[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 71 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4135-H4144]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 284, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 455 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 455
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 284) revising the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 1998, establishing the congressional budget for
the United States Government for fiscal year 1999, and
setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. The first reading of the
concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. General debate
shall not exceed three hours, with two hours of general
debate confined to the congressional budget equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on the Budget, and one hour of general debate
on the subject of economic goals and policies equally divided
and controlled by Representative Saxton of New Jersey and
Representative Stark of California or their designees. After
general debate the concurrent resolution shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original concurrent resolution for
the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part 1 of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in part 2 of the
report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and
shall not be subject to amendment. All points of order
against the amendments printed in the report are waived
except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration
of the concurrent resolution for amendment. The chairman of
the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a
request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce
to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of
the concurrent resolution for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the concurrent resolution to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
by the Committee of the Whole to the concurrent resolution or
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order
as original text. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the concurrent resolution and amendments
thereto to final adoption without intervening motion except
amendments offered by the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical consistency. The
concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question of its adoption.
Sec. 2. Rule XLIX shall not apply with respect to the
adoption by the Congress of a concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 1999.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is
recognized for 1 hour.
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded, of course, is for debate purposes
only.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to bother to repeat and explain the rule
itself, because the House Clerk has done a very good job with it.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, last February the President of the United
States submitted a budget to Congress that was a relic of the tax-and-
spend policies of Democrats of the past. Just 6 months after this
Republican Congress and President Clinton enacted into law the first
balanced budget in a generation and the first tax cut in 16 years,
President Clinton sent us a backward-looking budget. It was just the
opposite of what we had been doing.
{time} 2130
That budget, ladies and gentlemen, called for 85 new spending
programs, 85 new spending programs. It created 39 new entitlement
programs. It increased spending by $150 billion, again, going just the
opposite direction of what we have been moving to, and it increased
taxes and user fees by $129 billion, ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. Speaker, in this Republican-controlled House, that approach to
budgeting and governing is a nonstarter. We can thank the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) sitting over here, the chairman of the Committee
on the Budget, for what I would call unbelievable due diligence of
bringing this budget which is not draconian. As a matter of fact, I
think if he and I had our total way and we were to dictate the terms of
this budget, we would see some further major, major cuts in this bill.
But today the House has the opportunity to move this Nation in a new
direction and, I would argue, in the right direction with the passage
of the Kasich budget. The Kasich budget establishes an honest blueprint
for this Congress to achieve four important goals.
Those four important goals are, Mr. Speaker: paying down our $5.5
trillion debt. That is important. If we polled into our district, the
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill) just was here telling me what he had
done, that is what the American people want. They want us to pay down
on that $5.5 trillion debt that is a disgrace to this Nation.
Number two, preserving and protecting Social Security.
Number three, shrinking the growth of government by reducing spending
by 1 percent over 5 years. That is not much, but let me tell my
colleagues, it is a step in the right direction.
Finally, relieving the tax burden on families through elimination of
the marriage penalty, and that may be the most important thing that we
do here this year.
Mr. Speaker, this rule allows the House to choose between two
distinct investigations of government. One is envisioned by the
President and his tax-and-spend plan, which is largely characterized by
the substitute offered by our colleague from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt). It follows the same vision of the President in the budget that
he had presented to us.
If we favor increasing spending, and if we favor increasing
government and oppose cutting taxes, then we ought to stand up here
tonight and vote for the Spratt substitute. If we oppose allowing this
Congress even the opportunity to provide a net tax cut for American
families, then we should support the Spratt budget. But I do not think
we ought to do that.
Mr. Speaker, there is another vision of the government before this
House tonight, and that vision is captured in both the Kasich budget
resolution and in the Neumann substitute, both of which are good
budgets in my opinion.
[[Page H4136]]
Both of these budgets seek to make the Federal Government's budget
smaller and the family budget larger. Both seek to fulfill our
outstanding commitments in Social Security, in Medicare, and to our
veterans and even to our children and our grandchildren by paying down
the national debt and ensuring, and this may be the most important part
of all, ensuring our national defense is the best state-of-the-art that
we can give to men and women that serve in our uniforms today.
Both seek to take advantage of our Nation's positive fiscal climate
by continuing the country's shift towards a smaller government, greater
individual responsibility, and expanding entrepreneurship and economic
initiative.
That is really what we ought to be here doing, because that creates
jobs and it helps small business across this Nation, particularly small
business that creates 75 percent of all the new jobs in America every
single year, not only for those that are being displaced by downsizing
but young men and women, girls and boys, coming out of high school and
college.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I would just observe that the rule before us
allows the House to openly debate two different visions of government,
one Republican, and one Democrat, and boy, are they different, for a
total of 5 hours of debate.
So I would urge my colleagues to support this rule. After the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has opened his statements,
we want to get into a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the Committee
on Budget chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon), my colleague and my good friend, for yielding me the
customary half hour; and I yield myself such time as I may use.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and would like to
voice my strong opposition to this Republican budget resolution. The
Republican budget picks on those who are the most vulnerable in our
society. The Republican budget will hurt low-wage working families. It
will hurt the victims of crime. It will hurt the students. Mr. Speaker,
once again it will hurt the veterans.
This Republican budget cuts Medicaid and children's health programs
by $12 billion over 5 years, in addition to the $10.2 billion cut
imposed by last year's budget. Republicans remove a guarantee of health
care to families in need by block-granting the acute care portion of
Medicaid.
Mr. Speaker, the cuts on those in need do not stop there. Republicans
cut temporary assistance to needy families by $10.1 billion. This is a
change in their reported budget. They must be very ashamed of it
because they submitted it only last night, in the dark of night, after
the House was in recess.
The Republicans also cut educational opportunities for those in need.
The Republicans cut Head Start and grants to school districts with high
levels of poverty. The Republicans, listen, Mr. Speaker, the
Republicans cut veterans' benefits by $10 billion.
The Republicans also cut law enforcement. They refused to fully fund
the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. They eliminate the Legal
Services Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York said he is proud of this
Republican budget. I hope he is, but I am not. I would be willing to
bet most Americans care far more about education and law enforcement
and preserving a safety net for working families than they do about
$101 billion in tax cuts for corporate fat cats and the very rich.
I think my Republican colleagues agree with me, because as draconian
as these cuts may sound, nearly every single one of them is set to go
in effect in the future, like a budget cut time bomb. This could mean
that the cuts will, God willing, never materialize; or it could mean
that my Republican colleagues want to be as far away as possible when
this blast finally goes off.
Mr. Speaker, the most surprising cuts are those in the areas that the
House has spoken out loud and clear. The Republican budget cuts $21.9
billion from the highway bill we just voted on 2 weeks ago. It cuts
$21.9 billion from that bill, the highway bill we just sent to the
President. The Kasich budget would slice off $21.9 billion.
The Republican budget will also impede the passage of any tobacco
legislation. It will hurt our chances of fixing Social Security. It
does not stay within the requirements of last year's balanced budget
agreement either.
In contrast, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic alternative budget proposed
by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) will reserve the
Social Security surplus until Congress and the President can agree on
how to save it. The Democratic alternative will enable Congress to pass
the Patient's Bill of Rights and also the tobacco settlement. The
Democratic alternative stays within the parameters of the balanced
budget agreement.
The bipartisan budget proposal offered by the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is
also a far better choice than the Republican budget. It is nearly
identical to Senator Domenici's budget proposal, which means it is very
possible it could pass in both Houses, which is exactly why my
Republican colleagues refuse to make it in order. Last night at the
Committee on Rules it was said that the Minge budget should not be made
in order because it is so close to the Senate position; it might pass.
That would make that conference just too easy.
Mr. Speaker, the budget of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge)
does not hurt Medicaid recipients or needy families or students or
crime victims or veterans, and it might win more votes than the
Republican budget. It is not surprising that the Republicans will not
allow it to come to the floor for a vote.
This rule is a very unusual one, Mr. Speaker, in one respect. Until
last year it was traditional for a rule on the budget resolution to
guarantee that major alternatives would be considered. Special
procedures called king of the hill, queen of the hill ensured that each
of the substitutes would at least be debated and voted on. This rule
just does not offer that traditional guarantee. If the first substitute
is agreed to, the Democratic alternative cannot even be debated.
This rule will not allow Members to vote on the Minge-Stenholm
budget. It does not guarantee that the Democratic alternative will be
heard. It encourages Members to vote for a dangerous Republican budget.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my hero, Ronald Reagan, used to say, ``Well, you have
heard it again. There they go again. There go those Democrats: Tax,
tax, tax; spend, spend, spend.'' You just heard the greatest old New
Deal speech that we ever heard on this floor.
What he is talking about is creating 85 new spending programs. Spend,
spend, spend. Creating 39 new entitlement programs. Spend, spend, spend
forever. Forever. Increasing spending by $150 billion. Tax the
taxpayers. Increase taxes and user fees by $129 billion.
Mr. Speaker, we have a big difference between these two bills.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) so that he can have a colloquy with the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the Committee on Budget chairman, and
clear up some misunderstandings.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I was dismayed to learn that the committee-
reported budget resolution before the body today does not reflect the
additional Highway Trust Fund outlays guaranteed and firewalled in the
conference report on TEA-21.
The TEA-21 conference report, which is about to be signed by the
President, enacts into law firewalls within the discretionary spending
caps. These firewalls guarantee that we will spend future Highway Trust
Fund tax receipts on highway and transit infrastructure and not
continue the past practice of setting spending from the trust fund
without regard to the tax revenues being collected.
In drafting TEA-21, we worked closely with the Committee on the
Budget and the administration to cut the cost of the bill substantially
and to fully
[[Page H4137]]
offset the additional spending in TEA-21. Given that TEA-21 is fully
offset, and the overwhelming vote of both bodies for the funding levels
and the guarantees in TEA-21, I believe that the budget resolution
should fully reflect the guaranteed spending levels in TEA-21.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask my good friend the distinguished gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), chairman of the Committee on the Budget: Is it
the position of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget that any
budget resolution conference report or any other measure that will be
used to govern appropriations in budget actions this year will fully
reflect the firewall funding guarantees in TEA-21?
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to me, the
committee-reported resolution was adopted prior to the conference
agreement on TEA-21. As reported, this budget resolution assumed that
the additional Highway Trust Fund spending could be accommodated if
fully offset. It is my intention that the budget resolution conference
report fully comply with the highway trust fund funding guarantees
contained in the conference report on TEA-21.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Ohio. Based on those assurances, I urge my colleague to support both
the rule and the budget.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), chairman of the
Committee on the Budget, I am just a little confused by that
explanation. Can the gentleman tell me how he can accommodate that $29
billion that he took out of the Highway Trust Fund?
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to me, let me
say to the gentleman from Boston, Massachusetts, my good friend, I am
really kind of amazed to listen to his comments, because I think
ranking member of the Committee on Rules knows that what we are asking
the Federal Government to do is, instead of spending $9.1 trillion over
the next 5 years--
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have limited time. Would the gentleman
just answer my question?
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I am answering the gentleman's question.
Instead of the Federal Government spending $9.1 trillion with all these
things you talk about, guess what? You are going to get to spend $9
trillion. Do you know something else? The families in your district
that are being penalized by the marriage penalty will be helped. We
will be able to accommodate this highway bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.
Mr. KASICH. In fact, we will be able to pass the resolution.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. The gentleman does not
want to answer the question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, we are now 45 days and 45 nights late in
action on a budget in this Congress. Why? It is not clear to this
Member why this Congress has procrastinated and failed to live up to
its responsibility to provide the Nation and the appropriations
committees and the other institutions with guidance as to our budget
policies for this fiscal year and the four fiscal years to follow.
{time} 2145
Shame. After 3 years of Blue Dog Coalition budgets coming to the
floor of this body, the Committee on Rules has refused to allow such a
budget to be considered this week.
Why is that? Is it because a moderate, bipartisan budget was
proposed? Is it because it is an updated version of the Domenici
version adopted by the United States Senate? Is it because there is
fear that a bipartisan budget that is brought to this floor would pass
and would defeat the more partisan budgets that are coming from both
sides of the aisle?
It is not clear to me, and I think it is truly unfortunate that this
body does not have the opportunity to consider a budget similar to the
Senate budget, a budget that passed overwhelmingly, a budget that
represents a mainstream course in this country, a budget that is
designed to put Social Security first, not to spend the budget surplus
until we have fixed the financial problems of Social Security; to
reserve that surplus, to make sure that we are careful in husbanding
our resources and not embarking on numerous new programs, not taking
the resources that are so badly needed to eliminate the deficit and
spending those resources on other purposes.
We are deeply disappointed that this budget was repudiated by the
Committee on Rules, that we have not had an opportunity to bring it to
the floor. Shame, shame, shame.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why we have a different
vision in our party is because of the majority leader of this House. I
yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Richard Armey) to explain that vision.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, a very good friend of mine, Thomas Soul, once wrote a
book entitled ``Conflict of Visions.'' It was a good book, and I would
commend it to all of us.
But what we are doing here today with this rule is we are setting up
an opportunity for this House of Representatives to consider
alternative visions. Earlier this year the President of the United
States submitted his recommendation, his budget recommendation, to
Congress. In that recommendation he set forth what is his vision for
America. The President's vision was presented in a budget that called
for 85 new spending programs, that created 39 new entitlement programs,
that increased spending by $150 billion, and increased taxes and user
fees by $130 billion.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and the members of the
Committee on the Budget got together, and they all agreed that that was
not the vision for America that they would recommend to this House.
In fact, they wrote a vision for America in which we see a
contrasting view; that their vision says, let us reduce spending by
$100 billion, and let us reduce taxes by $100 billion. Let us take one
penny on the dollar out of an annual budget that is $1.7 trillion. A 1
percent spending reduction will allow us to have sufficient tax
reduction that we can correct some of the more disparaging things in
our tax code.
Mr. Speaker, we all tell our children, our best advice, young man,
our best advice, young lady, is for you to get married and settle down.
Yet, in today's tax law, they are punished if they do that. The Kasich
budget makes available to us through reduced spending an opportunity to
eliminate that penalty for marriage, and to do other things that are
beneficial to the lives of our children through tax reduction, and to
give them also a smaller, more efficient, more effective, more
responsive government.
The Committee on Rules has taken these visions under consideration
and they have written a fair rule, a rule that says, let us have the
contest, let us have the contest between these two contesting visions.
If I might close, Mr. Speaker, with this observation to my colleagues
on the Republican side of the aisle, in particular, this is our vision.
This is what we believe we want for our children, a budget that
reflects the need in this Nation for a government that knows and
respects the goodness of the American people, and has the decency to
respect that goodness by restraining itself from its excesses, both in
the manner in which it takes money out of the pockets of the American
working man and woman, and the manner in which that money is spent.
The Kasich budget gives us an opportunity to set a new standard to
spend the taxpayers' hard-earned dollar as minimally as necessary to
get the greatest service possible per dollar for the people of this
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, vote yes for this budget, vote yes
for this rule. Reaffirm our vision for America.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today out of sadness. I do not make many partisan
statements. I do not do one-minutes. By virtue of the Committee on
Rules turning down an opportunity for this
[[Page H4138]]
House to talk about the Blue Dog budget, it reminds me of a saying that
many may have heard, that the Republicans are more efficient than
Democrats. They are. By the adoption of this rule, they have achieved
the same level of arrogance in 4 years that it took the Democrats that
they accused of it 40 years to achieve.
To deny us a budget debate on this floor that might pass because it
has too much bipartisan support says to me that partisan politics is
more important than doing something good for this country. I rise out
of sadness because we are not permitted to debate the Blue Dog budget.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
Mr. BOYD. I thank the gentleman very much, Mr. Speaker, for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to spend my minute talking about the
transportation issue, but I think at least after the weak attempt to
explain why the transportation package that we passed here 2 weeks ago
is not included in this budget, we all understand how bad this budget
rule is.
I would just tell the Speaker and my good friend, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, that with the majority and with
the power of the gavel comes a certain amount of responsibility. That
responsibility is to bring to this body a budget which makes a lot of
sense.
There is not a budget here presented today that I can vote for,
because I believe that we ought to stick with the balanced budget
agreement which we passed last year. We ought not to go off on a wild
goose chase with a bunch of new spending programs, and we ought not to
go off on a wild goose chase with a bunch of tax cuts. We owe $5.5
trillion of debt in this Nation that we need to pay down. We need to
take whatever dollars we have and preserve Social Security and pay down
that debt.
I would ask Members to vote against this rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee)
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the recommended
rule on this budget resolution for several reasons. First, this rule
would pit the $10.1 billion cut in Medicare against funding for income
security programs such as public housing, disability assistance, and
WIC nutrition programs. This proposed rule demands the cruel and
callous task of choosing whether to cut vital Medicare programs for our
elderly citizens, or programs to provide basic services to our poor.
The policy of pitting people who need critical social service
programs against each other is unethical, particularly since we are now
experiencing a boom of wealth in our Nation. It is our responsibility
to assure that we provide a safety net for those who need it, rather
than decide who should fall through it.
I also oppose this rule because it is extremely limiting to this
vital discussion in which we are about to engage. The debate on the
Federal budget is a discussion of our national priorities, and the
fundamental principle of democracy really dictates that we all have an
opportunity to participate in the lawmaking process.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, for those just tuning in, this might well be called
``Trillions after 10,'' because as we approach the 10 o'clock in the
evening hour here in Washington, we are beginning to consider how
trillions of dollars, of taxpayers' dollars of the American people, are
to be expended.
Why this manner of consideration? Because this Republican budget,
taken up after a full day of dilly-dallying, like most of this
Congress, this Republican budget is truly a national embarrassment. It
rejects the whole spirit of bipartisanship that produced the first
balanced budget in decades, and the largest Federal surplus in the
history of this Nation as a result of a bipartisan spirit.
Instead of a bipartisan approach to trying to resolve our budget for
the next few years, the approach we hear tonight is the same tired old
rhetoric of tax and spend that had to be rejected in order to get us
together in a bipartisan spirit for this budget.
We came in as members of the Committee on the Budget to consideration
of this proposal in much like the circumstances we find ourselves in
tonight, with a take-it-or-leave-it budget, that rejected at the outset
the number one goal of budgeting this year, and that is to save Social
Security, first and foremost.
We presented an amendment that suggested that every penny of this
large surplus ought to be devoted to protecting and preserving the
Social Security system. That approach was rejected. It is rejected in
this embarrassing Republican midnight budget.
Secondly, we said, recognize that there are a lot of American
families out there struggling to make a go of it. Give them a targeted
tax cut to address their needs with reference to child care, and
support public education for those families that are trying to help
their children get through our public schools.
Instead, this Republican budget proposes to eliminate the only
Federal program that provides direct assistance to our schools for
economically disadvantaged children. It is an embarrassing budget that
rejects the needs of America's families and the needs of this Congress
to work together.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just have to say, there they go again. I am one of
these old-timers. I keep records. Members can go up in my Committee on
Rules office up there, and I keep a record on everybody who votes
against our rules we bring down here. I just need Members to know that.
I also keep a record of how people vote on increasing spending and
decreasing spending. I follow the National Taxpayers Union's rating. I
cannot help but call attention to everyone here the fact that most of
these speakers who are speaking are the same ones who are rated as the
biggest spenders in the Congress by the National Taxpayers Union. Not
only are they rated that way by the National Taxpayers Union, they are
rated that way by me, because I keep track of them.
All last year when people like myself were offering cutting
amendments to all of these appropriation bills, cut a little here, cut
a little there, somehow to save a little, to tighten our belts, these
same people that are standing up here talking were voting against all
of those cuts. As a matter of fact, I have never seen them vote for one
cut in spending.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from somewhere in California (Mr. David Dreier), a real spending
cutter.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, from somewhere in California, I thank my
friend for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to think back to 3 years ago, when, at the second
lectern right behind us, the President, in delivering his State of the
Union message to an overwhelming bipartisan ovation, said the era of
big government is over.
Then I am reminded of what he did here just this past January, when
he unveiled his plan for $150 billion of new spending programs, and it
included, as I guess the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) told us
in the Committee on Rules last night, 85 new programs, 39 new
entitlements, $130 billion in new taxes.
{time} 2200
And then I was struck with the fact that just a few weeks after that
the new premiere of the People's Republic of China, Zhu Rongji,
unveiled his plan to close down 14 government ministries and lay off 4
million bureaucrats. And as we debate this China-U.S. problem that we
have got that the administration has quite possibly created, I wonder
which government is headed in the right direction.
Thank God we are having this debate which is beginning to focus back
onto the issue of individual initiative and responsibility and creating
a climate where we will have Washington do better with less so that the
American family will do better with more.
Now it seems to me that, as we look at this, one of the things that
was very troubling to me, and I raised it last night when the ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Budget was in the Committee on
Rules, was
[[Page H4139]]
this idea of saying that any time that we look at the prospect of
cutting taxes it has to be offset with a tax increase. I am not a big
fan of this paygo provision, because we found that since we were able
to reduce the top rate on capital gains what happened? We have
generated a tremendous surge in revenues to the Federal Treasury.
Mr. Speaker, 172 Democrats and Republicans joined with us in our
quest to reduce that top rate on capital gains from 28 to 14 percent.
We did not quite get there. But I am convinced that if we were to go
even further we could generate another level of revenues to the
Treasury.
I think that what we need to do is we need to have a cut in the
payroll tax. 75 percent of the American people pay more in payroll
taxes than they do in Federal income taxes. It seems to me that we are
now at least starting to get back on the right track, countering what
was said here at the State of the Union message earlier.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this rule, and I urge support of the
Kasich budget that we will be moving forward with.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, as we discuss our budget, we are really
discussing the priorities that the American people have for the
utilization of its resources. And certainly any budget discussion
should include a variety of alternatives. Indeed, the majority denied
one alternative which perhaps could have met in a consensus of the
Members of this House on both sides. It might not have been the one
that I wanted, but still we needed a full discussion of it.
I also rise to say that the proposal that we have here in terms of
the Kasich bill denies the bipartisan approach that we had when we had
the balanced budget agreement of last year. This violates the
principles of it. It violates the undergirding caps of it. It has a
black hole. We do not even know how indeed we are going to finance the
resources for paying for the transportation bill, which is the bill of
authority. And we know there ought to be a fire wall between the trust
fund and this bill. It has many inconsistencies that one would think
one who would want to be prudent in the spending and caring for
priorities would address.
For that reason, I urge that we reject this rule, because it is not
only unfair but it is the wrong way to discuss the priorities which
will utilize the resources of the American people, and it certainly is
unfair for us now to undo what we did last year where we had a balanced
budget that indeed was crafted with a bipartisan approach. I urge a
``no'' on this vote.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Solomon) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley), the ranking member, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, here we do go again. After 30 years of partisanship and
30 years of red ink, I thought we learned something in 1997. When the
parties work together, they can balance the budget, and we should all
be proud that we did that in 1997.
There is a proposal that would build on that tradition. It was put
forward by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). It deserves a hearing on this floor. It is
not perfect. It may not even win majority support. I would support it,
as I intend to support the budget offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), but it deserves a hearing because it builds a
bridge between the two parties, and it builds a bridge between this
House and the other body.
We should reject this rule because this rule rejects our right to
fully and fairly debate all of the alternatives before the American
people. Reject this rule. Give us a chance to debate all the
alternatives.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller).
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the rule, of course,
which makes in order three alternative budgets tonight. Frankly, two of
them seem to me pretty good ideas.
Both of them, one sponsored by the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Kasich) and one by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann), they
spend less, but they also make a number one priority elimination of the
marriage tax penalty suffered by 42 million taxpayers. The Democratic
proposal spends more, taxes more, and fails to address the marriage tax
penalty suffered by 42 million taxpayers.
Let me explain why elimination of the marriage tax penalty is so
very, very important to 42 million taxpayers. Think about it. Do
Americans feel that it is fair that under our current Tax Code a
married working couple pays more in taxes just because they are
married? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million married
working couples pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are
married than an identical couple with identical incomes that live
together outside of marriage?
Americans back home in Chicago and the south suburbs feel that is
wrong. Let me give an example of a south suburban couple in the
suburbs of Chicago, Joliet, a machinist who works at Caterpillar and a
schoolteacher in the Joliet public schools. This Joliet Caterpillar
machinist makes $30,500 a year. If he is single, under our current Tax
Code, after the standard deductions and exemptions, he is in the 15
percent tax bracket. If he meets and marries a gal who is a public
schoolteacher with an identical income and they combine their incomes,
under our Tax Code, if they file jointly, their combined income of
$61,000 after standard deductions and exemptions still makes them pay
more taxes. Almost $1,400 more they pay under our Tax Code today.
That is wrong that the average working married couple pays, on
average, $1,400 more just because they are married. And the Republican
budgets eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Think about it. For this
couple in Joliet, this machinist at Caterpillar, this public
schoolteacher at the Joliet public schools, $1,400 is real money. For
some in Washington, $1,400 is a drop in the bucket, but for this couple
in Joliet $1,400 is one year's tuition at the local community college
at Joliet Junior College. $1,400 is 3 months' day care in the local day
care center. That is real money for this machinist and schoolteacher.
If we care for working families, let us eliminate the marriage tax
penalty. Why? Because it is real money for real people. And I think
like I know a lot of my friends do, and it should be a bipartisan
concern. We should allow this machinist and this schoolteacher to keep
more of what they earn. Is it fair that they pay a penalty because they
are married? Of course not. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
There are three alternative budgets here. Even the one that was
proposed that was not listed that everyone keeps referring to on the
other side fails to address what should be our number one priority this
year, that is eliminating the marriage tax penalty. I urge adoption of
the rule and the elimination of the marriage tax penalty.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the
Budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke said that our
resolution, the substitute which I am offering on behalf of the
Democratic Caucus, makes no effort to mitigate the marital tax penalty,
and that is not correct.
Section 11 says, it is the sense of the Congress that the Committee
on Ways and Means should undertake high-priority tax relief of at least
$30 billion over 5 years and lists four things we would like to
accomplish; and the fourth is mitigate the Tax Code marriage penalties
in a manner at least equal in scope to the 1995 tax relief provision of
H.R. 2491, which was a Republican bill.
We are endorsing that. Twice the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, has moved
[[Page H4140]]
a marital tax mitigation bill. Twice the majority on the committee have
rejected it. Last year, he moved it in the Committee on the Budget, and
they rejected it. We are calling for action this year in our resolution
also.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for letting us on the Democratic side of
the aisle come forward and acknowledge that for a long time we have
been fighting as well against the marriage penalty, and I appreciate
the gentleman's clarification.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the budget resolution of last
year was a bipartisan effort. But I will assure my colleagues that I am
not going to support this rule or any part of this budget that cuts the
entitlements of people who are in need of some $56 billion.
Entitlements including $12 billion in Medicaid, $10 billion in
temporary assistance for needy families.
The proposed Republican plan would terminate all direct Federal
assistance to public schools in our poorest areas, particularly
repealing Title 1 grants. It is as well shocking that the Republican
plan guts the discretionary education program by $6 billion. We who
claim to be in support of family values, we who claim to be in support
of children, and yet we are cutting some $28.7 million from the State
of Texas Child Family Services. Child Care and Adult Protective
Services will be reduced by $8.89 million, and the Texas Workforce
Commission will be cut by $340,000.
Mr. Speaker, let me say this is a bad bill. I urge my colleagues to
vote against the rule and vote against the budget as well.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my concerns about H. Con. Res.
284, the House Budget Resolution. I strongly object to the Budget that
has been proposed by the Republican leadership.
I believe that the hope and future of this country depends on its
children, and this Budget Resolution does not provide our young people
with the access to child care, health care and education that they
deserve and need to become healthy and independent members of our
workforce and communities.
The Republican plan misses every opportunity to make constructive
investments in our future to improve our government's services and
benefits for our citizens who need it most. The Republican plan cuts
entitlement by $56 billion dollars. Entitlements including $12 Billion
in Medicaid, $10 Billion in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families!
This is a travesty! How can we say that we care about the health and
welfare of our future, about our children's health when we remove poor
children's access to crucial health care?
And what about our children's chances for education, for advancement,
for their chance to be respected, learned and contributive members of
our communities? The Republicans themselves have criticized the plan.
Senator Domenici in relation to the bill said ``You just can't do this.
This is just not a possible solution and we [in the Senate] would not
do it because we couldn't live with it in the waning days of the
session.''
If the Republicans themselves say they cannot live with the bill, how
can our most needy and most vulnerable populations live with such a
plan? The answer is that our children, our inner city poor, our single
parents, will suffer and unfairly, if this absurd Republican plan is
passed.
The proposed Republican plan would terminate all direct federal
assistance to public school districts in our poorest areas by repealing
Title I grants. It is shocking that the Republican plan cuts the
discretionary education program by $6 billion below last year's
Balanced Budget Agreement and $7 billion below our Democratic plan.
It will eliminate Americorps and the Legal Services Corporation both
which provide critical assistance to may of our poor citizens who need
to secure housing, fair pay and a fair chance.
We must put the health and welfare of our people, our families, our
communities first. The Republican plan would freeze WIC, and head start
at 1998 funding levels for 5 years, as well as section 8 Housing
causing at least a million households to lose federal vouchers and
certificates by 2003.
In fact 14 percent of the Mandatory cuts come from low income
programs, hitting those who need the funding the most. Our families who
need food stamps for their basic nutritional needs, welfare to work and
social service programs, will lose their tentative grip on self-
sufficient independent living when all these are erased. Combined with
the proposed $12 billion worth of cuts in Medicaid/Children's Health
Insurance Program, almost 49% of the Republican's mandatory cuts hit
programs for the poor and near poor, even though these programs
constitute only about one-fifth of all entitlements.
In the President's state of the Union address, he proposed
initiatives in child care, health care and education, yet, the
Republicans in Budget Committee voted to reject every single
initiative, even the most inexpensive. We have a responsibility to
provide for our nation's future--and all the people who need services
to survive and to thrive.
In my home state of Texas, proposed cuts in the Social Services Block
Grant will result in a loss to the State of Texas of approximately
$28.7 million. Child and Family Services, Child Care Regulation and
Adult Protective Services will be reduced by $8.89 million from the
amount they currently receive, and the Texas Workforce Commission which
receives 1.2% of the Texas allocation and supports child care for low
income families will be cut by 17% or $340,000. The Department of Human
Services providing Family Violence and Community Care Services will
lose 14.34 million dollars.
In Harris County where I live, poverty has increased 42%, and 240
thousand children are living in poverty, and 30,000 families are on the
waiting list for child care assistance. Child abuse and neglect
accounts for 20% of all children's homicides in the county, and only
42.7% of all the children who were abused in Harris County actually
received any therapeutic services.
I urge my colleagues to think carefully when they cast their votes
this evening on H. Con. Res. 284. It is critical that we consider
fairness, and compassion in making their decisions. We must provide
adequate resources to ensure our America, our children a strong and
healthy future.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
(Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, in this budget resolution, why are we
asking our veterans to give up more than they have already sacrificed?
We looked in terms of the recommendations that were being brought up,
and it was brought in terms of a ``new vision.'' It was presented as a
``new vision.''
Mr. Speaker, what kind of a new vision is it? I cannot even imagine
cutting one of the following programs. This new vision eliminates the
cost-of-living adjustments for education and service-connected veterans
benefits. It eliminates the cost-of-living adjustments for low-income
wartime veterans who receive a pension. It eliminates dependent
benefits for veterans whose service-connected disabilities are rated at
30, 40, and 50 percent. It eliminates compensation for veterans with
service-connected disabilities rated at 10 percent.
Is that the new vision that the majority is presenting? Is this the
vision that goes after those individuals who have fought for our
country? Again, even if such drastic benefits reductions have changed
and continue to be made, we would still have met less than half of the
savings required under the Budget Resolution.
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs has done its fair share through
the era of downsizing and cutbacks. I find it profoundly unfair that at
this time we come back and hit those individuals that have fought for
our country. We are asking to cut $10.4 billion total from veterans
service.
At this time, I ask Members to vote against the rule and consider
reassessing that warped vision that they have.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith), the hard-working member of the Committee on the
Budget with his very impressive chart.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am a farmer from Michigan and
seems to me we need to get the budget hay out of the mow and down on
that barn floor where we can chew on it a little bit.
This graph represents what has been happening to spending in this
country. There has been a lot of complaints from liberals that would
like to spend more, have government bigger and solve more problems in
Washington. Of course that would mean increase taxes or increase
borrowing.
This chart shows that, in 1994, we were spending about $1.4 trillion.
By
[[Page H4141]]
2003, the last year of this new 5-year budget, we are going to be
spending $1.9 trillion, over a 30 percent increase in spending.
Spending even on this budget increases almost twice as fast as
inflation.
In the final year of this budget, in the fifth year, 2003, we are
spending about $1.9 trillion. If we followed the President's and the
Democrats' recommendations, we would be spending $67 billion more in
that 1 year alone.
{time} 2215
The question before us is do we want bigger government or more
efficient government? Do we want more taxes or fewer taxes? Do we want
to continue borrowing or pay down debt? What has brought about economic
vitality is the fact that government is borrowing less money.
Now, through these years shown on this chart, we are also going to
experience the largest surplus in our history. In some of these years
tax revenues are increasing four times the inflation rate. So if we
want to help American families, if we want to stimulate the economy, if
we want to make it easier for working families to spend more time with
our children, we need to continue tax cuts. Let us also look at
starting to pay down the debt of this government.
As we look back over past years, I think it is fair to say that some
of us have been determined to reduce the size of this government,
reduce taxes and try to make this huge bureaucracy more efficient. One
way to make this government more efficient is to tighten the purse
strings. If there is any operation in the United States that has
opportunity to be more efficient and at the same time provide more and
better services to the American people, it is the Federal government.
I hope that we all appreciate the fact that there are better and more
efficient ways to spend taxpayers moneys. There are better ways to
serve the citizens of the United States. Even this budget that has been
critized for not spending enough, increases spending twice the rate of
inflation. In the early 1990s, we had budgets that increased over 9
percent a year. This budget increase spending 2 to 3 to 4 percent a
year. In conclusion, let us reduce the growth in spending, reduce
taxes, and reduce the public debt and start saving Social Security. We
can do that by supporting this rule and supporting this budget.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule
and the budget resolution because again we are playing politics more
than balancing budgets. Why, for example, did not the rule allow the
Stenholm-Minge budget to be considered? The reason it did not was
because it probably would have passed, because it is virtually
identical to the Senate budget resolution. Instead we are on the path
that we were on in the 104th Congress that led to two government
shutdowns. Why are we doing this again?
When you look at this budget resolution, you realize that this budget
cannot pass, that we cannot reach agreement on its specifics nor its
cumulative impact. For example, $3.3 billion is cut from the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Plan. CBO estimates that means Federal
employees, instead of paying 28 percent for their health insurance
which they do now, in 7 years will be paying 50 percent of their health
insurance premiums. Last year we took $5 billion away from Federal
employees, and we said in return we are going to at least provide
health insurance security, then this year we take it away from them.
How are we going to provide the kind of quality professional Federal
work force that we need when we cannot retain and recruit people, when
we cannot even keep our promises?
Throughout this budget we have got the very kinds of things we
encountered in the 104th Congress, things that are going to create
problems throughout the rest of this term, things that are bound to
create problems within our appropriations bills and are going to put us
in the very same situation that caused us to shut down the government.
We should not be on this path. We should be finding a way to reach
agreement. The Stenholm-Minge budget resolution would have enabled us
to do that. That is why it is not part of this rule. That is why we
should oppose this rule. What we ought to be doing is trying to find
reconciliation instead of trying to foment division.
When you look at what we do to dependent groups, whether it be
veterans, whether it be Federal employees, whether it be people
dependent on Medicare or the people that are affected by welfare
reform, or children stuck in inferior education systems--all of them
get hurt far more than our constituents would want. Vote against this
budget rule and the budget resolution.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
(Ms. RIVERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, during the budget hearing the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) made an amazing statement. He said, ``I know that
most Americans, interestingly enough, do not believe that we are
actually going to have a balanced budget. We are going to have a
balanced budget, but they don't believe it. So not only don't they
believe it is going to be balanced, they do not believe there is going
to be a surplus.''
Now I call that amazing, not because the public does not trust us,
but because the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) seemed surprised by
the fact that the public does not trust us. Balancing the budget and
the surplus comes up in my district all the time. My constituents are
not confused by the issue at all. They understand that the budget can
be called balanced only when one includes the monies from the various
trust funds, most notably Social Security. They also understand that
when Social Security monies are removed from the mix, the surplus
evaporates and the Federal budget is actually in deficit to the tune of
nearly $100 billion a year for the indefinite future.
The Blue Dog budget operates from the realities that I just
mentioned. But this rule deprives the public of the opportunity to hear
debate on that proposal. Why do not the folks at home trust us? Maybe
it is because of decisions like that.
If the chairman is concerned about our credibility out there in the
real world, he should reconsider this budget. Why? Well, first, it does
not add up. You have heard about a $5 billion hole that has not been
fixed as this budget has proceeded. You have heard about double
counting the cuts, and about sleight of hand which makes us pretend
that decisions like the transportation bill and the food stamp decision
earlier this evening do not really exist. It all ignores reality. And
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is surprised that the public does
not trust us.
They have also said it is just 1 percent, anybody can take a 1
percent cut, which of course is meant to lead people into believing
that all programs will share equally in the cuts. It is not true. Two-
thirds of all the spending we do will not be part of these reductions.
Let us take a look at what will happen over the next five years,
starting with before the balanced budget agreement started. We find a
21.2 percent cut in international affairs in the face of an
increasingly perilous world, 30 percent in housing, 16 percent in
regional and community development 2 percent in transportation, 12
percent, 1 percent. It is not so, and we wonder why people do not trust
us.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), my favorite play-by-play sportscaster.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for
yielding me this time.
This is not a game nor an athletic event, nor an exercise in partisan
politics. My friend from Michigan who preceded me in the well wondered
aloud why people do not trust us. There is a fundamental reason for the
cynicism, Mr. Speaker. The distrust comes because when we are given an
historic opportunity to rein in the growth of government, not to
radically cut spending but to rein it in and reduce its size, sadly we
hear the familiar litany of fear and smear and that the sky is falling
in and that there will be those who will bear the brunt of these cuts.
Mr. Speaker, I am serving my second term in this body, and one thing
I know about a budget statement is that
[[Page H4142]]
it is a road map, a statement of principles that sets a goal. As we all
know, we go through the appropriations process to decide how money is
to be spent. So all the talk about all the cuts and all the fear is
just talk.
Mr. Speaker, that is why a group who used to control this body no
longer does. That is why the American people and my constituents in the
6th District say something very simple. For the last half century, they
have been called on time and time again to sacrifice so that Washington
could spend more. They tell me overwhelmingly and resoundingly, it is
time for Washington to sacrifice so that working families can keep
more.
That is the essence of the debate tonight, to restore trust in this
process and to restore fiscal sanity and to maintain spending at more
than the rate of inflation, certainly not draconian cuts.
Reasonableness and common sense demand that we support the rule and
support the budgetary process to offer this sensible road map to
improve and to build upon what was done before, not to be locked into
stagnation or into a revisionist history that would say that tax
increases are laudable and desirable, not to continue with the mistaken
notion that if we only spend more and if we only tax more and if we
only ask more of the American people, then that is the key to nirvana
or success. No, nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact is that the minority should stand with us and improve upon
that historic agreement by stepping forward to say, let us live within
reasonable limits, for those reasonable limits offer true compassion
that working families understand and offer that restoration of trust so
vital across this country.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding me the time.
I rise in opposition to the rule and to the budget resolution; in
opposition to the rule because it deprives this body of the opportunity
to debate other alternatives, for example, the Blue Dog budget.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that our budget should be a statement of our
national values. But in the budget bill before us the priorities and
values are seriously askew. This budget plan is cowardly and
irresponsible. It is cowardly because it masks the deep cuts it would
make in education, health and nutrition programs by providing few
details about which programs will be downsized and defunded. This
budget is irresponsible because it violates the carefully crafted
budget agreement that everyone is paying homage to here tonight, but
this budget violates that carefully crafted budget agreement which
passed the Congress last year.
This budget today dedicated budget surpluses to untested private
accounts for Social Security, when we should be shoring up the long-
term financial health of the entire Social Security system. By cutting
Medicaid $12 billion, we miss opportunities to expand health care
access for children through the Children's Health Insurance Program.
This is a very important investment for our country. The budget targets
steep cuts on nondefense programs which are investments which pay off
for us.
Once again, when some Members want to look like budget hawks, it is
the family, the working families of America, the poor, the young and
the old who are their prey. But the programs, the investments that we
should be making in Medicare, Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit,
food stamps, education and many other vital initiatives would all be
cut substantially.
Today we need a spending plan, an investment plan that protects
Social Security, health and education, a budget that attends to our
domestic strength and security as well as our international strength,
and it must be done in a fiscally sound way. I urge my colleagues to
oppose the rule and the budget resolution.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), elder statesman of the Blue Dog
Caucus.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) is recognized for 4 minutes.
(Mr. Stenholm asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 2230
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule
because of its unfair treatment of the Blue Dog budget. We have heard a
lot of rhetoric tonight about what is or is not in anybody's budget.
Some of it has been true. Some of it has been stretching. The Blue Dog
budget that we wanted to offer and have a chance for an honest and open
debate on would have moved us toward a consensus by narrowing the
differences in this body instead of dividing us as we are hearing
tonight. The Blue Dogs tried to find a reasonable, realistic
alternative to the budget resolution based on a simple philosophy. When
you have a game plan that is working, you should stick with it.
Unlike the President's budget, we did not think it was wise to reopen
the budget agreement for new, major spending initiatives. Unlike the
majority's resolution, we did not think it was wise to call for another
round of spending cuts until we have enacted the spending cuts we said
we were going to do in the last year's balanced budget agreement.
We support tax cuts, including the abolition of the marriage penalty.
And we agree with many of the initiatives in the President's budget.
But we believe that staying the course on the budget agreement until we
balance the budget, without relying on the Social Security trust fund,
is a greater priority.
Our amendment would have saved 100 percent of the projected unified
budget surplus for Social Security and recommend the unified budget
surplus be reserved to fund the cost of Social Security reform
legislation. Our budget reaffirmed the principle that budget discipline
should be maintained until the budget is balanced without relying on
the annual surplus in the Social Security trust fund. Our budget was
based on the principle that the numbers in our budget should be honest
and realistic. That is where our budget differs the most from the
budget reported by the committee, especially with the changes in the
manager's amendment.
Our budget incorporated the changes in the ISTEA bill, BESTEA bill
and the agricultural research bill as estimated and paid for by CBO in
order to provide a credible budget blueprint that reflects the
realities of this body. We do not reopen Medicare, Medicaid, Federal
retirement and other mandatory programs for additional reductions. We
did not double count savings as the majority does tonight in the
resolution they bring before us. We do not rely on unspecified spending
cuts mainly backloaded until 4 or 5 years from now in order to pay for
a tax cut up front.
Mr. Solomon, there you go again. I remember down the road that magic
asterisk in David Stockman's budget that you and I both voted for and
we are doing it again tonight with this resolution and I am not going
to give credit to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) for this because
I know he is not for doing what the Speaker has ordered somebody to do.
We hear a lot of rhetoric around here about free speech. Well, free
speech apparently does not apply to action on this House floor when it
comes to having alternatives considered and an honest debate, an honest
debate between a little different idea between the majority and the
minority.
I do not understand what you fear. I fear that every dog in America
is going to wake up tomorrow morning a Democrat. I hope he will.
Because we are discriminating against dogs. The CATS got their
amendment, the Conservative Action Team. They said, ``You bet, come on
the floor, debate your idea.'' But the Dogs, ``No, you can't have your
time on the floor.'' That is wrong. That is wrong.
We should defeat this rule. We should allow the Blue Dogs and others
to have our opportunity to debate our idea in a free and open debate.
This rule will shut down the Blue Dogs' opportunity to debate our idea.
What are they afraid of? Why not let us have an opportunity to have our
day in court.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, to close the debate on our side, I yield the
balance of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) a
member
[[Page H4143]]
of the Committee on the Budget who is neither a CAT nor a Dog.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from Minnesota is
recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from somewhere in
California for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I was thinking about this debate, and what we have been
doing for the last several months in talking about the budget. I was
trying to figure out what I could say tonight and to my colleagues and
to my constituents about this budget. But I was listening to the debate
earlier. It was interesting because it almost seems like deja vu. Have
we not been here before? Have we not had this debate before? With
people saying, ``You can't do that. You can't eliminate 300 programs.
You can't balance the budget and provide tax relief. You can't reform
welfare. You can't require able-bodied people to work.'' We did all of
those things. And the budget is now balanced. We have come so far. Now
they are saying, ``Well, you can't reduce the rate of growth in Federal
spending by 1 percent and eliminate the marriage penalty tax.'' They
are saying, ``You can't do that.''
I was trying to think, how can we use some kind of a prop or some
kind of an analogy to demonstrate what this debate is all about.
Finally, I came upon it. I asked my staff to go out and see if they
could not find a nine foot belt. We could not find a nine foot belt.
What we found was three belts. We put them all together. It is nine
feet long. Every foot of this belt represents $1 trillion. That is how
much the Federal Government is going to spend over the next 5 years, $9
trillion. Anywhere you go, whether it is in Texas, whether it is in
Ohio, in Minnesota, Michigan, wherever you go, I think everyone will
agree that $9 trillion is a lot of money.
What the Committee on the Budget has come up with is a fairly simple
plan. They said if we could get the Federal Government, if we could get
our colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations to simply tighten
this belt one notch, one notch, we can eliminate that marriage penalty
tax. As earlier the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) said, this
affects about 21 million couples and they pay a penalty of about $1,400
per family. Everyone that spoke tonight has said that is wrong, it is
bad tax policy, it is bad family policy, and frankly it is downright
immoral that we require married couples to pay a higher tax than if
they lived together without the benefit of marriage. And so all we are
asking tonight is for our friends on the Committee on Appropriations,
and if we work together on a bipartisan basis, I believe, and frankly I
will guarantee you 98 percent of the people who might be watching this
on C-SPAN will agree that we can get ourselves to tighten this nine
foot belt simply one notch.
I know there are people on this side of the aisle, in fact, I think
there may even be some people on this side of the aisle who say, ``You
can't do that.'' But I will flat guarantee you that out in middle
America, most Americans believe that you can tighten this belt one
notch. That is all we are asking for.
I submit this rule is fair. We will have a thorough debate of three
different alternatives. But in the end, Mr. Speaker, I will suggest to
my colleagues that the Kasich budget, it is fair, it is reasonable, it
is responsible, and frankly it is long overdue. I think we ought to
approve the rule, we ought to vote for the Kasich budget and we ought
to send a clear message to America that yes, we can tighten this nine
foot belt simply one notch.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier)
has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that I would like to urge support of
this rule.
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. 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--yeas 216,
nays 197, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 205]
YEAS--216
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
[[Page H4144]]
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--20
Bateman
Conyers
Engel
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gonzalez
Harman
Hefley
Lewis (GA)
Martinez
McDade
Mollohan
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Stark
Whitfield
Yates
Young (AK)
{time} 2257
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.
____________________