May 12, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4901

have all of Monday without any limitation, is that what I hear? How long do

you anticipate that we would then be

going on Monday?

Mr. ARMEY. Monday evening.

Mr. MINETA. No set time?

Mr. ARMEY. No, there would be no

set time. Of course, participation is determined by the number of Members

here. We would obviously like to get as

much of that debate out of the way

while still retaining some opportunity

for the principals to have some statements before the end of debate.

Mr. MINETA. I would also like to

ask, the Pennsylvania primary or I

guess Philadelphia city elections are

on Tuesday, and there have been some

comments from our colleagues in the

Philadelphia area about that. So if

they are not able to be back for Monday night’s general debate, would they

still be able to do general debate or at

least make some statements on Tuesday?

Mr. ARMEY. We would try to accommodate that. Of course as you know

the reason we have determined not to

have votes Monday night is out of consideration for those folks. Certainly we

will talk to them. And of course the

sponsor of the amendment would want

to have some comments prior to the

vote on Tuesday and perhaps one or

two others, so we will try to be as accommodating as possible.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would ask

the distinguished majority leader, I am

troubled to hear of even the possibility

that this budget might get as little as

4 hours of time. It has been described

as a revolutionary budget, and I know

as one of I guess what would be the

chief revolutionaries you would have

some concern about explaining it fully,

and that is barely 1 hour for $100 billion of Medicare cuts, and I would hope

you would work with the Committee

on Rules so that we could have a full

and complete debate extending over at

least a couple of days to explore what

this budget means for ordinary American families.

Mr. ARMEY. Let me just say I thank

the gentleman from Texas for that observation, and as I said to the gentleman from Missouri, we will work

with the Committee on Rules to get as

full a debate as we can.

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman.

DEBATES AND SPECIAL ORDERS

FORMAT FOR MORNING HOUR

fMr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the order of

the House of January 4, 1995, relating

to morning hour debates be continued

through the adjournment of the 2d session of the 104th Congress sine die, except that on Tuesdays the House shall

convene for such debates 1 hour earlier

than the time otherwise established by

order of the House rather than 90 minutes earlier; and the time for such debates shall be limited to 25 minutes allocated to each party rather than 30

minutes to each; but in no event shall

such debates continue beyond the time

that falls 10 minutes before the appointed hour for the resumption of legislative business, and with the understanding that the format for recognition for special order speeches first instituted on February 23, 1994, be continued for the same period.

Mr. DOGGETT. Reserving the right

to object, Mr. Speaker, these morning

hour debates are very important to

both sides and I understand there has

been consultation on this. We applaud

the gentleman’s effort.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY, MAY

There was no objection.

f15, 1995

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that when the

House adjourns today it adjourn to

meet at 10:30 a.m. on Monday next for

morning hour debates.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

DISPENSING WITH CALENDAR

There was no objection.

WEDNESDAY BUSINESS ON

fWEDNESDAY NEXT

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the business

in order under the Calendar Wednesday

rule be dispensed with on Wednesday

next.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

HOUR OF MEETING ON THURSDAY,

There was no objection.

MAY 18, 1995

fMr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that when the

House adjourns on Wednesday, May 17,

1995, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on

Thursday, May 18, 1995, for the purpose

of receiving in this Chamber former

Members of Congress.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

AUTHORIZING THE SPEAKER TO

There was no objection.

DECLARE A RECESS ON THURSfDAY, MAY 18, 1995, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING FORMER

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that it may be in

order for the Speaker to declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, on

Thursday, May 18, 1995, for the purpose

of receiving in this Chamber former

Members of Congress.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

There was no objection.

PRO TEMPORE

fThe SPEAKER pro tempore. The

Chair will entertain 1-minute speeches.

REPUBLICAN BUDGET DOES NOT

CUT MEDICARE

f(Mr. HASTERT asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, for the

last few days, liberal Democrats have

taken to the floor to denounce socalled Medicare cuts.

What cuts?

Where are they?

This chart clearly shows that under

the House Republican budget, Medicare

funding will increase.

This year, we will spend over $150 billion on Medicare.

This will not decrease.

Let me be absolutely clear about

this—Medicare funding will not decrease.

Under the House Republican plan,

Medicare spending will have increased

to about $230 billion by the year 2002.

Let me say that again—Medicare

spending will be $230 billion in the year

2002. Now, if Medicare spending is $150

billion this year and $230 billion seven

years from now, that is an increase in

Medicare spending. Where’s the cut?

Only in Washington could an increase

be a cut.

Well, the American people are tired

of the old Washington accounting

methods. Those methods are the very

reason we have a $5 trillion debt.

Republicans are committed to scrapping the old Washington accounting

methods and replacing them with the

truth, something not often seen around

here.

MEDICARE INCREASES

f(Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was

given permission to address the House

for 1 minute and to revise and extend

her remarks.)

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, as

we go home for Mother’s Day, I think

all of us know that mothers have that

extrasensory perception about when

people are fudging. Well, let me tell

you, there is going to be a lot of fudging going on here about this budget.

You are going to hear it’s traditional

family values.

But let me ask a question? Do you

know any family in America that when

they pull up to the table to put their