it? They
did it because Washington took their hands off of them and they let
Tennessee design a Tennessee solution.
That is what we want to do with welfare. We want to tell people in
neighborhoods that if Mrs. Jones is sick with a couple of kids, we are
going to help her, but if Mr. Smith does not want to go to work, we are
going to show up and we are going to teach him about work.
Mr. Speaker, that is what America is about. And know what else it is
about? If Americans save and work hard and go the extra mile, they get
rewarded. That is the Republican plan. It is about shifting power,
money, and influence; not just welfare and programs to the poor and the
disabled and not just saving Medicare by letting our senior citizens
make good choices. But it is also about letting Americans have more of
the money they earn to spend on their families, their children, their
community. That is what it is all about into the 21st century.
No, we reject more Washington spending and we reject the idea of
higher taxes. We are for less government, more tax relief.
Now, is this a perfect bill? Of course it is not. Are some of my
colleagues upset we did not get everything done? Of course they are.
And know what? I am upset, too. But what we are doing is historic, and
we will get there. And for those who are frustrated, I just ask my
colleagues, in closing, to remember George Washington. Because he was
standing in a driving rain, he was standing in a driving rain and he
began to wonder why he was doing what he was doing, because he realized
that only a third of the colonists even knew we were in a revolution,
and of the third that knew, only 10 percent cared. And of the 10
percent who cared, more than half were for the British.
Mr. Speaker, know what? They moved further as an army. They stayed
together as an army with one goal in mind: establishing this precious
Republic. And I ask my colleagues and my friends on the other side of
the aisle to be part of this army to change America. If we stay
together, we will get to the end of this long and winding road and we
will save our children, we will empower America, and America will be
stronger in the 21st century for what we did today.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose House Concurrent
Resolution 178, the conference report on the budget resolution.
The fiscal year 1997 budget resolution appears to be an improvement
over the budget proposed by the majority party last year in that it
scales back proposed Medicare spending reductions from $288 billion
over 7 years to $168 billion over 6 years, and scales back the proposed
Medicaid spending reductions from $186 billion over 7 years to $72
billion over 6 years. House Concurrent Resolution 178 also reduces the
size of a proposed package of tax cuts from $345 billion over 7 years
to something between $122 and $176 billion over 6 years. However, these
changes do not mask the fact that the budget embraces assumptions that
will reduce dramatically the role of the Federal Government in
guaranteeing medical coverage for the poor, maintaining affordable
health coverage for seniors, and in expanding educational opportunities
for all.
With respect to Medicaid, House Concurrent Resolution 178 embraces
structural changes to the program that will transform it from an
individual entitlement into a block grant. In addition, the proposed
structural changes to Medicaid will allow States to lower their
contributions to the program without losing Federal resources;
eliminate Federal disability standards that will leave States free to
establish their own disability definitions; drop the requirement that
health care be provided to children aged 13 through 18 living in
poverty; and eliminate the guarantee that low-income seniors who cannot
afford Medicare will have their Medicare premiums paid by Medicaid.
In restructuring the Medicaid Program, $72 billion in proposed
Federal Medicaid spending reductions could, when combined with State
Medicaid spending reductions, result in a Federal/State Medicaid
spending reduction over the next 6 years of as much as $250 billion.
Such a scale back will leave poor children, disabled persons, and low-
income Medicare beneficiaries at risk.
With respect to Medicare, the budget embraces policies that will
restructure the program to create incentives for seniors to participate
in managed care plans and open medical savings accounts, and permit
physicians to charge patients the balance above Medicare's set fees in
the new plans. In addition, the conference report cuts the
reimbursement rates paid to various providers such as hospitals,
doctors, and skilled nursing facilities.
Managed care plans and medical savings accounts are not designed to
address the needs of the poorest and least healthy Medicare
beneficiaries. And, cuts to the reimbursement rates paid to health
providers may well force marginal hospital, particularly in the
Nation's rural areas and inner cities, to close. By embracing managed
care plans and medical savings accounts, and by reducing reimbursements
to health providers, this budget will, I believe, isolate Medicare's
least healthy and least affluent beneficiaries at the core of the
existing system, and force them to pay higher out-of-pocket costs for
reduced levels of medical services.
House Concurrent Resolution 178 continues to assume that tax cuts,
intended primarily for the affluent and underwritten by the less
affluent, represent the best means of maintaining what many of my
Republican colleagues describe as the glide path to a balanced budget.
While this budget cuts the size of the GOP package of tax cuts, the
benefits of the tax package continue to be distributed very unevenly.
Public and private studies, as well as innumerable books, have
documented either how the gulf between the richest and poorest
Americans widened or how the incomes of the rich grew significantly as
the incomes of the middle class and the working poor stagnated over the
course of the past two decades. Yet, the majority party insists on
directing most of the benefits of its proposed tax cuts not to the
middle class or the poor, but to the rich.
[[Page H6266]]
For example, the conference report cuts $18 billion from the earned
income tax credit for the working poor while providing increased
capital gains benefits for the most affluent. It is a cruel irony that
the majority party which insists that it wants to get people off
welfare and into jobs would propose to cut the earned income tax credit
that benefits the working poor, that is, individuals who have stayed
off welfare by working.
Mr. Speaker, members of the Republican Party claim that they, not
President Clinton and not the Democratic Members of Congress, know best
how to balance the Federal budget by 2002. However, members of the GOP
conveniently overlook the fact that it was a succession of Republican
Presidents that caused the deficits to spiral out of control by first
enacting and then maintaining the borrow-and-spend fiscal policies now
known collectively as Reaganomics. In addition, they forget that every
single Republican member of the 103d Congress opposed the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act [OBRA] of 1993. Most of all, they overlook
the fact that OBRA 1993 has not only managed to cut the deficits in
half but also made the very idea of achieving a balanced budget in 6
years a distinct possibility.
I believe we can continue on the path to balancing the Federal budget
begun by OBRA 1993. That path most assuredly does not lead to the
dismantling of the Federal Government nor to the Federal Government's
abdication of its responsibility to continue its efforts to ensure that
all Americans are provided equal educational opportunities, adequate
health care, and a decent standard of living.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference
agreement on the 1997 budget resolution. Like last year's budget, the
plan is out of touch with the American people and should be rejected by
the House.
In 1993, President Clinton, working with Congress, began a process of
deficit reduction that has reduced Federal deficits for 4 years in a
row. In fact, the Federal budget deficit has been cut in half since the
beginning of the Clinton Presidency. We need a continuation of the
moderate proposals which have been working. We do not need another
extreme budget plan to foster bitter confrontation between the Congress
and the administration. The American people reject this tactic; they
want bipartisan cooperation in solving problems.
The Republican plan proposes to cut Medicare by $158 billion over the
next 6 years. Even worse, the plan proposes to end 30 years of
universal coverage for senior citizens and allow the healthy and
wealthy to opt out of the program causing disruption and placing the
entire Medicare Program at risk. Medicare cuts are still used to
finance tax breaks for the wealthy.
The budget plan for Medicaid is even more extreme. Cutting $72
billion over 6 years, and allowing the States to cut even more in State
payments, would be severely destructive to the program. The plan also
would eliminate the current guarantees of health coverage for low-
income children, pregnant women, disabled people, and senior citizens.
Thankfully, the President has already rejected this drastic approach
and proposed a reasonable plan to cap individual benefits resulting in
comparable savings without millions of Americans losing health
coverage.
Likewise, the budget resolution includes much of the Republican
welfare plan which was vetoed by the President because it was too
extreme and did little to move people from welfare to work. There
appears to be little to recommend proceeding with the same plan
encouraging a race to the bottom for State welfare programs.
With regard to discretionary spending, the budget plan is once again
extreme. For 1997, funding for defense programs is increased more than
$11 billion over the Pentagon's request. On the other hand, nondefense
spending falls dramatically--a decrease of $15 below the President's
request for 1997. Over the 6 years, the budget resolution would cut
purchasing power for domestic programs by 25 percent.
For health programs, the budget plan calls for drastic cuts to
programs like community health centers, family planning and biomedical
research. The plan to cut purchasing power for the National Institutes
of Health [NIH] is extreme and lacking in an understanding of the
importance of investment in biomedical research.
The most extreme and short-sighted part of the budget plan is the
limitation on funding for education and job training programs.
Essentially, these vital programs to prepare the American people for
the challenges of a new global economy are frozen for 6 years. The
successful direct student loan program is capped, forcing 700,000
students out of the program in 1997 alone. This renewed attack on
education places the Congress on a collision course with the Clinton
administration, which has proposed $61 billion more in investments for
education and job training.
Again, the budget plan fails to adequately protect the environment.
The plan would cut purchasing power for natural resources and
environmental. The American people want the environment protected. They
want clean water, clean air, and access to well-kept national parks.
Mr. Speaker, this budget agreement is essentially the same as last
year's Gingrich budget. This budget sets in motion the same failed
tactic of confrontation that resulted in the longest and most
destructive Government shutdowns in our Nation's history. I fear that
not enough was learned by the Republican leadership from last year's
failures.
I urge my colleagues to reject this fundamentally flawed budget
resolution and insist that a bipartisan budget proposal be adopted to
move us on an orderly course to complete the important budget work of
this Congress.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this budget
resolution because of its deep cuts in education. In the House
Republicans' report on the budget for fiscal year 1997, they stated
that:
[E]ducation is a top priority for the Nation. It is the
means by which individuals develop the skills, knowledge, and
sense of responsibility to pursue their own personal
destinies and participate in their communities. It is the key
that unlocks the door to higher-skilled, better-paying jobs
for those seeking to break out of poverty. It is the source
of highly trained workers, who are crucial to keeping the
Nation competitive in an increasingly technical global
economy.
Then why are my Republican colleagues seeking a decrease of $2.1
billion compared to the freeze level for discretionary education,
training, employment and social services programs? These cuts will
include the elimination of 31 education programs including funding for
Howard University, Innovative Education Program Strategies, State
Student Incentive Grants, and new funding for student loans.
Furthermore, they are seeking to cut funding for student loans by
$3.7 billion over the next 6 years. Cutting the job training and
education programs by $1.1 billion below the 1996 enacted levels. How
can individuals break out of poverty through education if they cannot
afford to enroll in school or receive job training.
Is this how they treat a top priority for the Nation that is the
means by which individuals develop the skills, knowledge, and sense of
responsibility to pursue their own personal destinies?
Now, I truly understand why I was taught growing up in Mississippi
that you listen to a person's words but you judge him by his actions.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that in November the American public will use my
childhood lesson and listen to the words of the Republicans but vote
based on their actions. Finally, I urge my colleagues to vote against
this bill.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference
report on the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution offered today. This
conference report represents a continued attack on the health, safety,
and well-being of the majority of the American people. While not as
drastic as the budget proposed by the Republican majority last year or
the House-passed version of the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution,
this budget conference agreement also is too extreme. By cutting
Medicare and Medicaid, the safety net for vulnerable populations--the
elderly, disabled, and poor children and families--will be in jeopardy.
I cannot support a budget that includes massive Federal spending for
new tax breaks while other critical programs--including Medicare,
Medicaid, and the earned income tax credit--are greatly weakened. This
is not a realistic budget. We cannot, and should not, enact a budget
such as this that promises to both cut spending and cut taxes. If we
are serious about reducing the deficit--as I am--we should make the
hard choices to bring our Federal spending in line. This budget,
however, promises to make life easier for the affluent, while balancing
the budget on the backs of the poor and disadvantaged.
I support a balanced budget. In fact, I have cosponsored and voted in
favor of amending the U.S. Constitution to mandate a balanced Federal
budget. However, while the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution
conference report achieves balance on paper, I cannot support the
callous and irresponsible policy assumptions it uses to achieve these
savings. The policy implications have very real consequences to the
citizens of this Nation.
I am especially concerned about the deep cuts in discretionary
spending included in this budget. Certainly, we must take serious steps
to carefully scrutinize every portion of our Federal budget in order to
control Federal spending and bring our deficit under control. However,
the cuts in discretionary spending included here are too harsh and will
have a serious impact on millions of Americans, most notably the
vulnerable populations that continue to be left behind as we change our
Federal priorities.
For example, the cuts in education leave me very concerned about the
future of this Nation. The education of our children must be a top
priority. The education our children receive should be adequate in
keeping the U.S. economy competitive as we move into the next
[[Page H6267]]
century. American children rank dismally in math and science
achievement compared with students from other Nations. The proportion
of young people completing high school has remained stagnant for a
decade, despite the ever-increasing demands for education in the job
market. Having all our students starting school ready to learn,
increasing the high school graduation rate, teaching every adult to
read and keeping drugs and violence out of schools are not goals we
should abandon. While our deficit needs to be eliminated, we must not
decimate the education of future generations, in particular cutting $4
billion from our Nation's student loan program.
In addition, a well-maintained transportation network is essential
for economic development. If highways cannot be maintained, our goods
cannot move in commerce. Similarly, without continued attention to our
Nation's airports, delays and other difficulties will slow our
economy's growth. In addition, transit funding provides immediate
benefits for economic development, carrying low-income people to their
place of work and reducing congestion in metropolitan areas. This
conference agreement would cut transportation funding in 1997, lower
than its funding level this year.
Transportation should not bear higher cuts than other programs. The
House budget phases out Federal assistance the operation of mass
transit systems, and the conference agreement takes no position
contrary to this stance. Operating assistance is essential to transit
systems across the Nation. Transit systems are already taking serious
steps to cope with Federal operating cuts of nearly 50 percent in
fiscal year 1996 and 12 percent in fiscal year 1995. Transit systems,
by necessity, are operating more efficiently yet still must cut
services and increase fares. The complete elimination of operating
assistance would have a drastic impact and could eliminate necessary
public transportation in communities across our Nation.
The cuts in transportation funding is just one example of the
hypocrisy of this budget. As this budget pushes people into the
workforce it takes away their means of getting to work. This budget is
unfair and should not be passed by this House.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference
report on the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution.
As with the version of the budget that the House voted on back in
May, the budget plan outlined in the conference report is horribly
flawed.
If is flawed because it fails to address the Nation's most pressing
concerns--concerns like affordable health care, high-quality education,
community development, a healthy environment, and important investments
in research and infrastructure that will increase economic productivity
and improve our standard of living in years to come.
It if flawed because it irresponsibly cuts taxes and increases the
deficit at a time when we should be addressing our concerns to
balancing the budget.
It is flawed because it unwisely cuts spending for domestic programs
in order to increase spending on defense at a time when the most
important challenges facing the country are economic rather than
military.
Finally, it is flawed because it cruelly redirects Federal resources
away from safety net programs for the poor, the elderly, and the
disabled--and into the portfolios and safe-deposit boxes of the well-
to-do.
In short, this budget has its priorities all wrong--just like the
Republican Party. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report
and to start again. Let's put together a budget that invests in our
future, maintains a Federal safety net for the needy, and reduces the
deficit.
{time} 2200
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). Without
objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 211, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 236]
YEAS--216
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chambliss
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--211
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Cardin
Chabot
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hostettler
Hoyer
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shadegg
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--8
Calvert
Frelinghuysen
Gillmor
Hayes
Lincoln
Manton
McDade
Wilson
{time} 2220
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Frelinghuysen for, with Mrs. Lincoln against.
Mr. ALLARD, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. METCALF, and Mr. COOLEY changed their
votes from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
[[Page H6268]]
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________