[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.

                          ____________________