Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster]. (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], a member of the committee. (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the ranking member and former chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, in order to close, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my Republican colleagues for the rule they are recommending today. So far this year, the rules they have recommended have been 70 percent closed. This is in spite of their promises to open the process in the House. However, since the rule before us today is an open rule, I must commend the Republican majority. As my colleague described, this rule provides for the consideration of a relatively noncontroversial Coast Guard authorization. It authorizes $3.7 billion for the Coast Guard--exactly the amount requested by the administration and only slightly more than last year's authorization. The 37,000 members of the Coast Guard provide this Nation with invaluable maritime service for everything from search and rescue to drug interdiction and this $3.7 billion will support their good work. I would like to commend Chairman Shuster and ranking member Mineta for putting together a truly bipartisan bill which should pass the House with little opposition. I urge my colleagues to support this rare open rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no other Members in the Chamber requesting time at this point, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. The Senate has not voted on the conference report yet. The Senate is going to have to vote anyway, so we are just giving them an opportunity to vote on something that makes some sense. There is a lot of dust on the other side. They are very nervous. It is obvious they are having to defend something that is almost indefensible. Let us talk about what is really going on here. We are talking about basic patriotism on the part of Americans and basic fairness. Let me give a little personal history, and I know the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] has a comparable personal history. My great grandfather came to this country from Lithuania on a very dangerous ship, almost died on that trip, came here, was a peddler with a pack on his back, worked a territory in Texas, got enough capital to start a little store on the town square in a small town, made a little money. He would never have renounced his American citizenship. No one in my family, no matter how much money they made, would ever have renounced their American citizenship to get a tax break. That is incredible, that this side is trying to defend renouncing your American citizenship so you can get a tax break. Let me give another personal example. My wife was born in Panama of American parents who worked at the Canal Zone. She had dual citizenship until she turned 18. She renounced her Panamanian citizenship. She would never have renounced her American citizenship. This is absolutely extraordinary that they stand here and defend the right of wealthy people to renounce their American citizenship to save dollars. It makes no sense whatsoever. And no wonder they are so nervous on that side, no wonder they are so agitated by a little light that is being shed.

Mr. FROST. It goes back to the full Senate for another vote, that is correct. That is exactly what it means.

Mr. FROST. The gentleman is correct. That is what it says, shall be deemed to be rejected, and it shall be in order to consider in the House a motion, if offered by Representative Gibbons of Florida or his designee to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 831, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to recede and concur in the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in section 2 of the resolution.

Mr. FROST. That is correct, and it shall be in order.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], I have a copy of the amendment to the rule that we propose to offer in front of me and it does not send this matter back to the conference committee. What it does is simply amend what is before us and send it back to the full Senate for another vote, it does not send it back to the conference committee, it sends it back to the Senate for another vote on their original provision.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear what we intend to do. If the previous question is defeated, we will propose a rule which would recede and concur with the Senate amendment with an amendment to reinstate the Senate provision regarding renouncement of citizenship to avoid taxes. This will have the effect of agreeing to the provisions included in section 5 of the Senate amendment, which changed the tax treatment of U.S. citizens who relinquish their citizenship to avoid paying taxes. This is exactly the same conference report that was filed yesterday, except for this one addition, so we agreed clearly to go forward with taking care of the deductibility issue for insurance. There is no question about that. There is no disagreement on that. The only thing we want to do by defeating the previous question is reinstate the Senate provision, making sure that people who leave this country and renounce their citizenship are subject to our tax law. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the Democratic leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].