[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.

                          ____________________