```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5107-H5117]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 67, 
         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 1996

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 149 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 149

       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. 67) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for the 
     fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. 
     The first reading of the concurrent resolution shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against the concurrent 
     resolution and against its consideration are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the congressional budget and 
     shall not exceed six hours (including one hour on the subject 
     of economic goals and policies) equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Budget. After general debate the concurrent 
     resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. The amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The concurrent resolution, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. No further amendment shall be in order 
     except those designated in section 2 of this resolution. Each 
     amendment may be offered only in the order designated, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated, 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 designated in section 2 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. After the conclusion of consideration of the 
     concurrent resolution for amendment, and a final period of 
     general debate, which shall not exceed ten minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Budget, the 
     Committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution 
     to the House with such amendment as may have been adopted. 
     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. The following amendments are in order pursuant to 
     the first section of this resolution:
       (1) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by 
     Representative Gephardt of Missouri printed not later than 
     May 16, 1995, in the portion of the Congressional Record 
     designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII, if 
     proposing a Congressional budget in which total outlays for 
     the fiscal year 2002 do not exceed total receipts for that 
     fiscal year.
       (2) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by 
     Representative Neumann of Wisconsin or Representative Solomon 
     of New York consisting of the text of House Concurrent 
     Resolution 66.
       (3) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by 
     Representative Payne of New Jersey or Representative Owens of 
     New York printed by Representative Payne on May 16, 1995, in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.
       (4) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by the 
     minority leader or a designee printed by him not later than 
     May 17, 1995, in the portion of the Congressional Record 
     designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII, if 
     proposing a Congressional budget based on a revised budget 
     submission by the President to the Congress in which total 
     outlays for the fiscal year 2002 do not exceed total receipts 
     for that fiscal year.
       Sec. 3. Rule XLIX shall not apply with respect to the 
     adoption by the Congress of a conference report to accompany 
     a concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional 
     budget for the United States Government for the fiscal years 
     1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield 
myself such time as I might consume. During consideration of the 
resolution all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include therein extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, today is a truly historic day in this 
Chamber and one that I personally have waited for for a long time, 
because this will be the first time that this Congress will actually 
debate how to balance a budget instead of whether we will balance the 
budget at all.
  Why is this so? Because we have written the rules of this debate so 
that only four alternatives can be offered, and all four alternatives, 
ladies and gentlemen, balance the budget. Can you believe that? That, 
ladies and gentlemen, is truly historic. So much so that I am so 
excited I really can hardly stand it.
  Mr. Speaker, let me get to the text of the rule itself, and Members 
should listen because it is a complicated, complex rule.
  House Resolution 149 is a modified closed rule providing for the 
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 67, the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal years 1996 through the year 2002. 
The rule provides for 6 hours of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Budget, including 1 hour of debate on the so-called Humphrey-Hawkins 
legislation economic goals and policies. All points of order are waived 
against the budget resolution and its consideration.
  This rule provides for the adoption in the House and in the Committee 
of the Whole of an amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report 
relating to spending on agriculture programs, and for those Members who 
might not come from agricultural districts, they might listen to this 
too. This is a sense-of-Congress provision to reconsider spending 
reductions in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 if certain conditions are not 
met. This amendment is language worked out between the Committee on 
Agriculture chairman and the leadership to ensure that spending 
reductions for agricultural programs do not have an adverse impact on 
the farm economy, and that is very important.
  This rule makes in order four amendments in the nature of 
substitutes, subject to 1 hour of debate each, and waives points of 
order against them, except that it does not allow for the consideration 
of subsequent substitutes if any one substitute is adopted.
  Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, this is the most important part 
of my statement, Mr.
 Speaker, that provision in the rule means quite simply that there are 
no free votes on this budget resolution coming up. The adoption of any 
substitute will bring the House to a vote on final adoption of the 
budget resolution as amended, immediately.

  This is the old-fashioned amendment process, it is not a king-of-the-
hill or so-called queen-of-the-hill process. The four substitutes in 
their order of consideration are important, because if any one of these 
pass, then the debate immediately ceases and we go right to final 
passage. The first substitute to be offered will be an amendment by 
Representative Gephardt printed in yesterday's Congressional Record 
which is the text of the so-called coalition budget. That is the first 
substitute before us.
  Second, a substitute to be offered by Representatives Neumann and 
Solomon, that is myself, consisting of House Concurrent Resolution 66, 
which you all have before you. This achieves a balanced budget by the 
fiscal year 2000, that is within 5 years.
  Third, a substitute by Representative Payne of New Jersey and 
Representative Owens of my State of New York printed in yesterday's 
Record, that is the Black Caucus budget.
  And fourth, and this is important, an amendment printed in the Record 
by [[Page H5108]] today by the minority leader or his designee 
consisting of a revised Presidential budget, if it achieves a balanced 
budget by the year 2002. We give the President of the United States 7 
years to bring our deficits into balance, and we are waiting with 
anticipation for the President to join in this debate and offer that 
amendment.
  Following the disposition of amendments, the rule allows for an 
additional 10 minutes of debate divided between the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. Finally, and 
this is also important to Members of the House, the rule suspends for 1 
year the application of House Rule XLIX, the so-called Gephardt rule on 
the debt limit.
  What that means is that this House will be forced to conduct a 
separate vote on raising the debt limit later this year rather than 
having it automatically adopted upon the adoption of the budget 
resolution's conference report. There is no free ride there, Mr. 
Speaker, we are going to have to put our name on the line.
  This is a fair rule that provides ample opportunity for the major 
alternatives to be debated and voted on. While we did not make in order 
all of the amendments presented to the Committee on Rules, I think most 
objective observers, including the press, will agree we have allowed 
for the debate to be framed in a very fair and open manner that allows 
for the most serious alternatives having substantial support to be 
offered and voted on.
                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I commend the minority 
leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], for agreeing to 
offer a major substitute even though he does not support it, according 
to this morning's papers. It was not offered by him or by the majority 
of his caucus. Nevertheless, it is a Democrat position, and it will be 
interesting to see where the votes fall on that.
  It was our feeling that, as important as the budget resolution is, 
and it clearly is one of the most defining acts of a political party, 
that the rule should allow for a leadership-backed alternative from 
both sides of the aisle. Where do we stand on the issues? That is what 
needs to be debated on this floor today.
  In addition, we have given the President, as I said, an additional 2 
days beyond our Monday deadline to submit a revised budget plan that 
would achieve a balanced budget.
  Now, Members of the House, you may recall that back on May 9 I wrote 
to the President's chief of staff, Mr. Panetta, the former chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget, inviting him on behalf of the Republican 
leadership, to submit a balanced budget to the Committee on Rules by 
last Monday, and we would make it in order. Even though Mr. Clinton 
promised early in his Presidential campaign, and we have got the quotes 
from his campaign which we will read to you today during the debate, to 
balance the budget, his latest budget shows deficits remaining at the 
$200 billion mark into the next century. I ask you, what kind of 
balancing act is that? One trillion dollars added to the deficit over 
the next 7 years.
  Now, we hear Mr. Panetta in this morning's paper and on ``Good 
Morning, America,'' this morning criticizing us for establishing an 
arbitrary date of fiscal year 2002 for balancing the budget. And yet 
last January we voted on six constitutional amendments requiring 
balanced budgets, four by Democrats and two by Republicans. The 
Committee on Rules did not require that they provide for a balanced 
budget by 2002. We did not set any arbitrary date, and yet every one of 
those amendments that came to this floor, Democrat or Republican, did 
just that. Of the four Democrat substitutes, the Owens of New York 
Democrat substitute was supported by 62 Democrats. You ought to add up 
these numbers as I read them off to you. The Wise of West Virginia 
substitute, another Democrat substitute, was supported by 136 
Democrats. The Conyers Democrat substitute was backed by 112 Democrats. 
And then finally, the Gephardt/Bonior substitute was favored by 130 
Democrats.
  Moreover, on final passage of the constitutional amendment, 72 
Democrats voted in favor of it, and the vote was 300 to 132. Nearly 70 
percent of this House voted for that date certain--the year 2002.
  Mr. Speaker, when you add up all the Democrats who supported one 
substitute or another and called for a balanced budget by 2002, you 
find that 187 Democrats, or 92 percent of those on their side of the 
aisle, voted for a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002.
  That is what is on the floor today, and yet the President and his 
chief of staff would have us believe that there is something arbitrary, 
something unrealistic about setting a fiscal year 2002 deadline for 
balancing this budget.
  Even the Senate minority leader has said the President is wrong on 
that account. That was Mr. Daschle over in the other body, on ``Good 
Morning, America.'' Go and replay it back and see what he had to say.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the Democrat Members suggested at our hearing 
yesterday that I smiled to myself when I consider how things have 
shifted in just the last year toward support for a real balanced budget 
in this Congress and in this country. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I can 
say that I really am proud to smile publicly that we have come so far 
in such a short, short time. The American people have spoken, and we 
are listening, finally, to their cries to save this country and to save 
our children and to save our grandchildren from economic and financial 
ruin, because that is where we have been going.
  We witnessed a tidal wave for change at the polls last November, and, 
Mr. Speaker, if we do not follow through by keeping our commitment to 
bringing this Government and this country back into the black, then we 
will drown in another tidal wave. It will be a tidal wave of red ink 
that will engulf us and future generations to come. It will destroy 
this Nation.
  Last January, 187 Democrats and 228 Republicans voted for at least 
one of the constitutional amendments offered that called for balancing 
the budget by fiscal year 2002. That is a total of 415 Members out of 
435 Members of this House. Think about that, 95 percent of the Members 
of this House of Representatives supporting a balanced budget.
  Today that support for a lofty and noble goal confronts the reality 
of making the tough choices to achieve the goal of restoring this 
country to a condition of fiscal sanity, of soundness and stability. 
Members, we will have the good intentions of last January tested by our 
willingness, indeed by our intestinal and political fortitude, to vote 
for the balanced budget we said was needed 4 months ago. Today is your 
opportunity, Mr. Speaker and Members. We can either follow through on 
our commitment to setting things straight and right, or we can cave, we 
can crumble at the sound of Chicken Little clucking, he who would have 
us believe that the world is going to come to an end if we dare to do 
what the American people have to do, what business and industry have to 
do, and that is to live within our means.
  Mr. Speaker, today is the defining moment for this Congress and this 
country as we face the 21st century. It is right around the corner. We 
may never have another moment like this if we cling to the past, if we 
deny our children, if we deny our grandchildren and those not even born 
yet a promising and prosperous future.
  We must put an end to this terrible debt burden that is dragging us 
down and denying us the opportunity to confront the new century with 
renewed hope, with renewed opportunity.
  Confronting and conquering great challenges is what this country is 
all about and what we as Representatives of the people should be all 
about. Let us not shrink from that challenge.
  I want Members to support this rule. I want Members to support a 
balanced budget plan that will bring a brighter tomorrow, regardless of 
which one of these four balanced budgets comes to a final vote. That is 
the one we have got to vote for in the end. We have got to do it for 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following document for the Record:

[[Page H5109]]
                           DEBATE & AMENDMENTS ON HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTIONS, 1989-1994                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Total time
  Year      Budget res.        Rule number      General debate      Amendments       Vote on rule    consumed\1\
                                                 time (hours)         allowed                          (hours)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989...  H. Con. Res. 106.  H. Res. 145\2\...  5-hours (2 HH)..  5 (3-D; 2-R)....  Adopted: voice..      12\1/2\
1990...  H. Con. Res. 310.  H. Res. 382\3\...  6-hours (3 HH)..  4 (1-D; 3-R)....  Adopted: voice..           13
1991...  H. Con. Res. 121.  H. Res. 123\4\...  5-hours (2 HH)..  4 (1-D; 3-R)....  Adopted: 392-9..           11
1992...  H. Con. Res. 287.  H. Res. 386\5\...  3-hours (1 HH)..  3 (1-D; 2-R)....  Adopted: 239-182      13\1/2\
1993...  H. Con. Res. 64..  H. Res. 131......  10-hours (4 HH).  ................  Adopted: voice..           16
                            H. Res. 133\6\...                    4 (2-D; 2-R)....  Adopted: 251-172             
1994...  H. Con. Res. 218.  H. Res. 384\7\...  4-hours (1 HH)..  5 (3-D; 2-R)....  Adopted: 245-171           10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes hour on rule, general debate time, and debate time on all amendments, but does not include time     
  taken on rollcall votes and walking-around time.                                                              
\2\Of the 5 amendments, one was an amendment by the Chairman of the Budget Committee (30-minutes), followed by 4
  substitutes under king-of-the-hill procedure: Dannemeyer (1-hr.); Dellums (3-hrs.); Kasich (1-hr.); Gephardt  
  (1-hr.)                                                                                                       
\3\General debate began on April 25th under a unanimous consent request agreed to on April 24th. Four substitute
  amendments were allowed under king-of-the-hill procedures: Kasich (1-hr.); Dannemeyer (1-hr.); Dellums (2-    
  hrs.); and Frenzel (2-hrs.).                                                                                  
\4\Of the 4 amendments allowed, one was a perfecting amendment by Rep. Ford of Michigan (1-hr.), followed by 3  
  substitutes under king-of-the-hill: Dannemeyer (1-hr.); Kasich (1-hr): and Gradison (2-hrs.).                 
\5\Three substitutes were allowed under king-of-the-hill: Dannemeyer (30-mins.); Gradison (1-hr.); and Towns-   
  Dellums (8-hrs.).                                                                                             
\6\Of the 10-hours of general debate, 2-hours were allocated to the Budget Committee; 4-hours for Humphrey-     
  Hawkins; 2-hours to discuss the Mfume substitute; and 1-hour to discuss the Solomon substitute. This was      
  followed by 4 substitutes under king-of-the-hill: Kasich (2-hrs.); Solomon (1-hr.); Mfume (1-hr.); and Sabo   
  (identical to base resolution, 1-hr.).                                                                        
\7\In addition to the hour on Humphrey-Hawkins, Reps. Kasich and Mfume each were given one hour of general      
  debate to discuss their substitutes. Five substitutes were allowed under king-of-the-hill subject to one-hour 
  of debate each, with the last being identical to the reported budget resolution.                              
                                                                                                                
Source: Rules Committee Calendars (Note: HH stands for Humphrey-Hawkins debate).                                

                                  TIMING OF HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTIONS, 1989-1994                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Date        Date                                         
  Year                  Budget res.                   ordered     report     Date rule  Date House   Days report
                                                     reported      filed      granted   took-up BR  available\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989...  H. Con. Res. 106.........................     4/27/89      5/2/89      5/2/89      5/3/89            1 
1990...  H. Con. Res. 310.........................     4/19/90     4/23/90     4/25/90  \2\4/25/90            2 
1991...  H. Con. Res. 121.........................      4/9/91     4/12/91     4/15/91     4/16/91            4 
1992...  H. Con. Res. 287.........................     2/27/92      3/2/92      3/3/92      3/4/92            2 
1993...  H. Con. Res. 64..........................     3/10/93     3/15/93     3/16/93     3/17/93            2 
1994...  H. Con. Res. 218.........................      3/3/94      3/8/94      3/9/94     3/10/94            2 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Days of report availability assumes report was available on the day after it was filed and includes the day  
  on which the budget resolution was taken up by the House.                                                     
\2\General debate begun by unanimous consent; rule was adopted the following day.                               
                                                                                                                
Sources: House Calendars; H.I.S.; Congressional Quarterly Almanacs.                                             

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the consideration of this budget resolution shows the 
American people that Republicans can offer balanced budgets. The debate 
we are beginning here in the House today is not whether we balance the 
Federal budget, but rather, how. And it is how Republicans want to 
balance the budget that should be the focus of our debate today.
  Mr. Speaker, this proposal to balance the Federal budget contains 
$350 billion in tax cuts. These tax cuts will amount to $20,000 per 
person for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. At the same time this 
budget is handing the most fortunate in our society a sizeable tax 
break, the Republican budget is asking the rest of the country to 
swallow unnecessarily large cuts in programs such as Medicare and 
student loans.
  In order to make these cuts and to finance this subsidy for the 
wealthiest of our citizens, Medicare recipients will pay an additional 
$1,000 a year more for their health care by the year 2002. When we 
think of that extra $1,000, we should remember that 83 percent of 
Medicare benefits go to seniors with incomes of $25,000 or less.
  Not only will Medicare recipients pay more, hospitals will bear an 
unfair burden. The President and CEO of the Navarro Regional Hospital 
in my congressional district, Harvey Fishero, wrote to me this week to 
express his deep concerns about Medicare and Medicaid cuts envisioned 
in the Republican budget. He said, and I quote, ``Medicare and Medicaid 
targets set by the Budget Committee are unacceptable, unsustainable and 
must be lowered. These reductions are much too severe and are 
implemented too fast for the Medicare system to handle.'' He says that 
by the year 2000, Medicare PPS operating margins would fall to -20.6 
percent and hospitals would lose $1,300 in PPS payments for every 
Medicare recipient.
  Republicans will try to deny that young Americans may be forced to 
forgo the dream of a college education because this budget will 
increase the costs of college loans. It is estimated that because of 
the elimination of the in-school interest subsidy envisioned in the 
Republican budget, students may pay up to $5,000 more for their college 
loans. And, when we think of recipients of guaranteed student loans, we 
should remember that the average family income of students receiving 
these subsidies is $35,000.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget is right here in black and 
white. Glib explanations of slowing growth and block grants and saving 
programs cannot explain away $350 billion in tax cuts. Those 
explanations cannot make what is printed on these pages go away. They 
cannot explain why this budget asks those who are least able to 
contribute the most.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues spent a good deal of their time 
in the Rules Committee yesterday asking for alternatives. They were 
asking for these alternatives while three alternatives had already been 
submitted for the committee's consideration. One of those alternatives, 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] and the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Owens], on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, 
was made in order by this resolution. Another, offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], was not. Both of those proposals presented 
the committee with serious policy alternatives to the Republican 
budget.
  A third alternative was also submitted to the Rules Committee, That 
proposal was developed on behalf of the conservative wing of the 
Democratic party by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. That proposal presented the 
committee with a very viable alternative to the Republican budget. The 
major difference between the Orton-Stenholm budget and the Republican 
budget goes back to the basic question of how do we balance the Federal 
budget. The Orton-Stenholm proposal recognizes that cutting taxes and 
balancing the budget might present a fundamental conflict. Yet, it 
seemed for much of the
 day yesterday this alternative would not be made in order.

  This alternative will, however, be considered by the House. But it 
will be considered only because the Democratic leader, Mr. Gephardt 
will offer it, not because its authors were given the opportunity to 
offer their proposal in their own right. Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear 
that had Mr. Gephardt not agreed to put his name on this alternative, 
the House would have been denied the opportunity to consider a very 
responsible Democratic budget alternative.
  Mr. Speaker, I have many requests for time today, so I will conclude. 
But, I must register my opposition to this rule. Mr. Orton and Mr. 
Stenholm have been shortchanged by this rule as has Mr. Dingell. And, 
because they have been shortchanged, so have the American people. I 
believe the American people want and deserve better than what this 
resolution gives them.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  [[Page H5110]]
  
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would just say I think the gentleman knows I have a 
good working relationship with the Democrat coalition. I have been 
negotiating with them several days. Much of what you said, though, just 
is not true because the gentleman does not know the details of the 
negotiations that went on. I assure you that we would have taken care 
of them. We just wanted the Democrat leadership to present an 
alternative that he would vote for. It will be interesting to see if he 
does.
  I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. 
Goss], one of the very distinguished members of the Committee on Rules; 
he has been invaluable in developing the balanced budget concept for 
many years on this floor, and he is one of the most respected Members.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules for yielding me this time. I commend him for this 
extraordinarily fair rule on this vital issue, and, of course, I also 
have to commend him for his brilliant substitute with the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] that we will be discussing.
  By sticking to the announced parameters that the only substitutes 
allowed will be those that bring the budget into balance by 2002, this 
rule ensures that we move beyond the question of if we balance our 
books within 7 years to how we will reach that goal. And that is truly 
a remarkable turnabout from the years past.
  Still, of course, we have the liberal naysayers who seem to prefer 
the status quo. The impact of the status quo is really letting the ship 
of state sail full speed ahead into the rocky cliffs of certain 
bankruptcy for certain programs, as we know, and, I believe, fiscal 
calamity for our children and grandchildren, and as a grandfather, that 
is not responsible.

                              {time}  1245

  As a grandfather, that is not responsible. I am still amazed that the 
President has refused to join this effort and has abdicated all 
responsibility for mapping out a strategy to bring our budget into 
balance within the specified period of time. This rule does offer the 
President a final chance, and it is fair. It is a place holder, in case 
he has a change of heart in this crucial issue and decides he was to be 
relevant to the debate after all.
  In addition, this rule allows three other proposals to be offered 
under the standing procedure of the House, including a proposal I am 
proud to cosponsor offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Neumann] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] that charts a 
path to a balanced budget within 5 years instead of 7.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that doing nothing really is 
disaster. We have a moral responsibility in our country to bring this 
budget into balance. The mess we are in certainly did not come about 
overnight. It took decades to accumulate nearly $5 trillion in debt. By 
the way, that is still growing today, as we speak, under the Clinton 
budget. Cleaning up the mess will not be easy, but it must be done, and 
the first step lies, obviously, in balancing the annual budget.
  I am proud of the extraordinary effort of the gentleman from Ohio, 
Chairman Kasich, and his Committee on the Budget. They have 
demonstrated that we can indeed have a balanced budget by 2002. They 
have attacked waste and fraud; they have attacked abuse, reviewing 
every program in the Federal budget to set priorities.
  I am gratified that they have included many of my discretionary 
spending suggestions totaling more than $30 billion it seems in savings 
over 5 years as we proceed through the processes. I would note to 
Members that they can review the rest of my list of 75 proposed cuts 
that save $275 billion over 5 years if there are specific discretionary 
cuts suggested in the Kasich budget they strongly oppose and they would 
like to replace them in months ahead.
  Equally important, the Committee on the Budget has acted to save 
Medicare, a program headed for collapse, unless we do something. Again, 
doing nothing is disaster for Medicare. This is a program that is in 
fact going broke, part A.
  Let it be clear to you: Under the budget blueprint before us today, 
per capita Medicare spending is set to increase by more than 33 percent 
in the next 7 years. Only in the minds of status quo Washington 
liberals would that be translated into a cut. I know the increase in 
Medicare is good for seniors. I am one. I am also a grandfather, as I 
said, and I think I have responsibility to both seniors and to my 
children and grandchildren.
  Sure, it is going to get hot in this kitchen. But to my friends on 
the other side of the aisle who seem more interested in hot and hateful 
rhetoric about the rich and in the cool comfort of the status quo, I 
say if you cannot stand the heat, then find a door and exit the 
kitchen, and let those of us willing to take the risk, to meet the 
challenge, to get on with the recipe for saving the American dream for 
our children and grandchildren.
  Vote for this rule, please, and for the Kasich balanced budget as 
well.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the ranking member and former chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing me this 
time to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, why are Republicans cutting Medicare to pay a tax break 
for the very, very rich? I cannot for the life of me figure it out why 
my Republican colleagues would want to give a big fat tax break to the 
very rich, so badly, that they would slash Medicare to the point that 
by the year 2002 every senior citizen will have to pay an additional 
$1,000 a year out of his pocket. But I did not sign that contract on 
America, Mr. Speaker, so there are things that I really do not 
understand about it.
  But I am glad I did not, because this budget inspired by the contract 
will cut money from student loans, medical research, and LIHEAP. And, 
because of this budget, Boston teaching hospitals alone stand to lose 
over $700 million during the next 7 years, 20,000 Boston families will 
not have heat in the winter, and the cost of a college education will 
go up $5,000 per student.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends say that this budget represents 
tough choices. It does. But I ask, tough on whom? It certainly is not 
tough on anyone in this Chamber, and it is certainly not tough on 
anyone earning over $200,000 per year. But let me tell you who it is 
tough on. It is tough on those struggling families who will not be able 
to send their kids to college. It is tough on those American senior 
citizens who may have to go without heat in the winter and who will 
definitely be paying higher medical bills. And it is tough on the most 
vulnerable in our society.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the interests of seniors, in the 
interest of students, to oppose this Republican budget, and give up the 
idea of a tax break for the very, very rich. Let us come up with a real 
budget bill, Mr. Speaker, that does not harm the people who need help, 
and not help the people who do not need it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Atlanta, GA [Mr. Linder], another very distinguished member of the 
Committee on Rules, who has been a real asset to this body since he 
came here.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for House 
Resolution 142, the rule which allows for the consideration of several 
balanced budget proposals. Only 7 months ago it would have been 
impossible to imagine debating a bill to actually balance the budget by 
the year 2002.
  Under the rule the House will have a historic opportunity tomorrow to 
fully debate and consider four balanced budget resolutions. In fact, 
the rule allows for a fifth balanced budget proposal, one from the 
President of the United States. While I am pleased the rule provides 
him with that opportunity, it appears that the President has decided to 
forfeit any leadership on the issue of America's financial stability.
  In February I watched as President Clinton and House and Senate 
Democrats refused to support the balanced budget amendment. I now 
realize that [[Page H5111]] they are incapable of curbing their 
irresponsible spending habits, so they have decided to play politics 
with our Nation's future.
  Americans understand the fiscal trouble the Nation is in and the 
tough measures required to fix the mess. We must do something about the 
deficit and the debt now. We are out of tomorrows. The debt and deficit 
costs all of us money in the form of higher taxes, higher interest 
rates, and a slower economy. Moreover, it is immoral for this 
generation to leave our children the bill for our excesses.
  Our current financial crisis is as much a threat to our Nation's 
children and grandchildren as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were to 
children half a century ago. House Republicans have pledged to balance 
the budget in 7 years. The generation of World War II saved the world 
in less time, but we need a united front on this too.
  The change in the size of the Federal Government we propose will 
affect all Americans in some way. If we are incapable of sticking 
together to get control of our fiscal affairs, America will collapse 
from within. America is capable of solving problems. I believe we will 
rally together to do it again. I believe the American people are up to 
this challenge.
  All around us Americans are discovering better ways to do everything. 
Yet the Federal Government remains the least-changed institution in 
America society and the President and his party seem satisfied with 
that. In times of crisis, Americans pull together. We can no longer 
skirt the issue, although administration officials Tyson and Panetta 
have tried to.
  As in World War II, we need the talents and skills of every 
individual. This notion is not too romantic for us to conceive that 
with the help of the American people, we will balance the budget, 
provide a safe and prosperous future for our children, and save our 
country.
  The rule under discussion gives House Members the opportunity to vote 
on legislation to require the Federal Government to live under the same 
budget constraints that every American family lives under. We are 
running out of chances. We are running out of choices. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule that will allow this historic debate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and to 
the budget resolution, as reported by the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the rule, and to the 
budget resolution, as reported by the Budget Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, we are opposing this rule because of our objections to 
the way the majority has treated the minority in developing this rule. 
There was no valid reason for the majority members of the Rules 
Committee to deny the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] the opportunity to present to the 
House, under their own names, a budget plan that they themselves 
authored.
  The Stenholm-Orton plan, which under this rule would be offered by 
the minority leader, is a far more sensible and equitable alternative 
than the Budget Committee's plan. It offers a way of reaching the same 
goal as the Budget Committee's plan--a balanced budget in 7 years--
through spending cuts that are much more modest and reasonable.
  Among other things, the Stenholm-Orton alternative would cut Medicare 
by over $100 billion less over 7 years than the Budget Committee plan. 
In fact, it would cut all entitlement programs--programs that provide 
much-needed income for millions of Americans--by over $200 billion less 
than the Budget Committee's plan. And, it
 would provide $35 billion more for education and training, $11 billion 
more for health, and $60 billion less for defense than the Budget 
Committee's plan.

  The Stenholm-Orton plan achieves the goal of a balanced budget in 7 
years through less extreme cuts primarily by excluding the ill-advised, 
$350 billion tax cut that the Budget Committee plan includes--a tax cut 
which mostly benefits the very wealthiest Americans, and which is paid 
for by cutting benefits for the most vulnerable Americans--the poor, 
the elderly, and children.
  As the Stenholm-Orton plan, and the other two plans that will be 
offered under this rule--the Payne-Owens substitute and the Neumann-
Solomon substitute--demonstrate, there are different ways to reach a 
balanced budget over a 7-year time period. That is why few of us 
objected to the ground rules for this debate--that all substitutes 
offered as alternatives to the Budget Committee's plan would also need 
to achieve a balanced budget by 2002.
  The question we have to ask in considering each alternative is: Does 
this plan provide a fair and equitable way to balance the budget?
  The answer, in the case of the Budget Committee's plan, quite 
clearly, is no.
  With its $350 billion tax cut, that benefits the wealthy, and its 
preservation of corporate tax breaks--and its extreme cuts in Medicare 
and in dozens of other programs which benefit average Americans, the 
Budget Committee's plan provides for a huge transfer of resources from 
the poor, from children, from the elderly, to the rich. It is a plan 
that hurts those who need the most help from Government, and helps 
those who needs it the least. In terms of social policy, it makes no 
sense whatsoever.
  What is more, the claim that this budget favors children is 
debatable. It is true, of course, that it would be a good thing for our 
children to inherit less debt from us. But what kind of country are we 
leaving for them if we cut education and job training and highways and 
mass transit and environmental protection programs and energy research 
and development and health research and public broadcasting? What kind 
of opportunities will they have if college loans become unaffordable 
and vocational training unavailable?
  Many people speak of the Federal Government these days as though it 
is completely disconnected from the American people when, in fact, our 
Government is a very important part of almost every American's life. 
Nearly everyone has a family member who is receiving Social Security 
and Medicare. Millions of middle-class American families depend on the 
Student Loan Program to educate their children. Millions of moderate-
income working Americans depend on the earned income tax credit to make 
ends meet. Millions of Americans depend on
 support from the Federal Government through all kinds of programs.

  We should be spending less on some of these programs, but it is wrong 
to cut them so that we can reduce taxes for wealthy Americans--those 
who have already reaped the greatest economic rewards in recent years. 
There should be shared sacrifice in our goal to reach a balanced 
budget; instead, if the Budget Committee's plan is adopted, there will 
be definite winners and losers. And, unfortunately, those who already 
have the most will be the winners; those with the least will be the 
losers.
  Mr. Speaker, the Budget Committee's plan is flawed not only because 
it is unfair, but also because it also raises serious doubts about 
whether its promised reductions in deficits are achievable.
  For one thing, by splitting the reconciliation process into two 
separate measures--one for Medicare cuts, which are to be reported by 
the Ways and Means and Commerce Committees by mid-September, and all 
other cuts, which are to be reported by the appropriate committees by 
mid-July--the Budget Committee plan increases the likelihood that the 
$282 billion in Medicare cuts required by the plan will not be 
achieved. The Republican leadership is likely to find that it is far 
more difficult to enact these extremely deep cuts in Medicare if they 
are not part of a larger deficit-reduction plan that applies to more 
than one group of Americans.
  In addition, the Budget Committee plan relies on extremely optimistic 
economic assumptions to achieve a balanced budget by 2002. This is 
particularly true with respect to the plan's projected interest rates, 
which many nonpartisan economists have said are unrealistically low. 
The level of interest rates, of course, has a tremendous bearing on the 
amount the Federal Government will need to spend on interest payments 
on the national debt.
  Mr. Speaker, again, we do not object to considering a plan to balance 
the budget over the next 7 years. In fact, many of us--particularly 
those of us who have spent many years struggling with the deficit 
problem--are very pleased that the debate, as many Members have pointed 
out recently, has moved from whether we should balance the budget over 
the 7 years, to how we should do it. The Republican leadership, and in 
particular, the chairman of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], deserves a great deal of credit for that change.
  However, as I said earlier, we do object to the way in which the rule 
treats the Stenholm-Orton plan, and I urge a no vote on the rule for 
that reason. I also urge our colleagues to vote no on the Budget 
Committee's budget plan.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, this debate comes down to one very simple 
question: Do you think we should cut [[Page H5112]] Medicare, Medicaid, 
and Social Security in order to pay for tax cuts for the privileged 
few?
  In the next 2 days, we are going to see a lot of charts and numbers 
on this floor.
  But this debate is not just about numbers. It is about people.
  People like Margaret Leslie--who I have a picture of here today.
  Today, Margaret is a lovely lady and proud senior citizen who lives 
in my district.
  But 51 years ago she was known to her friends as ``Margie the 
Riveter.''
  When she was young, she answered the call of this country--and helped 
build the B-20's that helped the Allies win World War II.
  Like most people of her generation, today Margaret lives on Social 
Security.
  After paying for her rent, her medicine, her Medicare premium, and 
her MediGap premium she's left with about $130 each month to pay for 
food, bills, heat, and everything else.
  And she struggles to make ends meet.
  But instead of trying to make Margaret's life easier today this 
Republican budget is going to make her life harder.
  The budget before us today will take $240 out of Margaret's Social 
Security check.
  And over the next 7 years, it will force her to pay an additional 
$3,500 for Medicare.
  Not to balance the budget. Not to cut the deficit.
  The Republicans are cutting Medicare for one reason and one reason 
only: To pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest people and the 
wealthiest corporations in our country.
  The Wall Street Journal calls this plan the biggest tax-saving 
bonanza in years for upper income Americans. And if you're a wealthy 
corporation you might not have to pay any taxes at all.
  The last time Republicans were in power, 130 of the top 250 
corporations paid no taxes at all for at least 1 year. We changed that 
law, but this budget changes it right back.
  Now did the Republicans target the $200 billion we dole out in 
corporate tax breaks each year? No.
  Did the Republicans target billionaires who get $3.6 billion in tax 
breaks for renouncing their American citizenship? No.
  Instead, they targeted senior citizens and working families. And 
don't just take my word for it.
  Last week, the New York Times revealed the contents of a secret 
Republican memo.
  Under the Republican plan Medicare deductibles will double, premiums 
will go up by 50 percent, copayments will increase, care will be 
rationed, and the choice of doctors will be limited.
  Mr. Speaker, this won't just affect seniors.
  How is the average working family going to pay for the cost of caring 
for their parents and their grandparents?
  And don't come to this floor today and tell us you're trying to save 
the Medicare system. As Margaret Leslie says, ``Republicans haven't 
cared about Medicare for 30 years. We're not about to believe you 
now.''
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is not just about numbers. It's about basic 
dignity.
  People like Margaret Leslie stood by this country in time of war and 
peace. And we must stand by them today. That is the sacred promise we 
made on Medicare--and it's time we live up to that promise.
  But this budget is a broken promise.
  And at the end of the day, senior citizens and working families 
throughout this country will be asking one question: why are 
Republicans cutting Medicare and cutting Social Security in order to 
give tax breaks to the wealthiest people and the wealthiest 
corporations in this country?
  I urge my colleagues to say no to this rule. And say no to this 
budget.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I read in the same paper, though, that Speaker Gingrich 
promises that while these cuts are big, they will be painless. Will 
they be painless for Margaret Leslie?
  Mr. BONIOR. Reclaiming my time, they clearly are not painless. People 
like Margaret Leslie who stood by the country in the time of war and 
peace deserve a much better break than what Speaker Gingrich and the 
Republicans are offering in the way of higher deductibles and premiums 
in this particular bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to my dear friend, 
the chairman of the Committee on Rules, one of the most gentlemanly, 
courteous, gracious, and most well-liked Members of this body. He has 
always figures, however, how we could come up with closed rules which 
appear to be open rules.
  Now, with all affection and all respect for my good friend, I had a 
little amendment which I appeared before the Committee on Rules with. I 
received the same gracious attention I always do up there, and I want 
the gentleman to know how grateful I am for both his friendship and the 
kind way he treated me.

                              {time}  1300

  He did not treat me kindly enough because he did not allow the 
offering of the amendment. And the amendment offers a really good 
choice, something which the gentleman from New York and the Committee 
on Rules have denied this House again.
  So I am compelled now to call my dear friend ``closed rule Solomon'' 
because he presents us these wonderful rules which in fact do not 
permit the House to have a fair exposition of the business before it or 
to engage in a proper discussion of all the important questions.
  The amendment that I would have offered was specifically designed to 
address the problems associated with the policy direction that many in 
the House are moving with respect to block grants. It would have 
allowed the return of Medicaid and four welfare block grants to the 
States over a 5-year phaseout period. Better than $539 billion in 
savings would have been generated. I would have taken as a base text 
the language of my Republican colleagues' bill. It would have restored 
$282 billion. It would have permitted $18 billion to be returned to 
graduated student loans, and it would have allowed $50 billion to go to 
the middle-income people in forms of a tax cut which would have 
redistributed the moneys in a way which would not only have been fairer 
but could have contributed more greatly and speedily to the well-being 
of this country and to the assistance of the middle class.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I just want to tell the gentleman that there are two 
Democrat alternatives, two Republicans. The gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Gephardt] was given the choice between you and the other one. He 
could have made that choice. If the gentleman would see Mr. Gephardt, I 
think that would solve his problem.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, that is a very artful point that the 
gentleman makes. I want to commend his for it. As a dialectician, he 
has few peers. However, the hard fact of the matter is that to say we 
are going to give us two choices and give you two choices does not 
allow a real debate. All giving two choices is is it limits the choices 
before the House to four questions.
  It does not allow us to specifically address whether or not we are, 
for example, cutting Medicare, which, in fact, we are. Nor does it 
allow us to properly address the cuts in Medicaid or student loans or 
school lunches or title I education funding or veterans' medical care 
or low-income heating assistance, all of which proposals are being 
savaged by the Republican budget. It does not give us time to debate 
them. It does not give the House an opportunity to consider amendments 
dealing with these different points.
  I love the gentleman from New York. He is one of the finest men 
around here. I enjoy my little skirmishes with him up in the Committee 
on Rules more than I can say, but the hard fact of the matter is, even 
with his charm and skill, the distinguished gentleman from New York 
cannot deny that, in fact, this is a gag rule which is going to 
foreclose the House from proper consideration of some of the most 
important [[Page H5113]] questions, not only for this year but for the 
7 years which follow.
  I again express my respect for my good friend, ``closed rule 
Solomon.''
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, why are the Republicans cutting Medicare to 
pay for a tax break for the rich? And two of the people who want to 
know more about this are in the Kierklewski family in Austin, TX. Louis 
is 94 years young; his son Ed is 62. They are among millions of 
American citizens who will suffer from the broken promises contained in 
this budget resolution. Louis and Ed were among 200 senior citizens and 
people that were concerned with them in Austin, TX, last Saturday who 
came together to express their great concern about the broken promises 
that are composed in this Republican budget.
  Louis Kierklewski has devoted his life to hard work. He repaired 
looms in a textile factory until that job gave out. Then he went to 
work at the church as a janitor. And now all he has for economic 
sustenance is a $549 Social Security check and his Medicare. And he 
already has to spend out of that $195 just for prescriptions because 
Medicare, as important as it is, does not cover prescriptions.
  And Ed--Ed worked 20 years defending this country in the U.S. Air 
Force. Now he is working as a custodian, moving towards retirement. And 
he and his wife are worried, and they have good reason to worry about 
this Republican budget.
  The Republicans propose to double, and they did not bother telling us 
about this in the Committee on the Budget but we found out later 
through their secret memos, to double the deductible that Louis so 
going to have to pay and that in a couple years Ed is going to have to 
pay and then keep raising the deductible after they have doubled it 
year after year after year.
  Now, if in fact Louis needs to go to the lab, he is going to have to 
pay extra money under the Republican plan. And if Ed decides that he 
needs home health care, he will have to pay extra money for that.
  If Ed or Louis had the audacity to say, we want the same doctor we 
have always had, well, the Republicans are going to charge them $20 
each per month to claim their own doctor. And meanwhile, their premiums 
will go up month after month, year after year under this Republican 
plan. That is why the AARP, the retired persons group, calls this 
Republican plan a sick tax on the most frail and vulnerable seniors in 
our society.
  I guess the problem is that the Republicans had old Captain Crunch 
over there with the number crunchers at the Committee on the Budget, 
crunching away at the budget, but what they forgot about is that when 
you crunch numbers in a budget, sometimes you crunch human beings like 
Louis and Ed Kierklewski, the kind of people who built this into the 
greatest Nation in the world.
  When the Republicans crunch the numbers this time they are really 
crushing every American who is dependent on Medicare or hopes to be in 
the future.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
  (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule, 
although I do so somewhat reluctantly.
  When I joined with 23 of my conservative Democratic colleagues to 
form the coalition, I did so in an effort to help lift the debate on 
important issues before the House above petty partisan politics. So far 
this Congress, members of the coalition have succeeded in avoiding 
petty partisan maneuvering.
  Congressmen Orton, Stenholm, Browder, Peterson, and myself authored a 
budget proposal that we feel a majority of Americans will support. We 
feel it approaches a balanced budget in a more common sense, less 
painful approach than does the Kasich proposal.
  However, when we went to the Rules Committee to ask that our proposal 
be allowed time on the floor, we were met by opposition. The Republican 
controlled committee, under pressure from their leadership, did not 
want to allow our proposal floor time. I do not know why--maybe they 
are worried that our proposal is the one that a majority of Congress, 
including Republicans, would support.
  The Democratic leadership has risen above the partisan maneuvering 
and has allowed the coalition to offer our plan in the slot normally 
reserved for the minority leadership's proposal. As it turns out, this 
gesture by the Democratic leadership, was the only chance for our plan 
to be heard on the floor.
  I am glad my party's leadership has chosen to rise above the petty 
partisan politics of today. I only hope that in the future, the 
Republican leadership will also choose to abandon the old ways of 
partisan maneuvering and provide equal opportunity for all voices to be 
heard.
  Mr. Speaker, because of Leader Gephardt's offer of floor time, I urge 
my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce]. She is one of the new members of the 
Committee on Rules and an outstanding Member of this body.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of 
this rule. By adopting this rule, we will debate and then pass a plan 
to balance the Federal budget within 7 years. That statement could not 
have been made in this Chamber a year ago. But things have changed, and 
after the November elections there should be no question about the will 
of the American people.
  They expect us to be courageous enough to make the difficult choices 
that some naysayers in this body have been avoiding for decades now.
  But thinking in terms of the future is not always easy. There is 
comfort in the status quo and there are those who will use almost any 
tactic to preserve it. We have already seen this morning the Committee 
on the Budget's good work portrayed as attacks on seniors and children. 
We have heard actual increases in spending being called cuts. But 
despite these scare tactics and blatant misuse of the English language, 
I am confident that our seniors will appreciate the steps we are taking 
to preserve and protect and improve Medicare, a program which would be 
bankrupt in 7 short years if we do not act.
  The plan crafted by the Committee on the Budget offers solutions no 
more complicated or profound than those employed every day by hard 
working, responsible families who play by the rules, pay the bills and 
make ends meet.
  This is a fair and balanced rule. It calls for honest debate on four 
very different proposals to bring the budget into balance. Two 
Democratic ones and two Republican ones, and we are still holding 
things open for the President's plan. I hope we see it.
  But I encourage every Member to watch this debate closely. 
Substitutes will be considered under the regular order of the House. 
Nothing fancy, nothing tricky. This rule was not designed to give 
political cover. Every vote counts.
  So, Mr. Speaker, on this historic day, I urge my colleagues to adopt 
this reasonable rule and get on with the task ahead. Anything less 
would deprive America's children of their potential, the kind of safe 
and prosperous future they deserve.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, why are Republicans cutting Medicare to pay 
for tax breaks for the privileged few?
  That's what my constituents Julius and Dottie Ruskin of West Haven, 
CT, who are pictured here, want to know.
  The Republicans have promised tax giveaways to the most well-off in 
our society, and now they have to pay for those promises by taking away 
from the most vulnerable among us--senior citizens on Medicare like 
Julius and Dottie.
  The Republicans claim that their budget plan demands fair shared 
sacrifice to balance the budget. But where's the sacrifice from people 
making more than $350,000, they get a $20,000 tax break under the 
Republican plan. Where's the sacrifice from all the beneficiaries of 
corporate welfare, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee refuses to close their special interest loopholes. The 
primary sacrifice demanded by the Republicans is from seniors like 
Julius and Dottie Ruskin who depend on Medicare. [[Page H5114]] 
  This sacrifice isn't fair, and it isn't shared.
  The Republican plan would cut Medicare by $288 billion. The average 
senior in Connecticut would pay $1,167 more a year in out-of-pocket 
expenses by the year 2002. The Republican plan means that the Ruskins 
will pay more every time they go to the doctor.
  This plan will increase the annual deductible seniors must pay for 
doctor's services from $100 to $150. It will nearly double the monthly 
premium from $46 to $84 by the year 2002, an increase of $456 a year 
for seniors. It will add a 20-percent sick tax for home health care and 
laboratory tests.
  Let me tell you about the Ruskins. Julius and Dottie live on Social 
Security and his Armstrong/Pirelli Tire Co. pension for a total annual 
income of about $14,000 per year. Just last month his doctor visits and 
medication costs totaled $10,000.
  But their biggest concern is that the Republican plan may force them 
into an HMO and limit their choice of doctors. Julius sees six doctors, 
most of them specialists, and Dottie sees three doctors, and it is 
important to them to maintain these special relationships. The 
Republican plan threatens this trusted care that they now receive.
  The Republicans may be keeping their promises to the privileged few. 
But they're breaking our Nation's historic promise to seniors like 
Julius and Dottie Ruskin.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I notice that the former Republican 
Secretary of HEW has warned the Republicans not to go down in history 
as the party that destroyed Medicare. I wonder whether these cuts will 
destroy Medicare for this family.
  Ms. DeLAURO. For Dottie and Julius, their lives would be destroyed by 
the cuts that are in the Republican plan to cut Medicare. Make no bones 
about it, these are cuts and the Republicans need to face up to that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while the photograph is still up there, I think the 
gentlewoman has our plan mixed up with the President's health care plan 
last year. That would have forced couples into HMO's; nor our plan. 
Second, that same couple now receive $400 in Medicare benefits. Under 
our plan it will go to $12,600. That is quite a difference. That couple 
is going to be lucky if our plan passes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished and 
outstanding gentlewoman from Salt Lake City, UT [Mrs. Waldholtz], a new 
member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, today we begin the most critical debate 
this Congress will undertake. This debate is critical, it is about how 
to balance the Federal budget, not whether we are going to do it, and 
how to stop piling up debt for services and programs that we use now 
but that our children are going to have to pay for.
  Mr. Speaker, I said how we balance the budget, not whether we balance 
the budget, because we have already had the easy part of this debate. 
Earlier this year, 300 Members of this House voted in favor of a 
balanced budget amendment, and we only need 218 votes to actually pass 
a balanced budget. It is easy to say we should balance the budget in 
the abstract. It takes courage and commitment, Mr. Speaker, to set 
priorities and make the difficult decisions that will actually balance 
this budget and preserve our Nation's future. In the next 48 hours, the 
American people will see who is willing to balance this budget and who 
is willing just to talk about it.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Rules, let me say I am 
very proud of the committee's decision to only allow out onto this 
floor budgets that balance in 7 years. This requirement was clearly 
communicated, not only to every Member of the House, but also to the 
President. I think it is very regrettable that the President chose not 
to participate in this critical turning point for our Nation, and did 
not provide us with a balanced budget that reflects his priorities and 
ideas as to how to end the financial calamity we face as a Nation.
  However, this debate is not just about our children, as critical and 
important as that is. My parents are 75 years old. They just celebrated 
their golden wedding anniversary. Now, after a lifetime of work and 
sacrifice for their family and for their country, the Medicare trustees 
tell them that in 7 years there will be no money for their hospital 
care, no money for their home health care when they will need it the 
most.
  This Republican budget plan will preserve and protect Medicare, not 
stand by and criticize and hope that no one holds us accountable when 
senior citizens lose their health care in 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also proud of the fact that this rule does not use 
the old king-of-the-hill process used in prior Congresses that allowed 
Members to vote for amendments they knew would never become law, but 
that provided them political cover at home.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for a fair, honest debate on how we 
balance the budget. It is time to do it for our children, it is time to 
do it for our parents. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and 
end decade of lack of responsibility and balance the budget.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning if Members watched ``Good Morning America'' 
or other news shows, they talked about American heroes in Oklahoma 
City, and our heart goes out to these wonderful men and women who 
sacrificed so much, and at many times put their own lives in peril, to 
help others.
  I want to introduce Members to another American hero, a person who is 
listening to this debate today very carefully, a person who wants to 
know what this House of Representatives feels about Medicare and 
Medicaid.
  The person I want to introduce Members to is Mr. Solon Blundell of 
Huntsville, AL. Here is an American hero. Mr. Blundell, 72 years old, 
spent 20 years caring for his mother-in-law who had suffered a series 
of strokes and was paralyzed. When he wanted to retire from his job as 
an engineer, he was forced to work an additional 4 years so he could 
have adequate funds and medical coverage to take care of his mother-in-
law.
  If fate had not dealt him that tough card alone, it turns out that 
his daughter Becky, suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease and now on a 
respirator, must depend on Medicaid to make sure that her medical bills 
are paid for. Mr. Blundell, in Huntsville, AL, and his wife are real 
heroes and heroines, working across America as so many seniors do to 
try to get by, to try to care for others.
  Therefore, we have to ask ourselves this fundamental question. If 
these people need this basic program of Medicare to provide help for 
themselves and for others, why are the Republicans coming today to cut 
Medicare under the Republican budget resolution?
  They will tell us they are going to spend more money in a few years 
on Medicare. That is true. What they do not tell us is that the actual 
cost of Medicare is going to go up even higher than the money they are 
providing. What they do not tell us is that more seniors will qualify 
for Medicare, and they will not have the funds to provide it.
  What does it mean to Mr. Blundell and so many other families across 
America? It means more money out of pocket, it means more premiums, it 
means more coinsurance payments, it means the loss of some Medicare 
services. It leads to possible rationing. It could lead to eliminating 
his family's choice of the doctor that they want.
  Is that the vision of America that we want to see? In this debate on 
a balanced budget, let us focus on why we are making these cuts. The 
reasons the Republicans are cutting Medicare almost $300 billion is 
because they need almost $300 billion to pay for tax cuts for the 
wealthy.
  Their plan that they put forward in this Chamber, which carried in 
large part by Republican votes, gave tax breaks to wealthy individuals 
making over $100,000 a year, and the most profitable corporations in 
America. To plug that hole in the Treasury, where do they turn? The 
program Mr. Blundell turns to every day to make sure that his mother-
in-law and now his daughter have adequate medical care. [[Page H5115]] 
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we will think twice. This debate is not about 
statistics, it is not about a toteboard running in the background, it 
is about real people and real American heroes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I will take just a moment to correct the last speaker 
that suggested that benefits for Medicare would go down. Actually, 
under these proposals, individual, per person benefits increase from 
$4,700 per person to $6,300 per person, so I would like to clear that 
up.
  I just want to compliment the Committee on Rules on turning out a 
rule that is going to go down in the history books, if we are 
successful, in getting on the glide path toward a balanced budget.
  I was particularly concerned with what we have been living with for 
the last 16 years, the so-called Gephardt rule that says ``Let us sort 
of sneakily hide a vote to increase the debt ceiling within the rule 
IL, that says `When you finally pass a budget resolution, you 
automatically pass a bill that increases the debt ceiling to 
accommodate the next fiscal year.''' I think this is a great rule. Let 
us vote for it. Let us move on toward a balanced budget.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Jonesville, WI [Mr. Neumann], one of the freshmen Members of this 
body who has brought a great deal of experience from the private 
sector, especially about knowing how to balance a budget.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to sit her and watch 
some of the pictures that were brought down here from the other side of 
the aisle today, because when we talk about balancing the budget, this 
is really about the future of a nation. It is not about numbers, it is 
not about a lot of the things we hear the rhetoric about, it is about 
the future of a nation. It is about the responsibility of this 104th 
Congress to do what is right for the future of our country, both the 
senior citizens, the people that are currently in the work force, and 
for our children. That is really what it is all about.
  I commend the Committee on Rules for bringing forth a balanced budget 
proposal, the Neumann-Solomon proposal, that will actually balance the 
budget in 5 years, with the family tax cuts fully implemented. It also 
does something that we did not hear much about out here in this 
Congress when I came. That is it also contains a detailed plan on how 
to go about paying off that awful $4.8 trillion debt. We do it over the 
next 30 years.
  The third thing our plan does that is very significant is that it 
does not use the surplus funds collected in the Social Security system 
to reduce the deficit, or in balancing the budget. It is very 
significant for our senior citizens to know that we do have a proposal 
out here on the floor of the House to be voted on tomorrow that 
literally sets aside the surplus funds for the Social Security system, 
so the Social Security system is solvent to the year 2030.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, this plan is very, very versatile, and will also 
allow a lot of input from both sides of the aisle, as well as the 
American people, in that it does not spell out specifically the 
reductions that are needed, but rather, lists the reductions that are 
needed to get to a balanced budget, and $70 billion in addition, so we 
can debate them over the course of the summer.
  I urge my colleagues to do what is right for the future of our 
country: support the rule, support the Neumann-Solomon amendment 
tomorrow.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Morris, IL [Mr. Weller], another distinguished Member of this body.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support 
of living within our means. For over a generation, the tax-and-spend 
liberals who ran this Congress for over 40 years have stiffed our kids 
and our families with a massive national debt now totaling $4.8 
trillion. That is $18,000 for every man, woman, and child in this room 
and throughout our country.
  The tax-and-spend liberals in the Democratic Party have behaved like 
a drunk out on the town with someone else's credit card. The children 
are the ones who will suffer, because liberals always leave someone 
else to pay the tab.
  This budget is our contract with our Nation's children. We will 
balance this budget to ensure that our children have a future free of 
debt and full of economic opportunity. We will balance the budget by 
cutting spending first. We will eliminate bureaucracy, wasteful 
spending, and programs that simply are not working. We will return 
power to families, communities, and States.
  We are providing tax relief for families. It is time for leadership. 
It is time to live within our means. It is time to protect Medicare and 
protect Social Security. Republicans are keeping our promise. I rise in 
support of the rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to a very distinguished 
Member, the gentleman from Ocala, FL [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to commend the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] for this rule. I want to say one thing. 
Every term I have been here in Congress I have been trying to repeal 
the Gephardt rule which was put in in 1976, that says we can go ahead 
and increase the debt around here without a vote.
  I see in this rule, the gentleman has taken the courageous step to go 
forward and say ``no, sir, we are going to have to vote on increasing 
the debt.'' I commend the gentleman for that. I think all the Members 
in Congress should recognize that we have changed history in this 
matter. I would like to see the same action in the following years, as 
well as Congress in the future.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Florida, 
we have accomplished that because of him.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, in order to close, I yield my remaining time 
to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] 
is recognized for 4 minutes.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge Republicans and 
Democrats alike to defeat this rule, and give this Congress an honest 
and open debate about this Republican budget and its consequences for 
hardworking American families.
  The fact is the Republicans want to force this budget through the 
Congress without adequate debate. This budget was produced in the 
Committee on the Budget, and a vote was had on it the same day, an 
unprecedented rush to bring it through the committee before anyone 
could even know what was in it. If this rule passes, we cannot even 
consider all of the Democratic alternatives to the Republican budget.
  The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] has an alternative that he 
wanted to bring. It is not in order. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm] and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] wanted to bring a 
budget. They were not allowed to do it. They were told they had to do 
it through me.
  This is one of the most important changes in the budget we have ever 
had, and we are in such a rush to get it done before, I guess, anyone 
can find out really what is in it, that we are not having an open, 
small d, democratic process, which this country deserves.
  The people deserve to know what is in this budget. We need to 
consider every alternative, because if the American people are given a 
moment to consider it, they will find the Republican budget is so much 
more reckless, so much more extreme than any budget that has come 
before, it really belongs in Guiness' Book of World Records.
                              {time}  1330

  The largest Medicare cuts in history, slashing seniors' benefits by 
more than $1,000 a year. And we can talk all day about what is a cut. I 
will tell you what is a cut. A cut is what a senior citizen has to 
face. They are going to face higher copays and higher deductibles and 
higher premiums to buy the health insurance they have under Medicare 
today. [[Page H5116]] 
  Further than that, a back-door cut in Social Security, in the 
pension. Republicans took the oath. They made a hollow campaign promise 
to protect America's retirement program. What did they do? The promise 
is broken in this budget. There will be an annual cut in the cost of 
living escalator in Social Security.
  We heard it was off the table. It is on the table. So I guess we are 
in a rush to get it done before anybody can find out what happened.
  Social Security should not be on this budget. It was never expected 
to be in this budget. It is in this budget. People deserve to know 
about it before their Representatives have to vote on it.
  Unprecedented cuts in student loans. The most important investment we 
will ever make in the future of this country is student loans. But yet 
we are going to have a cut that will shut millions of young people out 
of their ability to get an education.
  Mr. Speaker, these programs are not waste, fraud and abuse. They are 
the backbone of the American dream. They are counted on by millions of 
working families.
  To make it worse, what is all this for? It is for a tax cut that 
lavishes the most on those who have the most. The million richest 
Americans walk away with a $20,000 average tax cut, while we are taking 
$1,000 out of the pockets of senior citizens, or we are adding $5,000 
to the cost of a student loan.
  These are not American values. This is a redistribution from the 
middle class of this country, and the people who are struggling to get 
into the middle class, to the people who have it made.
  We all want to get rich. Everybody should be able to live the 
American dream, but this is not the way to do it. I urge Members to 
vote against this rule.
  Let's have every alternative on the table. Let's have a longer debate 
than 6 hours over a budget that is going to decimate the middle class 
of this country to help the richest people in the country. It is wrong, 
and we need a full debate so the American people can see the wrongness 
of this decision.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we would be glad to make those amendments 
in order. If the President would give us his balanced budget, if the 
previous speaker would give us his balanced budget, we will put it on 
this floor. They have none. That is why it is not available.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from 
Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier], a very distinguished member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from 
California is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. That 
is what we have been getting from the other side of the aisle. Only in 
Washington, DC., can an increase of from $4,700 to $6,300 for Medicare 
recipients over a 7-year period be labeled a Draconian cut. Nowhere 
else in the world would it possibly be considered that except on the 
floor of this Congress.
  This is a very fair and balanced rule.
  Last year they gave us 4 hours for general debate. This year we are 
providing 6 hours of general debate, a 50 percent increase over the 
allotted time from last year.
  Mr. Speaker, we have seen many of our colleagues come to the aisle 
over the past few minutes with pictures of individuals who they claim 
will be victimized by this budget. Yet virtually every single one of 
them who stood in the well on January 26 of this year voted in favor of 
one of the balanced budget amendments that would have, by the year 
2002, brought us to a balanced budget. They talk about it and yet they 
will not recognize that we have to make some modifications without 
hurting those individuals if we are in fact going to get to a balanced 
budget.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very important vote. This is a very important 
time for us as a Congress to step up to the plate and do the 
responsible thing. We are not going to be hurting those students. We 
are not going to be hurting senior citizens. It is nothing but 
rhetoric. We have to look at the facts. As we proceed with the next 6 
hours of general debate, we will be doing just that.
  We are waiting for the Democrats' budget plan. A copy of it, in fact, 
is being held by the chairman of the Committee on Rules. It is empty. 
They are not stepping up to the plate. We are. We are simply 
encouraging them to join us so in a bipartisan way we should vote for 
the previous question, for this very fair and balanced rule, and move 
ahead toward our glide path of a balanced budget by the year 2002.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous resolution on the 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. 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 252, 
nays 170, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 339]

                               YEAS--252

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--170

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta [[Page H5117]] 
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Berman
     Bono
     Chapman
     Collins (IL)
     Fattah
     Flake
     Hayes
     Hoyer
     Kleczka
     Schumer
     Vucanovich
     Wilson

                              {time}  1356

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Bono for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.

  Mr. BEVILL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

                             recorded vote

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 255, 
noes 168, not voting 11, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 340]

                               AYES--255

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--168

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Abercrombie
     Berman
     Bono
     Chapman
     Collins (IL)
     Flake
     Hayes
     Hoyer
     Kleczka
     Schumer
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1415

  On this vote:

       Mr. Beno for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.

  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.
  

                          ____________________
```