May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5107

NOT VOTING—20

Bateman

Berman

Bono

Borski

Brown (FL)

Chapman

Collins (IL)

Davis

Dornan

Fattah

Flake

Hayes

Hoyer

Johnston

Kleczka

Lipinski

Pelosi

Riggs

Schumer

Vucanovich

b 1216

Messrs. WELDON of Pennsylvania,

SERRANO, and WELDON of Florida

changed their vote from ‘‘nay’’ to

‘‘yea.’’

So the Journal was approved.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION

OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOfLUTION 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 fiveminute 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-ofCongress 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
H 5108 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

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.

b 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:
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5109

DEBATE & AMENDMENTS ON HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTIONS, 1989–1994

Year Budget res. Rule number General debate time

(hours) Amendments allowed Vote on rule

Total time

consumed 1

(hours)

1989 H. Con. Res. 106 .................................................... H. Res. 145 2 ...................................... 5-hours (2 HH) .................. 5 (3–D; 2–R) ....................................... Adopted: voice ........................................................ 121⁄2

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 .................................................. 131⁄2

1993 H. Con. Res. 64 ...................................................... H. Res. 131 ........................................

H. Res. 133 6.

10-hours (4 HH) ................ ..............................................................

4 (2–D; 2–R).

Adopted: voice ........................................................

Adopted: 251–172.

16

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

Year Budget res.

Date ordered reported

Date report filedDate rule

granted

Date

House

took-up

BR

Days report

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?
H 5110 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

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.

b 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
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5111

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 StenholmOrton 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
H 5112 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

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.

b 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
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5113

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.
H 5114 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

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.

b 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.
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5115

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

11⁄2 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 NeumannSolomon 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.

b 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.
H 5116 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

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 11⁄2 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
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5117

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

b 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

b 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.

fb 1415

PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS TO

HAVE UNTIL MIDNIGHT MAY 18,

1995, TO FILE A REPORT ON H.R.

1561, THE AMERICAN OVERSEAS

INTERESTS ACT

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the Committee on International Relations have

until Thursday, May 18, 1995, to file a

report on H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving

the right to object, I have no objection

if there are no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from New York [Mr. GILMAN]?

ANNOUNCEMENT ON AMENDMENT

PROCESS FOR H.R. 1561, THE

There was no objection.

fAMERICAN OVERSEAS INTERESTS ACT

(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

minute.)

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, in relation to the last unanimous-consent request, I would like to announce to

Members that the Committee on Rules

has tentatively scheduled to meet this

coming Monday to consider a rule for

H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interest Act, more commonly known as the