Summary:

All articles in House section

SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995
(House of Representatives - October 26, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H10872-H10913] SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 245 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2491. {time} 1212 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2491) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996, with Mr. Boehner in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, October 25, 1995, all time for general debate pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, October 24, 1995, and expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, there will be an additional 3 hours of further general debate. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] each will be recognized for 1 hour and 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. {time} 1215 Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, we start the second day's worth of discussion and debate in regard to our plan to provide Americans with tax relief and also to balance the budget using real numbers over 7 years. I just heard today that apparently a poll just came out within the last 24 [[Page H10873]] hours where the American people apparently registered their doubt as to whether we in fact can balance the budget. Frankly, if I was not in this Chamber or in this Congress and I was out in America watching the operation of this place, I would have my doubts for this reason: For about 25 or 30 years we have been promising the people a balanced budget. I think every candidate who has run for President has promised a balanced budget. President Clinton said he would propose and execute a balanced budget within the first 4 years. The President before him indicated we would have a balanced budget. We have been hearing this over and over and over again. But frankly, folks, we are going to have a balanced budget for two fundamental reasons. The No. 1 reason why we are going to have a balanced budget and we are going to have the discipline to execute and maintain a balanced budget over the next 7 years has to do with the American people. Frankly, we hear a lot about polls, but I want to tell you about the poll that I follow. That poll is not just the reaction that I get in my own district, but it is the reaction among the Members when they come back from being in their districts. We heard when we came back, after the last recess, that Americans were going south on this plan, that the Republicans were starting to shake. Well, frankly, I have not seen it. In fact, I think we have a rededicated sense of purpose to get this job done. The reason why it is working is that this House of Representatives is truly a reflection of the attitudes, the moods and the opinion of the American people. Frankly, we are usually behind where the American people are. I believe the American people for a number of years have said it is time to give us some of our power, money and influence back. Finally we are getting the message, which is why, when Members go home, they are being positively reinforced and they are all hearing one simple message from their constituents. Just put the country first, put politics second. Balance the budget and save this country for the next generation. Now, let me just suggest to my colleagues that I, again, have to keep going back to the reasonableness of this plan. When we look at what we have done over the period of the last 7 years, we have spent a cumulative total of $9.5 trillion. My colleagues are going to hear this from me two or three times today, $9.5 trillion. If you started a business when Christ was on earth, if you lost $1 million a day 7 days a week, you would have to lose $1 million a day 7 days a week for the next 700 years to get to one trillion. We spent 9.5 trillion over the last 7 years, and under our plan to balance the budget we are going to spend 12.1 trillion. I mean, the revolution that we are hearing about, my colleagues, does not mean we spend less money over the next 7 years but almost $3 trillion more. Do Members know what the fight is about in this Chamber? Do my colleagues know what the fight is all about in this whole capital, Washington, DC, area? Whether we can go from 9.5 trillion to 12.1 trillion or whether we should increase that to 13.3 trillion. The question we have to ask the American people is, can we save $1 trillion for the next generation? Nothing is more tragic than to go to the settling of an estate and have the children sit in the room and have it told to them by the lawyers that your mother and father put you in debt. We would consider that to be not a good thing to do, a bad thing to do, to tell your children that they have big bills. I mean all the creditors come into the room and you start paying it out. There goes mom and dad's house. There go their savings because they ran up all these bills. The same is true with the Federal budget. We do not have a right to tell the next generation that we cannot stop ourselves from spending that extra trillion, because if we can just responsibly, rationally, using common sense, hold our spending increases to $3 trillion over the next 7 years, we can ensure a strong economic future. Now, look, folks, I do not believe all these studies. I believe some of them, but let us forget the think tanks. Let us talk about the guy who sits down here at the Federal Reserve who decides what interest rates are going to be, and that is what drives this economy. He says, if for once this Congress can make the hard choice, the hard choice, folks, to spend $3 trillion rather than 4, if we can make the hard choice, we rescue the country. I mean that is really what it is all about. When we look at the specific programs like welfare, welfare goes up by almost 400 billion. When you combine all the programs, it is interesting to note that in many States in this country, welfare recipients are getting about equal to $8 an hour. I mean that is not being skimpy. That is being pretty darn generous. Medicaid, Medicaid is going to grow up to 443 to $773 billion. We added another $12 billion. Why? We want to do a little better. The debate is not whether it should go up, it is how much should it go up and then of course Medicare. I will tell Members on Medicare that, any way you want to cut it or slice it, our Medicare recipients will have far more, they ought to have far more. The spending is going to go from 926 to 1.6 trillion. The average senior citizen is going to go from 4,700 bucks to 6,800 bucks in spending over the next 7 years. My colleagues, we can in fact rein this spending in, but it does not involve a nose dive. It involves a more gentle climb, rational thinking, application of common sense. If we do it, we, in fact, can save the next generation. Tax cuts? Well, below $75,000, 74 percent of the benefits go. But I do not even want to get into this business of dividing rich and poor. We do need reconciliation in this country from a whole host of divisive claims. Let me just suggest that in 1993 the President raised taxes by $250 billion over 5 years. What is this all about? It is really all about the size and the scope of the Federal Government. We do not think that we need to solve our problem by raising taxes. We did not think we needed to solve our problems in 1993 by raising taxes. What we are about is taking that money that was taken from the American people's pockets in 1993. We took money from their pockets. Republicans did not want to do it. We said we can do it without a tax increase. Now we are taking that money and we are putting it back into the pockets of Americans. In order to do that, Federal spending is still going to go up almost $3 trillion. So, my colleagues, we have got the common sense plan. This plan is going to pass this House today. I will compliment one group of Democrats will compliment one group of Democrats coming forward with a balanced budget plan. I understand, although I have not read the editorial, that the New York Times and the Washington Post have both complimented them. That is a sea change, folks. We are the ones that said we could do it in 7 years. Now some of the major newspapers in this country are saying, well, we do not like the Republican plan but we can do it in 7 years. That is an incredible sea change in America. When all is said and done, guess what? we are going to get there. We are going to have a balanced budget in 7 years. We are going to have tax relief for Americans. We are going to save the future, and we are going to restore the country for 100 additional years. At the end of the day, we will do it on a bipartisan basis. But today we have to do our job. Our job is about putting America first, putting the politics of parochialism second and just looking out for the next generation. That little vision, we are going to look over all the swamp and all the muck and all the nasty rhetoric and the shrill rhetoric that exists on both sides. We are going to look beyond that, and we are going to look to the next generation. We are going to get this done for our precious Nation. Support the reconciliation bill. Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement]. (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the GOP plan. Mr. Chairman, much of the debate I have heard today does not concern whether we should balance the budget. Of course we [[Page H10874]] should. The debate I have heard today does not concern when we should balance the budget. Most of my colleagues will agree that balancing the budget by the year 2002 is a reasonable goal. The center of the debate today is how we will balance the budget. The Republicans propose to balance the budget with steep cuts in education, health, farm, and seniors programs. They also propose outrageously huge tax cuts up front which must be paid for with even deeper spending cuts. Mr. Chairman, I must object to this bill, as well as to the legislative process, which has been highly unusual and chaotic. Medicare cuts were voted on separately, while the Medicaid cuts are rolled into the reconciliation bill with no separate vote. Many committees have failed to report their recommendations as called for in the budget resolution, and large parts of the bill have been drafted behind closed doors and are being added to the bill at the last minute without any scrutiny or debate. I have here what I believe represents the bill and the process. This is a bucket of zoo doo. That's right--zoo doo. It's like a zoo around here and all are producing is doo. Elephant doo. This is what this bill is--elephant zoo doo. It stinks. This legislation will have a financial impact on all Americans and there are winners and losers. The wealthiest Americans receive a tax cut, while the working poor receive a tax increase. Fifty-two percent of the tax cuts go to 5.6 percent of Americans with incomes greater than $100,000 a year. Less than 1 percent of the tax cuts could go to 40 percent of the families earning $20,000 or less. I think we have our priorities out of wack. I support providing a $500 tax cut to families with children, but we can't afford to give this cut to families earning up to $200,000. This threshold needs to be lowered to $90,000. This bill is too generous with tax cuts, which leads to the deep spending cuts in other programs. While middle-income families would benefit from the proposed tax cuts, they will suffer, for example, from the deep spending cuts in the student loan program. The cuts proposed in this bill would raise the cost of the average undergraduate student loan by almost $2,500 over 4 years. To pay for these tax cuts, the Republican budget plan proposes to eliminate the earned income tax credit--a program supported by President Reagan--for 5 million working families. Nine million working families would see their tax credit reduced on this plan. The GOP plan includes a provision to allow corporations to raid pension plans for millions of workers. The retirement savings of working families could be jeopardized if the economy sours of the company makes bad investment decisions. I can't understand why my colleagues would want to do this. I also have concerns with the Medicare and Medicaid reforms included in the bill. Let me be clear: I wholeheartedly support efforts to make adjustments to the Medicare and Medicaid programs. However, I stand strongly opposed to raiding the pockets of low-income seniors, disabled recipients, and health care providers in order to pay for Republican corporate loopholes and tax cuts for the wealthy. Not only does this bill make severe reductions in Medicare's growth, it also overturns significant consumer standards designed to protect seniors from fraud and abuse. It is clear to me what lies behind this Medicare bill: The special interests, not the people's interests. Finally, I oppose the Republican budget reconciliation bill because it eliminates the Medicaid Program, handing over these funds to the States as a block grant with little or no standards to protect the vulnerable citizens this program insures. While I am concerned about the Nation's Medicaid recipients, I am especially opposed to the Medicaid legislation because it will devastate Tennessee's 1115 waiver TennCare Program with a $4.5 billion cut over 7 years. Tennessee is the Nation's leader in experimenting with managed care for Medicaid recipients, and now we are being punished for our success. Though some may vote today to destroy TennCare because of their party loyalty, I will stand strong against this bill's destructive provisions. In closing, this misdirected legislation would actually make economic life more difficult for a vast majority of Americans because of the steep cuts needed to pay for the tax giveaway. I must object to this legislation and hope that a reasonable compromise can be worked out before the bill is sent to the President. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before I speak to the substance, let me congratulate my friend from Ohio on his job of chairing the Committee on the Budget and working with the Republican leadership. I was one at the beginning who thought he would do what he said. He has put a package together that I expect will pass the House today that does reflect the values and priorities of the majority. I strongly disagree with those values and priorities, but he has done it with grace. He has done it with skill. I know it is not easy to put a package together. We will talk about the substance of that package today, but his job that is his responsibility within his caucus, we should not give him praise. He has done it too well. They should give him significant praise because he has accomplished the goals of his caucus. We disagree with that, and in time we will move on. Mr. Chairman, what the House is undertaking today is not simply a debate about balancing the Federal budget. This is a debate much more profound. It is about two very different visions for America's future and what those visions mean for America's families, workers, and the most vulnerable among us. The Republican vision is clear. Yesterday, on the same day we began debate on this massive budget bill, the Republican leaders in both the House and Senate voiced pride in their desire to dismantle the Medicare Program. The Speaker of the House sees the Medicare Program only in terms of politics. He says that Republicans could not eliminate Medicare right now because it is not politically smart. But he then hastens to add that he would like to see Medicare eventually wither on the vine. This is not a vision to renew America. And it is one that we should all reject. On the same day, the leading Republican Presidential candidate declared that he was one of only 12 to vote against the creation of the Medicare Program 30 years ago. With pride he said he was ``fighting the fight, voting against Medicare.'' And so we now move to the budget package to be voted on in the House today. The choices are clear. My Republican colleagues will put forward a vision that rewards the wealthiest and most powerful interests in our society at the expense of the most vulnerable Americans. They will raise taxes on low-income working families while lavishing massive tax breaks on the affluent. They will make it difficult, if not impossible, for millions of citizens to obtain adequate health care. They will cut funding for nutrition, education, transportation and scientific research even though we have many years of evidence that these investments enhance our society and our economic future. They will ask people to move from welfare to work at the same time they are eliminating work incentives and reducing work opportunities, and child care benefits. And, at a time investment in education is becoming increasingly important to the health of our economy, they will cut job training and increase college costs for millions of Americans seeking to better themselves. One of the most troubling aspects of the Republican vision is that it will escalate the 20-year trend that has pushed income inequality in this country to its highest level ever--all so that wealthy Americans can enjoy large tax breaks they don't need. In short, throughout this budget process, Republicans have engaged in a one-sided attack on lower and middle-income Americans which will ultimately close the doors of opportunity that lead to a prosperous Nation and a higher standard of living for everyone. So, Mr. Chairman, I call upon my colleagues to reject a vision of America that seeks to reward those who have already prospered in our economy while imposing burdens on those who have not. {time} 1230 Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from the State of Iowa [Mr. Ganske]. Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, there are three reasons why I am going to vote for this reconciliation bill: their names are Ingrid, Bridget, and Karl, my children. There is so much in a bill like this that it is easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Is this legislation exactly the way that I would have written it? Of course, not. This bill is the product of the push and shove, the battle of competing interests, the art of [[Page H10875]] compromise that is characteristic of democracy. As you vote for this historic measure, remember Edmund Burke's praise of political courage two centuries ago: You well know what snares are spread about your path . . . but you have put to hazard your ease, your security, your interest, your power, even your popularity . . . you will remember that public censure is a necessary ingredient in the composition of true glory: you will remember . . . that calumny and abuse are essential parts of triumph . . . you may live long, you may do much. But here is the summit. You may never exceed what you do this day. But to portray this bill as unworthy because it has gone through the democratic political process that all our laws go through would be unfair. I, like all 435 Members of this House, have to judge this important piece of legislation on its overall thrust. It does reform welfare, it does preserve Medicare, it does cut taxes, and most important, it does balance the budget. I will take courage for you, my colleagues, to vote for this bill exactly because it is so big and not perfect as you would will it. But I ask you to do it for your children as I am doing it for mine. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would only say that the children of Members of Congress probably will do fine, but the 20,000 families in the district of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] who get the EITC, the earned income tax credit, will do much worse. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter]. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget reconciliation package. I have listened to the debate on the floor and in the Rules Committee, and can't help but remember 1981, 1983, and more important, 1993. In the early 1980's we saw two tax bills that were sold on the basis that massive tax cuts for the very wealthy would spur the economy. In the late 1970's the top marginal tax rate was close to 70 percent, and by the end of the 1980's it had been cut to almost 30 percent; did this spur economic growth and end deficit spending? Well, we started the decade with a $1 trillion debt and ended it at $4 trillion. In addition, we headed into the 1990's with an economy in deep recession. In 1993, in response to the growing deficit and deepening economic rescission, we came to the floor to bring a budget reconciliation package to control spending and return some progressive policies to our Tax Code. A little over 2 years ago we heard the cries of economic desperation. Our package was called smoke and mirrors and I quote, ``it's our bet that this is a job killer.'' The current Speaker predicted, and I quote, ``I believe that this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machines' recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.'' The current majority leader predicted, and I quote, ``the impact on job creation is going to be devastating.'' Well, we passed the package without one Republican vote. Now let's discuss the results and the ability of the Republican leadership to predict economic outcomes. The deficit came down for 3 consecutive years. Our deficit is now the lowest as a percentage of national income of any major industrial country in the world. After one of the slowest 4-year periods of job growth since the Great Depression, the economy is now enjoying a solid growth, with strong private sector job creation and low inflation. The economy has created well over 3 million private sector jobs. The Republicans were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Today, we will be asked to cast one vote on a package that will dramatically change our Government. With one vote, we will dismantle the Department of Commerce; an agency entrusted with two critically important constitutional functions; that of the census and the filing and protection of patents. We will dismantle an agency that every day impacts millions of Americans. All done without the benefit of any comprehensive committee action. We will forever change health care for millions of low-income women, children, and senior citizens. We will end Federal, uniform nursing home standards implemented less than 10 years ago; we will force more working families into poverty and end any hope of a higher education for thousands of our children. We will forever end Medicare as we know it. It does not surprise me that the Republicans want to end Medicare, as the leader of the Republican Party in the other body has stated, ``I was there fighting the fight, working against Medicare--because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965.'' We will close many rural hosptials; cut WIC, Headstart, and significantly reduce our investment in research and development. All in the hope of economic growth and tax cuts for the very affluent. Once again, our Republican colleagues are asking Members of this body to take a leap of faith on failed economic and budget policies based on failed and misguided predictions. I am hopeful that many of these radical changes will be dropped in conference. It is the only hope we have. I ask all of my colleagues to oppose this package. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], a member of the Committee on the Budget, and an expert on immigration in America. Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in the last election, the American people told us to balance the budget, cut the taxes, and end the gimmicks. They wanted an end to Alice in Budgetland: to the rising tide of red ink that destroys jobs, makes housing and education more expensive, and encourages our addiction to big government. They wanted an end to Alice in Budgetland: to the constant tax increases that take more and more money and decisions away from the American people. They wanted an end to the Alice in Budgetland rosy scenarios, bogus growth numbers, and magic asterisks, the ponzi scheme by which Congress kept spending more of the people's money. Today we keep our word. We have a plan to balance the budget. Our balanced budget plan will mean 1.2 million additional jobs by 2002. Our balanced budget will reduce interest rates, making new homes, college education and start-up businesses more plentiful and affordable. Our plan also increases the power and decision-making of families. It's not just important to balance the budget. It matters how we balance the budget. The family and small business tax relief provisions contained in our plan are essential to returning power and money back home. Without tax relief, we won't return decisions where they belong--to the people who do the work, pay the taxes, raise the children. Without tax relief, we aren't putting people first. Last week in Houston President Clinton stated, ``I think I raised your taxes too much.'' We agree that the President was wrong, and that's why Republicans unanimously opposed the largest tax increase in history. That's why our plan is the only plan that returns some of the money that President Clinton took in 1993. It's the family's money to keep. It's not Washington's money to spend. And only our balanced budget honors hardworking Americans by letting them keep more of what they earn and by spending their money with great care. I urge my colleagues to support this balanced budget. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from my native State of North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy]. Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] for yielding this time to me. The budget before us is truly historic in its dimensions, and perhaps that is the only thing we will all agree about in the course of this debate today. As I see it, the debate between us is not about whether we ought to balance the budget. I think there is broad agreement we ought to move towards that goal. The debate is how we do it, and here is where the conflicting priorities of the parties become very clear. This budget plan is built on a fundamentally flawed premise, that we can balance the budget while financing a tax cut primarily benefiting the most privileged among us. This makes as much sense as a family resolving to get their household's finances in order just as soon as they spend the weekend in Paris once more on that old MasterCard. The consequences of the Republican tax plan are enormous. The wealthiest people in this country get a windfall while working and middle-income Americans lose ground. The tax cut reflects that the driving priority in this budget is to assist the wealthy in becoming even wealthier, and to this end, [[Page H10876]] they have sacrificed health programs for seniors, nutrition programs for kids, the safety net for family farmers, pension security for millions and millions of Americans. In order to accommodate the agenda of the privileged this budget makes devastating tradeoffs that pull support from those who need it and opportunity and hope from millions and millions of middle-class Americans. Make no mistake about it. The bottom line on this budget is more wealth for the richest, less help for the neediest, and reduced hope and opportunity for middle-income families. This bill is more than an historic budget, it is an historic and tragic mistake, on which if enacted will change the character of our great country. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker] Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of clarification I would like to engage the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] in a colloquy. First let me thank the gentleman for his willingness to work with those of us who have been concerned about the public auction of the facilities in the Power Marketing Administration. It is my belief that the study provision contained in this legislation is superior to an outright sale. In fact, this non-biased study will hopefully provide our committee with the needed facts to determine whether or not a sale of the PMA's will be in the best interest of the Government in the long run. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it better end up being better in the long run. I would say to the gentleman I wanted to do it this year, and he said we got to study it for a while, make sure we do the right thing. I agree with the gentleman. Mr. PARKER. However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to seek clarification to determine whether or not the evaluation or study will look at the impact, if there is a sale of the PMA's, on the wholesale and retail electricity rates of the current customers in the affected areas. Mr. KASICH. I think that the gentleman makes a good point, and obviously we want to make sure that, when we do this, we do it right and everybody understands what the impact will be. Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for having yielded to me. The clarification is appreciated. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], a brand-spanking new, fiery member of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this. We have spent a full generation. Now the last time we balanced our budget I was a sophomore in high school. My children are now out of high school and heading on to college. I have got a daughter who is a junior in high school. It has been a full generation since we have balanced our budget. It is time we get it done. Congratulations to the Committee on the Budget, to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], for bringing us a bill that is going to allow us to not only keep our promises, but, more importantly, do what is right for the American people. As my colleagues know, not enough has been made about what happens after we balance the budget. I just heard about the hopes and the dreams of the future of the middle-class America. When we balance the budget, what that means is the Federal Government stops borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars out of the private sector, and, when the Federal Government stops borrowing that money, that money is now available for real people to borrow, and when real people have the opportunity to borrow that money, that means they can buy homes, and they can buy cars, and they can get college loans to go to college, and when they get those loans, the interest rate is going to be lower because there is more access to the money. This is good news for the future of the middle class. As a matter of fact, if somebody were to go out and buy a house today, and they were to borrow $50,000, and we had balanced the budget sooner so the interest rate was 2 points lower, they would save over $1,000 a year in the interest on the payments in that $50,000 loan. {time} 1245 If they borrowed $100,000 to buy a house, they would save $2,000. Almost $200 a month remains in the pockets of the working people of this country because we are about to balance the budget. This is good news for the hopes, for the dreams, for the future of this country. Also, it puts this Nation back on track, that the Nation will be preserved for the next generation. Instead of giving them a legacy of growing debts, we can give our children the hopes and dreams of the future, like we received from our forefathers. In the budget resolution we passed earlier this year, it sets some 7- year targets and it sets some 1-year targets. Again, I commend the Committee on the Budget. This proposal that we have before us today not only hits the 7-year targets, it also hits the first-year targets, and a lot of other political groups would not have done that. I commend the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and the committee for their tireless work at helping us keep our promises to the American people, and strongly urge support of this bill. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro]. Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise just to let our colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, know that in his district 17,179 working families will have their taxes increased by this Republican bill. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lucille Roybal-Allard], a distinguished member of our committee. Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is morally wrong. It does nothing to improve national living standards. Except for the very wealthy, it hurts the majority of hard-working Americans. Three areas illustrate my point. First, the Republican bill cuts taxes for the rich, but raises taxes on the poor. It cuts the earned income tax credit which helps keep 14 million low-paid working families earning $9,500 to $25,000 dollars a year out of poverty. The GOP tax plan will give families earning $350,000 dollars a year a $14,000 tax cut. While the struggling, lowest paid worker must lose an additional $300 to $324 annually. That is wrong. Second, the Republicans cut child and prenatal nutrition programs proven to be good national investments. For every $1 spent on prenatal nutrition, the WIC Program saves the American taxpayer $3.50 in special education and Medicaid expenses. To cut such programs is wrong. Finally, the Republican plan unbelievably repeals the Nursing Home Standards Act of 1987. This act was enacted as a direct response to congressional hearings which revealed widespread abuses in State and privately run nursing homes. Abuses resulting from unsanitary conditions, malnutrition, overmedication, neglect, sexual and physical abuse. Our current law has helped to eliminate these abuses and to improve the quality of life for nursing home seniors. If these standards are eliminated, Republicans condemn our seniors to suffer the horrible abuses of the past. That is wrong. Under the Republican budget reconciliation bill, the rich will be richer, but the living standard of our Nation will be made much poorer. The only good thing about the Republican budget is that it is so extreme and unfair that the President must veto it. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini], the courageous young freshman who is from the State of Bruce Springsteen. Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio. I first would like to compliment him and his committee for the outstanding work he has done on this budget this year. Today we are debating and are about to consider a Budget Reconciliation Act. It struck me coming over here that reconciliation, the very nature of the word itself, suggests a coming together, a solving of differences, and a [[Page H10877]] going forward. I believe that the American people today know that the Federal Government has had extreme problems with its fiscal matters over the years. I think the Americans also know that this majority of Congress has been set to correct those wrongs, but I suspect that the Americans out there still do not know if this Congress has the resolve to do that today. It is no wonder, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, because over the last several weeks all they have heard are distortions and scares, scares intended to stop people in their tracks from going forward. It strikes me as sad that the party whose former leader, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, once gave us the phrase ``We have nothing to fear but fear itself'' now offers us only fear itself and no solutions. Let us just look at the record for a moment, if we may. On June 4, 1992, President Clinton promised a balanced budget. He never delivered. He promised a tax cut for middle-class families. He never delivered. Worse than never delivering, he actually implemented the biggest tax increase in the history of our Nation. Now he has even admitted he raised our taxes too much. He failed to offer a plan to end welfare as we know it, and he stayed on the sidelines as we saved Medicare from going bankrupt. In contrast, this Congress is about keeping promises. We understand the importance of fulfilling our promises to our elderly and our children, and we will do just that. Today, for me, Mr. Chairman, it is indeed humbling to take part in such a historic vote in favor of a more fiscally sound America and a brighter America, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett]. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, 27,641 working families in the district of the gentleman who just spoke will have their taxes increased by this Republican tax increase bill they are approving today. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I join my ranking Member in emphasizing that putting all substance aside, the logistics of bringing this bill to the floor have been an abhorrence not only to the usual committee process but of any democratic process. I want to add a word or two today about the role which the Budget Committee has, or rather could have had, in today's reconciliation bill. Having spent a great deal of my career looking at budget process issues, and in fact, having enjoyed working on a number of those issues with Chairman Kasich, that is what I would like to examine now. I was both surprised and disappointed that this reconciliation bill took a minimalist approach to process reform. Needless to say, this bill is expansive in every other regard. No one single bill has ever entailed such a comprehensive overhaul of Federal Government policy. The other side likes to speak of the Republican revolution and I would, in no way, dispute that this is a revolutionary document. That is why I am disappointed that process reforms which could bring meaningful budget enforcement, greater integrity in the process, and a sense of openness and honesty were left out of the revolution. Two year's ago when we were battling over the 1993 budget reconciliation bill, I engaged in intense negotiations with my leadership to move us closer to enforcement language which would guarantee the deficit reduction promises being made. In particular, we were trying to remove ``uncontrollable'' as an adjective for entitlement spending. The agreement that we reached in 1993 was far less than I wanted, especially with regard to guaranteeing control over the Medicare Program. But do you know what? That agreement showed a lot more enforcement muscle than appears any where in this budget. I received all sorts of Republican lecturing for failing to bring my party to the stronger entitlement control I wanted and yet even that compromise language is missing in this revolution. This bill allows ``uncontrollable'' to continue accurately describing entitlement spending. What else could have been included? Well, the substitute which I am supporting today includes deficit reduction guarantees enforced by sequestration. It has 10 year scorekeeping to make sure that things like grossly ballooning tax cuts start showing up beyond the curtains on current budget windows. Our substitute has process reforms like line item veto and a deficit reduction lock box, which the majority of this House has said it supports. It also adopts numerous provisions borrowed from previously bipartisan bills which many people standing on the other side of the floor right now not only supported but co-authored--things like baseline reform, controlling emergency spending, continuing resolution reform. Where are those provisions today? How did they get left out of the revolution? For a party which has made a mantra of ``Promises Made-- Promises Kept'' why were not some of the promise-keepers built into this bill? I urge my colleagues to vote no on the base bill and vote yes on the substitute which actually has a chance of maintaining the many promises being made today. Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California. Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. This is a defining time and a defining vote. Very few here have made every vote in the last two Congresses to achieve significant and fair deficit reduction--beginning with support of the 1993 budget which has halved our deficit to the lowest level in a generation and decreased it for 3 years straight. I have made each of those tough deficit cutting votes. And today I will continue to stand up for fairness, for balance, for deficit reduction, and for bipartisanship. In this spirit, I strongly oppose H.R. 2491 as drafted because it funds ill-timed tax cuts by raising the deficit in the short-term and hurting our most vulnerable populations--seniors and children--with devastating Medicare cuts and the termination of Medicaid as a guaranteed safety net for nursing home residents. I strongly support the bipartisan coalition substitute which defers tax cuts until we have achieved a balanced budget, treats cost-of- living increases in a non-inflationary manner, and preserves Medicaid, including regulations against nursing home abuse. In my view, the Medicare cuts in the coalition substitute are deeper than what I would like to see, but this bipartisan effort sets a marker for further discussion. I have met with hundreds of seniors in my district, and will stand with them as we work for the fairest compromise within tough budgetary constraints. Had H.R. 2491 been drafted with real public input, I believe its contents would be different. Now with its expected passage and its expected veto by the President, the real debate must start. Every Federal program, every Federal dollar should be on the table as we debate--openly and in a bipartisan manner--how to share sacrifice and how to share benefits. Every program. Every person. But the operative word is balance--a balanced budget, balanced sacrifice, balanced benefit, and an open and balanced process. Let's begin anew. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to say is I would not vote for the plan described by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], and I do not think anybody on this side of the aisle would, but that is not our plan. That does not seem to matter to the gentleman from Minnesota and others. We have had a budget deficit that has gone up and up and up, a debt that has gone from $385 billion 25 years ago to $4,900 billion, or $4.9 trillion. Our colleagues on that side of the aisle who have been in power for 40 years have had a chance to deal with that issue. We need to get our financial house in order, and we need to balance our Federal budget. We need to save our trust funds, particularly Medicare, and we need to transform our social and corporate welfare State into an opportunity society. [[Page H10878]] The bottom line and the most difficult part is saving our trust funds. We know what the board of trustees of the Federal hospital insurance trust fund have said. they have said that in basically 7 years the Medicare part A trust fund literally goes bankrupt, but nobody on that side of the aisle even wanted to address it until a few weeks ago. We are addressing that fund. We are making sure that $333 billion benefits the Medicare part A trust fund, and $137 billion benefits the Medicare part B trust fund. We have extended its insolvency and its ultimate bankruptcy from the year 2002 to the year 2010. What is so important about the year 2010? That is when the baby boomers start to get into this fund. At that point, we have the baby boomers from year 2010 to the year 2030. By the year 2030, baby boomers from the age 65 to 85 will be in the fund. What does that mean? We have workers right now, three and one-half workers are working for each individual in the trust fund. Right now three and one-third workers work for every person in the Social Security trust fund. By the year 2030, 35 years from now, there will only be two workers. We are talking about what has happened over the last 40 years, and particularly, the last 25. Our Congresses and, regretfully, our Presidents have mortgaged the farm, and now we are trying to buy it back for our kids. this is about kids. It is about saving this country. I could not be more proud to be part of this reconciliation act. My only regret is that the President has not joined in in this effort. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, looking at the numbers as the gentleman referred to, I discovered he only has 11,000 families eligible for low-income tax credit, one of the lowest in the country. They are going to be hurt, but let me assure the gentleman from Connecticut, all the rich constituents he has are not going to be hurt. They are going to prosper. They are going to do well. His district does not resemble America. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]. I served under them this session on the Committee on the Budget. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the reconciliation bill we will consider today. Why are poor Americans being asked to shoulder most of the pain in balancing the Federal budget and paying for tax breaks for the wealthy? The answer is that they are a convenient target. Poor people can't afford to hire lobbyists to protect their interests. We all know that cutting the Federal budget deficit is painful, but this debate isn't about pain and suffering. It is about fairness. Most of the cuts in the reconciliation bill reported by the Committee on the Budget fall on low-income Americans. The reported bill cuts $221 billion from entitlements, and $192 billion of these--87 percent--are in two Federal programs that help poor and low income Americans: Medicaid and student loans. The Budget Committee also approved $53 billion in increased taxes, and $27 billion--51 percent--are reductions in the earned income tax credit for working Americans and low-income housing credits. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means recently justified the changes in the earned income tax credit by arguing, and I quote, ``Simply put, the EITC is going to people with incomes that are too high.'' Too high? Should a single hard-working person with no children earning $8,200 a year, or $4 an hour, have her Federal income tax raised by $101 a year? Should working people struggling to get by help pay for a tax cut that goes mainly to the small minority--12 percent of all families--that earn over $100,000 a year? This bill is simply unfair. What happened to the Republican pledge in January that it would require a three-fifths vote to raise income taxes because the Republicans said they wanted to ``help'' working Americans? Today the Republicans are waiving this requirement. People are going to bear the burden for these false promises. The Republicans' plan to cut Florida's Medicaid payments by 26 percent over the next 7 years will have a devastating effect on Miami. Jackson Memorial Hospital accounts for 30 percent of all hospital admissions in Miami. This year Medicaid will supply $438 million to Jackson Memorial, or about 40 percent of its total revenues. What will happen to health care for the poor if Jackson Memorial runs out of Medicaid money in October under the Republican scheme? Will they stop delivering babies? Will they stop vaccinating children in November and December? Is this fair? Last week the Republicans voted to increase part B Medicare premiums. This week they are cutting Medicaid. What will happen to the elderly when Florida runs out of Medicaid money and can no longer pay for the Medicare part B premiums of the elderly? What will happen to the elderly who are now in nursing homes when Florida runs out of Medicaid money? Will the elderly be put out in the street? The Republicans opposed my efforts to make the Medicaid formula fairer. Twice I tried to have the entire House decide whether to accept the Medicaid formula adopted by the Senate Finance Committee, which is fairer and helps ease the burden of these cuts on States like Florida. But twice every Republican voted ``no'' even though my amendment would have helped a majority of the Republican Members. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the simple fact of the matter is under the House plan the earned income tax credit is going to go up by 40 percent. Forty percent may not be enough for some that want to drive it up 60, 70, 80 percent. Forty percent is a generous increase. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke]. Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Budget and my fellow Buckeye for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I listen to this debate and I just cannot conceive of how Americans watching it in their homes could be anything but confused, because we bandy about the word ``cut'' in such a disgraceful, shameless, and such a completely inaccurate way. The fact is we are going to increase the spending on the earned income tax credit from $22 billion in 1995 to $32 billion in 2002. Overall, this budget goes from one trillion five hundred billion to one trillion eight hundred billion; Medicare goes up from $170 billion to $244 billion; education and student loans goes up from $24 billion to $36 billion. That is a 50 percent increase. Yet all we hear from the other side is cut, cut, cut. {time} 1300 Where is the cut? It is that kind of abusive language that makes it so impossible for average Americans to decipher what the heck is going on and to make the kind of judgments that they need to be able to make in order to evaluate their representatives. In fact, the only cut that I am aware of, the only real cut in this budget has to do with foreign aid, and that is a real cut. What is the good side, what is the upside of all of this? The upside of all of this in terms of balancing the budget, the biggest impact on American families will be with respect to what it does to interest rates, and that is a profound impact. It is not just a fog of numbers, it is not just accounting, it really makes a difference in terms of what those dollars mean to the average American working family. DRI/McGraw Hill has said that it is a 2.7 percentage point difference as a result of balancing the budget. On a $100,000 mortgage, on a $100,000 mortgage, that amounts to about $225 per month more in the hands of the people that earn that money. That has a profound impact on a student loan. There is a tremendous difference, as well as on a car payment. The good news is that balancing the budget puts more money in the pockets of the people that make it. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green. Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in response to my colleague [[Page H10879]] from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], the last speaker, does the gentleman know that in his district 22,659 working families will have their taxes increased by this bill? Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett]. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, our Republican budget chief is exactly right. This is a debate about promises, and how you feel about the promises depends on where you are sitting on the economic ladder of this country. If you are way up there on top, at the apex of the American economy, sitting on a cushion sipping champagne, you got your promise fulfilled by in Republican Party bountifully, because the better off are going to get a little more better off today. If you are one of the great corporations of America that back in the days of yesteryear never paid a dime of taxes on billions of dollars of profit, you also can smile. You are better off today. You will pay zero, zip, not a dime under the repeal of the minimum tax credit. Mr. Chairman, but what if you are not way up there on top? What if you are down on the lower rungs, just trying to struggle and make ends meet and get your kids through school? Well, those people on the economic ladder have a broken promise. If you are on Medicare, well, you get the new Republican sick tax. Yesterday, Bob Dole was boasting, he voted against Medicare, and Newt Gingrich said, well, we will just let it wither on the vine. The Republicans lever a hefty sick tax because they want to help those who are well. Very well. Well off. If you make $30,000 or less, these Republicans are going to raise your taxes, plain and simple. To the many who are trying to climb up that economic ladder and share in the American dream, they stomp on their working fingers as they try to climb up that ladder. That is why we call it Wreckonciliation, because it wrecks working families that are trying to make a go of it. It wrecks seniors who are going to have to pay that Republican sick tax. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], a member of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the only thing that we will wreck if we do not pass this reconciliation bill is the American family. Let us talk about exactly what is going to happen to spending over the next 7 years. If we do nothing, Federal spending will rise by 37 percent. If we pass reconciliation, which we will do later on today, Federal spending, we are really going to tighten our belts for the next 7 years. We are only going to allow Federal spending to increase by 27 percent. I came out of the private sector, and I would have loved any budget that over 7 years would have allowed me to increase spending by 27 percent. We are asking the Federal Government to get spending under control and have a gentle slope toward balancing the budget. Spending goes up in every category. Total spending goes up. Welfare reform, welfare spending goes up. Medicare spending goes up. Per beneficiary on Medicare goes from $4,800 to $6,700. We are trying to manage health care growth to 5 percent per year. Medicaid spending goes up. Spending on student loans. Student loan spending goes by 37 percent over the next 7 years. School lunches. We heard that those were gone. Spending on school lunches goes up by 4.5 percent per year. This is a reasonable budget; this is a commonsense reconciliation. Common people, on the street every day would love to have a budget at their house that would go up by 3 percent per year and be asked to manage to that. This makes sense. This is reform that we can manage too. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink]. Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, to my dear friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], I just wonder if he knew that in his district 23,679 working families will have their taxes increase by their Republican reconciliation. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the omnibus bill that I believe is a major step backwards for our Nation. I am committed to ensure our Nation's fiscal integrity. Our obligation to our future and our children demands decisive and decidedly different action to effect a disciplined conduct in our fiscal business. But the Republican package is not the answer. It is an attack on the middle class and poor Americans. Mr. Chairman, I supported the Balanced Budget Amendment. I voted for the Stenholm budget, which would have achieved a surplus by 2002, and I will support the Orton alternative that also puts us on a path to a balanced budget by 2002. But I do not support tax cuts until we get our fiscal House in order. Balance the budget first and then consider tax reductions. Half of the bill's tax breaks go to those who make more than $100,000 a year, while the lowest 20 percent of income earners will see their taxes go up. That is not right. If the Republicans were not so committed to tax breaks for the wealthy, this legislation would not include the draconian cuts that I oppose so strongly. One example of the bill's attack on the middle class is provisions on Federal employees. While I am pleased that the parking provision has been dropped, what remains is still unfair and unwarranted. In addition to the dramatic reductions in the earned income tax credit which has been spoken of, this bill makes very serious cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Over $450 billion in health care cuts for seniors families and children. Furthermore, the Republican proposals for welfare reform are weak on work and tough on kids; they are tougher on kids than they are on the deadbeat dads who walk out on those kids. The Orton substitute will effect real welfare change and require those who can work to work regularly. These are just a few examples of what I believe our priorities must be. Not tax cuts in the face of deficits, but fiscally responsible policies that serve our Nation's needs, promote the American economy, and effect a balanced budget by the year 2002. I urge defeat of the Gingrich-Kasich budget. Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler]. (Mr. CHRYLSER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand in this House today in support of our plan to balance the Federal budget over the next 7 years. It is the most compassionate thing that we can do for the children of America. One of the best ways to help the children in America is to help their mom and dad, and let them have the basic human dignity and pride that comes from bringing home a paycheck. We need less government and lower taxes; we need to let people keep more of what they earn and save, and we need to let people make their own decisions on how they spend their money, not government. As the head of the task force to dismantle the Commerce Department, I know we found a good place to start in rightsizing the Federal Government. Former Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher put it best when he recently called his old department, ``Nothing more than a hall closet where you throw everything that you don't know what to do with.'' In fact, 60 percent of the Department has nothing to do with commerce. In a recent Business Week poll, senior business executives said to eliminate the Department of Commerce by a two-to-one margin. Why? Because if the Commerce Department were truly the voice of business, they would be supporting a cut in capital gains tax; they would be supporting tort reform and regulatory reform, and balancing the Federal budget. In fact, the Department of Commerce is diametrically opposed to all of them. Our plan simply makes more sense than current hodgepodge programs huddled at the agency that some now call the Department of Miscellaneous Affairs. Mr. Chairman, our efforts to dismantle the Department of Commerce will [[Page H10880]] streamline and improve Federal efforts on behalf of American businesses and save billions of dollars, giving taxpayers and their children their money's worth. Everyone in my district, in my State, and America are better off, and 88 percent of them say, balance the Federal budget. Last week, House Republicans unveiled their final plan to dismantle one of least defensible Departments in government: the Department of Commerce. As Majority Leader Dick Armey noted, for the first time in history, the American people will see a Cabinet chair carried out of the Cabinet Room at the White House and placed in a museum with other artifacts from American history. Our plan to dismantle the Commerce Department is the first step in our mission to downsize a bloated Federal government that is too big and spends too much money. It will begin to put out-of-control government growth in reverse and will save taxpayers at least $6 billion over the next 7 years, a significant down payment on our plan to balance the Federal budget. Nothing so clearly demonstrates the need to streamline the Federal Government more than the Commerce Department. Accordingly to the Department's own inspector general, this agency is a loose collection of over 100 unrelated programs. In fact, today's Department is involved in everything from managing fish farms to predicting the weather to promoting new technology. What Commerce officials describe as ``synergy'' among Commerce's wide-ranging functions, most reasonable people simply call confusion. What most people believe is the real mission of the Department of Commerce, promoting the interests of American business throughout the global market

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995
(House of Representatives - October 26, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H10872-H10913] SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 245 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2491. {time} 1212 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2491) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996, with Mr. Boehner in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, October 25, 1995, all time for general debate pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, October 24, 1995, and expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, there will be an additional 3 hours of further general debate. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] each will be recognized for 1 hour and 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. {time} 1215 Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, we start the second day's worth of discussion and debate in regard to our plan to provide Americans with tax relief and also to balance the budget using real numbers over 7 years. I just heard today that apparently a poll just came out within the last 24 [[Page H10873]] hours where the American people apparently registered their doubt as to whether we in fact can balance the budget. Frankly, if I was not in this Chamber or in this Congress and I was out in America watching the operation of this place, I would have my doubts for this reason: For about 25 or 30 years we have been promising the people a balanced budget. I think every candidate who has run for President has promised a balanced budget. President Clinton said he would propose and execute a balanced budget within the first 4 years. The President before him indicated we would have a balanced budget. We have been hearing this over and over and over again. But frankly, folks, we are going to have a balanced budget for two fundamental reasons. The No. 1 reason why we are going to have a balanced budget and we are going to have the discipline to execute and maintain a balanced budget over the next 7 years has to do with the American people. Frankly, we hear a lot about polls, but I want to tell you about the poll that I follow. That poll is not just the reaction that I get in my own district, but it is the reaction among the Members when they come back from being in their districts. We heard when we came back, after the last recess, that Americans were going south on this plan, that the Republicans were starting to shake. Well, frankly, I have not seen it. In fact, I think we have a rededicated sense of purpose to get this job done. The reason why it is working is that this House of Representatives is truly a reflection of the attitudes, the moods and the opinion of the American people. Frankly, we are usually behind where the American people are. I believe the American people for a number of years have said it is time to give us some of our power, money and influence back. Finally we are getting the message, which is why, when Members go home, they are being positively reinforced and they are all hearing one simple message from their constituents. Just put the country first, put politics second. Balance the budget and save this country for the next generation. Now, let me just suggest to my colleagues that I, again, have to keep going back to the reasonableness of this plan. When we look at what we have done over the period of the last 7 years, we have spent a cumulative total of $9.5 trillion. My colleagues are going to hear this from me two or three times today, $9.5 trillion. If you started a business when Christ was on earth, if you lost $1 million a day 7 days a week, you would have to lose $1 million a day 7 days a week for the next 700 years to get to one trillion. We spent 9.5 trillion over the last 7 years, and under our plan to balance the budget we are going to spend 12.1 trillion. I mean, the revolution that we are hearing about, my colleagues, does not mean we spend less money over the next 7 years but almost $3 trillion more. Do Members know what the fight is about in this Chamber? Do my colleagues know what the fight is all about in this whole capital, Washington, DC, area? Whether we can go from 9.5 trillion to 12.1 trillion or whether we should increase that to 13.3 trillion. The question we have to ask the American people is, can we save $1 trillion for the next generation? Nothing is more tragic than to go to the settling of an estate and have the children sit in the room and have it told to them by the lawyers that your mother and father put you in debt. We would consider that to be not a good thing to do, a bad thing to do, to tell your children that they have big bills. I mean all the creditors come into the room and you start paying it out. There goes mom and dad's house. There go their savings because they ran up all these bills. The same is true with the Federal budget. We do not have a right to tell the next generation that we cannot stop ourselves from spending that extra trillion, because if we can just responsibly, rationally, using common sense, hold our spending increases to $3 trillion over the next 7 years, we can ensure a strong economic future. Now, look, folks, I do not believe all these studies. I believe some of them, but let us forget the think tanks. Let us talk about the guy who sits down here at the Federal Reserve who decides what interest rates are going to be, and that is what drives this economy. He says, if for once this Congress can make the hard choice, the hard choice, folks, to spend $3 trillion rather than 4, if we can make the hard choice, we rescue the country. I mean that is really what it is all about. When we look at the specific programs like welfare, welfare goes up by almost 400 billion. When you combine all the programs, it is interesting to note that in many States in this country, welfare recipients are getting about equal to $8 an hour. I mean that is not being skimpy. That is being pretty darn generous. Medicaid, Medicaid is going to grow up to 443 to $773 billion. We added another $12 billion. Why? We want to do a little better. The debate is not whether it should go up, it is how much should it go up and then of course Medicare. I will tell Members on Medicare that, any way you want to cut it or slice it, our Medicare recipients will have far more, they ought to have far more. The spending is going to go from 926 to 1.6 trillion. The average senior citizen is going to go from 4,700 bucks to 6,800 bucks in spending over the next 7 years. My colleagues, we can in fact rein this spending in, but it does not involve a nose dive. It involves a more gentle climb, rational thinking, application of common sense. If we do it, we, in fact, can save the next generation. Tax cuts? Well, below $75,000, 74 percent of the benefits go. But I do not even want to get into this business of dividing rich and poor. We do need reconciliation in this country from a whole host of divisive claims. Let me just suggest that in 1993 the President raised taxes by $250 billion over 5 years. What is this all about? It is really all about the size and the scope of the Federal Government. We do not think that we need to solve our problem by raising taxes. We did not think we needed to solve our problems in 1993 by raising taxes. What we are about is taking that money that was taken from the American people's pockets in 1993. We took money from their pockets. Republicans did not want to do it. We said we can do it without a tax increase. Now we are taking that money and we are putting it back into the pockets of Americans. In order to do that, Federal spending is still going to go up almost $3 trillion. So, my colleagues, we have got the common sense plan. This plan is going to pass this House today. I will compliment one group of Democrats will compliment one group of Democrats coming forward with a balanced budget plan. I understand, although I have not read the editorial, that the New York Times and the Washington Post have both complimented them. That is a sea change, folks. We are the ones that said we could do it in 7 years. Now some of the major newspapers in this country are saying, well, we do not like the Republican plan but we can do it in 7 years. That is an incredible sea change in America. When all is said and done, guess what? we are going to get there. We are going to have a balanced budget in 7 years. We are going to have tax relief for Americans. We are going to save the future, and we are going to restore the country for 100 additional years. At the end of the day, we will do it on a bipartisan basis. But today we have to do our job. Our job is about putting America first, putting the politics of parochialism second and just looking out for the next generation. That little vision, we are going to look over all the swamp and all the muck and all the nasty rhetoric and the shrill rhetoric that exists on both sides. We are going to look beyond that, and we are going to look to the next generation. We are going to get this done for our precious Nation. Support the reconciliation bill. Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement]. (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the GOP plan. Mr. Chairman, much of the debate I have heard today does not concern whether we should balance the budget. Of course we [[Page H10874]] should. The debate I have heard today does not concern when we should balance the budget. Most of my colleagues will agree that balancing the budget by the year 2002 is a reasonable goal. The center of the debate today is how we will balance the budget. The Republicans propose to balance the budget with steep cuts in education, health, farm, and seniors programs. They also propose outrageously huge tax cuts up front which must be paid for with even deeper spending cuts. Mr. Chairman, I must object to this bill, as well as to the legislative process, which has been highly unusual and chaotic. Medicare cuts were voted on separately, while the Medicaid cuts are rolled into the reconciliation bill with no separate vote. Many committees have failed to report their recommendations as called for in the budget resolution, and large parts of the bill have been drafted behind closed doors and are being added to the bill at the last minute without any scrutiny or debate. I have here what I believe represents the bill and the process. This is a bucket of zoo doo. That's right--zoo doo. It's like a zoo around here and all are producing is doo. Elephant doo. This is what this bill is--elephant zoo doo. It stinks. This legislation will have a financial impact on all Americans and there are winners and losers. The wealthiest Americans receive a tax cut, while the working poor receive a tax increase. Fifty-two percent of the tax cuts go to 5.6 percent of Americans with incomes greater than $100,000 a year. Less than 1 percent of the tax cuts could go to 40 percent of the families earning $20,000 or less. I think we have our priorities out of wack. I support providing a $500 tax cut to families with children, but we can't afford to give this cut to families earning up to $200,000. This threshold needs to be lowered to $90,000. This bill is too generous with tax cuts, which leads to the deep spending cuts in other programs. While middle-income families would benefit from the proposed tax cuts, they will suffer, for example, from the deep spending cuts in the student loan program. The cuts proposed in this bill would raise the cost of the average undergraduate student loan by almost $2,500 over 4 years. To pay for these tax cuts, the Republican budget plan proposes to eliminate the earned income tax credit--a program supported by President Reagan--for 5 million working families. Nine million working families would see their tax credit reduced on this plan. The GOP plan includes a provision to allow corporations to raid pension plans for millions of workers. The retirement savings of working families could be jeopardized if the economy sours of the company makes bad investment decisions. I can't understand why my colleagues would want to do this. I also have concerns with the Medicare and Medicaid reforms included in the bill. Let me be clear: I wholeheartedly support efforts to make adjustments to the Medicare and Medicaid programs. However, I stand strongly opposed to raiding the pockets of low-income seniors, disabled recipients, and health care providers in order to pay for Republican corporate loopholes and tax cuts for the wealthy. Not only does this bill make severe reductions in Medicare's growth, it also overturns significant consumer standards designed to protect seniors from fraud and abuse. It is clear to me what lies behind this Medicare bill: The special interests, not the people's interests. Finally, I oppose the Republican budget reconciliation bill because it eliminates the Medicaid Program, handing over these funds to the States as a block grant with little or no standards to protect the vulnerable citizens this program insures. While I am concerned about the Nation's Medicaid recipients, I am especially opposed to the Medicaid legislation because it will devastate Tennessee's 1115 waiver TennCare Program with a $4.5 billion cut over 7 years. Tennessee is the Nation's leader in experimenting with managed care for Medicaid recipients, and now we are being punished for our success. Though some may vote today to destroy TennCare because of their party loyalty, I will stand strong against this bill's destructive provisions. In closing, this misdirected legislation would actually make economic life more difficult for a vast majority of Americans because of the steep cuts needed to pay for the tax giveaway. I must object to this legislation and hope that a reasonable compromise can be worked out before the bill is sent to the President. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before I speak to the substance, let me congratulate my friend from Ohio on his job of chairing the Committee on the Budget and working with the Republican leadership. I was one at the beginning who thought he would do what he said. He has put a package together that I expect will pass the House today that does reflect the values and priorities of the majority. I strongly disagree with those values and priorities, but he has done it with grace. He has done it with skill. I know it is not easy to put a package together. We will talk about the substance of that package today, but his job that is his responsibility within his caucus, we should not give him praise. He has done it too well. They should give him significant praise because he has accomplished the goals of his caucus. We disagree with that, and in time we will move on. Mr. Chairman, what the House is undertaking today is not simply a debate about balancing the Federal budget. This is a debate much more profound. It is about two very different visions for America's future and what those visions mean for America's families, workers, and the most vulnerable among us. The Republican vision is clear. Yesterday, on the same day we began debate on this massive budget bill, the Republican leaders in both the House and Senate voiced pride in their desire to dismantle the Medicare Program. The Speaker of the House sees the Medicare Program only in terms of politics. He says that Republicans could not eliminate Medicare right now because it is not politically smart. But he then hastens to add that he would like to see Medicare eventually wither on the vine. This is not a vision to renew America. And it is one that we should all reject. On the same day, the leading Republican Presidential candidate declared that he was one of only 12 to vote against the creation of the Medicare Program 30 years ago. With pride he said he was ``fighting the fight, voting against Medicare.'' And so we now move to the budget package to be voted on in the House today. The choices are clear. My Republican colleagues will put forward a vision that rewards the wealthiest and most powerful interests in our society at the expense of the most vulnerable Americans. They will raise taxes on low-income working families while lavishing massive tax breaks on the affluent. They will make it difficult, if not impossible, for millions of citizens to obtain adequate health care. They will cut funding for nutrition, education, transportation and scientific research even though we have many years of evidence that these investments enhance our society and our economic future. They will ask people to move from welfare to work at the same time they are eliminating work incentives and reducing work opportunities, and child care benefits. And, at a time investment in education is becoming increasingly important to the health of our economy, they will cut job training and increase college costs for millions of Americans seeking to better themselves. One of the most troubling aspects of the Republican vision is that it will escalate the 20-year trend that has pushed income inequality in this country to its highest level ever--all so that wealthy Americans can enjoy large tax breaks they don't need. In short, throughout this budget process, Republicans have engaged in a one-sided attack on lower and middle-income Americans which will ultimately close the doors of opportunity that lead to a prosperous Nation and a higher standard of living for everyone. So, Mr. Chairman, I call upon my colleagues to reject a vision of America that seeks to reward those who have already prospered in our economy while imposing burdens on those who have not. {time} 1230 Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from the State of Iowa [Mr. Ganske]. Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, there are three reasons why I am going to vote for this reconciliation bill: their names are Ingrid, Bridget, and Karl, my children. There is so much in a bill like this that it is easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Is this legislation exactly the way that I would have written it? Of course, not. This bill is the product of the push and shove, the battle of competing interests, the art of [[Page H10875]] compromise that is characteristic of democracy. As you vote for this historic measure, remember Edmund Burke's praise of political courage two centuries ago: You well know what snares are spread about your path . . . but you have put to hazard your ease, your security, your interest, your power, even your popularity . . . you will remember that public censure is a necessary ingredient in the composition of true glory: you will remember . . . that calumny and abuse are essential parts of triumph . . . you may live long, you may do much. But here is the summit. You may never exceed what you do this day. But to portray this bill as unworthy because it has gone through the democratic political process that all our laws go through would be unfair. I, like all 435 Members of this House, have to judge this important piece of legislation on its overall thrust. It does reform welfare, it does preserve Medicare, it does cut taxes, and most important, it does balance the budget. I will take courage for you, my colleagues, to vote for this bill exactly because it is so big and not perfect as you would will it. But I ask you to do it for your children as I am doing it for mine. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would only say that the children of Members of Congress probably will do fine, but the 20,000 families in the district of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] who get the EITC, the earned income tax credit, will do much worse. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter]. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget reconciliation package. I have listened to the debate on the floor and in the Rules Committee, and can't help but remember 1981, 1983, and more important, 1993. In the early 1980's we saw two tax bills that were sold on the basis that massive tax cuts for the very wealthy would spur the economy. In the late 1970's the top marginal tax rate was close to 70 percent, and by the end of the 1980's it had been cut to almost 30 percent; did this spur economic growth and end deficit spending? Well, we started the decade with a $1 trillion debt and ended it at $4 trillion. In addition, we headed into the 1990's with an economy in deep recession. In 1993, in response to the growing deficit and deepening economic rescission, we came to the floor to bring a budget reconciliation package to control spending and return some progressive policies to our Tax Code. A little over 2 years ago we heard the cries of economic desperation. Our package was called smoke and mirrors and I quote, ``it's our bet that this is a job killer.'' The current Speaker predicted, and I quote, ``I believe that this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machines' recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.'' The current majority leader predicted, and I quote, ``the impact on job creation is going to be devastating.'' Well, we passed the package without one Republican vote. Now let's discuss the results and the ability of the Republican leadership to predict economic outcomes. The deficit came down for 3 consecutive years. Our deficit is now the lowest as a percentage of national income of any major industrial country in the world. After one of the slowest 4-year periods of job growth since the Great Depression, the economy is now enjoying a solid growth, with strong private sector job creation and low inflation. The economy has created well over 3 million private sector jobs. The Republicans were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Today, we will be asked to cast one vote on a package that will dramatically change our Government. With one vote, we will dismantle the Department of Commerce; an agency entrusted with two critically important constitutional functions; that of the census and the filing and protection of patents. We will dismantle an agency that every day impacts millions of Americans. All done without the benefit of any comprehensive committee action. We will forever change health care for millions of low-income women, children, and senior citizens. We will end Federal, uniform nursing home standards implemented less than 10 years ago; we will force more working families into poverty and end any hope of a higher education for thousands of our children. We will forever end Medicare as we know it. It does not surprise me that the Republicans want to end Medicare, as the leader of the Republican Party in the other body has stated, ``I was there fighting the fight, working against Medicare--because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965.'' We will close many rural hosptials; cut WIC, Headstart, and significantly reduce our investment in research and development. All in the hope of economic growth and tax cuts for the very affluent. Once again, our Republican colleagues are asking Members of this body to take a leap of faith on failed economic and budget policies based on failed and misguided predictions. I am hopeful that many of these radical changes will be dropped in conference. It is the only hope we have. I ask all of my colleagues to oppose this package. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], a member of the Committee on the Budget, and an expert on immigration in America. Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in the last election, the American people told us to balance the budget, cut the taxes, and end the gimmicks. They wanted an end to Alice in Budgetland: to the rising tide of red ink that destroys jobs, makes housing and education more expensive, and encourages our addiction to big government. They wanted an end to Alice in Budgetland: to the constant tax increases that take more and more money and decisions away from the American people. They wanted an end to the Alice in Budgetland rosy scenarios, bogus growth numbers, and magic asterisks, the ponzi scheme by which Congress kept spending more of the people's money. Today we keep our word. We have a plan to balance the budget. Our balanced budget plan will mean 1.2 million additional jobs by 2002. Our balanced budget will reduce interest rates, making new homes, college education and start-up businesses more plentiful and affordable. Our plan also increases the power and decision-making of families. It's not just important to balance the budget. It matters how we balance the budget. The family and small business tax relief provisions contained in our plan are essential to returning power and money back home. Without tax relief, we won't return decisions where they belong--to the people who do the work, pay the taxes, raise the children. Without tax relief, we aren't putting people first. Last week in Houston President Clinton stated, ``I think I raised your taxes too much.'' We agree that the President was wrong, and that's why Republicans unanimously opposed the largest tax increase in history. That's why our plan is the only plan that returns some of the money that President Clinton took in 1993. It's the family's money to keep. It's not Washington's money to spend. And only our balanced budget honors hardworking Americans by letting them keep more of what they earn and by spending their money with great care. I urge my colleagues to support this balanced budget. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from my native State of North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy]. Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] for yielding this time to me. The budget before us is truly historic in its dimensions, and perhaps that is the only thing we will all agree about in the course of this debate today. As I see it, the debate between us is not about whether we ought to balance the budget. I think there is broad agreement we ought to move towards that goal. The debate is how we do it, and here is where the conflicting priorities of the parties become very clear. This budget plan is built on a fundamentally flawed premise, that we can balance the budget while financing a tax cut primarily benefiting the most privileged among us. This makes as much sense as a family resolving to get their household's finances in order just as soon as they spend the weekend in Paris once more on that old MasterCard. The consequences of the Republican tax plan are enormous. The wealthiest people in this country get a windfall while working and middle-income Americans lose ground. The tax cut reflects that the driving priority in this budget is to assist the wealthy in becoming even wealthier, and to this end, [[Page H10876]] they have sacrificed health programs for seniors, nutrition programs for kids, the safety net for family farmers, pension security for millions and millions of Americans. In order to accommodate the agenda of the privileged this budget makes devastating tradeoffs that pull support from those who need it and opportunity and hope from millions and millions of middle-class Americans. Make no mistake about it. The bottom line on this budget is more wealth for the richest, less help for the neediest, and reduced hope and opportunity for middle-income families. This bill is more than an historic budget, it is an historic and tragic mistake, on which if enacted will change the character of our great country. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker] Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of clarification I would like to engage the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] in a colloquy. First let me thank the gentleman for his willingness to work with those of us who have been concerned about the public auction of the facilities in the Power Marketing Administration. It is my belief that the study provision contained in this legislation is superior to an outright sale. In fact, this non-biased study will hopefully provide our committee with the needed facts to determine whether or not a sale of the PMA's will be in the best interest of the Government in the long run. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it better end up being better in the long run. I would say to the gentleman I wanted to do it this year, and he said we got to study it for a while, make sure we do the right thing. I agree with the gentleman. Mr. PARKER. However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to seek clarification to determine whether or not the evaluation or study will look at the impact, if there is a sale of the PMA's, on the wholesale and retail electricity rates of the current customers in the affected areas. Mr. KASICH. I think that the gentleman makes a good point, and obviously we want to make sure that, when we do this, we do it right and everybody understands what the impact will be. Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for having yielded to me. The clarification is appreciated. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], a brand-spanking new, fiery member of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this. We have spent a full generation. Now the last time we balanced our budget I was a sophomore in high school. My children are now out of high school and heading on to college. I have got a daughter who is a junior in high school. It has been a full generation since we have balanced our budget. It is time we get it done. Congratulations to the Committee on the Budget, to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], for bringing us a bill that is going to allow us to not only keep our promises, but, more importantly, do what is right for the American people. As my colleagues know, not enough has been made about what happens after we balance the budget. I just heard about the hopes and the dreams of the future of the middle-class America. When we balance the budget, what that means is the Federal Government stops borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars out of the private sector, and, when the Federal Government stops borrowing that money, that money is now available for real people to borrow, and when real people have the opportunity to borrow that money, that means they can buy homes, and they can buy cars, and they can get college loans to go to college, and when they get those loans, the interest rate is going to be lower because there is more access to the money. This is good news for the future of the middle class. As a matter of fact, if somebody were to go out and buy a house today, and they were to borrow $50,000, and we had balanced the budget sooner so the interest rate was 2 points lower, they would save over $1,000 a year in the interest on the payments in that $50,000 loan. {time} 1245 If they borrowed $100,000 to buy a house, they would save $2,000. Almost $200 a month remains in the pockets of the working people of this country because we are about to balance the budget. This is good news for the hopes, for the dreams, for the future of this country. Also, it puts this Nation back on track, that the Nation will be preserved for the next generation. Instead of giving them a legacy of growing debts, we can give our children the hopes and dreams of the future, like we received from our forefathers. In the budget resolution we passed earlier this year, it sets some 7- year targets and it sets some 1-year targets. Again, I commend the Committee on the Budget. This proposal that we have before us today not only hits the 7-year targets, it also hits the first-year targets, and a lot of other political groups would not have done that. I commend the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and the committee for their tireless work at helping us keep our promises to the American people, and strongly urge support of this bill. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro]. Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise just to let our colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, know that in his district 17,179 working families will have their taxes increased by this Republican bill. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lucille Roybal-Allard], a distinguished member of our committee. Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is morally wrong. It does nothing to improve national living standards. Except for the very wealthy, it hurts the majority of hard-working Americans. Three areas illustrate my point. First, the Republican bill cuts taxes for the rich, but raises taxes on the poor. It cuts the earned income tax credit which helps keep 14 million low-paid working families earning $9,500 to $25,000 dollars a year out of poverty. The GOP tax plan will give families earning $350,000 dollars a year a $14,000 tax cut. While the struggling, lowest paid worker must lose an additional $300 to $324 annually. That is wrong. Second, the Republicans cut child and prenatal nutrition programs proven to be good national investments. For every $1 spent on prenatal nutrition, the WIC Program saves the American taxpayer $3.50 in special education and Medicaid expenses. To cut such programs is wrong. Finally, the Republican plan unbelievably repeals the Nursing Home Standards Act of 1987. This act was enacted as a direct response to congressional hearings which revealed widespread abuses in State and privately run nursing homes. Abuses resulting from unsanitary conditions, malnutrition, overmedication, neglect, sexual and physical abuse. Our current law has helped to eliminate these abuses and to improve the quality of life for nursing home seniors. If these standards are eliminated, Republicans condemn our seniors to suffer the horrible abuses of the past. That is wrong. Under the Republican budget reconciliation bill, the rich will be richer, but the living standard of our Nation will be made much poorer. The only good thing about the Republican budget is that it is so extreme and unfair that the President must veto it. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini], the courageous young freshman who is from the State of Bruce Springsteen. Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio. I first would like to compliment him and his committee for the outstanding work he has done on this budget this year. Today we are debating and are about to consider a Budget Reconciliation Act. It struck me coming over here that reconciliation, the very nature of the word itself, suggests a coming together, a solving of differences, and a [[Page H10877]] going forward. I believe that the American people today know that the Federal Government has had extreme problems with its fiscal matters over the years. I think the Americans also know that this majority of Congress has been set to correct those wrongs, but I suspect that the Americans out there still do not know if this Congress has the resolve to do that today. It is no wonder, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, because over the last several weeks all they have heard are distortions and scares, scares intended to stop people in their tracks from going forward. It strikes me as sad that the party whose former leader, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, once gave us the phrase ``We have nothing to fear but fear itself'' now offers us only fear itself and no solutions. Let us just look at the record for a moment, if we may. On June 4, 1992, President Clinton promised a balanced budget. He never delivered. He promised a tax cut for middle-class families. He never delivered. Worse than never delivering, he actually implemented the biggest tax increase in the history of our Nation. Now he has even admitted he raised our taxes too much. He failed to offer a plan to end welfare as we know it, and he stayed on the sidelines as we saved Medicare from going bankrupt. In contrast, this Congress is about keeping promises. We understand the importance of fulfilling our promises to our elderly and our children, and we will do just that. Today, for me, Mr. Chairman, it is indeed humbling to take part in such a historic vote in favor of a more fiscally sound America and a brighter America, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett]. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, 27,641 working families in the district of the gentleman who just spoke will have their taxes increased by this Republican tax increase bill they are approving today. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I join my ranking Member in emphasizing that putting all substance aside, the logistics of bringing this bill to the floor have been an abhorrence not only to the usual committee process but of any democratic process. I want to add a word or two today about the role which the Budget Committee has, or rather could have had, in today's reconciliation bill. Having spent a great deal of my career looking at budget process issues, and in fact, having enjoyed working on a number of those issues with Chairman Kasich, that is what I would like to examine now. I was both surprised and disappointed that this reconciliation bill took a minimalist approach to process reform. Needless to say, this bill is expansive in every other regard. No one single bill has ever entailed such a comprehensive overhaul of Federal Government policy. The other side likes to speak of the Republican revolution and I would, in no way, dispute that this is a revolutionary document. That is why I am disappointed that process reforms which could bring meaningful budget enforcement, greater integrity in the process, and a sense of openness and honesty were left out of the revolution. Two year's ago when we were battling over the 1993 budget reconciliation bill, I engaged in intense negotiations with my leadership to move us closer to enforcement language which would guarantee the deficit reduction promises being made. In particular, we were trying to remove ``uncontrollable'' as an adjective for entitlement spending. The agreement that we reached in 1993 was far less than I wanted, especially with regard to guaranteeing control over the Medicare Program. But do you know what? That agreement showed a lot more enforcement muscle than appears any where in this budget. I received all sorts of Republican lecturing for failing to bring my party to the stronger entitlement control I wanted and yet even that compromise language is missing in this revolution. This bill allows ``uncontrollable'' to continue accurately describing entitlement spending. What else could have been included? Well, the substitute which I am supporting today includes deficit reduction guarantees enforced by sequestration. It has 10 year scorekeeping to make sure that things like grossly ballooning tax cuts start showing up beyond the curtains on current budget windows. Our substitute has process reforms like line item veto and a deficit reduction lock box, which the majority of this House has said it supports. It also adopts numerous provisions borrowed from previously bipartisan bills which many people standing on the other side of the floor right now not only supported but co-authored--things like baseline reform, controlling emergency spending, continuing resolution reform. Where are those provisions today? How did they get left out of the revolution? For a party which has made a mantra of ``Promises Made-- Promises Kept'' why were not some of the promise-keepers built into this bill? I urge my colleagues to vote no on the base bill and vote yes on the substitute which actually has a chance of maintaining the many promises being made today. Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California. Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. This is a defining time and a defining vote. Very few here have made every vote in the last two Congresses to achieve significant and fair deficit reduction--beginning with support of the 1993 budget which has halved our deficit to the lowest level in a generation and decreased it for 3 years straight. I have made each of those tough deficit cutting votes. And today I will continue to stand up for fairness, for balance, for deficit reduction, and for bipartisanship. In this spirit, I strongly oppose H.R. 2491 as drafted because it funds ill-timed tax cuts by raising the deficit in the short-term and hurting our most vulnerable populations--seniors and children--with devastating Medicare cuts and the termination of Medicaid as a guaranteed safety net for nursing home residents. I strongly support the bipartisan coalition substitute which defers tax cuts until we have achieved a balanced budget, treats cost-of- living increases in a non-inflationary manner, and preserves Medicaid, including regulations against nursing home abuse. In my view, the Medicare cuts in the coalition substitute are deeper than what I would like to see, but this bipartisan effort sets a marker for further discussion. I have met with hundreds of seniors in my district, and will stand with them as we work for the fairest compromise within tough budgetary constraints. Had H.R. 2491 been drafted with real public input, I believe its contents would be different. Now with its expected passage and its expected veto by the President, the real debate must start. Every Federal program, every Federal dollar should be on the table as we debate--openly and in a bipartisan manner--how to share sacrifice and how to share benefits. Every program. Every person. But the operative word is balance--a balanced budget, balanced sacrifice, balanced benefit, and an open and balanced process. Let's begin anew. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to say is I would not vote for the plan described by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], and I do not think anybody on this side of the aisle would, but that is not our plan. That does not seem to matter to the gentleman from Minnesota and others. We have had a budget deficit that has gone up and up and up, a debt that has gone from $385 billion 25 years ago to $4,900 billion, or $4.9 trillion. Our colleagues on that side of the aisle who have been in power for 40 years have had a chance to deal with that issue. We need to get our financial house in order, and we need to balance our Federal budget. We need to save our trust funds, particularly Medicare, and we need to transform our social and corporate welfare State into an opportunity society. [[Page H10878]] The bottom line and the most difficult part is saving our trust funds. We know what the board of trustees of the Federal hospital insurance trust fund have said. they have said that in basically 7 years the Medicare part A trust fund literally goes bankrupt, but nobody on that side of the aisle even wanted to address it until a few weeks ago. We are addressing that fund. We are making sure that $333 billion benefits the Medicare part A trust fund, and $137 billion benefits the Medicare part B trust fund. We have extended its insolvency and its ultimate bankruptcy from the year 2002 to the year 2010. What is so important about the year 2010? That is when the baby boomers start to get into this fund. At that point, we have the baby boomers from year 2010 to the year 2030. By the year 2030, baby boomers from the age 65 to 85 will be in the fund. What does that mean? We have workers right now, three and one-half workers are working for each individual in the trust fund. Right now three and one-third workers work for every person in the Social Security trust fund. By the year 2030, 35 years from now, there will only be two workers. We are talking about what has happened over the last 40 years, and particularly, the last 25. Our Congresses and, regretfully, our Presidents have mortgaged the farm, and now we are trying to buy it back for our kids. this is about kids. It is about saving this country. I could not be more proud to be part of this reconciliation act. My only regret is that the President has not joined in in this effort. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, looking at the numbers as the gentleman referred to, I discovered he only has 11,000 families eligible for low-income tax credit, one of the lowest in the country. They are going to be hurt, but let me assure the gentleman from Connecticut, all the rich constituents he has are not going to be hurt. They are going to prosper. They are going to do well. His district does not resemble America. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]. I served under them this session on the Committee on the Budget. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the reconciliation bill we will consider today. Why are poor Americans being asked to shoulder most of the pain in balancing the Federal budget and paying for tax breaks for the wealthy? The answer is that they are a convenient target. Poor people can't afford to hire lobbyists to protect their interests. We all know that cutting the Federal budget deficit is painful, but this debate isn't about pain and suffering. It is about fairness. Most of the cuts in the reconciliation bill reported by the Committee on the Budget fall on low-income Americans. The reported bill cuts $221 billion from entitlements, and $192 billion of these--87 percent--are in two Federal programs that help poor and low income Americans: Medicaid and student loans. The Budget Committee also approved $53 billion in increased taxes, and $27 billion--51 percent--are reductions in the earned income tax credit for working Americans and low-income housing credits. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means recently justified the changes in the earned income tax credit by arguing, and I quote, ``Simply put, the EITC is going to people with incomes that are too high.'' Too high? Should a single hard-working person with no children earning $8,200 a year, or $4 an hour, have her Federal income tax raised by $101 a year? Should working people struggling to get by help pay for a tax cut that goes mainly to the small minority--12 percent of all families--that earn over $100,000 a year? This bill is simply unfair. What happened to the Republican pledge in January that it would require a three-fifths vote to raise income taxes because the Republicans said they wanted to ``help'' working Americans? Today the Republicans are waiving this requirement. People are going to bear the burden for these false promises. The Republicans' plan to cut Florida's Medicaid payments by 26 percent over the next 7 years will have a devastating effect on Miami. Jackson Memorial Hospital accounts for 30 percent of all hospital admissions in Miami. This year Medicaid will supply $438 million to Jackson Memorial, or about 40 percent of its total revenues. What will happen to health care for the poor if Jackson Memorial runs out of Medicaid money in October under the Republican scheme? Will they stop delivering babies? Will they stop vaccinating children in November and December? Is this fair? Last week the Republicans voted to increase part B Medicare premiums. This week they are cutting Medicaid. What will happen to the elderly when Florida runs out of Medicaid money and can no longer pay for the Medicare part B premiums of the elderly? What will happen to the elderly who are now in nursing homes when Florida runs out of Medicaid money? Will the elderly be put out in the street? The Republicans opposed my efforts to make the Medicaid formula fairer. Twice I tried to have the entire House decide whether to accept the Medicaid formula adopted by the Senate Finance Committee, which is fairer and helps ease the burden of these cuts on States like Florida. But twice every Republican voted ``no'' even though my amendment would have helped a majority of the Republican Members. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the simple fact of the matter is under the House plan the earned income tax credit is going to go up by 40 percent. Forty percent may not be enough for some that want to drive it up 60, 70, 80 percent. Forty percent is a generous increase. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke]. Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Budget and my fellow Buckeye for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I listen to this debate and I just cannot conceive of how Americans watching it in their homes could be anything but confused, because we bandy about the word ``cut'' in such a disgraceful, shameless, and such a completely inaccurate way. The fact is we are going to increase the spending on the earned income tax credit from $22 billion in 1995 to $32 billion in 2002. Overall, this budget goes from one trillion five hundred billion to one trillion eight hundred billion; Medicare goes up from $170 billion to $244 billion; education and student loans goes up from $24 billion to $36 billion. That is a 50 percent increase. Yet all we hear from the other side is cut, cut, cut. {time} 1300 Where is the cut? It is that kind of abusive language that makes it so impossible for average Americans to decipher what the heck is going on and to make the kind of judgments that they need to be able to make in order to evaluate their representatives. In fact, the only cut that I am aware of, the only real cut in this budget has to do with foreign aid, and that is a real cut. What is the good side, what is the upside of all of this? The upside of all of this in terms of balancing the budget, the biggest impact on American families will be with respect to what it does to interest rates, and that is a profound impact. It is not just a fog of numbers, it is not just accounting, it really makes a difference in terms of what those dollars mean to the average American working family. DRI/McGraw Hill has said that it is a 2.7 percentage point difference as a result of balancing the budget. On a $100,000 mortgage, on a $100,000 mortgage, that amounts to about $225 per month more in the hands of the people that earn that money. That has a profound impact on a student loan. There is a tremendous difference, as well as on a car payment. The good news is that balancing the budget puts more money in the pockets of the people that make it. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green. Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in response to my colleague [[Page H10879]] from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], the last speaker, does the gentleman know that in his district 22,659 working families will have their taxes increased by this bill? Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett]. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, our Republican budget chief is exactly right. This is a debate about promises, and how you feel about the promises depends on where you are sitting on the economic ladder of this country. If you are way up there on top, at the apex of the American economy, sitting on a cushion sipping champagne, you got your promise fulfilled by in Republican Party bountifully, because the better off are going to get a little more better off today. If you are one of the great corporations of America that back in the days of yesteryear never paid a dime of taxes on billions of dollars of profit, you also can smile. You are better off today. You will pay zero, zip, not a dime under the repeal of the minimum tax credit. Mr. Chairman, but what if you are not way up there on top? What if you are down on the lower rungs, just trying to struggle and make ends meet and get your kids through school? Well, those people on the economic ladder have a broken promise. If you are on Medicare, well, you get the new Republican sick tax. Yesterday, Bob Dole was boasting, he voted against Medicare, and Newt Gingrich said, well, we will just let it wither on the vine. The Republicans lever a hefty sick tax because they want to help those who are well. Very well. Well off. If you make $30,000 or less, these Republicans are going to raise your taxes, plain and simple. To the many who are trying to climb up that economic ladder and share in the American dream, they stomp on their working fingers as they try to climb up that ladder. That is why we call it Wreckonciliation, because it wrecks working families that are trying to make a go of it. It wrecks seniors who are going to have to pay that Republican sick tax. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], a member of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the only thing that we will wreck if we do not pass this reconciliation bill is the American family. Let us talk about exactly what is going to happen to spending over the next 7 years. If we do nothing, Federal spending will rise by 37 percent. If we pass reconciliation, which we will do later on today, Federal spending, we are really going to tighten our belts for the next 7 years. We are only going to allow Federal spending to increase by 27 percent. I came out of the private sector, and I would have loved any budget that over 7 years would have allowed me to increase spending by 27 percent. We are asking the Federal Government to get spending under control and have a gentle slope toward balancing the budget. Spending goes up in every category. Total spending goes up. Welfare reform, welfare spending goes up. Medicare spending goes up. Per beneficiary on Medicare goes from $4,800 to $6,700. We are trying to manage health care growth to 5 percent per year. Medicaid spending goes up. Spending on student loans. Student loan spending goes by 37 percent over the next 7 years. School lunches. We heard that those were gone. Spending on school lunches goes up by 4.5 percent per year. This is a reasonable budget; this is a commonsense reconciliation. Common people, on the street every day would love to have a budget at their house that would go up by 3 percent per year and be asked to manage to that. This makes sense. This is reform that we can manage too. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink]. Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, to my dear friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], I just wonder if he knew that in his district 23,679 working families will have their taxes increase by their Republican reconciliation. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the omnibus bill that I believe is a major step backwards for our Nation. I am committed to ensure our Nation's fiscal integrity. Our obligation to our future and our children demands decisive and decidedly different action to effect a disciplined conduct in our fiscal business. But the Republican package is not the answer. It is an attack on the middle class and poor Americans. Mr. Chairman, I supported the Balanced Budget Amendment. I voted for the Stenholm budget, which would have achieved a surplus by 2002, and I will support the Orton alternative that also puts us on a path to a balanced budget by 2002. But I do not support tax cuts until we get our fiscal House in order. Balance the budget first and then consider tax reductions. Half of the bill's tax breaks go to those who make more than $100,000 a year, while the lowest 20 percent of income earners will see their taxes go up. That is not right. If the Republicans were not so committed to tax breaks for the wealthy, this legislation would not include the draconian cuts that I oppose so strongly. One example of the bill's attack on the middle class is provisions on Federal employees. While I am pleased that the parking provision has been dropped, what remains is still unfair and unwarranted. In addition to the dramatic reductions in the earned income tax credit which has been spoken of, this bill makes very serious cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Over $450 billion in health care cuts for seniors families and children. Furthermore, the Republican proposals for welfare reform are weak on work and tough on kids; they are tougher on kids than they are on the deadbeat dads who walk out on those kids. The Orton substitute will effect real welfare change and require those who can work to work regularly. These are just a few examples of what I believe our priorities must be. Not tax cuts in the face of deficits, but fiscally responsible policies that serve our Nation's needs, promote the American economy, and effect a balanced budget by the year 2002. I urge defeat of the Gingrich-Kasich budget. Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler]. (Mr. CHRYLSER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand in this House today in support of our plan to balance the Federal budget over the next 7 years. It is the most compassionate thing that we can do for the children of America. One of the best ways to help the children in America is to help their mom and dad, and let them have the basic human dignity and pride that comes from bringing home a paycheck. We need less government and lower taxes; we need to let people keep more of what they earn and save, and we need to let people make their own decisions on how they spend their money, not government. As the head of the task force to dismantle the Commerce Department, I know we found a good place to start in rightsizing the Federal Government. Former Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher put it best when he recently called his old department, ``Nothing more than a hall closet where you throw everything that you don't know what to do with.'' In fact, 60 percent of the Department has nothing to do with commerce. In a recent Business Week poll, senior business executives said to eliminate the Department of Commerce by a two-to-one margin. Why? Because if the Commerce Department were truly the voice of business, they would be supporting a cut in capital gains tax; they would be supporting tort reform and regulatory reform, and balancing the Federal budget. In fact, the Department of Commerce is diametrically opposed to all of them. Our plan simply makes more sense than current hodgepodge programs huddled at the agency that some now call the Department of Miscellaneous Affairs. Mr. Chairman, our efforts to dismantle the Department of Commerce will [[Page H10880]] streamline and improve Federal efforts on behalf of American businesses and save billions of dollars, giving taxpayers and their children their money's worth. Everyone in my district, in my State, and America are better off, and 88 percent of them say, balance the Federal budget. Last week, House Republicans unveiled their final plan to dismantle one of least defensible Departments in government: the Department of Commerce. As Majority Leader Dick Armey noted, for the first time in history, the American people will see a Cabinet chair carried out of the Cabinet Room at the White House and placed in a museum with other artifacts from American history. Our plan to dismantle the Commerce Department is the first step in our mission to downsize a bloated Federal government that is too big and spends too much money. It will begin to put out-of-control government growth in reverse and will save taxpayers at least $6 billion over the next 7 years, a significant down payment on our plan to balance the Federal budget. Nothing so clearly demonstrates the need to streamline the Federal Government more than the Commerce Department. Accordingly to the Department's own inspector general, this agency is a loose collection of over 100 unrelated programs. In fact, today's Department is involved in everything from managing fish farms to predicting the weather to promoting new technology. What Commerce officials describe as ``synergy'' among Commerce's wide-ranging functions, most reasonable people simply call confusion. What most people believe is the real mission of the Department of Commerce, promoting the interests of American business throughout the glo

Summary:

All articles in House section

SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995
(House of Representatives - October 26, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H10872-H10913] SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 245 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2491. {time} 1212 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2491) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996, with Mr. Boehner in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, October 25, 1995, all time for general debate pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, October 24, 1995, and expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, there will be an additional 3 hours of further general debate. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] each will be recognized for 1 hour and 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. {time} 1215 Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, we start the second day's worth of discussion and debate in regard to our plan to provide Americans with tax relief and also to balance the budget using real numbers over 7 years. I just heard today that apparently a poll just came out within the last 24 [[Page H10873]] hours where the American people apparently registered their doubt as to whether we in fact can balance the budget. Frankly, if I was not in this Chamber or in this Congress and I was out in America watching the operation of this place, I would have my doubts for this reason: For about 25 or 30 years we have been promising the people a balanced budget. I think every candidate who has run for President has promised a balanced budget. President Clinton said he would propose and execute a balanced budget within the first 4 years. The President before him indicated we would have a balanced budget. We have been hearing this over and over and over again. But frankly, folks, we are going to have a balanced budget for two fundamental reasons. The No. 1 reason why we are going to have a balanced budget and we are going to have the discipline to execute and maintain a balanced budget over the next 7 years has to do with the American people. Frankly, we hear a lot about polls, but I want to tell you about the poll that I follow. That poll is not just the reaction that I get in my own district, but it is the reaction among the Members when they come back from being in their districts. We heard when we came back, after the last recess, that Americans were going south on this plan, that the Republicans were starting to shake. Well, frankly, I have not seen it. In fact, I think we have a rededicated sense of purpose to get this job done. The reason why it is working is that this House of Representatives is truly a reflection of the attitudes, the moods and the opinion of the American people. Frankly, we are usually behind where the American people are. I believe the American people for a number of years have said it is time to give us some of our power, money and influence back. Finally we are getting the message, which is why, when Members go home, they are being positively reinforced and they are all hearing one simple message from their constituents. Just put the country first, put politics second. Balance the budget and save this country for the next generation. Now, let me just suggest to my colleagues that I, again, have to keep going back to the reasonableness of this plan. When we look at what we have done over the period of the last 7 years, we have spent a cumulative total of $9.5 trillion. My colleagues are going to hear this from me two or three times today, $9.5 trillion. If you started a business when Christ was on earth, if you lost $1 million a day 7 days a week, you would have to lose $1 million a day 7 days a week for the next 700 years to get to one trillion. We spent 9.5 trillion over the last 7 years, and under our plan to balance the budget we are going to spend 12.1 trillion. I mean, the revolution that we are hearing about, my colleagues, does not mean we spend less money over the next 7 years but almost $3 trillion more. Do Members know what the fight is about in this Chamber? Do my colleagues know what the fight is all about in this whole capital, Washington, DC, area? Whether we can go from 9.5 trillion to 12.1 trillion or whether we should increase that to 13.3 trillion. The question we have to ask the American people is, can we save $1 trillion for the next generation? Nothing is more tragic than to go to the settling of an estate and have the children sit in the room and have it told to them by the lawyers that your mother and father put you in debt. We would consider that to be not a good thing to do, a bad thing to do, to tell your children that they have big bills. I mean all the creditors come into the room and you start paying it out. There goes mom and dad's house. There go their savings because they ran up all these bills. The same is true with the Federal budget. We do not have a right to tell the next generation that we cannot stop ourselves from spending that extra trillion, because if we can just responsibly, rationally, using common sense, hold our spending increases to $3 trillion over the next 7 years, we can ensure a strong economic future. Now, look, folks, I do not believe all these studies. I believe some of them, but let us forget the think tanks. Let us talk about the guy who sits down here at the Federal Reserve who decides what interest rates are going to be, and that is what drives this economy. He says, if for once this Congress can make the hard choice, the hard choice, folks, to spend $3 trillion rather than 4, if we can make the hard choice, we rescue the country. I mean that is really what it is all about. When we look at the specific programs like welfare, welfare goes up by almost 400 billion. When you combine all the programs, it is interesting to note that in many States in this country, welfare recipients are getting about equal to $8 an hour. I mean that is not being skimpy. That is being pretty darn generous. Medicaid, Medicaid is going to grow up to 443 to $773 billion. We added another $12 billion. Why? We want to do a little better. The debate is not whether it should go up, it is how much should it go up and then of course Medicare. I will tell Members on Medicare that, any way you want to cut it or slice it, our Medicare recipients will have far more, they ought to have far more. The spending is going to go from 926 to 1.6 trillion. The average senior citizen is going to go from 4,700 bucks to 6,800 bucks in spending over the next 7 years. My colleagues, we can in fact rein this spending in, but it does not involve a nose dive. It involves a more gentle climb, rational thinking, application of common sense. If we do it, we, in fact, can save the next generation. Tax cuts? Well, below $75,000, 74 percent of the benefits go. But I do not even want to get into this business of dividing rich and poor. We do need reconciliation in this country from a whole host of divisive claims. Let me just suggest that in 1993 the President raised taxes by $250 billion over 5 years. What is this all about? It is really all about the size and the scope of the Federal Government. We do not think that we need to solve our problem by raising taxes. We did not think we needed to solve our problems in 1993 by raising taxes. What we are about is taking that money that was taken from the American people's pockets in 1993. We took money from their pockets. Republicans did not want to do it. We said we can do it without a tax increase. Now we are taking that money and we are putting it back into the pockets of Americans. In order to do that, Federal spending is still going to go up almost $3 trillion. So, my colleagues, we have got the common sense plan. This plan is going to pass this House today. I will compliment one group of Democrats will compliment one group of Democrats coming forward with a balanced budget plan. I understand, although I have not read the editorial, that the New York Times and the Washington Post have both complimented them. That is a sea change, folks. We are the ones that said we could do it in 7 years. Now some of the major newspapers in this country are saying, well, we do not like the Republican plan but we can do it in 7 years. That is an incredible sea change in America. When all is said and done, guess what? we are going to get there. We are going to have a balanced budget in 7 years. We are going to have tax relief for Americans. We are going to save the future, and we are going to restore the country for 100 additional years. At the end of the day, we will do it on a bipartisan basis. But today we have to do our job. Our job is about putting America first, putting the politics of parochialism second and just looking out for the next generation. That little vision, we are going to look over all the swamp and all the muck and all the nasty rhetoric and the shrill rhetoric that exists on both sides. We are going to look beyond that, and we are going to look to the next generation. We are going to get this done for our precious Nation. Support the reconciliation bill. Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement]. (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the GOP plan. Mr. Chairman, much of the debate I have heard today does not concern whether we should balance the budget. Of course we [[Page H10874]] should. The debate I have heard today does not concern when we should balance the budget. Most of my colleagues will agree that balancing the budget by the year 2002 is a reasonable goal. The center of the debate today is how we will balance the budget. The Republicans propose to balance the budget with steep cuts in education, health, farm, and seniors programs. They also propose outrageously huge tax cuts up front which must be paid for with even deeper spending cuts. Mr. Chairman, I must object to this bill, as well as to the legislative process, which has been highly unusual and chaotic. Medicare cuts were voted on separately, while the Medicaid cuts are rolled into the reconciliation bill with no separate vote. Many committees have failed to report their recommendations as called for in the budget resolution, and large parts of the bill have been drafted behind closed doors and are being added to the bill at the last minute without any scrutiny or debate. I have here what I believe represents the bill and the process. This is a bucket of zoo doo. That's right--zoo doo. It's like a zoo around here and all are producing is doo. Elephant doo. This is what this bill is--elephant zoo doo. It stinks. This legislation will have a financial impact on all Americans and there are winners and losers. The wealthiest Americans receive a tax cut, while the working poor receive a tax increase. Fifty-two percent of the tax cuts go to 5.6 percent of Americans with incomes greater than $100,000 a year. Less than 1 percent of the tax cuts could go to 40 percent of the families earning $20,000 or less. I think we have our priorities out of wack. I support providing a $500 tax cut to families with children, but we can't afford to give this cut to families earning up to $200,000. This threshold needs to be lowered to $90,000. This bill is too generous with tax cuts, which leads to the deep spending cuts in other programs. While middle-income families would benefit from the proposed tax cuts, they will suffer, for example, from the deep spending cuts in the student loan program. The cuts proposed in this bill would raise the cost of the average undergraduate student loan by almost $2,500 over 4 years. To pay for these tax cuts, the Republican budget plan proposes to eliminate the earned income tax credit--a program supported by President Reagan--for 5 million working families. Nine million working families would see their tax credit reduced on this plan. The GOP plan includes a provision to allow corporations to raid pension plans for millions of workers. The retirement savings of working families could be jeopardized if the economy sours of the company makes bad investment decisions. I can't understand why my colleagues would want to do this. I also have concerns with the Medicare and Medicaid reforms included in the bill. Let me be clear: I wholeheartedly support efforts to make adjustments to the Medicare and Medicaid programs. However, I stand strongly opposed to raiding the pockets of low-income seniors, disabled recipients, and health care providers in order to pay for Republican corporate loopholes and tax cuts for the wealthy. Not only does this bill make severe reductions in Medicare's growth, it also overturns significant consumer standards designed to protect seniors from fraud and abuse. It is clear to me what lies behind this Medicare bill: The special interests, not the people's interests. Finally, I oppose the Republican budget reconciliation bill because it eliminates the Medicaid Program, handing over these funds to the States as a block grant with little or no standards to protect the vulnerable citizens this program insures. While I am concerned about the Nation's Medicaid recipients, I am especially opposed to the Medicaid legislation because it will devastate Tennessee's 1115 waiver TennCare Program with a $4.5 billion cut over 7 years. Tennessee is the Nation's leader in experimenting with managed care for Medicaid recipients, and now we are being punished for our success. Though some may vote today to destroy TennCare because of their party loyalty, I will stand strong against this bill's destructive provisions. In closing, this misdirected legislation would actually make economic life more difficult for a vast majority of Americans because of the steep cuts needed to pay for the tax giveaway. I must object to this legislation and hope that a reasonable compromise can be worked out before the bill is sent to the President. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before I speak to the substance, let me congratulate my friend from Ohio on his job of chairing the Committee on the Budget and working with the Republican leadership. I was one at the beginning who thought he would do what he said. He has put a package together that I expect will pass the House today that does reflect the values and priorities of the majority. I strongly disagree with those values and priorities, but he has done it with grace. He has done it with skill. I know it is not easy to put a package together. We will talk about the substance of that package today, but his job that is his responsibility within his caucus, we should not give him praise. He has done it too well. They should give him significant praise because he has accomplished the goals of his caucus. We disagree with that, and in time we will move on. Mr. Chairman, what the House is undertaking today is not simply a debate about balancing the Federal budget. This is a debate much more profound. It is about two very different visions for America's future and what those visions mean for America's families, workers, and the most vulnerable among us. The Republican vision is clear. Yesterday, on the same day we began debate on this massive budget bill, the Republican leaders in both the House and Senate voiced pride in their desire to dismantle the Medicare Program. The Speaker of the House sees the Medicare Program only in terms of politics. He says that Republicans could not eliminate Medicare right now because it is not politically smart. But he then hastens to add that he would like to see Medicare eventually wither on the vine. This is not a vision to renew America. And it is one that we should all reject. On the same day, the leading Republican Presidential candidate declared that he was one of only 12 to vote against the creation of the Medicare Program 30 years ago. With pride he said he was ``fighting the fight, voting against Medicare.'' And so we now move to the budget package to be voted on in the House today. The choices are clear. My Republican colleagues will put forward a vision that rewards the wealthiest and most powerful interests in our society at the expense of the most vulnerable Americans. They will raise taxes on low-income working families while lavishing massive tax breaks on the affluent. They will make it difficult, if not impossible, for millions of citizens to obtain adequate health care. They will cut funding for nutrition, education, transportation and scientific research even though we have many years of evidence that these investments enhance our society and our economic future. They will ask people to move from welfare to work at the same time they are eliminating work incentives and reducing work opportunities, and child care benefits. And, at a time investment in education is becoming increasingly important to the health of our economy, they will cut job training and increase college costs for millions of Americans seeking to better themselves. One of the most troubling aspects of the Republican vision is that it will escalate the 20-year trend that has pushed income inequality in this country to its highest level ever--all so that wealthy Americans can enjoy large tax breaks they don't need. In short, throughout this budget process, Republicans have engaged in a one-sided attack on lower and middle-income Americans which will ultimately close the doors of opportunity that lead to a prosperous Nation and a higher standard of living for everyone. So, Mr. Chairman, I call upon my colleagues to reject a vision of America that seeks to reward those who have already prospered in our economy while imposing burdens on those who have not. {time} 1230 Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from the State of Iowa [Mr. Ganske]. Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, there are three reasons why I am going to vote for this reconciliation bill: their names are Ingrid, Bridget, and Karl, my children. There is so much in a bill like this that it is easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Is this legislation exactly the way that I would have written it? Of course, not. This bill is the product of the push and shove, the battle of competing interests, the art of [[Page H10875]] compromise that is characteristic of democracy. As you vote for this historic measure, remember Edmund Burke's praise of political courage two centuries ago: You well know what snares are spread about your path . . . but you have put to hazard your ease, your security, your interest, your power, even your popularity . . . you will remember that public censure is a necessary ingredient in the composition of true glory: you will remember . . . that calumny and abuse are essential parts of triumph . . . you may live long, you may do much. But here is the summit. You may never exceed what you do this day. But to portray this bill as unworthy because it has gone through the democratic political process that all our laws go through would be unfair. I, like all 435 Members of this House, have to judge this important piece of legislation on its overall thrust. It does reform welfare, it does preserve Medicare, it does cut taxes, and most important, it does balance the budget. I will take courage for you, my colleagues, to vote for this bill exactly because it is so big and not perfect as you would will it. But I ask you to do it for your children as I am doing it for mine. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would only say that the children of Members of Congress probably will do fine, but the 20,000 families in the district of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] who get the EITC, the earned income tax credit, will do much worse. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter]. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget reconciliation package. I have listened to the debate on the floor and in the Rules Committee, and can't help but remember 1981, 1983, and more important, 1993. In the early 1980's we saw two tax bills that were sold on the basis that massive tax cuts for the very wealthy would spur the economy. In the late 1970's the top marginal tax rate was close to 70 percent, and by the end of the 1980's it had been cut to almost 30 percent; did this spur economic growth and end deficit spending? Well, we started the decade with a $1 trillion debt and ended it at $4 trillion. In addition, we headed into the 1990's with an economy in deep recession. In 1993, in response to the growing deficit and deepening economic rescission, we came to the floor to bring a budget reconciliation package to control spending and return some progressive policies to our Tax Code. A little over 2 years ago we heard the cries of economic desperation. Our package was called smoke and mirrors and I quote, ``it's our bet that this is a job killer.'' The current Speaker predicted, and I quote, ``I believe that this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machines' recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.'' The current majority leader predicted, and I quote, ``the impact on job creation is going to be devastating.'' Well, we passed the package without one Republican vote. Now let's discuss the results and the ability of the Republican leadership to predict economic outcomes. The deficit came down for 3 consecutive years. Our deficit is now the lowest as a percentage of national income of any major industrial country in the world. After one of the slowest 4-year periods of job growth since the Great Depression, the economy is now enjoying a solid growth, with strong private sector job creation and low inflation. The economy has created well over 3 million private sector jobs. The Republicans were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Today, we will be asked to cast one vote on a package that will dramatically change our Government. With one vote, we will dismantle the Department of Commerce; an agency entrusted with two critically important constitutional functions; that of the census and the filing and protection of patents. We will dismantle an agency that every day impacts millions of Americans. All done without the benefit of any comprehensive committee action. We will forever change health care for millions of low-income women, children, and senior citizens. We will end Federal, uniform nursing home standards implemented less than 10 years ago; we will force more working families into poverty and end any hope of a higher education for thousands of our children. We will forever end Medicare as we know it. It does not surprise me that the Republicans want to end Medicare, as the leader of the Republican Party in the other body has stated, ``I was there fighting the fight, working against Medicare--because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965.'' We will close many rural hosptials; cut WIC, Headstart, and significantly reduce our investment in research and development. All in the hope of economic growth and tax cuts for the very affluent. Once again, our Republican colleagues are asking Members of this body to take a leap of faith on failed economic and budget policies based on failed and misguided predictions. I am hopeful that many of these radical changes will be dropped in conference. It is the only hope we have. I ask all of my colleagues to oppose this package. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], a member of the Committee on the Budget, and an expert on immigration in America. Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in the last election, the American people told us to balance the budget, cut the taxes, and end the gimmicks. They wanted an end to Alice in Budgetland: to the rising tide of red ink that destroys jobs, makes housing and education more expensive, and encourages our addiction to big government. They wanted an end to Alice in Budgetland: to the constant tax increases that take more and more money and decisions away from the American people. They wanted an end to the Alice in Budgetland rosy scenarios, bogus growth numbers, and magic asterisks, the ponzi scheme by which Congress kept spending more of the people's money. Today we keep our word. We have a plan to balance the budget. Our balanced budget plan will mean 1.2 million additional jobs by 2002. Our balanced budget will reduce interest rates, making new homes, college education and start-up businesses more plentiful and affordable. Our plan also increases the power and decision-making of families. It's not just important to balance the budget. It matters how we balance the budget. The family and small business tax relief provisions contained in our plan are essential to returning power and money back home. Without tax relief, we won't return decisions where they belong--to the people who do the work, pay the taxes, raise the children. Without tax relief, we aren't putting people first. Last week in Houston President Clinton stated, ``I think I raised your taxes too much.'' We agree that the President was wrong, and that's why Republicans unanimously opposed the largest tax increase in history. That's why our plan is the only plan that returns some of the money that President Clinton took in 1993. It's the family's money to keep. It's not Washington's money to spend. And only our balanced budget honors hardworking Americans by letting them keep more of what they earn and by spending their money with great care. I urge my colleagues to support this balanced budget. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from my native State of North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy]. Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] for yielding this time to me. The budget before us is truly historic in its dimensions, and perhaps that is the only thing we will all agree about in the course of this debate today. As I see it, the debate between us is not about whether we ought to balance the budget. I think there is broad agreement we ought to move towards that goal. The debate is how we do it, and here is where the conflicting priorities of the parties become very clear. This budget plan is built on a fundamentally flawed premise, that we can balance the budget while financing a tax cut primarily benefiting the most privileged among us. This makes as much sense as a family resolving to get their household's finances in order just as soon as they spend the weekend in Paris once more on that old MasterCard. The consequences of the Republican tax plan are enormous. The wealthiest people in this country get a windfall while working and middle-income Americans lose ground. The tax cut reflects that the driving priority in this budget is to assist the wealthy in becoming even wealthier, and to this end, [[Page H10876]] they have sacrificed health programs for seniors, nutrition programs for kids, the safety net for family farmers, pension security for millions and millions of Americans. In order to accommodate the agenda of the privileged this budget makes devastating tradeoffs that pull support from those who need it and opportunity and hope from millions and millions of middle-class Americans. Make no mistake about it. The bottom line on this budget is more wealth for the richest, less help for the neediest, and reduced hope and opportunity for middle-income families. This bill is more than an historic budget, it is an historic and tragic mistake, on which if enacted will change the character of our great country. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker] Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of clarification I would like to engage the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] in a colloquy. First let me thank the gentleman for his willingness to work with those of us who have been concerned about the public auction of the facilities in the Power Marketing Administration. It is my belief that the study provision contained in this legislation is superior to an outright sale. In fact, this non-biased study will hopefully provide our committee with the needed facts to determine whether or not a sale of the PMA's will be in the best interest of the Government in the long run. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it better end up being better in the long run. I would say to the gentleman I wanted to do it this year, and he said we got to study it for a while, make sure we do the right thing. I agree with the gentleman. Mr. PARKER. However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to seek clarification to determine whether or not the evaluation or study will look at the impact, if there is a sale of the PMA's, on the wholesale and retail electricity rates of the current customers in the affected areas. Mr. KASICH. I think that the gentleman makes a good point, and obviously we want to make sure that, when we do this, we do it right and everybody understands what the impact will be. Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for having yielded to me. The clarification is appreciated. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], a brand-spanking new, fiery member of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this. We have spent a full generation. Now the last time we balanced our budget I was a sophomore in high school. My children are now out of high school and heading on to college. I have got a daughter who is a junior in high school. It has been a full generation since we have balanced our budget. It is time we get it done. Congratulations to the Committee on the Budget, to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], for bringing us a bill that is going to allow us to not only keep our promises, but, more importantly, do what is right for the American people. As my colleagues know, not enough has been made about what happens after we balance the budget. I just heard about the hopes and the dreams of the future of the middle-class America. When we balance the budget, what that means is the Federal Government stops borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars out of the private sector, and, when the Federal Government stops borrowing that money, that money is now available for real people to borrow, and when real people have the opportunity to borrow that money, that means they can buy homes, and they can buy cars, and they can get college loans to go to college, and when they get those loans, the interest rate is going to be lower because there is more access to the money. This is good news for the future of the middle class. As a matter of fact, if somebody were to go out and buy a house today, and they were to borrow $50,000, and we had balanced the budget sooner so the interest rate was 2 points lower, they would save over $1,000 a year in the interest on the payments in that $50,000 loan. {time} 1245 If they borrowed $100,000 to buy a house, they would save $2,000. Almost $200 a month remains in the pockets of the working people of this country because we are about to balance the budget. This is good news for the hopes, for the dreams, for the future of this country. Also, it puts this Nation back on track, that the Nation will be preserved for the next generation. Instead of giving them a legacy of growing debts, we can give our children the hopes and dreams of the future, like we received from our forefathers. In the budget resolution we passed earlier this year, it sets some 7- year targets and it sets some 1-year targets. Again, I commend the Committee on the Budget. This proposal that we have before us today not only hits the 7-year targets, it also hits the first-year targets, and a lot of other political groups would not have done that. I commend the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and the committee for their tireless work at helping us keep our promises to the American people, and strongly urge support of this bill. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro]. Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise just to let our colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, know that in his district 17,179 working families will have their taxes increased by this Republican bill. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lucille Roybal-Allard], a distinguished member of our committee. Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is morally wrong. It does nothing to improve national living standards. Except for the very wealthy, it hurts the majority of hard-working Americans. Three areas illustrate my point. First, the Republican bill cuts taxes for the rich, but raises taxes on the poor. It cuts the earned income tax credit which helps keep 14 million low-paid working families earning $9,500 to $25,000 dollars a year out of poverty. The GOP tax plan will give families earning $350,000 dollars a year a $14,000 tax cut. While the struggling, lowest paid worker must lose an additional $300 to $324 annually. That is wrong. Second, the Republicans cut child and prenatal nutrition programs proven to be good national investments. For every $1 spent on prenatal nutrition, the WIC Program saves the American taxpayer $3.50 in special education and Medicaid expenses. To cut such programs is wrong. Finally, the Republican plan unbelievably repeals the Nursing Home Standards Act of 1987. This act was enacted as a direct response to congressional hearings which revealed widespread abuses in State and privately run nursing homes. Abuses resulting from unsanitary conditions, malnutrition, overmedication, neglect, sexual and physical abuse. Our current law has helped to eliminate these abuses and to improve the quality of life for nursing home seniors. If these standards are eliminated, Republicans condemn our seniors to suffer the horrible abuses of the past. That is wrong. Under the Republican budget reconciliation bill, the rich will be richer, but the living standard of our Nation will be made much poorer. The only good thing about the Republican budget is that it is so extreme and unfair that the President must veto it. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini], the courageous young freshman who is from the State of Bruce Springsteen. Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio. I first would like to compliment him and his committee for the outstanding work he has done on this budget this year. Today we are debating and are about to consider a Budget Reconciliation Act. It struck me coming over here that reconciliation, the very nature of the word itself, suggests a coming together, a solving of differences, and a [[Page H10877]] going forward. I believe that the American people today know that the Federal Government has had extreme problems with its fiscal matters over the years. I think the Americans also know that this majority of Congress has been set to correct those wrongs, but I suspect that the Americans out there still do not know if this Congress has the resolve to do that today. It is no wonder, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, because over the last several weeks all they have heard are distortions and scares, scares intended to stop people in their tracks from going forward. It strikes me as sad that the party whose former leader, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, once gave us the phrase ``We have nothing to fear but fear itself'' now offers us only fear itself and no solutions. Let us just look at the record for a moment, if we may. On June 4, 1992, President Clinton promised a balanced budget. He never delivered. He promised a tax cut for middle-class families. He never delivered. Worse than never delivering, he actually implemented the biggest tax increase in the history of our Nation. Now he has even admitted he raised our taxes too much. He failed to offer a plan to end welfare as we know it, and he stayed on the sidelines as we saved Medicare from going bankrupt. In contrast, this Congress is about keeping promises. We understand the importance of fulfilling our promises to our elderly and our children, and we will do just that. Today, for me, Mr. Chairman, it is indeed humbling to take part in such a historic vote in favor of a more fiscally sound America and a brighter America, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett]. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, 27,641 working families in the district of the gentleman who just spoke will have their taxes increased by this Republican tax increase bill they are approving today. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I join my ranking Member in emphasizing that putting all substance aside, the logistics of bringing this bill to the floor have been an abhorrence not only to the usual committee process but of any democratic process. I want to add a word or two today about the role which the Budget Committee has, or rather could have had, in today's reconciliation bill. Having spent a great deal of my career looking at budget process issues, and in fact, having enjoyed working on a number of those issues with Chairman Kasich, that is what I would like to examine now. I was both surprised and disappointed that this reconciliation bill took a minimalist approach to process reform. Needless to say, this bill is expansive in every other regard. No one single bill has ever entailed such a comprehensive overhaul of Federal Government policy. The other side likes to speak of the Republican revolution and I would, in no way, dispute that this is a revolutionary document. That is why I am disappointed that process reforms which could bring meaningful budget enforcement, greater integrity in the process, and a sense of openness and honesty were left out of the revolution. Two year's ago when we were battling over the 1993 budget reconciliation bill, I engaged in intense negotiations with my leadership to move us closer to enforcement language which would guarantee the deficit reduction promises being made. In particular, we were trying to remove ``uncontrollable'' as an adjective for entitlement spending. The agreement that we reached in 1993 was far less than I wanted, especially with regard to guaranteeing control over the Medicare Program. But do you know what? That agreement showed a lot more enforcement muscle than appears any where in this budget. I received all sorts of Republican lecturing for failing to bring my party to the stronger entitlement control I wanted and yet even that compromise language is missing in this revolution. This bill allows ``uncontrollable'' to continue accurately describing entitlement spending. What else could have been included? Well, the substitute which I am supporting today includes deficit reduction guarantees enforced by sequestration. It has 10 year scorekeeping to make sure that things like grossly ballooning tax cuts start showing up beyond the curtains on current budget windows. Our substitute has process reforms like line item veto and a deficit reduction lock box, which the majority of this House has said it supports. It also adopts numerous provisions borrowed from previously bipartisan bills which many people standing on the other side of the floor right now not only supported but co-authored--things like baseline reform, controlling emergency spending, continuing resolution reform. Where are those provisions today? How did they get left out of the revolution? For a party which has made a mantra of ``Promises Made-- Promises Kept'' why were not some of the promise-keepers built into this bill? I urge my colleagues to vote no on the base bill and vote yes on the substitute which actually has a chance of maintaining the many promises being made today. Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California. Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. This is a defining time and a defining vote. Very few here have made every vote in the last two Congresses to achieve significant and fair deficit reduction--beginning with support of the 1993 budget which has halved our deficit to the lowest level in a generation and decreased it for 3 years straight. I have made each of those tough deficit cutting votes. And today I will continue to stand up for fairness, for balance, for deficit reduction, and for bipartisanship. In this spirit, I strongly oppose H.R. 2491 as drafted because it funds ill-timed tax cuts by raising the deficit in the short-term and hurting our most vulnerable populations--seniors and children--with devastating Medicare cuts and the termination of Medicaid as a guaranteed safety net for nursing home residents. I strongly support the bipartisan coalition substitute which defers tax cuts until we have achieved a balanced budget, treats cost-of- living increases in a non-inflationary manner, and preserves Medicaid, including regulations against nursing home abuse. In my view, the Medicare cuts in the coalition substitute are deeper than what I would like to see, but this bipartisan effort sets a marker for further discussion. I have met with hundreds of seniors in my district, and will stand with them as we work for the fairest compromise within tough budgetary constraints. Had H.R. 2491 been drafted with real public input, I believe its contents would be different. Now with its expected passage and its expected veto by the President, the real debate must start. Every Federal program, every Federal dollar should be on the table as we debate--openly and in a bipartisan manner--how to share sacrifice and how to share benefits. Every program. Every person. But the operative word is balance--a balanced budget, balanced sacrifice, balanced benefit, and an open and balanced process. Let's begin anew. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to say is I would not vote for the plan described by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], and I do not think anybody on this side of the aisle would, but that is not our plan. That does not seem to matter to the gentleman from Minnesota and others. We have had a budget deficit that has gone up and up and up, a debt that has gone from $385 billion 25 years ago to $4,900 billion, or $4.9 trillion. Our colleagues on that side of the aisle who have been in power for 40 years have had a chance to deal with that issue. We need to get our financial house in order, and we need to balance our Federal budget. We need to save our trust funds, particularly Medicare, and we need to transform our social and corporate welfare State into an opportunity society. [[Page H10878]] The bottom line and the most difficult part is saving our trust funds. We know what the board of trustees of the Federal hospital insurance trust fund have said. they have said that in basically 7 years the Medicare part A trust fund literally goes bankrupt, but nobody on that side of the aisle even wanted to address it until a few weeks ago. We are addressing that fund. We are making sure that $333 billion benefits the Medicare part A trust fund, and $137 billion benefits the Medicare part B trust fund. We have extended its insolvency and its ultimate bankruptcy from the year 2002 to the year 2010. What is so important about the year 2010? That is when the baby boomers start to get into this fund. At that point, we have the baby boomers from year 2010 to the year 2030. By the year 2030, baby boomers from the age 65 to 85 will be in the fund. What does that mean? We have workers right now, three and one-half workers are working for each individual in the trust fund. Right now three and one-third workers work for every person in the Social Security trust fund. By the year 2030, 35 years from now, there will only be two workers. We are talking about what has happened over the last 40 years, and particularly, the last 25. Our Congresses and, regretfully, our Presidents have mortgaged the farm, and now we are trying to buy it back for our kids. this is about kids. It is about saving this country. I could not be more proud to be part of this reconciliation act. My only regret is that the President has not joined in in this effort. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, looking at the numbers as the gentleman referred to, I discovered he only has 11,000 families eligible for low-income tax credit, one of the lowest in the country. They are going to be hurt, but let me assure the gentleman from Connecticut, all the rich constituents he has are not going to be hurt. They are going to prosper. They are going to do well. His district does not resemble America. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]. I served under them this session on the Committee on the Budget. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the reconciliation bill we will consider today. Why are poor Americans being asked to shoulder most of the pain in balancing the Federal budget and paying for tax breaks for the wealthy? The answer is that they are a convenient target. Poor people can't afford to hire lobbyists to protect their interests. We all know that cutting the Federal budget deficit is painful, but this debate isn't about pain and suffering. It is about fairness. Most of the cuts in the reconciliation bill reported by the Committee on the Budget fall on low-income Americans. The reported bill cuts $221 billion from entitlements, and $192 billion of these--87 percent--are in two Federal programs that help poor and low income Americans: Medicaid and student loans. The Budget Committee also approved $53 billion in increased taxes, and $27 billion--51 percent--are reductions in the earned income tax credit for working Americans and low-income housing credits. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means recently justified the changes in the earned income tax credit by arguing, and I quote, ``Simply put, the EITC is going to people with incomes that are too high.'' Too high? Should a single hard-working person with no children earning $8,200 a year, or $4 an hour, have her Federal income tax raised by $101 a year? Should working people struggling to get by help pay for a tax cut that goes mainly to the small minority--12 percent of all families--that earn over $100,000 a year? This bill is simply unfair. What happened to the Republican pledge in January that it would require a three-fifths vote to raise income taxes because the Republicans said they wanted to ``help'' working Americans? Today the Republicans are waiving this requirement. People are going to bear the burden for these false promises. The Republicans' plan to cut Florida's Medicaid payments by 26 percent over the next 7 years will have a devastating effect on Miami. Jackson Memorial Hospital accounts for 30 percent of all hospital admissions in Miami. This year Medicaid will supply $438 million to Jackson Memorial, or about 40 percent of its total revenues. What will happen to health care for the poor if Jackson Memorial runs out of Medicaid money in October under the Republican scheme? Will they stop delivering babies? Will they stop vaccinating children in November and December? Is this fair? Last week the Republicans voted to increase part B Medicare premiums. This week they are cutting Medicaid. What will happen to the elderly when Florida runs out of Medicaid money and can no longer pay for the Medicare part B premiums of the elderly? What will happen to the elderly who are now in nursing homes when Florida runs out of Medicaid money? Will the elderly be put out in the street? The Republicans opposed my efforts to make the Medicaid formula fairer. Twice I tried to have the entire House decide whether to accept the Medicaid formula adopted by the Senate Finance Committee, which is fairer and helps ease the burden of these cuts on States like Florida. But twice every Republican voted ``no'' even though my amendment would have helped a majority of the Republican Members. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the simple fact of the matter is under the House plan the earned income tax credit is going to go up by 40 percent. Forty percent may not be enough for some that want to drive it up 60, 70, 80 percent. Forty percent is a generous increase. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke]. Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Budget and my fellow Buckeye for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I listen to this debate and I just cannot conceive of how Americans watching it in their homes could be anything but confused, because we bandy about the word ``cut'' in such a disgraceful, shameless, and such a completely inaccurate way. The fact is we are going to increase the spending on the earned income tax credit from $22 billion in 1995 to $32 billion in 2002. Overall, this budget goes from one trillion five hundred billion to one trillion eight hundred billion; Medicare goes up from $170 billion to $244 billion; education and student loans goes up from $24 billion to $36 billion. That is a 50 percent increase. Yet all we hear from the other side is cut, cut, cut. {time} 1300 Where is the cut? It is that kind of abusive language that makes it so impossible for average Americans to decipher what the heck is going on and to make the kind of judgments that they need to be able to make in order to evaluate their representatives. In fact, the only cut that I am aware of, the only real cut in this budget has to do with foreign aid, and that is a real cut. What is the good side, what is the upside of all of this? The upside of all of this in terms of balancing the budget, the biggest impact on American families will be with respect to what it does to interest rates, and that is a profound impact. It is not just a fog of numbers, it is not just accounting, it really makes a difference in terms of what those dollars mean to the average American working family. DRI/McGraw Hill has said that it is a 2.7 percentage point difference as a result of balancing the budget. On a $100,000 mortgage, on a $100,000 mortgage, that amounts to about $225 per month more in the hands of the people that earn that money. That has a profound impact on a student loan. There is a tremendous difference, as well as on a car payment. The good news is that balancing the budget puts more money in the pockets of the people that make it. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green. Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in response to my colleague [[Page H10879]] from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], the last speaker, does the gentleman know that in his district 22,659 working families will have their taxes increased by this bill? Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett]. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, our Republican budget chief is exactly right. This is a debate about promises, and how you feel about the promises depends on where you are sitting on the economic ladder of this country. If you are way up there on top, at the apex of the American economy, sitting on a cushion sipping champagne, you got your promise fulfilled by in Republican Party bountifully, because the better off are going to get a little more better off today. If you are one of the great corporations of America that back in the days of yesteryear never paid a dime of taxes on billions of dollars of profit, you also can smile. You are better off today. You will pay zero, zip, not a dime under the repeal of the minimum tax credit. Mr. Chairman, but what if you are not way up there on top? What if you are down on the lower rungs, just trying to struggle and make ends meet and get your kids through school? Well, those people on the economic ladder have a broken promise. If you are on Medicare, well, you get the new Republican sick tax. Yesterday, Bob Dole was boasting, he voted against Medicare, and Newt Gingrich said, well, we will just let it wither on the vine. The Republicans lever a hefty sick tax because they want to help those who are well. Very well. Well off. If you make $30,000 or less, these Republicans are going to raise your taxes, plain and simple. To the many who are trying to climb up that economic ladder and share in the American dream, they stomp on their working fingers as they try to climb up that ladder. That is why we call it Wreckonciliation, because it wrecks working families that are trying to make a go of it. It wrecks seniors who are going to have to pay that Republican sick tax. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], a member of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the only thing that we will wreck if we do not pass this reconciliation bill is the American family. Let us talk about exactly what is going to happen to spending over the next 7 years. If we do nothing, Federal spending will rise by 37 percent. If we pass reconciliation, which we will do later on today, Federal spending, we are really going to tighten our belts for the next 7 years. We are only going to allow Federal spending to increase by 27 percent. I came out of the private sector, and I would have loved any budget that over 7 years would have allowed me to increase spending by 27 percent. We are asking the Federal Government to get spending under control and have a gentle slope toward balancing the budget. Spending goes up in every category. Total spending goes up. Welfare reform, welfare spending goes up. Medicare spending goes up. Per beneficiary on Medicare goes from $4,800 to $6,700. We are trying to manage health care growth to 5 percent per year. Medicaid spending goes up. Spending on student loans. Student loan spending goes by 37 percent over the next 7 years. School lunches. We heard that those were gone. Spending on school lunches goes up by 4.5 percent per year. This is a reasonable budget; this is a commonsense reconciliation. Common people, on the street every day would love to have a budget at their house that would go up by 3 percent per year and be asked to manage to that. This makes sense. This is reform that we can manage too. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink]. Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, to my dear friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], I just wonder if he knew that in his district 23,679 working families will have their taxes increase by their Republican reconciliation. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the omnibus bill that I believe is a major step backwards for our Nation. I am committed to ensure our Nation's fiscal integrity. Our obligation to our future and our children demands decisive and decidedly different action to effect a disciplined conduct in our fiscal business. But the Republican package is not the answer. It is an attack on the middle class and poor Americans. Mr. Chairman, I supported the Balanced Budget Amendment. I voted for the Stenholm budget, which would have achieved a surplus by 2002, and I will support the Orton alternative that also puts us on a path to a balanced budget by 2002. But I do not support tax cuts until we get our fiscal House in order. Balance the budget first and then consider tax reductions. Half of the bill's tax breaks go to those who make more than $100,000 a year, while the lowest 20 percent of income earners will see their taxes go up. That is not right. If the Republicans were not so committed to tax breaks for the wealthy, this legislation would not include the draconian cuts that I oppose so strongly. One example of the bill's attack on the middle class is provisions on Federal employees. While I am pleased that the parking provision has been dropped, what remains is still unfair and unwarranted. In addition to the dramatic reductions in the earned income tax credit which has been spoken of, this bill makes very serious cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Over $450 billion in health care cuts for seniors families and children. Furthermore, the Republican proposals for welfare reform are weak on work and tough on kids; they are tougher on kids than they are on the deadbeat dads who walk out on those kids. The Orton substitute will effect real welfare change and require those who can work to work regularly. These are just a few examples of what I believe our priorities must be. Not tax cuts in the face of deficits, but fiscally responsible policies that serve our Nation's needs, promote the American economy, and effect a balanced budget by the year 2002. I urge defeat of the Gingrich-Kasich budget. Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler]. (Mr. CHRYLSER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand in this House today in support of our plan to balance the Federal budget over the next 7 years. It is the most compassionate thing that we can do for the children of America. One of the best ways to help the children in America is to help their mom and dad, and let them have the basic human dignity and pride that comes from bringing home a paycheck. We need less government and lower taxes; we need to let people keep more of what they earn and save, and we need to let people make their own decisions on how they spend their money, not government. As the head of the task force to dismantle the Commerce Department, I know we found a good place to start in rightsizing the Federal Government. Former Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher put it best when he recently called his old department, ``Nothing more than a hall closet where you throw everything that you don't know what to do with.'' In fact, 60 percent of the Department has nothing to do with commerce. In a recent Business Week poll, senior business executives said to eliminate the Department of Commerce by a two-to-one margin. Why? Because if the Commerce Department were truly the voice of business, they would be supporting a cut in capital gains tax; they would be supporting tort reform and regulatory reform, and balancing the Federal budget. In fact, the Department of Commerce is diametrically opposed to all of them. Our plan simply makes more sense than current hodgepodge programs huddled at the agency that some now call the Department of Miscellaneous Affairs. Mr. Chairman, our efforts to dismantle the Department of Commerce will [[Page H10880]] streamline and improve Federal efforts on behalf of American businesses and save billions of dollars, giving taxpayers and their children their money's worth. Everyone in my district, in my State, and America are better off, and 88 percent of them say, balance the Federal budget. Last week, House Republicans unveiled their final plan to dismantle one of least defensible Departments in government: the Department of Commerce. As Majority Leader Dick Armey noted, for the first time in history, the American people will see a Cabinet chair carried out of the Cabinet Room at the White House and placed in a museum with other artifacts from American history. Our plan to dismantle the Commerce Department is the first step in our mission to downsize a bloated Federal government that is too big and spends too much money. It will begin to put out-of-control government growth in reverse and will save taxpayers at least $6 billion over the next 7 years, a significant down payment on our plan to balance the Federal budget. Nothing so clearly demonstrates the need to streamline the Federal Government more than the Commerce Department. Accordingly to the Department's own inspector general, this agency is a loose collection of over 100 unrelated programs. In fact, today's Department is involved in everything from managing fish farms to predicting the weather to promoting new technology. What Commerce officials describe as ``synergy'' among Commerce's wide-ranging functions, most reasonable people simply call confusion. What most people believe is the real mission of the Department of Commerce, promoting the interests of American business throughout the global market

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995
(House of Representatives - October 26, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H10872-H10913] SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 245 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2491. {time} 1212 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2491) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996, with Mr. Boehner in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, October 25, 1995, all time for general debate pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, October 24, 1995, and expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, there will be an additional 3 hours of further general debate. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] each will be recognized for 1 hour and 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. {time} 1215 Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, we start the second day's worth of discussion and debate in regard to our plan to provide Americans with tax relief and also to balance the budget using real numbers over 7 years. I just heard today that apparently a poll just came out within the last 24 [[Page H10873]] hours where the American people apparently registered their doubt as to whether we in fact can balance the budget. Frankly, if I was not in this Chamber or in this Congress and I was out in America watching the operation of this place, I would have my doubts for this reason: For about 25 or 30 years we have been promising the people a balanced budget. I think every candidate who has run for President has promised a balanced budget. President Clinton said he would propose and execute a balanced budget within the first 4 years. The President before him indicated we would have a balanced budget. We have been hearing this over and over and over again. But frankly, folks, we are going to have a balanced budget for two fundamental reasons. The No. 1 reason why we are going to have a balanced budget and we are going to have the discipline to execute and maintain a balanced budget over the next 7 years has to do with the American people. Frankly, we hear a lot about polls, but I want to tell you about the poll that I follow. That poll is not just the reaction that I get in my own district, but it is the reaction among the Members when they come back from being in their districts. We heard when we came back, after the last recess, that Americans were going south on this plan, that the Republicans were starting to shake. Well, frankly, I have not seen it. In fact, I think we have a rededicated sense of purpose to get this job done. The reason why it is working is that this House of Representatives is truly a reflection of the attitudes, the moods and the opinion of the American people. Frankly, we are usually behind where the American people are. I believe the American people for a number of years have said it is time to give us some of our power, money and influence back. Finally we are getting the message, which is why, when Members go home, they are being positively reinforced and they are all hearing one simple message from their constituents. Just put the country first, put politics second. Balance the budget and save this country for the next generation. Now, let me just suggest to my colleagues that I, again, have to keep going back to the reasonableness of this plan. When we look at what we have done over the period of the last 7 years, we have spent a cumulative total of $9.5 trillion. My colleagues are going to hear this from me two or three times today, $9.5 trillion. If you started a business when Christ was on earth, if you lost $1 million a day 7 days a week, you would have to lose $1 million a day 7 days a week for the next 700 years to get to one trillion. We spent 9.5 trillion over the last 7 years, and under our plan to balance the budget we are going to spend 12.1 trillion. I mean, the revolution that we are hearing about, my colleagues, does not mean we spend less money over the next 7 years but almost $3 trillion more. Do Members know what the fight is about in this Chamber? Do my colleagues know what the fight is all about in this whole capital, Washington, DC, area? Whether we can go from 9.5 trillion to 12.1 trillion or whether we should increase that to 13.3 trillion. The question we have to ask the American people is, can we save $1 trillion for the next generation? Nothing is more tragic than to go to the settling of an estate and have the children sit in the room and have it told to them by the lawyers that your mother and father put you in debt. We would consider that to be not a good thing to do, a bad thing to do, to tell your children that they have big bills. I mean all the creditors come into the room and you start paying it out. There goes mom and dad's house. There go their savings because they ran up all these bills. The same is true with the Federal budget. We do not have a right to tell the next generation that we cannot stop ourselves from spending that extra trillion, because if we can just responsibly, rationally, using common sense, hold our spending increases to $3 trillion over the next 7 years, we can ensure a strong economic future. Now, look, folks, I do not believe all these studies. I believe some of them, but let us forget the think tanks. Let us talk about the guy who sits down here at the Federal Reserve who decides what interest rates are going to be, and that is what drives this economy. He says, if for once this Congress can make the hard choice, the hard choice, folks, to spend $3 trillion rather than 4, if we can make the hard choice, we rescue the country. I mean that is really what it is all about. When we look at the specific programs like welfare, welfare goes up by almost 400 billion. When you combine all the programs, it is interesting to note that in many States in this country, welfare recipients are getting about equal to $8 an hour. I mean that is not being skimpy. That is being pretty darn generous. Medicaid, Medicaid is going to grow up to 443 to $773 billion. We added another $12 billion. Why? We want to do a little better. The debate is not whether it should go up, it is how much should it go up and then of course Medicare. I will tell Members on Medicare that, any way you want to cut it or slice it, our Medicare recipients will have far more, they ought to have far more. The spending is going to go from 926 to 1.6 trillion. The average senior citizen is going to go from 4,700 bucks to 6,800 bucks in spending over the next 7 years. My colleagues, we can in fact rein this spending in, but it does not involve a nose dive. It involves a more gentle climb, rational thinking, application of common sense. If we do it, we, in fact, can save the next generation. Tax cuts? Well, below $75,000, 74 percent of the benefits go. But I do not even want to get into this business of dividing rich and poor. We do need reconciliation in this country from a whole host of divisive claims. Let me just suggest that in 1993 the President raised taxes by $250 billion over 5 years. What is this all about? It is really all about the size and the scope of the Federal Government. We do not think that we need to solve our problem by raising taxes. We did not think we needed to solve our problems in 1993 by raising taxes. What we are about is taking that money that was taken from the American people's pockets in 1993. We took money from their pockets. Republicans did not want to do it. We said we can do it without a tax increase. Now we are taking that money and we are putting it back into the pockets of Americans. In order to do that, Federal spending is still going to go up almost $3 trillion. So, my colleagues, we have got the common sense plan. This plan is going to pass this House today. I will compliment one group of Democrats will compliment one group of Democrats coming forward with a balanced budget plan. I understand, although I have not read the editorial, that the New York Times and the Washington Post have both complimented them. That is a sea change, folks. We are the ones that said we could do it in 7 years. Now some of the major newspapers in this country are saying, well, we do not like the Republican plan but we can do it in 7 years. That is an incredible sea change in America. When all is said and done, guess what? we are going to get there. We are going to have a balanced budget in 7 years. We are going to have tax relief for Americans. We are going to save the future, and we are going to restore the country for 100 additional years. At the end of the day, we will do it on a bipartisan basis. But today we have to do our job. Our job is about putting America first, putting the politics of parochialism second and just looking out for the next generation. That little vision, we are going to look over all the swamp and all the muck and all the nasty rhetoric and the shrill rhetoric that exists on both sides. We are going to look beyond that, and we are going to look to the next generation. We are going to get this done for our precious Nation. Support the reconciliation bill. Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement]. (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the GOP plan. Mr. Chairman, much of the debate I have heard today does not concern whether we should balance the budget. Of course we [[Page H10874]] should. The debate I have heard today does not concern when we should balance the budget. Most of my colleagues will agree that balancing the budget by the year 2002 is a reasonable goal. The center of the debate today is how we will balance the budget. The Republicans propose to balance the budget with steep cuts in education, health, farm, and seniors programs. They also propose outrageously huge tax cuts up front which must be paid for with even deeper spending cuts. Mr. Chairman, I must object to this bill, as well as to the legislative process, which has been highly unusual and chaotic. Medicare cuts were voted on separately, while the Medicaid cuts are rolled into the reconciliation bill with no separate vote. Many committees have failed to report their recommendations as called for in the budget resolution, and large parts of the bill have been drafted behind closed doors and are being added to the bill at the last minute without any scrutiny or debate. I have here what I believe represents the bill and the process. This is a bucket of zoo doo. That's right--zoo doo. It's like a zoo around here and all are producing is doo. Elephant doo. This is what this bill is--elephant zoo doo. It stinks. This legislation will have a financial impact on all Americans and there are winners and losers. The wealthiest Americans receive a tax cut, while the working poor receive a tax increase. Fifty-two percent of the tax cuts go to 5.6 percent of Americans with incomes greater than $100,000 a year. Less than 1 percent of the tax cuts could go to 40 percent of the families earning $20,000 or less. I think we have our priorities out of wack. I support providing a $500 tax cut to families with children, but we can't afford to give this cut to families earning up to $200,000. This threshold needs to be lowered to $90,000. This bill is too generous with tax cuts, which leads to the deep spending cuts in other programs. While middle-income families would benefit from the proposed tax cuts, they will suffer, for example, from the deep spending cuts in the student loan program. The cuts proposed in this bill would raise the cost of the average undergraduate student loan by almost $2,500 over 4 years. To pay for these tax cuts, the Republican budget plan proposes to eliminate the earned income tax credit--a program supported by President Reagan--for 5 million working families. Nine million working families would see their tax credit reduced on this plan. The GOP plan includes a provision to allow corporations to raid pension plans for millions of workers. The retirement savings of working families could be jeopardized if the economy sours of the company makes bad investment decisions. I can't understand why my colleagues would want to do this. I also have concerns with the Medicare and Medicaid reforms included in the bill. Let me be clear: I wholeheartedly support efforts to make adjustments to the Medicare and Medicaid programs. However, I stand strongly opposed to raiding the pockets of low-income seniors, disabled recipients, and health care providers in order to pay for Republican corporate loopholes and tax cuts for the wealthy. Not only does this bill make severe reductions in Medicare's growth, it also overturns significant consumer standards designed to protect seniors from fraud and abuse. It is clear to me what lies behind this Medicare bill: The special interests, not the people's interests. Finally, I oppose the Republican budget reconciliation bill because it eliminates the Medicaid Program, handing over these funds to the States as a block grant with little or no standards to protect the vulnerable citizens this program insures. While I am concerned about the Nation's Medicaid recipients, I am especially opposed to the Medicaid legislation because it will devastate Tennessee's 1115 waiver TennCare Program with a $4.5 billion cut over 7 years. Tennessee is the Nation's leader in experimenting with managed care for Medicaid recipients, and now we are being punished for our success. Though some may vote today to destroy TennCare because of their party loyalty, I will stand strong against this bill's destructive provisions. In closing, this misdirected legislation would actually make economic life more difficult for a vast majority of Americans because of the steep cuts needed to pay for the tax giveaway. I must object to this legislation and hope that a reasonable compromise can be worked out before the bill is sent to the President. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before I speak to the substance, let me congratulate my friend from Ohio on his job of chairing the Committee on the Budget and working with the Republican leadership. I was one at the beginning who thought he would do what he said. He has put a package together that I expect will pass the House today that does reflect the values and priorities of the majority. I strongly disagree with those values and priorities, but he has done it with grace. He has done it with skill. I know it is not easy to put a package together. We will talk about the substance of that package today, but his job that is his responsibility within his caucus, we should not give him praise. He has done it too well. They should give him significant praise because he has accomplished the goals of his caucus. We disagree with that, and in time we will move on. Mr. Chairman, what the House is undertaking today is not simply a debate about balancing the Federal budget. This is a debate much more profound. It is about two very different visions for America's future and what those visions mean for America's families, workers, and the most vulnerable among us. The Republican vision is clear. Yesterday, on the same day we began debate on this massive budget bill, the Republican leaders in both the House and Senate voiced pride in their desire to dismantle the Medicare Program. The Speaker of the House sees the Medicare Program only in terms of politics. He says that Republicans could not eliminate Medicare right now because it is not politically smart. But he then hastens to add that he would like to see Medicare eventually wither on the vine. This is not a vision to renew America. And it is one that we should all reject. On the same day, the leading Republican Presidential candidate declared that he was one of only 12 to vote against the creation of the Medicare Program 30 years ago. With pride he said he was ``fighting the fight, voting against Medicare.'' And so we now move to the budget package to be voted on in the House today. The choices are clear. My Republican colleagues will put forward a vision that rewards the wealthiest and most powerful interests in our society at the expense of the most vulnerable Americans. They will raise taxes on low-income working families while lavishing massive tax breaks on the affluent. They will make it difficult, if not impossible, for millions of citizens to obtain adequate health care. They will cut funding for nutrition, education, transportation and scientific research even though we have many years of evidence that these investments enhance our society and our economic future. They will ask people to move from welfare to work at the same time they are eliminating work incentives and reducing work opportunities, and child care benefits. And, at a time investment in education is becoming increasingly important to the health of our economy, they will cut job training and increase college costs for millions of Americans seeking to better themselves. One of the most troubling aspects of the Republican vision is that it will escalate the 20-year trend that has pushed income inequality in this country to its highest level ever--all so that wealthy Americans can enjoy large tax breaks they don't need. In short, throughout this budget process, Republicans have engaged in a one-sided attack on lower and middle-income Americans which will ultimately close the doors of opportunity that lead to a prosperous Nation and a higher standard of living for everyone. So, Mr. Chairman, I call upon my colleagues to reject a vision of America that seeks to reward those who have already prospered in our economy while imposing burdens on those who have not. {time} 1230 Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from the State of Iowa [Mr. Ganske]. Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, there are three reasons why I am going to vote for this reconciliation bill: their names are Ingrid, Bridget, and Karl, my children. There is so much in a bill like this that it is easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Is this legislation exactly the way that I would have written it? Of course, not. This bill is the product of the push and shove, the battle of competing interests, the art of [[Page H10875]] compromise that is characteristic of democracy. As you vote for this historic measure, remember Edmund Burke's praise of political courage two centuries ago: You well know what snares are spread about your path . . . but you have put to hazard your ease, your security, your interest, your power, even your popularity . . . you will remember that public censure is a necessary ingredient in the composition of true glory: you will remember . . . that calumny and abuse are essential parts of triumph . . . you may live long, you may do much. But here is the summit. You may never exceed what you do this day. But to portray this bill as unworthy because it has gone through the democratic political process that all our laws go through would be unfair. I, like all 435 Members of this House, have to judge this important piece of legislation on its overall thrust. It does reform welfare, it does preserve Medicare, it does cut taxes, and most important, it does balance the budget. I will take courage for you, my colleagues, to vote for this bill exactly because it is so big and not perfect as you would will it. But I ask you to do it for your children as I am doing it for mine. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would only say that the children of Members of Congress probably will do fine, but the 20,000 families in the district of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] who get the EITC, the earned income tax credit, will do much worse. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter]. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget reconciliation package. I have listened to the debate on the floor and in the Rules Committee, and can't help but remember 1981, 1983, and more important, 1993. In the early 1980's we saw two tax bills that were sold on the basis that massive tax cuts for the very wealthy would spur the economy. In the late 1970's the top marginal tax rate was close to 70 percent, and by the end of the 1980's it had been cut to almost 30 percent; did this spur economic growth and end deficit spending? Well, we started the decade with a $1 trillion debt and ended it at $4 trillion. In addition, we headed into the 1990's with an economy in deep recession. In 1993, in response to the growing deficit and deepening economic rescission, we came to the floor to bring a budget reconciliation package to control spending and return some progressive policies to our Tax Code. A little over 2 years ago we heard the cries of economic desperation. Our package was called smoke and mirrors and I quote, ``it's our bet that this is a job killer.'' The current Speaker predicted, and I quote, ``I believe that this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machines' recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.'' The current majority leader predicted, and I quote, ``the impact on job creation is going to be devastating.'' Well, we passed the package without one Republican vote. Now let's discuss the results and the ability of the Republican leadership to predict economic outcomes. The deficit came down for 3 consecutive years. Our deficit is now the lowest as a percentage of national income of any major industrial country in the world. After one of the slowest 4-year periods of job growth since the Great Depression, the economy is now enjoying a solid growth, with strong private sector job creation and low inflation. The economy has created well over 3 million private sector jobs. The Republicans were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Today, we will be asked to cast one vote on a package that will dramatically change our Government. With one vote, we will dismantle the Department of Commerce; an agency entrusted with two critically important constitutional functions; that of the census and the filing and protection of patents. We will dismantle an agency that every day impacts millions of Americans. All done without the benefit of any comprehensive committee action. We will forever change health care for millions of low-income women, children, and senior citizens. We will end Federal, uniform nursing home standards implemented less than 10 years ago; we will force more working families into poverty and end any hope of a higher education for thousands of our children. We will forever end Medicare as we know it. It does not surprise me that the Republicans want to end Medicare, as the leader of the Republican Party in the other body has stated, ``I was there fighting the fight, working against Medicare--because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965.'' We will close many rural hosptials; cut WIC, Headstart, and significantly reduce our investment in research and development. All in the hope of economic growth and tax cuts for the very affluent. Once again, our Republican colleagues are asking Members of this body to take a leap of faith on failed economic and budget policies based on failed and misguided predictions. I am hopeful that many of these radical changes will be dropped in conference. It is the only hope we have. I ask all of my colleagues to oppose this package. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], a member of the Committee on the Budget, and an expert on immigration in America. Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in the last election, the American people told us to balance the budget, cut the taxes, and end the gimmicks. They wanted an end to Alice in Budgetland: to the rising tide of red ink that destroys jobs, makes housing and education more expensive, and encourages our addiction to big government. They wanted an end to Alice in Budgetland: to the constant tax increases that take more and more money and decisions away from the American people. They wanted an end to the Alice in Budgetland rosy scenarios, bogus growth numbers, and magic asterisks, the ponzi scheme by which Congress kept spending more of the people's money. Today we keep our word. We have a plan to balance the budget. Our balanced budget plan will mean 1.2 million additional jobs by 2002. Our balanced budget will reduce interest rates, making new homes, college education and start-up businesses more plentiful and affordable. Our plan also increases the power and decision-making of families. It's not just important to balance the budget. It matters how we balance the budget. The family and small business tax relief provisions contained in our plan are essential to returning power and money back home. Without tax relief, we won't return decisions where they belong--to the people who do the work, pay the taxes, raise the children. Without tax relief, we aren't putting people first. Last week in Houston President Clinton stated, ``I think I raised your taxes too much.'' We agree that the President was wrong, and that's why Republicans unanimously opposed the largest tax increase in history. That's why our plan is the only plan that returns some of the money that President Clinton took in 1993. It's the family's money to keep. It's not Washington's money to spend. And only our balanced budget honors hardworking Americans by letting them keep more of what they earn and by spending their money with great care. I urge my colleagues to support this balanced budget. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from my native State of North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy]. Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] for yielding this time to me. The budget before us is truly historic in its dimensions, and perhaps that is the only thing we will all agree about in the course of this debate today. As I see it, the debate between us is not about whether we ought to balance the budget. I think there is broad agreement we ought to move towards that goal. The debate is how we do it, and here is where the conflicting priorities of the parties become very clear. This budget plan is built on a fundamentally flawed premise, that we can balance the budget while financing a tax cut primarily benefiting the most privileged among us. This makes as much sense as a family resolving to get their household's finances in order just as soon as they spend the weekend in Paris once more on that old MasterCard. The consequences of the Republican tax plan are enormous. The wealthiest people in this country get a windfall while working and middle-income Americans lose ground. The tax cut reflects that the driving priority in this budget is to assist the wealthy in becoming even wealthier, and to this end, [[Page H10876]] they have sacrificed health programs for seniors, nutrition programs for kids, the safety net for family farmers, pension security for millions and millions of Americans. In order to accommodate the agenda of the privileged this budget makes devastating tradeoffs that pull support from those who need it and opportunity and hope from millions and millions of middle-class Americans. Make no mistake about it. The bottom line on this budget is more wealth for the richest, less help for the neediest, and reduced hope and opportunity for middle-income families. This bill is more than an historic budget, it is an historic and tragic mistake, on which if enacted will change the character of our great country. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker] Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of clarification I would like to engage the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] in a colloquy. First let me thank the gentleman for his willingness to work with those of us who have been concerned about the public auction of the facilities in the Power Marketing Administration. It is my belief that the study provision contained in this legislation is superior to an outright sale. In fact, this non-biased study will hopefully provide our committee with the needed facts to determine whether or not a sale of the PMA's will be in the best interest of the Government in the long run. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it better end up being better in the long run. I would say to the gentleman I wanted to do it this year, and he said we got to study it for a while, make sure we do the right thing. I agree with the gentleman. Mr. PARKER. However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to seek clarification to determine whether or not the evaluation or study will look at the impact, if there is a sale of the PMA's, on the wholesale and retail electricity rates of the current customers in the affected areas. Mr. KASICH. I think that the gentleman makes a good point, and obviously we want to make sure that, when we do this, we do it right and everybody understands what the impact will be. Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for having yielded to me. The clarification is appreciated. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], a brand-spanking new, fiery member of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this. We have spent a full generation. Now the last time we balanced our budget I was a sophomore in high school. My children are now out of high school and heading on to college. I have got a daughter who is a junior in high school. It has been a full generation since we have balanced our budget. It is time we get it done. Congratulations to the Committee on the Budget, to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], for bringing us a bill that is going to allow us to not only keep our promises, but, more importantly, do what is right for the American people. As my colleagues know, not enough has been made about what happens after we balance the budget. I just heard about the hopes and the dreams of the future of the middle-class America. When we balance the budget, what that means is the Federal Government stops borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars out of the private sector, and, when the Federal Government stops borrowing that money, that money is now available for real people to borrow, and when real people have the opportunity to borrow that money, that means they can buy homes, and they can buy cars, and they can get college loans to go to college, and when they get those loans, the interest rate is going to be lower because there is more access to the money. This is good news for the future of the middle class. As a matter of fact, if somebody were to go out and buy a house today, and they were to borrow $50,000, and we had balanced the budget sooner so the interest rate was 2 points lower, they would save over $1,000 a year in the interest on the payments in that $50,000 loan. {time} 1245 If they borrowed $100,000 to buy a house, they would save $2,000. Almost $200 a month remains in the pockets of the working people of this country because we are about to balance the budget. This is good news for the hopes, for the dreams, for the future of this country. Also, it puts this Nation back on track, that the Nation will be preserved for the next generation. Instead of giving them a legacy of growing debts, we can give our children the hopes and dreams of the future, like we received from our forefathers. In the budget resolution we passed earlier this year, it sets some 7- year targets and it sets some 1-year targets. Again, I commend the Committee on the Budget. This proposal that we have before us today not only hits the 7-year targets, it also hits the first-year targets, and a lot of other political groups would not have done that. I commend the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and the committee for their tireless work at helping us keep our promises to the American people, and strongly urge support of this bill. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro]. Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise just to let our colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, know that in his district 17,179 working families will have their taxes increased by this Republican bill. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lucille Roybal-Allard], a distinguished member of our committee. Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is morally wrong. It does nothing to improve national living standards. Except for the very wealthy, it hurts the majority of hard-working Americans. Three areas illustrate my point. First, the Republican bill cuts taxes for the rich, but raises taxes on the poor. It cuts the earned income tax credit which helps keep 14 million low-paid working families earning $9,500 to $25,000 dollars a year out of poverty. The GOP tax plan will give families earning $350,000 dollars a year a $14,000 tax cut. While the struggling, lowest paid worker must lose an additional $300 to $324 annually. That is wrong. Second, the Republicans cut child and prenatal nutrition programs proven to be good national investments. For every $1 spent on prenatal nutrition, the WIC Program saves the American taxpayer $3.50 in special education and Medicaid expenses. To cut such programs is wrong. Finally, the Republican plan unbelievably repeals the Nursing Home Standards Act of 1987. This act was enacted as a direct response to congressional hearings which revealed widespread abuses in State and privately run nursing homes. Abuses resulting from unsanitary conditions, malnutrition, overmedication, neglect, sexual and physical abuse. Our current law has helped to eliminate these abuses and to improve the quality of life for nursing home seniors. If these standards are eliminated, Republicans condemn our seniors to suffer the horrible abuses of the past. That is wrong. Under the Republican budget reconciliation bill, the rich will be richer, but the living standard of our Nation will be made much poorer. The only good thing about the Republican budget is that it is so extreme and unfair that the President must veto it. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini], the courageous young freshman who is from the State of Bruce Springsteen. Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio. I first would like to compliment him and his committee for the outstanding work he has done on this budget this year. Today we are debating and are about to consider a Budget Reconciliation Act. It struck me coming over here that reconciliation, the very nature of the word itself, suggests a coming together, a solving of differences, and a [[Page H10877]] going forward. I believe that the American people today know that the Federal Government has had extreme problems with its fiscal matters over the years. I think the Americans also know that this majority of Congress has been set to correct those wrongs, but I suspect that the Americans out there still do not know if this Congress has the resolve to do that today. It is no wonder, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, because over the last several weeks all they have heard are distortions and scares, scares intended to stop people in their tracks from going forward. It strikes me as sad that the party whose former leader, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, once gave us the phrase ``We have nothing to fear but fear itself'' now offers us only fear itself and no solutions. Let us just look at the record for a moment, if we may. On June 4, 1992, President Clinton promised a balanced budget. He never delivered. He promised a tax cut for middle-class families. He never delivered. Worse than never delivering, he actually implemented the biggest tax increase in the history of our Nation. Now he has even admitted he raised our taxes too much. He failed to offer a plan to end welfare as we know it, and he stayed on the sidelines as we saved Medicare from going bankrupt. In contrast, this Congress is about keeping promises. We understand the importance of fulfilling our promises to our elderly and our children, and we will do just that. Today, for me, Mr. Chairman, it is indeed humbling to take part in such a historic vote in favor of a more fiscally sound America and a brighter America, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett]. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, 27,641 working families in the district of the gentleman who just spoke will have their taxes increased by this Republican tax increase bill they are approving today. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I join my ranking Member in emphasizing that putting all substance aside, the logistics of bringing this bill to the floor have been an abhorrence not only to the usual committee process but of any democratic process. I want to add a word or two today about the role which the Budget Committee has, or rather could have had, in today's reconciliation bill. Having spent a great deal of my career looking at budget process issues, and in fact, having enjoyed working on a number of those issues with Chairman Kasich, that is what I would like to examine now. I was both surprised and disappointed that this reconciliation bill took a minimalist approach to process reform. Needless to say, this bill is expansive in every other regard. No one single bill has ever entailed such a comprehensive overhaul of Federal Government policy. The other side likes to speak of the Republican revolution and I would, in no way, dispute that this is a revolutionary document. That is why I am disappointed that process reforms which could bring meaningful budget enforcement, greater integrity in the process, and a sense of openness and honesty were left out of the revolution. Two year's ago when we were battling over the 1993 budget reconciliation bill, I engaged in intense negotiations with my leadership to move us closer to enforcement language which would guarantee the deficit reduction promises being made. In particular, we were trying to remove ``uncontrollable'' as an adjective for entitlement spending. The agreement that we reached in 1993 was far less than I wanted, especially with regard to guaranteeing control over the Medicare Program. But do you know what? That agreement showed a lot more enforcement muscle than appears any where in this budget. I received all sorts of Republican lecturing for failing to bring my party to the stronger entitlement control I wanted and yet even that compromise language is missing in this revolution. This bill allows ``uncontrollable'' to continue accurately describing entitlement spending. What else could have been included? Well, the substitute which I am supporting today includes deficit reduction guarantees enforced by sequestration. It has 10 year scorekeeping to make sure that things like grossly ballooning tax cuts start showing up beyond the curtains on current budget windows. Our substitute has process reforms like line item veto and a deficit reduction lock box, which the majority of this House has said it supports. It also adopts numerous provisions borrowed from previously bipartisan bills which many people standing on the other side of the floor right now not only supported but co-authored--things like baseline reform, controlling emergency spending, continuing resolution reform. Where are those provisions today? How did they get left out of the revolution? For a party which has made a mantra of ``Promises Made-- Promises Kept'' why were not some of the promise-keepers built into this bill? I urge my colleagues to vote no on the base bill and vote yes on the substitute which actually has a chance of maintaining the many promises being made today. Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California. Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. This is a defining time and a defining vote. Very few here have made every vote in the last two Congresses to achieve significant and fair deficit reduction--beginning with support of the 1993 budget which has halved our deficit to the lowest level in a generation and decreased it for 3 years straight. I have made each of those tough deficit cutting votes. And today I will continue to stand up for fairness, for balance, for deficit reduction, and for bipartisanship. In this spirit, I strongly oppose H.R. 2491 as drafted because it funds ill-timed tax cuts by raising the deficit in the short-term and hurting our most vulnerable populations--seniors and children--with devastating Medicare cuts and the termination of Medicaid as a guaranteed safety net for nursing home residents. I strongly support the bipartisan coalition substitute which defers tax cuts until we have achieved a balanced budget, treats cost-of- living increases in a non-inflationary manner, and preserves Medicaid, including regulations against nursing home abuse. In my view, the Medicare cuts in the coalition substitute are deeper than what I would like to see, but this bipartisan effort sets a marker for further discussion. I have met with hundreds of seniors in my district, and will stand with them as we work for the fairest compromise within tough budgetary constraints. Had H.R. 2491 been drafted with real public input, I believe its contents would be different. Now with its expected passage and its expected veto by the President, the real debate must start. Every Federal program, every Federal dollar should be on the table as we debate--openly and in a bipartisan manner--how to share sacrifice and how to share benefits. Every program. Every person. But the operative word is balance--a balanced budget, balanced sacrifice, balanced benefit, and an open and balanced process. Let's begin anew. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to say is I would not vote for the plan described by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], and I do not think anybody on this side of the aisle would, but that is not our plan. That does not seem to matter to the gentleman from Minnesota and others. We have had a budget deficit that has gone up and up and up, a debt that has gone from $385 billion 25 years ago to $4,900 billion, or $4.9 trillion. Our colleagues on that side of the aisle who have been in power for 40 years have had a chance to deal with that issue. We need to get our financial house in order, and we need to balance our Federal budget. We need to save our trust funds, particularly Medicare, and we need to transform our social and corporate welfare State into an opportunity society. [[Page H10878]] The bottom line and the most difficult part is saving our trust funds. We know what the board of trustees of the Federal hospital insurance trust fund have said. they have said that in basically 7 years the Medicare part A trust fund literally goes bankrupt, but nobody on that side of the aisle even wanted to address it until a few weeks ago. We are addressing that fund. We are making sure that $333 billion benefits the Medicare part A trust fund, and $137 billion benefits the Medicare part B trust fund. We have extended its insolvency and its ultimate bankruptcy from the year 2002 to the year 2010. What is so important about the year 2010? That is when the baby boomers start to get into this fund. At that point, we have the baby boomers from year 2010 to the year 2030. By the year 2030, baby boomers from the age 65 to 85 will be in the fund. What does that mean? We have workers right now, three and one-half workers are working for each individual in the trust fund. Right now three and one-third workers work for every person in the Social Security trust fund. By the year 2030, 35 years from now, there will only be two workers. We are talking about what has happened over the last 40 years, and particularly, the last 25. Our Congresses and, regretfully, our Presidents have mortgaged the farm, and now we are trying to buy it back for our kids. this is about kids. It is about saving this country. I could not be more proud to be part of this reconciliation act. My only regret is that the President has not joined in in this effort. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, looking at the numbers as the gentleman referred to, I discovered he only has 11,000 families eligible for low-income tax credit, one of the lowest in the country. They are going to be hurt, but let me assure the gentleman from Connecticut, all the rich constituents he has are not going to be hurt. They are going to prosper. They are going to do well. His district does not resemble America. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]. I served under them this session on the Committee on the Budget. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the reconciliation bill we will consider today. Why are poor Americans being asked to shoulder most of the pain in balancing the Federal budget and paying for tax breaks for the wealthy? The answer is that they are a convenient target. Poor people can't afford to hire lobbyists to protect their interests. We all know that cutting the Federal budget deficit is painful, but this debate isn't about pain and suffering. It is about fairness. Most of the cuts in the reconciliation bill reported by the Committee on the Budget fall on low-income Americans. The reported bill cuts $221 billion from entitlements, and $192 billion of these--87 percent--are in two Federal programs that help poor and low income Americans: Medicaid and student loans. The Budget Committee also approved $53 billion in increased taxes, and $27 billion--51 percent--are reductions in the earned income tax credit for working Americans and low-income housing credits. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means recently justified the changes in the earned income tax credit by arguing, and I quote, ``Simply put, the EITC is going to people with incomes that are too high.'' Too high? Should a single hard-working person with no children earning $8,200 a year, or $4 an hour, have her Federal income tax raised by $101 a year? Should working people struggling to get by help pay for a tax cut that goes mainly to the small minority--12 percent of all families--that earn over $100,000 a year? This bill is simply unfair. What happened to the Republican pledge in January that it would require a three-fifths vote to raise income taxes because the Republicans said they wanted to ``help'' working Americans? Today the Republicans are waiving this requirement. People are going to bear the burden for these false promises. The Republicans' plan to cut Florida's Medicaid payments by 26 percent over the next 7 years will have a devastating effect on Miami. Jackson Memorial Hospital accounts for 30 percent of all hospital admissions in Miami. This year Medicaid will supply $438 million to Jackson Memorial, or about 40 percent of its total revenues. What will happen to health care for the poor if Jackson Memorial runs out of Medicaid money in October under the Republican scheme? Will they stop delivering babies? Will they stop vaccinating children in November and December? Is this fair? Last week the Republicans voted to increase part B Medicare premiums. This week they are cutting Medicaid. What will happen to the elderly when Florida runs out of Medicaid money and can no longer pay for the Medicare part B premiums of the elderly? What will happen to the elderly who are now in nursing homes when Florida runs out of Medicaid money? Will the elderly be put out in the street? The Republicans opposed my efforts to make the Medicaid formula fairer. Twice I tried to have the entire House decide whether to accept the Medicaid formula adopted by the Senate Finance Committee, which is fairer and helps ease the burden of these cuts on States like Florida. But twice every Republican voted ``no'' even though my amendment would have helped a majority of the Republican Members. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the simple fact of the matter is under the House plan the earned income tax credit is going to go up by 40 percent. Forty percent may not be enough for some that want to drive it up 60, 70, 80 percent. Forty percent is a generous increase. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke]. Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Budget and my fellow Buckeye for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I listen to this debate and I just cannot conceive of how Americans watching it in their homes could be anything but confused, because we bandy about the word ``cut'' in such a disgraceful, shameless, and such a completely inaccurate way. The fact is we are going to increase the spending on the earned income tax credit from $22 billion in 1995 to $32 billion in 2002. Overall, this budget goes from one trillion five hundred billion to one trillion eight hundred billion; Medicare goes up from $170 billion to $244 billion; education and student loans goes up from $24 billion to $36 billion. That is a 50 percent increase. Yet all we hear from the other side is cut, cut, cut. {time} 1300 Where is the cut? It is that kind of abusive language that makes it so impossible for average Americans to decipher what the heck is going on and to make the kind of judgments that they need to be able to make in order to evaluate their representatives. In fact, the only cut that I am aware of, the only real cut in this budget has to do with foreign aid, and that is a real cut. What is the good side, what is the upside of all of this? The upside of all of this in terms of balancing the budget, the biggest impact on American families will be with respect to what it does to interest rates, and that is a profound impact. It is not just a fog of numbers, it is not just accounting, it really makes a difference in terms of what those dollars mean to the average American working family. DRI/McGraw Hill has said that it is a 2.7 percentage point difference as a result of balancing the budget. On a $100,000 mortgage, on a $100,000 mortgage, that amounts to about $225 per month more in the hands of the people that earn that money. That has a profound impact on a student loan. There is a tremendous difference, as well as on a car payment. The good news is that balancing the budget puts more money in the pockets of the people that make it. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green. Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in response to my colleague [[Page H10879]] from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], the last speaker, does the gentleman know that in his district 22,659 working families will have their taxes increased by this bill? Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett]. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, our Republican budget chief is exactly right. This is a debate about promises, and how you feel about the promises depends on where you are sitting on the economic ladder of this country. If you are way up there on top, at the apex of the American economy, sitting on a cushion sipping champagne, you got your promise fulfilled by in Republican Party bountifully, because the better off are going to get a little more better off today. If you are one of the great corporations of America that back in the days of yesteryear never paid a dime of taxes on billions of dollars of profit, you also can smile. You are better off today. You will pay zero, zip, not a dime under the repeal of the minimum tax credit. Mr. Chairman, but what if you are not way up there on top? What if you are down on the lower rungs, just trying to struggle and make ends meet and get your kids through school? Well, those people on the economic ladder have a broken promise. If you are on Medicare, well, you get the new Republican sick tax. Yesterday, Bob Dole was boasting, he voted against Medicare, and Newt Gingrich said, well, we will just let it wither on the vine. The Republicans lever a hefty sick tax because they want to help those who are well. Very well. Well off. If you make $30,000 or less, these Republicans are going to raise your taxes, plain and simple. To the many who are trying to climb up that economic ladder and share in the American dream, they stomp on their working fingers as they try to climb up that ladder. That is why we call it Wreckonciliation, because it wrecks working families that are trying to make a go of it. It wrecks seniors who are going to have to pay that Republican sick tax. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], a member of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the only thing that we will wreck if we do not pass this reconciliation bill is the American family. Let us talk about exactly what is going to happen to spending over the next 7 years. If we do nothing, Federal spending will rise by 37 percent. If we pass reconciliation, which we will do later on today, Federal spending, we are really going to tighten our belts for the next 7 years. We are only going to allow Federal spending to increase by 27 percent. I came out of the private sector, and I would have loved any budget that over 7 years would have allowed me to increase spending by 27 percent. We are asking the Federal Government to get spending under control and have a gentle slope toward balancing the budget. Spending goes up in every category. Total spending goes up. Welfare reform, welfare spending goes up. Medicare spending goes up. Per beneficiary on Medicare goes from $4,800 to $6,700. We are trying to manage health care growth to 5 percent per year. Medicaid spending goes up. Spending on student loans. Student loan spending goes by 37 percent over the next 7 years. School lunches. We heard that those were gone. Spending on school lunches goes up by 4.5 percent per year. This is a reasonable budget; this is a commonsense reconciliation. Common people, on the street every day would love to have a budget at their house that would go up by 3 percent per year and be asked to manage to that. This makes sense. This is reform that we can manage too. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink]. Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, to my dear friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], I just wonder if he knew that in his district 23,679 working families will have their taxes increase by their Republican reconciliation. Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the omnibus bill that I believe is a major step backwards for our Nation. I am committed to ensure our Nation's fiscal integrity. Our obligation to our future and our children demands decisive and decidedly different action to effect a disciplined conduct in our fiscal business. But the Republican package is not the answer. It is an attack on the middle class and poor Americans. Mr. Chairman, I supported the Balanced Budget Amendment. I voted for the Stenholm budget, which would have achieved a surplus by 2002, and I will support the Orton alternative that also puts us on a path to a balanced budget by 2002. But I do not support tax cuts until we get our fiscal House in order. Balance the budget first and then consider tax reductions. Half of the bill's tax breaks go to those who make more than $100,000 a year, while the lowest 20 percent of income earners will see their taxes go up. That is not right. If the Republicans were not so committed to tax breaks for the wealthy, this legislation would not include the draconian cuts that I oppose so strongly. One example of the bill's attack on the middle class is provisions on Federal employees. While I am pleased that the parking provision has been dropped, what remains is still unfair and unwarranted. In addition to the dramatic reductions in the earned income tax credit which has been spoken of, this bill makes very serious cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Over $450 billion in health care cuts for seniors families and children. Furthermore, the Republican proposals for welfare reform are weak on work and tough on kids; they are tougher on kids than they are on the deadbeat dads who walk out on those kids. The Orton substitute will effect real welfare change and require those who can work to work regularly. These are just a few examples of what I believe our priorities must be. Not tax cuts in the face of deficits, but fiscally responsible policies that serve our Nation's needs, promote the American economy, and effect a balanced budget by the year 2002. I urge defeat of the Gingrich-Kasich budget. Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler]. (Mr. CHRYLSER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand in this House today in support of our plan to balance the Federal budget over the next 7 years. It is the most compassionate thing that we can do for the children of America. One of the best ways to help the children in America is to help their mom and dad, and let them have the basic human dignity and pride that comes from bringing home a paycheck. We need less government and lower taxes; we need to let people keep more of what they earn and save, and we need to let people make their own decisions on how they spend their money, not government. As the head of the task force to dismantle the Commerce Department, I know we found a good place to start in rightsizing the Federal Government. Former Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher put it best when he recently called his old department, ``Nothing more than a hall closet where you throw everything that you don't know what to do with.'' In fact, 60 percent of the Department has nothing to do with commerce. In a recent Business Week poll, senior business executives said to eliminate the Department of Commerce by a two-to-one margin. Why? Because if the Commerce Department were truly the voice of business, they would be supporting a cut in capital gains tax; they would be supporting tort reform and regulatory reform, and balancing the Federal budget. In fact, the Department of Commerce is diametrically opposed to all of them. Our plan simply makes more sense than current hodgepodge programs huddled at the agency that some now call the Department of Miscellaneous Affairs. Mr. Chairman, our efforts to dismantle the Department of Commerce will [[Page H10880]] streamline and improve Federal efforts on behalf of American businesses and save billions of dollars, giving taxpayers and their children their money's worth. Everyone in my district, in my State, and America are better off, and 88 percent of them say, balance the Federal budget. Last week, House Republicans unveiled their final plan to dismantle one of least defensible Departments in government: the Department of Commerce. As Majority Leader Dick Armey noted, for the first time in history, the American people will see a Cabinet chair carried out of the Cabinet Room at the White House and placed in a museum with other artifacts from American history. Our plan to dismantle the Commerce Department is the first step in our mission to downsize a bloated Federal government that is too big and spends too much money. It will begin to put out-of-control government growth in reverse and will save taxpayers at least $6 billion over the next 7 years, a significant down payment on our plan to balance the Federal budget. Nothing so clearly demonstrates the need to streamline the Federal Government more than the Commerce Department. Accordingly to the Department's own inspector general, this agency is a loose collection of over 100 unrelated programs. In fact, today's Department is involved in everything from managing fish farms to predicting the weather to promoting new technology. What Commerce officials describe as ``synergy'' among Commerce's wide-ranging functions, most reasonable people simply call confusion. What most people believe is the real mission of the Department of Commerce, promoting the interests of American business throughout the glo