[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 74 (Tuesday, June 3, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3239-H3246]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 84, CONCURRENT 
               RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1998

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XX and at the 
direction of the Committee on the Budget, I move to take from the 
Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 84) 
establishing the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for 
fiscal year 1998 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, with a Senate amendment 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In an effort to try to move this along, Mr. Speaker, there really is 
not a reason, I do not believe, to get into any kind of protracted 
debate or discussion here. This is just no more than an effort to go to 
a conference, a conference that I have labeled the fait accompli 
conference.
  There is not a whole lot that has to be done. We have an agreement 
between the administration and the Congress of the United States, and 
frankly we ought to get about it. We ought to get it done this week, 
which we will get done this week.
  Just in a nutshell, I think we do need to know that this will provide 
for us the first balanced budget since 1969, since Neal Armstrong 
walked on the Moon. It will be the largest amount of entitlement 
savings. It will be the first balanced budget since 1969. It would also 
contain over the next decade about $700 billion in savings in mandatory 
spending, including very significant reforms of Medicare. The Medicare 
savings will be approximately the same amount of savings that the 
Republicans proposed in 1995.
  It will also have some structural changes. It is not just about 
dollars. There will be some adjustment between the rural and urban 
reimbursements as part of the ability to give our senior citizens more 
choice.
  Furthermore, it will now begin to pay the skilled nursing facilities 
and home health care providers a prospective amount, similar to how the 
hospitals work, in an effort to try to contain the costs of Medicare. 
We think these are obviously significant, combined with the fact that 
the shift of home health care from part A to part B will be kept in the 
premium, which will mean that beneficiaries in fact will bear a part of 
the burden, with the poorest beneficiaries continuing to have some 
relief.
  It is a structural change of Medicare with far more yet to come, and 
we will be unrelenting in the idea of developing ultimately a voucher 
program for Medicare that will keep it sound during the period of time 
when the baby boomers start to retire.
  But what is also contained in this budget resolution is an agreement 
to fundamentally have growth in the nondefense discretionary programs, 
the programs that operate the agencies and departments of the Federal 
Government. They will grow at a rate of about half a percent a year, as 
compared to a 6-percent growth over the last 10 years.
  Frankly, I am still checking the numbers, but I believe this will be 
the smallest level of growth in nondefense discretionary spending that 
we have seen at least over the last 10 years, and we are going back to 
find out if it may be the smallest level of growth that we have ever 
seen; significant progress.
  Let me also suggest the economic foundation of this program. It is 
interesting to note that during the Reagan years, the Reagan economic 
plan was underlaid by a growth in the economy that forecast somewhere 
in the vicinity of 4.3 to 4.4 percent. That is a growth rate we dream 
about today and we would hope to achieve, but not one that has been 
achieved for a long time.
  Mr. Speaker, contained in this agreement is not a 4.4-percent 
projection of economic growth that would make it somewhat unrealistic. 
What is contained in this agreement is a 2.1-percent economic growth 
pattern. As we all know, the economy in this last quarter has grown at 
about 5.6 percent. Certainly we will not achieve those levels of growth 
in this agreement, but what is important to note is that 2.1-percent 
presumes that at some times the economy will grow faster and at other 
times it will not grow as fast. We believe this is a conservative 
foundation, a conservative economic forecast, much more conservative 
than the blue chip estimators across this country.
  So what we have, Mr. Speaker, is we have the largest amount of 
mandatory savings in history, a significant slowdown of the nondefense 
discretionary, the programs that run the Government to a half a percent 
a year, conservative economics underlying this program, the first 
balanced budget since 1969, and, Mr. Speaker, the much desired and 
fought for tax cuts that we believe will help the American family and 
will also help to grow this economy.
  Let me just make a point. The capital gains tax cut in our judgment 
is one of the things that can help build an infrastructure for America 
that will allow this economy to grow faster in the absence of 
inflation. We think that is very, very significant.
  We also believe that a child tax credit is very important because it 
begins to send the right signals to that institution most under attack 
in the United States, the American family. We believe it will also 
restore a little justice in the area of estate relief, so as people 
work a lifetime to grow a business, they should not have these high 
levels of taxation.
  Mr. Speaker, let me also make it clear that this is not the end of 
the

[[Page H3240]]

road. We clearly have a number of things we want to do in the area of 
additional entitlement reform. We want to make fundamental changes in 
the operation of this Government, including the elimination of certain 
departments.

                              {time}  1745

  Let me make it clear that the hallmark of this Congress has been and 
really the last two Congresses has been the idea that we are going to 
return people's power, money and influence from this city back home to 
where the American people live. And that includes tax cuts. That 
includes letting people have more power in their pocket by letting them 
keep more of what they earn. So no one should be mistaken that this 
agreement is somehow the end of the road, but, really, it does 
represent the fall, the kind of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
  I remember when that happened, and many people looked around and said 
that it was hard to believe that we had actually defeated the 
Communists when the wall came down. Many found it hard to believe. 
Frankly, when you take a look at this agreement and you see the fact 
that we are going to balance the budget, we are going to have 
entitlement reform, we are going to have tax cuts, that this begins to 
really cement into place that the era of big government is at an end, 
and in a manner of speaking the Berlin Wall has fallen in regard to 
this budget.
  It does not mean it is the end of the day, but it means that a 
tremendous victory has been achieved here in the United States, an 
agreement underscored by the idea that Government should be smaller, 
that people should be more powerful. We think this is a giant first 
step with many more steps to come.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that we would go to conference, 
complete our work, get this done by the end of this week, and then 
begin to put into the permanent law the changes that we all seek.
  One other final note. Some have looked at this agreement and have 
wondered whether we get started on the deficit reduction up front. The 
answer to that of course is yes. With the permanent changes in the 
entitlement programs being enacted in this year, over time they will 
obviously accumulate savings. We are very happy with the fact that 
this, unlike previous agreements, will actually give us tax relief now, 
will give us savings now, and entitlement savings beginning the minute 
that this reconciliation bill is signed by the President.
  I wanted to thank the President for cooperating with us and his 
assistants, including Mr. Bowles and Mr. Hilley, Mr. Raines, Mr. 
Sperling; and I would also like to thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina, Mr. Spratt for his work and, of course, the gentleman from 
New Mexico, Senator Domenici.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt].
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we passed on the House floor before we left here for 
Memorial Day a historic resolution and we passed it with bipartisan 
support. Budget resolution House Concurrent Resolution 84 was passed on 
this side of the aisle on the Democratic side with a vote of 132 to 70, 
if my recollection is correct, almost a two-to-one margin over here and 
by an overwhelming margin on the other side. What we do in this budget 
resolution really pushes the envelope of what we can accomplish in a 
budget resolution. We have basically incorporated by reference a hard 
wrought, hard negotiated, bipartisan budget agreement of 1997, achieved 
over 3 to 4 months of negotiations, among the White House and the 
congressional leadership and particularly the principals on the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Even though this agreement goes to further lengths than we normally 
find in a budget resolution, it really does not contain all of the 
detail we need to see that it is carried out as the parties who 
negotiated it intended. That is why I say we are pushing the envelope 
of what we can accomplish with a budget resolution.
  It is important that we bring this conference report to conclusion, 
to closure with as much clarity and distinctness as we can possibly 
give it, given the vehicle we have got, a budget resolution, because 
many of us are still concerned that what comes out of the production 
line, off the production line, out of the authorizing committees and 
appropriation committees will resemble, identifiably, what we are 
putting on the production line at the outset in this budget resolution.
  So the start of this process, the seeing to it that we get it done 
right is this conference report, and so I wholly support the idea of 
going to conference.
  We tried an alternative, an expedited alternative that would have 
involved bringing to the floor of the House and the other body 
conforming amendments that would have in effect converged the text of 
both budget resolutions to the same text. But we have failed at that 
effort. It does not appear we can resolve that soon enough, so this is 
the conventional device for bringing the House and the Senate together 
on things we disagree about.
  We will offer at the appropriate time, assuming the House approves 
the motion to going to conference, our motion to instruct conferees 
that will deal with one particular aspect of this agreement that still 
concerns Members on my side of the aisle. Some of these Members, our 
minority leader included, were here in 1981 when the Economic Recovery 
Tax Act, Kemp-Roth, was passed. And they feel that we are only now 
beginning to restore the revenue base of the Federal Government to the 
point where we are about to get rid of deficits.
  They do not want to have us come so far to be so closely within reach 
of a balanced budget because we have taken steps, among other things, 
to restrain spending and also to restore the revenue base of the 
Government, having come so far to enact a tax bill that will so 
diminish the revenue base of the Government that we will have this 
problem all over again, a structural problem that will not lead us to a 
balanced budget or at least will strike a balance, a budget that will 
strike a balance in 2002 but will not be in true equilibrium. We will 
not have a problem finally and permanently resolved. That is why they 
are concerned that we keep within the bounds that we have outlined in 
this agreement, this budget agreement and the budget resolution, the 
tax cuts that are authorized and the reconciliation instructions that 
are put forth to it.
  Our motion to instruct conferees will go to the very essence of that 
particular tax reduction measure that will be part of the 
reconciliation instruction and the budget conference agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior], minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the 
time.
  I want to commend him, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and all 
those who worked on this budget agreement. Let me just say at the 
outset that I think the vote that we will have shortly on this floor 
this evening could be one of the most important votes that we will have 
in this Congress. The motion to instruct our conferees to make sure 
that the tax piece of this budget agreement does not explode in the 
outyears causing us a replay of 1981, where it took us more than a 
decade to dig our way out of huge deficits.
  It is an important vote. I encourage all of my colleagues to be 
cognizant of what will be happening here in just a few minutes. It is 
important because we knew, we know what happened back in 1981. In the 
past, Republican tax bills, tax breaks for capital gains, IRAs, have 
favored high income people, and estate tax cuts all exploded outside 
the budget window. That has been the history in the past when 
Republicans have controlled or have written the tax bills that have 
become law.
  What we will be suggesting on this floor when we get to it in a few 
minutes is that we accept the language of the Senate. The language of 
the Senate basically says this: that they want to keep the $250 billion 
cost that we are talking about on the tax bill on a 10-year period. No 
explosion after 5 years. No 1981's again. And the emphasis will be on 
helping the poor working Americans and middle-income Americans and it 
will be helping them with the child tax credit. It will be helping them 
with the educational tax breaks that we will be putting forward and 
that have been put forward already in this debate on the budget.

[[Page H3241]]

  So I urge my colleagues, this is a maintenance budget that we are 
dealing with here. We brought the American people and we brought this 
country into a balanced budget in 1993, when we voted for the 1993 
budget that brought the deficit down from $300 billion a year to the 
present level of about $65 billion. What we are doing now is trying to 
maintain and get that extra inch that we need to the goal line.
  If we do what we did with trickle-down theory in 1981 and we pass a 
tax bill that has exploding numbers in the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th 
year, we will be doing a disservice to this institution, our colleagues 
who follow us and certainly the American people.
  I want to urge all of my colleagues to support the motion this 
evening to put some fiscal restraint on what we are doing by making 
sure that the tax benefits get to those who really need them in the 
area of education and in the area of child tax credits and make sure 
that we do not create for ourselves a situation in which our children 
and our children's children will be paying off this exploding debt in 
the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th years. I urge my colleagues, when the 
time comes, to support my colleague from South Carolina who will try to 
rein in these exploding outyear deficits by a runaway tax bill.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. McDermott].
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to do 
something which I cannot see any reason why anybody would not do. And 
that is to make sure that the tax breaks that are put into this bill do 
not explode in the outyears. The estimates that we have seen on the 
proposals that have actually been put on the table by Senator Roth and 
others have deficits of $750 billion in the second 10 years. And if 
anyone votes against this resolution, they can only do it on one of two 
bases. One is that they do not care that we are replaying 1981. In 1981 
we made decisions in this House, none of us were here, most of us were 
not, at least, and it took us 15 years to dig ourselves out of it. Now 
here we are going back in the pit again and doing the same thing again 
and setting ourselves up unless we instruct our conferees to refuse to 
put that kind of language in the budget resolution. They must limit the 
explosion in the outyears.
  The only other reason that someone would vote against this resolution 
or this motion by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] is if 
they simply do not expect to be here.
  I understand there are a lot of Members around here who believe in 
term limits. Maybe they figure in 6 years they will all be gone, but 
the very Members who are here today saying we must balance the budget 
always put it in terms of our children. We have to do it for our 
children. We do not want to sink our children in debt. Yet if we do not 
limit the tax breaks by the motion that the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt] is making, we set in motion something that will 
happen 10 or 12 or 15 years out there.
  If you are a baby boomer in this country and you are going to get to 
65 in 15 years, just as the baby boom generation gets to taking 
Medicare and Social Security, this major problem will be back on the 
doorstep.

                              {time}  1830

  Who will be here to fix it? Well, it will be our children. They will 
have then run for the U.S. Congress, and they will be facing the same 
problem. They will say to themselves, why did the Congress of 1997 set 
in motion this mess?
  We can almost excuse the Congress of 1981, because they did not know. 
They were not really paying attention or they did not know what was 
going to happen. But we have now seen what happens when we give big tax 
breaks and cut the budget, and so we have no excuse for setting in 
motion something that will be an enormous problem for our children.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote for the motion to instruct the 
conferees offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is one that ought to 
be accepted by acclamation, both parties, staying within the spirit of 
this historic balanced budget agreement.
  As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I enthusiastically 
supported the agreement. I supported it because I felt it represented a 
compromise, a compromise that provided Americans with a balanced 
budget, with tax cuts, and yet with essential commitments to programs 
and national priorities that reflect our basic values.
  Now, what is before us tonight in the motion to instruct conferees 
offered by my colleague from South Carolina is simply to go with the 
Senate provision 104(b) of the Senate-passed resolution that the 10-
year cost of the tax cuts shall be $250 billion and, second, with 
section 321 of the Senate-passed resolution that there ought to be a 
fair distribution of tax cuts as to the $250 billion.
  This is not a figure that has just come up on the floor of the House, 
thrown into this motion. It was at the heart of the negotiations. It 
was at the heart of the negotiations because the Senate requires a 10-
year look at revenue losses under tax cuts, first of all; and, second, 
because a balanced budget plan that tried so mightily to reach balance 
by 2002 would be a sham if it had a provision that exploded the revenue 
loss under the tax cuts and threw the budget wildly out of balance in 
the years 2003 through 2007.
  This is not about hitting once a balanced budget only to spin wildly 
out of control again. This is about getting America on a firm financial 
foundation with a balanced budget in the year 2002 and in the years 
that follow that. That is why the 10-year $250 billion figure is so 
critical.
  Finally, as we get to tax breaks, let us direct those tax breaks to 
those who really need them, the middle-income, working-income Americans 
that are stressed so hard trying to make ends meet. That was agreed to 
by the Senate, a Republican-controlled Senate, with substantial support 
from both political parties.
  This section 321 talks about a substantial majority of tax cuts 
benefits will go to middle-class working families earning less than 
approximately $100,000 per year and will not cause revenue losses to 
increase significantly in the years after 2007.
  So all we are asking is that this balanced budget agreement reflect 
balance not just in 2002 but in the years after 2002, and that those 
who benefit from the tax cuts primarily be Americans earning under 
$100,000 and less. Quite frankly, we have to make priorities and we 
have to direct the tax cuts to those who need them the most, working 
income, middle-income Americans. Please go with the motion to instruct.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Just in response, Mr. Speaker, I would hope we 
all keep track of some of our goals in this country and what I assume 
we all want to accomplish, and one thing is more and better jobs.
  So the question, as we review tax cuts, is how do we get more and 
better jobs and keep this economy growing?
  So to specify and say that the tax cuts have to be just to a certain 
income group, I think dismisses the larger question of how can we best 
accomplish the goals that we all want to achieve, and that is more and 
better jobs for the American working family.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what this motion to instruct is. I 
hope it does not include in here a tax increase, but I am constantly 
amazed at the fact that people, some people in this House, worry that 
people are going to get their money back. I cannot quite understand why 
it is that there is this sense.
  We are pulling the folks who for many years fought against the 
balanced budget and tax cuts a lot of the way, but I guess I am not 
convinced we have changed their hearts yet. Maybe we will get there. 
But what I do not understand is what this sense is that somehow the 
Government will have less and the people will have more. See, I think 
that is a good thing, if the government has less and the people have 
more. I think it is a good thing if the Government has less power and 
the people have more power.

[[Page H3242]]

  Now, there are all kinds of ways we can give people their power. We 
can give them a right to send their kids where they want to go to 
school without the Government trying to tell them where they ought to 
go.
  We could actually let the housing authority in Chicago decide that if 
they want to check the residents to see if they have got guns in their 
place, they should be allowed to do that. We ought to set the rules 
that we want in our housing authorities and the communities we live. I 
think that is pretty good.
  I think we ought to let people have more choice on the kind of health 
care they want to have. I think they can make that kind of decision.
  But aside from even those issues, a much bigger issue than all of 
that is the fact that people will have more money in their pockets. And 
when they have more money in their pockets they, by definition, have 
more power.
  So I understand the idea that we do not want to violate the terms of 
this agreement. That is, I guess, to be adhered to. But, frankly, I 
wish we had far greater tax cuts in this agreement and second, though, 
the notion that somehow over the course of this that people are going 
to actually keep more than what we set out and that we are in this 
hyperventilated negative state about that is something that is beyond 
me.
  The simple fact of the matter is that if we balance the budget 
faster, I do not hear anybody saying that we should give people more of 
their money back. I do not hear anybody saying that we in fact may get 
to a balanced budget sooner, and as we get to a balanced budget sooner, 
let us give more tax cuts.
  I have to say to my colleagues that the wave of the future is not 
about the Government having more power. The people of this country are 
saying they want government to have less power. We better not knock on 
their door and tell them that we are from the Government and we are 
here to help. We are not going to get that good a reception from them, 
in case my colleagues have not noticed.
  Our crusade ought to be about giving people their power back, about 
making this town less important. And that is what we are all about. 
That is what we are all about starting in this budget agreement: 
Balanced budget, hope for our children, tax cuts to give people more 
power, Medicare reform so people can have more options, shrinking the 
size of the Government that operates the agencies and departments. That 
is what we are all about in this agreement.
  I am just going to argue that the reason we are balancing the budget 
is because the people want it, and the reason why they ought to have 
tax cuts and less government is because they want it, and the sooner we 
get this message the quicker we can end the cynicism and the skepticism 
people have about this Capital City of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that, frankly, we could even dispense with 
this motion to instruct because now we are trying to micromanage who 
gets the tax cuts. We are starting class warfare again. And then I 
think we are saying we will have a tax increase. That is what I think 
this says.
  Frankly, I hope it is not going to pass. I predict it is not going to 
pass. And I think we should get on with this and forget this motion to 
instruct and I would ask the gentleman from South Carolina to just 
unoffer this today.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to the 
gentleman.
  I think we all need to bear in mind that basically what we are doing 
in this budget resolution for the next 5 years is borrowing more money 
so that we can fund the cost of tax cuts. Bear that in mind.
  Second, what we are trying to do in this motion to instruct, which we 
will offer shortly, is say to the conferees stick to the strict 
outlines of the budget agreement that we have laid out.
  We have decided that we can make room for $85 billion in net revenue 
reduction over 5 years in this budget and $250 billion over the second 
5 years. Those are the limits. Please do not stretch the limits because 
we are concerned not just that we strike balance in the year 2002, but 
that we put this Government on a basis of equilibrium and we will have 
a truly balanced budget that will last.
  As to the revenues of the Government, here is the administration's 
design, which is basically incorporated in this package and which is 
what they sent up with the budget presented by President Clinton in 
February of this year. The Government of the United States is now 
spending around 20.3, 20.4 percent of GDP, gross domestic product. We 
are taking in taxes about 19.1 or 19.2 percent. And there is the 
deficit, the difference between the intake and the outgo of the 
Government based upon the percentage measured as a percentage of our 
GDP.
  The goal here, the design of this package, as proposed by the 
administration, as essentially embraced in this budget resolution, is 
to have revenues and spending converge at about 19.3 percent of GDP. So 
spending as a percentage of GDP under this plan will drop, revenues 
will remain relatively constant, and that is the scheme here. We want 
to make sure that scheme is achieved, and that is what we are about.
  Second, in doing these tax cuts, we want to make sure that the people 
who really deserve tax relief, middle-income Americans worried about 
how to pay for college tuition and other such essential things, are not 
forgotten.
  I know there is a lot of zeal to do capital gains tax cuts and estate 
tax cuts and to rewrite the alternative minimum tax, and in the zeal to 
do that we want to make sure that middle-income Americans get 
remembered too.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, those of us on the Committee on the Budget 
have worked on this budget resolution, and although there is 
partisanship in some areas, I think that many of us feel that we have 
had and would like to have a good working relationship with the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and 
with the other Members who have spoken. I certainly sense from their 
comments in other contexts that they too feel we should be working on a 
bipartisan basis to the maximum extent possible.
  Now, the comments earlier this afternoon, I think, sort of missed the 
thrust of what we are really debating. The statements were essentially 
made ``people good, government bad.'' We are not talking about ``people 
good, government bad''; we are talking about what we need to do to 
ensure that we balance the budget. What do we need to do to make sure 
that the tax cuts do not balloon out of the channel that we are trying 
to construct and flood our efforts or snuff out our efforts to balance 
the budget.

                              {time}  1815

  And all that is being suggested is that we in the House side should 
accede to the Senate in this respect. I do not believe that the Senate 
was dominated by radical liberals in the passage of the budget 
resolution. The Senate has looked at this and has simply said, let us 
make sure that on a 10-year basis the tax cuts do not exceed $250 
billion. The Senate has also said, let us make sure that these tax cuts 
do not run away with our efforts to balance the budget after the 10-
year period. And the Senate has said, let us make sure that the bulk of 
the tax cut benefits go to people earning less than $100,000 a year.
  Now, if the Senate has engaged in some sort of destructive and 
manipulative action with respect to tax cuts, those horrible 
Republicans in the Senate, or if they have initiated a class warfare 
strategy, it certainly is a surprise to me and I think almost every 
Member of the House. I think that what the Senate Republicans have put 
into the budget resolution on their side reflects nothing more than 
common sense, and I certainly have found as I have journeyed throughout 
my congressional district that Republicans and Democrats alike agree 
that we ought to be about balancing the budget first and then when we 
know that we have that under control and we have eliminated the 
deficit, we ought to be cutting taxes and making sure that whatever 
good programs we have are adequately supported. For this reason, I urge 
that we all join in supporting the motion.

[[Page H3243]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich] has 17\1/2\ minutes remains. The gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spratt] has 11\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spratt] for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a reasonable approach, as the speaker before me 
said, this was adopted by the Senate, which is controlled by the other 
party. And I think it is very reasonable. Now, this tax cut deal, which 
I voted for in the committee and I voted for on the floor, is 
predicated on stable growth, it is predicated on asset sales. And we 
have to be honest with ourselves that it may not work and we may end up 
with severe revenue losses down the road. We ought to take the steps 
now to ensure that we stay within the confines of the original deal, 
and that is what the Spratt motion would do.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] was talking about the Reagan 
years and the GDP assumptions in the Reagan years. And I know we do not 
want to confuse things with the facts and look at the statistics, but I 
think it is important that we do. During that period, my colleague 
mentioned that assumption of 4 percent annual growth was never 
realized, and of course that is true when you look at the historical 
statistics. The same could be said about this: I think the gentleman is 
correct in many respects, we assume some very conservative economic 
statistics, particularly as it relates to growth rates. But if you look 
at some other statistics and compare them to historical average, we are 
using some pretty optimistic assumptions.
  For instance, our assumptions for inflation are 200 bases points less 
than what the recent historical average has been. Our assumption for 
interest rates is about 300 bases points less than what the recent 
historical averages have been. And our assumptions for unemployment are 
1 percent less. And with respect to spectrum sales, we are assuming 
more than we have achieved before us. So it is possible that this deal 
will not work out.
  I might also add that the chairman of the committee, who I have a 
great deal of respect for, talked about the capital gains reduction and 
how that might create some inflation-free growth. That is quite 
possible. I have supported capital gains reduction. I have introduced a 
bill to do so. But I do not think we can ignore the fact that down 
Constitution Avenue sits the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the 
current, like his predecessor, tends to have a monitorist bent; and I 
think we would have to contend with them at some point if they saw 
increasing inflation-free growth that they might start to take the 
punch bowl away and put on the brakes, and that would also impact 
interest rates.
  So what this does is to say we will live within the $250 billion 
revenue stream over 10 years like the Senate has already done. And I 
think that makes sense. This is what we would call in the transaction 
business, belts and suspenders. We are making sure that we are going to 
follow through and do it the right way and not cause problems down the 
road for our children.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spratt] for yielding and I rise to support the motion that he is 
going to offer to instruct conferees, and I would hope that the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] would support the motion because, in 
fact, it is about making sure that there are no tax increases in the 
future.
  As someone who voted for the budget deal, I believe a deal is a deal. 
But the budget deal is only truly a deal if we balance the budget not 
merely on the numbers but on the principles. That is why we must use 
the 10-year outlook on tax revenues. There is nothing magical about 
hitting a date in 2002 and then returning to deficits because we have 
planted the seeds of fiscal instability. Ten-year revenue figures are 
about as honest as we can get. It is very hard, however, to conceal tax 
expenditures which blossom and proliferate after 5 years if we use the 
other body's revenue baselines.
  The mess we are in today is because of spending binges which began in 
1981 when we massively front-loaded defense spending and tax cuts. 
These two measures created the tidal wave of deficits 6, 7, and 8 years 
later that is causing the fiscal pain that we are experiencing today.
  It was voodoo economics back then, and we should not resort to smoke 
and mirrors now. The real magic is to keep the budget balanced in 10 
years. Let us keep the deal to permanent fiscal responsibility and use 
the most honest figures, the 10-year estimates. I urge my colleagues to 
make this an honest deal and vote for the motion to instruct conferees 
when it is offered.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Ms. Stabenow).
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, first I would rise to once again to 
congratulate all parties on both sides of the aisle for putting 
together this balanced budget agreement, which I was very proud to 
support. It is not just about numbers, however, it is about protecting 
our values for our families. And that is the reason why I rise this 
evening to support the motion to instruct, which I think is incredibly 
important if we are to maintain the integrity in the outyears of 
balancing the budget and maintain our values that are outlined in the 
balanced budget agreement.
  I had an opportunity to spend time over the district workweek in my 
district, holding office hours in grocery stores and local restaurants, 
talking to my constituents about this balanced budget agreement. They 
told me they liked the fact that education was placed as No. 1 in the 
priorities for investment. They liked the fact that children's health 
and health care for working families that do not now have health care 
was important to the process, as well as protecting the environment and 
creating jobs. But they expressed one concern, and that was over and 
over again: Who will receive the tax cuts that are being proposed?
  Because in their minds, their history has been for the last 15 to 20 
years that they, as working families, middle-class Americans, small 
businesses, family-owned farms, have not seen the benefits of the bulk 
of the tax cuts that have been instituted since the 1980's, and they 
are asking, whether it is a family-owned farmer who has put all of 
their hard work and sweat into their land, that they be protected in 
terms of the estate tax, and I very strongly support eliminating the 
estate tax for those family-owned farmers or family-owned small 
business, or whether it is a young couple, not so young couple, 
depending on your perspective, in their forties whose children just 
went off to college and they need to get a smaller home now but all of 
their investments are tied up in equity in their house. That is their 
savings, and they are saying, can we please have capital gains 
protection for us as working people.
  I would urge the committee to make sure that when we are done, tax 
cuts go to those who need it the most.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, very simply, I rise to support 
the Spratt amendment to this budget and raise three simple points to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Let me say, because of the 
work that we have already done, we have a booming economy. I think we 
should acknowledge that. The numbers suggest that we have the lowest 
unemployment. One of the things that we need to do, however, is create 
jobs for many in our community.
  On behalf of the 18th Congressional District in Texas, two other 
points that I think are more far-reaching that we should attest to, and 
that is that many of our constituents wanted us to balance the budget 
and they wanted us to bring down the deficit. This particular budget 
resolution and the motion to instruct conferees on the budget 
resolution is important, and that is because it instructs that the tax 
cuts do not exceed the $250 billion net cuts in the budget agreement.
  We do not want to bust the balanced budget. That is key and that is 
very important. And then I believe that we should have tax cuts but 
they should

[[Page H3244]]

be tax cuts for working Americans, the working Americans that have 
helped build this country, a child tax credit, an education tax credit, 
targeted estate tax relief, targeted capital gains.
  The real emphasis of this balanced budget should be for those 
Americans who every day go out and work, every day continue to pay 
their taxes and build this country. We should create jobs for the 
graduates in the 1997 class, the 1998 class, the 1999 class and, yes, 
the year 2000 class. Put our people to work by focusing on the right 
kind of tax cuts that do not bust the budget, that have a targeted 
estate tax, a targeted education tax cut, a targeted child credit tax 
cut, and to make sure that this is truly a balanced budget that works 
for all Americans.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, if a Member could respond from 
the other side briefly, I am very concerned about this because what we 
are adopting is a sense of Congress passed by the Senate. And in 
section 321(2), it says that if revenue starts going down after the 
year 2007, will increase taxes.
  Most of the speakers over there say, look, we want a tax cut, we do 
want it to go to the American working family. But (2), the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] says, after 2007, if revenues start 
going down, increase taxes. That is not what we want. And I do not 
think we should accept that idea that somehow if there is a slump in 
the economy, what we do and how we instruct conferees is to increase 
taxes so that they do not have any revenue loss after the year 2007.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich] has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I was reading this weekend an article by Professor 
William Quirk of the University of South Carolina Law School, and he 
reminds us that in the year 2002, when the budget is supposed to be 
balanced, we will owe $450 billion in interest payments on a $7 
trillion debt; and at that same time, the discussion is how much are we 
going to give away in tax cuts to individuals.
  No more important decision will be made by this Congress for future 
generations as to whether or not, when we engage in the process of 
cutting taxes, whether or not we can control ourselves and resist the 
political instinct to hand out goodies and to hand out tax cuts that 
are disguised in the first years and then only to explode in the later 
years and then to cause an explosion of the deficit that this Congress 
and this Nation has worked so hard to bring into balance.
  We have got to be very clear that tax cuts should go to those who 
need them the most and tax cuts should be constrained in their growth 
and that tax cuts should not upset the balance of the budget in the 
year 2002. Otherwise, we will end up in the situation as was pointed 
out in the Washington Post this last week that the budget would be 
balanced only to become instantly unbalanced all over again.
  That is not what the American people are asking us to do. They are 
asking us to bring this budget into balance and to keep it into balance 
and to force us to choose our priorities and not charge it off to 
future generations. Just as we should not charge off spending, we 
should not charge off the tax cuts to future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record the following article by 
William J. Quirk:

                    The Earth Belongs to the Living

                         (By William J. Quirk)

       The President and Congress have both promised us a balanced 
     budget in the year 2002. The debt, at that time, will be 
     somewhere between six and seven trillion dollars, which, 
     assuming a seven percent interest rate, will cost close to 
     $450 billion a year in interest. Each year, every year, 
     forever. Is it plausible to think the new generation will 
     pick up that perpetual burden? How can the country equitably 
     deal the debt burden?
       Debt can only be disposed of in five ways: one, by paying 
     if off; two, by repudiating it; three, by inflation--which is 
     a veiled repudiation; four, by conquering the creditor to 
     cancel the debt or conquering a third party to seize 
     sufficient wealth to pay off the debt; or, five, by large 
     real growth which makes the debt service a smaller share of a 
     growing pie. If large real growth is unlikely, and conquest 
     unpalatable, only the first three methods are available. The 
     classic approach is inflation. The United States, since the 
     Vietnam War, has used consistent inflation, usually around 
     three percent, to reduce our debt. Inflation can be a 
     successful method if no new debt is incurred, but continuing 
     large deficits, and the new borrowing to cover them, have 
     overwhelmed the tactic.
       The Founders, other than Hamilton, believed that a 
     perpetual debt was incompatible with self-rule, since the 
     current generation cannot be asked to pay for decisions they 
     did not make. Thomas Jefferson, during his term, reduced the 
     national debt by one-third despite paying cash to Napoleon 
     for Louisiana. ``If we go to war now,'' Jefferson wrote to 
     James Monroe in 1805, ``I fear we may renounce forever the 
     hope of seeing an end of our national debt. If we can keep at 
     peace eight years longer, our income, liberated from debt, 
     will be adequate to any war, without new taxes or loans, and 
     our position and increasing strength put us hors d'insulte 
     from any nation.'' Jefferson, in 1804, listed cutting taxes, 
     cutting expenses, and reducing the national debt as the 
     highest accomplishment of his first term: ``To do without a 
     land tax, excise, stamp tax, and the other internal taxes, to 
     supply their places by economies so as still to support the 
     government properly and to apply $7,300,000 a year steadily 
     to the payment of the public debt.'' Jefferson foresaw that a 
     debt policy, such as Hamilton fostered, would be complicated 
     and promote the centralization of power. Jefferson wrote 
     James Madison in 1796 that ``the accounts of the United 
     States ought to be, and may be, made as simple as those of a 
     common farmer, and capable of being understood by common 
     farmers.'' Things did not turn out as Jefferson hoped.
       Our economists, unlike Jefferson, fail to distinguish 
     between private borrowing and public borrowing: they think 
     the issue is whether the annual income stream (tax 
     revenues) is able to support the annual interest cost. But 
     the real issue is whether a $450 billion annual charge--
     with no return--is socially and politically sustainable. 
     Does anyone think a 20-year-old earning $10 an hour, or 
     $20,000 a year, can afford to pay $4,234 in federal and 
     state income tax and Social Security tax? That amount, 
     invested each year for 45 years at seven percent interest, 
     would give a nest egg of $1,268,000. The present value of 
     all the Social Security benefits he will receive, starting 
     in 2041, assuming the system still exists, is an 
     unimpressive $12,400. The present value of health benefits 
     he will receive is $25,800, and of welfare benefits, 
     $20,500. The difference between $59,700--the present value 
     of all the benefits he will ever receive--and $1,268,000 
     is a very expensive government for someone making $10 an 
     hour.
       Can a government survive when so many resources are 
     allocated to pay for inherited liabilities? Can a moral, 
     orderly society survive if it does? The debt, because of 
     doubts on both scores, destroys the value of the currency. 
     The fear is that history will probably repeat itself, and the 
     country will stoke up inflation to reduce the effective 
     burden of an unsupportable debt. Inflation may stay within 
     bounds, as it has, barely, for the past 20 years. Or it may 
     run out of control and destroy the currency as it did in 
     Weimar Germany in 1923. The Weimar inflation destroyed the 
     middle class, the basis of any democracy, and made way for 
     Hitler. Either way, when the currency's value is 
     unpredictable, individuals can't plan for a child's 
     education, business cannot look very far ahead, and the 
     country is disoriented.
       Jefferson, in a September 6, 1789, letter to James Madison, 
     said he thought it self-evident ``that the earth belongs in 
     usufruct [trust] to the living, that the dead have neither 
     powers nor rights over it.'' In 1823, Jefferson wrote to 
     Thomas Earle, ``That our Creator made the earth for the use 
     of the living and not of the dead; that those who exist not 
     can have no use nor right in it, no authority or power over 
     it; that one generation of men cannot foreclose or burden its 
     use to another, which comes to it in its own right and by the 
     same divine beneficence; that a preceding generation cannot 
     bind a succeeding one by its laws or contracts.'' The current 
     generation, in other words, holds the land as a life 
     tenant does; he is entitled to cultivate the land and 
     enjoy the fruits of it, but he can't hurt the interest of 
     those who are to come after. He should turn the land over 
     in the same condition he received it. Each generation is 
     the steward for the earth during its lifetime.
       Assume, Jefferson wrote, that Louis XV borrowed so much 
     from the bankers of Genoa that the interest on the debt came 
     to equal the whole annual net profit of France: ``Should the 
     present generation of Frenchmen deed their property to the 
     Genoese creditors and leave their homeland? No. They have the 
     same rights over the soil on which they were produced, as the 
     preceding generation had. They derive these rights not from 
     their predecessors, but from nature.'' No generation, by 
     natural right, can oblige the next generation to pay its 
     debts. If it could, it might, during its own time, ``eat up 
     the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, 
     and then the land would belong to the dead, and not the 
     living.''
       Jefferson concluded that it would be ``wise and just'' for 
     the Constitution to declare

[[Page H3245]]

     that ``neither the legislature, nor the nation itself, can 
     validly contract more debt than they may pay within their own 
     age, or within the term of 19 years.'' Not all borrowing, of 
     course, leads to wasteful spending debt. Debt may be invested 
     in beneficial infrastructure. The 1846 New York 
     Constitutional Convention, applying Jeffersonian principles, 
     provided that the state could contract no debt except by a 
     law approved by a referendum. The debt, however, had to be 
     for a single ``work or object'' and be accompanied by a new 
     tax sufficient to pay interest and retire the debt within 18 
     years. Or the debt may be invested to acquire intangible 
     assets--which the society considers beneficial--such as 
     Pitt's Napoleonic Wars and our World War II and Cold War. 
     But, because of the absence of checks, spending is far more 
     likely to be wasteful when borrowing is permitted. If a 
     country runs on a pay-as-you-go basis, whatever mistakes it 
     makes will be paid for by those who made the mistakes.
       Moreover, the requirement of immediate payment for 
     government programs acts as an efficient brake on 
     governmental enthusiasm. Debt, since it requires no immediate 
     taxes, removes the fundamental limitation that to fund a 
     program for the benefit of one group, the money has to be 
     taken from a different group. Under pay-as-you-go, the 
     payers must currently pay what the payees will currently 
     receive. The payers are apt to resist--the issue must be 
     discussed--and some compromise reached.
       With a borrowing policy, as Jefferson saw, the rules are 
     entirely different. The consent of the governed is not 
     necessary. The executive proposes a program but now he meets 
     no effective opposition, since the legislature is equally 
     happy to spend money today that will have to be repaid by 
     future taxpayers. The viciousness of the borrowing policy is 
     that the taxpayer of tomorrow is not represented by any of 
     the parties at the table. The burden is easily cast upon the 
     unrepresented future. Programs can go forward that the 
     current taxpayers are unwilling to pay for. Unpopular 
     programs--such as the Vietnam War, the Great Society, and the 
     Savings and Loan bailout--can move ahead. Of course, when 
     programs go ahead without the consent of the governed, they 
     are likely to tear the country apart.
       Jefferson believed that the debt-making power was too 
     dangerous for the federal government. Since it could not be 
     safely limited, it had to be prohibited. Jefferson wrote to 
     John Taylor, on November 26, 1798: ``I wish it were possible 
     to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be 
     willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the 
     administration of our government of the genuine principles of 
     its Constitution. I mean an additional article, taking from 
     the federal government the power of borrowing.'' (Emphasis 
     added.)
       Jefferson said in 1816 that the people, ``not the rich, are 
     our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their 
     independence, we must not let our leaders load us with 
     perpetual debt.'' If the leaders load us with such debt, we 
     will then be taxed ``in our meat and in our drink'' till we 
     must, like the English, live on ``oatmeal and potatoes; have 
     no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to 
     account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring 
     ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-
     sufferers.'' We will, at that point, ``have no sensibilities 
     left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the 
     war of all against all.''

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, as we go to conference 
this evening on the budget resolution, we really should assure the 
American people they will get a balanced budget as promised. So that 
means crafting the tax package in a way that makes it possible to 
provide the promised tax cuts while adequately measuring their cost to 
assure that the budget will actually balance in 2002.
  That means playing fair with the numbers. The numbers cannot be jury-
rigged so as to provide only the illusion of a balanced budget. How 
tragic it would be, Mr. Speaker, if in fact after these tax cuts were 
promised and the budget were laid out, that we would not have a 
balanced budget but would have a deficit that we have worked so hard to 
get rid of.
  I think we should all agree on a bipartisan basis that such an 
outcome is absolutely unacceptable. We will balance the budget, we will 
give the tax cuts, and we will use fair and honest numbers.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues on the 
other side, there is a lot of room that we can maneuver in the future. 
We are looking at a lot of different savings, and I think we can get 
support from the other side of the aisle.
  Let me give a couple of classic examples that I hope in the next 
budget can go toward more of the savings that we are trying to send 
back to the American people. The 760 programs we have in education, to 
take and see, and I think it is fair to ask, which ones are working, 
which ones are not. The President is asking for $3 billion in a new 
literacy program. We today are funding 14 literacy programs. Let us 
reduce the bureaucracy and see which ones work.
  When we take a look at the earned income tax credit, that there is a 
26-percent overpayment, so 25 cents out of every dollar. We can have a 
lot of savings from that and give it back to the American people. We 
can take a look at when we are getting as little as 50 cents on the 
dollar back out of our education from the Federal Government, that we 
can drive it down and bring in a lot of private work for it, with my 
colleagues from the other side. And take a look at the extension in 
Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia has cost us over $15 billion and this new 
extension that the President is talking about that already is there, 
and then not pulling our troops, it is going to cost another $5 
billion. I think that there is going to be a lot of room at which we 
can improve both of the issues on the bills and have more relief for 
the middle class like we want and like my colleagues on the other side 
do. I hate the term middle class. It should be middle income, not 
middle class. I would ask my colleagues on the other side to work with 
us on this and that it is something I think for the future of this 
country, the balanced budget, and making sure that we do help on both 
sides of what we want in this, that we can go a long way.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
motion.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  The motion was agreed to.


                Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Spratt

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. SPRATT moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on disagreeing votes of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate on H. Con. Res. 84, the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal years 1997 
     through 2002, be instructed to do everything possible within 
     the scope of the conference (1) to agree to section 104(b) of 
     the Senate-passed resolution, limiting the 10-year net cost 
     of the tax cuts to $250 billion; (2) agree to section 321 of 
     the Senate-passed resolution, with respect to fair 
     distribution of tax cuts.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] each 
will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to explain the 
purpose of the motion.
  As I said at the outset when the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], 
the chairman, introduced his motion to go to conference, our purpose 
here is to see that what comes out of the pipeline resembles in its 
essential details what we are putting into the pipeline in the form of 
this budget resolution, and in particular on our side we are concerned 
that after spending years in restoring the revenue base of the Federal 
Government to the point where we have got the deficit down to $107.8 
billion last September, projected to be below $90 billion, well below 
it, this coming September, we do not want to make the mistake made in 
1981 and undo all the progress that has brought us to this point where 
we can truthfully say we are within reach of a balanced budget.
  No. 1, we want to make sure that the tax writing committees, when 
they undertake to fulfill the reconciliation instructions, will 
strictly keep to the dictates of this resolution and see to it that the 
net revenue loss in the first 5 fiscal years from 1998 to 2002 is no 
more than $85 billion, and in the years 2003 to 2007 is no more than 
$250 billion. That was the agreement. We want to see it observed. 
Fundamentally, we are

[[Page H3246]]

simply reiterating what is the agreement reached among all the parties.
  Second, in distributing the tax benefits, the tax cuts, we want to 
say to the tax writers, as the other body has said in its resolution, 
be fair to hardworking Americans, see to it that they get at least a 
significant part of the tax benefit bill that we are about to write. 
Those are the two fundamental things that we stress here today. We do 
not see how anybody in this House, Democrat or Republican, could differ 
or disagree with it. We hope that everybody, seeing the merit of this 
motion to instruct, will join in supporting it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleasantly surprised that this motion does not call 
for a tax increase. I have not had a chance to see it. I am now looking 
at it. I tried to figure out a reason as to why, and I was not hoping 
to find something that I thought would blow up the agreement, but I 
wanted to carefully analyze it to make sure that it does not.
  In regard to the first part of this, which is that the 10-year net 
tax cut be limited to $250 billion, the answer on that is that that is 
part of the agreement and we are all in agreement that the net tax cut 
over 10 years, as called for under this agreement, is $250 billion.
  Let us not make any mistake about it. Come the year 2000, if we elect 
a Republican President, I think we are probably going to see more tax 
cuts, but all things staying normal here, we are going to have a 
compliance to the fact that we are going to have $250 billion worth of 
tax cuts.
  The other provision in here is the fact that the substantial portion 
of the tax cuts will go to people under $100,000. That is clearly our 
intent. In fact, the biggest item in our package is a family tax 
credit.
  Frankly, I do not think this is really a very meaningful motion to 
instruct, although I say to the authors of it, they have put it 
together, we will have a vote on it, and it will pass. Let me just 
suggest that I do not see any language in here that would call for 
repealing any tax cuts or anything else. Essentially this means that 
the bulk of the benefits will go to middle-income America, which we 
agree with, and second that in fact the net tax cut will be $250 
billion.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, we can all support 
this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thought the gentleman was calling for a vote by acclamation to 
endorse this resolution. I did not hear him say anything that disagreed 
with the motion to instruct conferees. Is that the gentleman's request?
  I would like to ask the gentleman, do I correctly understand what the 
gentleman just said, that he supports this particular motion to 
instruct conferees, then?
  Mr. KASICH. If the gentleman will yield, I have no objection to doing 
what we intend to do.
  Mr. SPRATT. So the gentleman supports the motion to instruct 
conferees?
  Mr. KASICH. I support the idea that we are going to live up to our 
agreement on $250 billion in net tax cuts, and would agree with the 
gentleman that our plan is going to give the bulk of the resources to 
middle-income, hardworking Americans. We favor that.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the motion to instruct.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs: Kasich, Hobson, and Spratt.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________