[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 72 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4188-H4226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
455 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 concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 284.

                              {time}  1105


                     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 concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 284) revising the congressional 
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 1998, 
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government 
for fiscal year 1999, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels 
for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, with Mr. Hefley (Chairman 
pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on the 
legislative day of Thursday, June 4, 1998, all time for general debate 
had expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the concurrent resolution is 
considered read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The amendment in 
the nature of a substitute printed in part 1 of House Report 105-565 is 
considered as an original concurrent resolution for the purpose of 
amendment under the 5-minute rule and is considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1999.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 1998 is hereby revised and replaced 
     and that this is the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 1999 and that the appropriate budgetary levels 
     for fiscal years 2000 through 2003 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,292,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,318,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,331,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,358,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,407,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,452,600,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $0.
       Fiscal year 1999: -$4,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: -$10,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$21,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$28,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: -$37,800,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,359,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,408,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,443,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,477,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,502,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,571,200,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,343,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,401,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,435,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,463,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,473,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,540,700,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $50,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $83,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $104,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $105,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $65,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $88,100,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,436,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,597,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $5,777,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $5,957,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,102,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $6,269,400,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2003 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $274,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $280,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $269,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $272,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $279,800,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,700,000,000.

[[Page H4189]]

       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,500,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,500,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,600,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,600,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,900,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $132,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $143,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $142,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $149,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $149,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $155,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $155,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $163,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $171,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $172,000,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $199,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $199,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $210,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $211,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $221,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $221,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $242,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $251,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $248,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $273,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $273,700,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $229,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $234,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $243,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $247,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $274,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $271,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $284,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $280,400,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,300,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,200,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,500,000,000.

[[Page H4190]]

       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,600,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $290,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $290,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $297,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $297,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $298,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $298,500,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$14,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$14,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,200,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$45,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$45,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$35,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$35,900,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Submissions.--Not later than June 26, 1998, the House 
     committees named in subsection (b) shall submit their 
     recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After 
     receiving those recommendations, the House Committee on the 
     Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill 
     carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive 
     revision.
       (b) Instructions to House Committees.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total 
     level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed: 
     $30,400,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1999 and 
     $157,400,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1999 through 
     2003.
       (2) Committee on banking and financial services.--The House 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending such that the total level of direct spending for 
     that committee does not exceed: -$8,200,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1999 and -$35,100,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
       (3) Committee on commerce.--The House Committee on Commerce 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending such that the total level of direct 
     spending for that committee does not exceed: $417,900,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 1999 and $2,437,900,000,000 in 
     outlays in fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
       (4) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     such that the total level of direct spending for that 
     committee does not exceed: $18,700,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1999 and $100,400,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1999 through 2003.
       (5) Committee on government reform and oversight.--The 
     House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending such that the total level of direct spending 
     for that committee does not exceed: $71,600,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1999 and $384,000,000,000 in outlays 
     in fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
       (6) Committee on the judiciary.--The House Committee on the 
     Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total 
     level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed: 
     $5,200,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1999 and 
     $26,500,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
       (7) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The 
     House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending such that the total level of direct spending 
     for that committee does not exceed: $16,200,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1999 and $78,900,000,000 in outlays 
     in fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
       (8) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The House Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total 
     level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed: 
     $23,800,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1999 and 
     $125,000,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1999 through 
     2003.
       (9) Committee on ways and means.--(A) The House Committee 
     on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction such that the total level of direct spending for 
     that committee does not exceed: $411,100,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1999 and $2,374,800,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
       (B) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction such that the total 
     level of revenues for that committee is not less than: 
     $1,278,500,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 1999 and 
     $6,637,700,000,000 in revenues in fiscal years 1999 through 
     2003.

     SEC. 5. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF COMPENSATION AND PAY FOR 
                   FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       In the House, for purposes of enforcing the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, any bill or joint resolution, or 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, establishing 
     on a prospective basis compensation or pay for any office or 
     position in the Government at a specified level, the 
     appropriation for which is provided through annual 
     discretionary appropriations, shall not be considered as 
     providing new entitlement authority or new budget authority.

     SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, in consultation with the trustees of the social 
     security trust funds, should consider issuing marketable 
     interest-bearing securities to the trust funds for fiscal 
     years beginning after September 30, 1998.

     SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE ACT.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) 33 percent of all American households have no or 
     negative financial assets and 60 percent of African-American 
     households have no or negative financial assets;
       (2) 47 percent of all children in America live in 
     households with no financial assets, including 40 percent of 
     Caucasian children and 75 percent of African-American 
     children;
       (3) in order to provide low-income families with more tools 
     for empowerment in lieu of traditional income support and to 
     assist them in becoming more involved in planning their 
     future, new public-private relationships that encourage 
     asset-building should be undertaken;
       (4) individual development account programs are 
     successfully demonstrating the ability to assist low-income 
     families in building assets while partnering with community 
     organizations and States in more than 40 public and private 
     experiments nationwide; and
       (5) Federal support for a trial demonstration program would 
     greatly assist the creative efforts of existing individual 
     development account experiments.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     legislation should be considered to encourage low-income 
     individuals and families to accumulate assets through 
     contributions to individual development accounts as a means 
     of achieving economic self-sufficiency.

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ON 
                   CLINICAL CANCER TRIALS.

       It is the sense of Congress that legislation should be 
     considered that provides medicare coverage for beneficiaries' 
     participation in clinical cancer trials.

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE INTERIM PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR 
                   HOME HEALTH BENEFITS UNDER MEDICARE.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) there is concern that the interim payment system for 
     home health service has adversely affected some home health 
     care agencies;
       (2) the Administration should ensure that the 
     implementation of the interim payment

[[Page H4191]]

     system does not adversely affect the availability of home 
     health services for medicare beneficiaries;
       (3) Congress should carefully examine the Adminstration's 
     implementation of the home health payment system and make any 
     necessary changes to ensure that the needs of medicare 
     beneficiaries are being met; and
       (4) the Health Care Financing Administration should quickly 
     implement the prospective payment system that was enacted 
     into law last year.

     SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON SPECIAL EDUCATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) Federal courts have found that children with 
     disabilities are guaranteed an equal opportunity to an 
     education under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution;
       (2) Congress responded to these court decisions by enacting 
     the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to 
     ensure free and appropriate public education for children 
     with disabilities;
       (3) IDEA authorizes the Federal Government to provide 40 
     percent of the average per pupil expenditure for children 
     with disabilities;
       (4) the Federal Government has not fully funded IDEA at its 
     authorized levels; and
       (5) if the Federal Government fully funds IDEA, then local 
     school districts will have the flexibility to invest in new 
     technology, hire additional teachers, and purchase books and 
     supplies.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Federal Government should fully fund programs authorized 
     under IDEA and that such funding is of the highest priority 
     among Federal education programs.

     SEC. 11. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON BUDGETARY RULES AND TAX CUTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) in 1990, pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) requirements were 
     enacted to prevent Congress and the President from increasing 
     the deficit;
       (2) under PAYGO requirements, tax legislation must be 
     offset by legislation increasing revenues or reducing 
     entitlement spending;
       (3) these requirements prevent Congress from offsetting tax 
     cuts with discretionary savings or budget surpluses;
       (4) the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 will produce the first 
     surplus in the unified budget in 29 years;
       (5) under current trends, the Federal Government could run 
     an on-budget surplus (which excludes social security and the 
     postal service) as early as fiscal year 1999; and
       (6) while these requirements were useful during a period of 
     chronic deficit spending, they now limit the ability of 
     Congress to allow taxpayers to retain more of their own 
     money.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the reconciliation bill to be considered pursuant to the 
     reconciliation instructions in section 4--
       (1) should permit discretionary savings to be used to 
     offset tax cuts; and
       (2) may make on-budget surpluses available to offset tax 
     cuts.

     SEC. 12. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON TAX RELIEF.

       It is the sense of Congress that the revenue levels set 
     forth in this resolution are predicated on--
       (1) eliminating the marriage penalty over an appropriate 
     period of time; and
       (2) providing tax relief targeted at relieving the tax 
     burden on families, estates, and wages, as well as incentives 
     to stimulate job creation and economic growth.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute is in order except the amendments printed in part 2 of 
that report. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not 
be subject to amendment.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  It is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part 2 
of House Report 105-565.


     Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Neumann

  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Part 2 amendment No. 1 in the nature of a substitute 
     offered by Mr. Neumann:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SECTION 101. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1999.

       The Congress declares that this is the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1999 and that the 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2000 through 
     2003 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 102. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,304,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,314,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,348,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,399,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,452,300,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1999: -$18,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: -$27,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$31,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$36,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: -$38,000,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,385,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,409,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,448,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,426,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,545,600,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,377,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,401,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,433,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,443,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,513,100,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1999: $73,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $87,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $85,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $43,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $60,800,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,596,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $5,777,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $5,957,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,102,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $6,269,300,000,000.

     SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 1999 through 2003 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $278,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $273,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $283,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $301,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $289,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $315,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $297,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $324,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $306,000,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,100,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,900,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority,-$1,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,-$700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority,-$1,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,-$1,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority,-$2,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,-$3,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority,-$6,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,-$6,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority,-$1,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,-$3,100,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):

[[Page H4192]]

       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,200,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,000,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,000,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,100,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,600,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
     Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,000,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $139,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $137,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $141,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $141,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $144,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $144,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $146,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $147,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $151,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $152,400,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $209,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $210,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $220,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $219,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $237,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $240,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $248,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $246,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,400,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $236,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $240,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $245,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $247,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $254,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $254,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $214,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $259,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $271,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,300,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,300,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,200,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $244,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $244,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $238,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $238,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $230,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $230,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $223,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $223,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $217,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $217,400,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority,-$3,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,-$3,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority,-$4,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,-$4,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority,-$9,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,-$,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority,-$9,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,-$9,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority,-$6,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,-$6,000,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority,-$44,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,-$44,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority,-$44,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,-$44,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority,-$46,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,-$46,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority,-$54,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,-$54,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority,-$46,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays,-$46,300,000,000.
                  TITLE II--SENSE OF HOUSE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:

[[Page H4193]]

       (1) The social security program currently collects more in 
     taxes than it pays out in benefits to our country's senior 
     citizens.
       (2) Taxes collected exclusively for the social security 
     program should not be spent on any other program.
       (3) Social security benefits are expected to consistently 
     exceed social security payroll taxes starting in 2013.
       (4) Congress should avoid increasing taxes, increasing 
     borrowing, raising the retirement age, or cutting social 
     security cost-of-living adjustments to pay social security 
     benefits.
       (5) Negotiable treasury bonds are safe, real assets that 
     can be sold for cash when income to the social security trust 
     funds is not sufficient to pay benefits for seniors in 2013.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House 
     that--
       (1) the amount by which social security payroll taxes 
     exceed social security benefits paid shall be invested in 
     negotiable treasury bonds issued by the United States 
     Government and should not be counted as surplus dollars; and
       (2) such negotiable Treasury bonds should be redeemable at 
     any time at the purchase price.

     SEC. 202. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING TAX RELIEF.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that this concurrent 
     resolution dedicates $150,000,000,000 over 5 years to reduce 
     the tax burden on American families.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     these funds should be used to--
       (1) provide across-the-board tax relief by expanding the 15 
     percent tax bracket by 15 percent for married individuals 
     (whether filing a joint or separate return), heads of 
     households, and unmarried individuals;
       (2) eliminate the marriage penalty by making the joint 
     income threshold exactly double that of the individual income 
     threshold in all tax brackets and by making the standard 
     deduction for joint filers exactly double that of individual 
     filers;
       (3) restore the 12-month holding period on capital gains; 
     and
       (4) eliminate the ``death tax''.

     SEC. 203. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE BUDGET SURPLUS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The Congressional Budget Office in its Spring 
     projections has underestimated the revenues collected by the 
     Federal Government for the last 3 years.
       (2) The United States is experiencing remarkable economic 
     growth with no signs of an economic slowdown because the 
     Federal Government is borrowing less from the private sector.
       (3) Revenues to the Federal Government are growing at an 
     annual rate far greater than projected by the Congressional 
     Budget Office in March 1998.
       (4) The Federal Government will likely receive 
     significantly more revenues in fiscal years 1999 through 2003 
     than projected by the Congressional Budget Office in March 
     1998.
       (5) Revenues received above and beyond those projected by 
     the Congressional Budget Office in March 1998 should not be 
     spent to create more ineffective Washington programs.
       (6) Additional revenues come from American families who are 
     forced to give far too much of their hard-earned income to 
     the Federal Government.
       (7) Working Americans deserve to keep more of their income 
     instead of sending it to Washington, D.C., for Congress to 
     spend.
       (8) Congress irresponsibly spent more than it received over 
     the last 30 years, creating $5,500,000,000,000 Federal debt.
       (9) The Congress and the President have a basic moral and 
     ethical responsibility to future generations to repay the 
     Federal debt, including money borrowed from the social 
     security trust funds.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House 
     that--
       (1) any additional revenues collected by the Federal 
     Government above and beyond the Congressional Budget Office 
     March 1998 projections for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 
     should be divided equally and used to reduce taxes on 
     American families and to pay off the $5,500,000,000,000 
     Federal debt, prioritizing social security;
       (2) such tax reductions should be enacted in the following 
     order--
       (A) expand education individual retirement accounts;
       (B) index capital gains to the rate of inflation;
       (C) immediate 100 percent deduction for health insurance 
     premiums for employees and self-employed;
       (D) eliminate social security earnings limit;
       (E) repeal 1993 tax increase on social security benefits;
       (F) repeal the alternative minimum tax for individuals and 
     corporations; and
       (G) permanently extend the research and development tax 
     credit; and
       (3) efforts to repay the Federal debt should begin by 
     replacing the nonnegotiable Treasury bonds, in the social 
     security trust fund with marketable Treasury bills redeemable 
     at any time for the purchase price.

     SEC. 204. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING TAXES AND 
                   DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) American taxpayers pay too much in taxes to support a 
     Federal Government which is too large.
       (2) Taxpayers should benefit from any changes in law which 
     reduce Federal Government spending.
       (3) Current law prohibits savings from reduced 
     discretionary spending from being passed along to the 
     American people through a reduction in their tax burden.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     budget laws should be changed to allow discretionary spending 
     reductions to be dedicated to tax relief.

     SEC. 205. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING PUTTING SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY FIRST.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The President has encouraged the Congress to put social 
     security first by not spending expected unified budget 
     surpluses, though the Congressional Budget Office estimates 
     that the President's budget for fiscal year 1999 does spend 
     unified budget surpluses.
       (2) The Congress currently has no method for dedicating 
     savings from amendments to appropriation bills for the 
     purpose of putting social security first.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     the Congress should establish a procedure that would allow 
     amendments to appropriation bills to dedicate all budget 
     savings to the President's plan to put social security first.

     SEC. 206. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING EDUCATION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Children in the United States should be the best 
     students in the world.
       (2) Quality education for our children will ensure the 
     United States can compete effectively in the global 
     marketplace.
       (3) Today's students must learn the knowledge and skills 
     which will lead the world in the next century.
       (4) Involving parents in the education of their children 
     increases children's success at school.
       (5) Recent studies by the National Institute of Child 
     Health and Human Development show that increased parental 
     involvement in children's lives leads to fewer teen 
     pregnancies, less drug use, lower crime rates, and improved 
     learning.
       (6) Education is, and should remain, primarily a State and 
     local responsibility.
       (7) It is important to let community members offer 
     suggestions to improve academic achievement within local 
     schools.
       (8) The Federal role in education has failed to produce the 
     desired results.
       (9) Federal regulations and paperwork consume too much of 
     teachers' and administrators' time and energy, as well as 
     taxpayer dollars which could be used to improve education.
       (10) Creating a national testing program would increase the 
     Federal burden on local schools.
       (11) State, local, and private schools deserve flexibility 
     which will allow them to meet the educational needs of 
     children.
       (12) Increasing the role of parents, teachers, and local 
     community members will improve local schools.
       (13) There is not a significant relationship between 
     Federal education spending and academic achievement.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House 
     that--
       (1) the Department of Education, States, and local 
     educational agencies should spend at least 95 percent of 
     Federal education tax dollars in our children's classrooms;
       (2) the Goals 2000 program should be terminated, and funds 
     should be given directly to States and local school 
     districts;
       (3) the Congress should enact legislation to prevent the 
     development and administration of a national testing program; 
     and
       (4) the Department of Education should limit its role in 
     education to functions which cannot be performed by State or 
     local school officials.

     SEC. 207. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING SCHOOL CHOICE FOR THE 
                   CHILDREN OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Children in our Nation's capital deserve to have the 
     best education available.
       (2) Many parents in the District of Columbia would prefer 
     to send their children to the school of their choice, whether 
     public, private, religious, or home.
       (3) Allowing parents to evaluate and choose the proper 
     school for their children gives them an invested interest in 
     helping their children succeed.
       (4) Giving children an opportunity to attend the school 
     which best meets their needs will best prepare them for the 
     future.
       (5) Letting parents choose a school which reflects the 
     moral or religious beliefs of their children will enhance the 
     children's character and learning experience.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     there should be a Federal pilot program to provide low-income 
     children in the District of Columbia with the opportunity to 
     attend the public, private, religious, or home school of 
     their parents' choice.

     SEC. 208. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING PARTIAL-BIRTH 
                   ABORTIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Partial-birth abortions allow a child to be delivered 
     until only its head remains in the birth canal.
       (2) Partial-birth abortions involve piercing the child's 
     skull and removing its brain.

[[Page H4194]]

       (3) A large majority of Americans object to partially 
     delivering a child and then killing it.
       (4) Both Houses of Congress have consistently supported 
     legislation to ban partial-birth abortions.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     partial-birth abortions should be banned in the United States 
     unless such a procedure is needed to save the life of the 
     mother.

     SEC. 209. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-
                   SPONSORED PROMOTION OF ABORTION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Title X of the Public Health Service Act was enacted to 
     help reduce the unplanned pregnancy rate, especially among 
     teenagers.
       (2) Title X has not only failed to reduce the teenage 
     pregnancy rate, out-of-wedlock births, and sexually 
     transmitted diseases, it has made these problems worse.
       (3) Taxpayer-funded title X family planning clinics are 
     currently required to counsel pregnant girls and women about 
     all of their ``pregnancy management options'', including 
     abortion.
       (4) Title X clinics also require clinic staff, following 
     such ``counseling,'' to refer girls and women who want an 
     abortion to clinics that perform them.
       (5) Many of these abortion clinics are operated by the same 
     organizations that operate title X clinics.
       (6) The United States Government through title X is using 
     taxpayer dollars to subsidize activities destructive to human 
     life.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize abortion or 
     organizations that promote or perform abortions.

     SEC. 210. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING TITLE X FUNDING.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The title X of the Public Health Service Act family 
     planning program provides contraceptives, treatment for 
     sexually transmitted diseases, and sexual counseling to 
     minors without parental consent or notification.
       (2) Almost 1,500,000 American minors receive title X family 
     planning services each year.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     organizations or businesses which receive funds through 
     Federal programs should obtain parental consent or 
     confirmation of parental notification before contraceptives 
     are provided to a minor.

     SEC. 211. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING INTERNATIONAL 
                   POPULATION CONTROL PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) There is international consensus that under no 
     circumstances should abortion be promoted as a method of 
     family planning.
       (2) The United States provides the largest percentage of 
     population control assistance among donor nations.
       (3) The activities of private organizations supported by 
     United States taxpayers are a reflection of United States 
     priorities in developing countries, and United States funds 
     allow these organizations to expand their programs and 
     influence.
       (4) The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) recently 
     signed a 4-year, $20,000,000 contract with the People's 
     Republic of China (PRC) which persists in coercing its people 
     to obtain abortions and undergo involuntary sterilizations.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House 
     that--
       (1) United States taxpayers should not be forced to support 
     international family planning programs;
       (2) if the Congress is unwilling to stop supporting 
     international family planning programs with taxpayer dollars, 
     the Congress should limit such support to organizations that 
     certify they will not perform, or lobby for the legalization 
     of, abortions in other countries; and
       (3) United States taxpayers should not be forced to support 
     the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA) if it is 
     conducting activities in the People's Republic of China (PRC) 
     and the PRC's population control program continues to utilize 
     coercive abortion.

     SEC. 212. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Human life is a precious resource which should not be 
     created or destroyed simply for scientific experiments.
       (2) A human embryo is a human being that must be accorded 
     the moral status of a person from the time of fertilization.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     Congress should prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars for the 
     creation of human embryos for research purposes and research 
     in which human embryos are knowingly destroyed.

     SEC. 213. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING HUMAN CLONING.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Scientists around the world are actively participating 
     in experiments which attempt to clone animals.
       (2) Several of these experiments have succeeded in creating 
     genetic clones of animals.
       (3) The technology used in such experiments could be used 
     to create genetically identical human beings;
       (4) It is unethical and immoral to experiment with the 
     creation of human life.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     any research on the cloning of humans should by prohibited by 
     Federal law.

     SEC. 214. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Traditional marriages consist of one man and one woman.
       (2) Strong families are the cornerstone of our society and 
     our country.
       (3) Children benefit from strong families.
       (4) The Congress passed and the President signed into law 
     legislation defining marriage as the union between one man 
     and one woman for purposes of Federal programs.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     future legislation and regulations should recognize the 
     importance of the traditional family in the United States.

     SEC. 215. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT 
                   FOR THE ARTS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The Federal Government's involvement in funding for the 
     arts has become increasingly controversial.
       (2) Millions of United States taxpayers have been forced to 
     support both artists and organizations to which they object.
       (3) The National Endowment for the Arts, despite 
     congressional instructions to avoid controversial subject 
     matters, continues to subsidize offensive art.
       (4) More than 99 percent of funding for the arts is 
     obtained from private sources.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     funding for the National Endowment for the Arts should be 
     eliminated.

     SEC. 216. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING FOREIGN AID.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The nation of Israel has been a reliable and dependable 
     ally to the United States.
       (2) The United States' support for Israel is vital to 
     achieving peace in the Middle East.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     aid to Israel should not be reduced.

     SEC. 217. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) One of the most basic human rights is the right to 
     religious freedom.
       (2) The United States has a strong history of protecting 
     individuals' right to religious liberty and encouraging other 
     countries to do the same.
       (3) Recent reports indicate that several countries continue 
     to persecute individuals based on their religious beliefs.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     the United States should encourage other countries to protect 
     religious freedom and allow their citizens to practice the 
     faith that they choose without retribution.
       Amend the title so as to read: ``A concurrent resolution 
     establishing the congressional budget for the United States 
     Government for fiscal year 1999 and setting forth appropriate 
     budgetary levels for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 
     2003.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann).
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, the Conservative Action Team, or CATs, 
was founded to get this Congress back on track with the agenda the 
American people sent us to achieve in 1994. Today we bring before this 
House a budget that does exactly that. In fact the CATs budget proposal 
which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and others in CATs have worked so hard on is 
the only conservative budget before this House today. It is the only 
budget to hold the line on government spending to at or below 
inflation. It is the only budget that returns $150 billion in tax 
relief to all Americans, to families and to small businesses. It is the 
only budget which preserves and protects Social Security by putting 
real assets into the trust fund, and the only budget that strengthens 
our national defense.
  The American people want us to hold the line on spending. In a recent 
poll conducted by Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, 90 percent of Americans 
believe that we should hold the rate of growth of government to 
inflation or below the rate of inflation. The CATs budget, as this 
chart shows, is the only budget that holds spending below the rate of 
inflation, the only balanced budget that reflects that priority of 90 
percent of Americans.
  The CATs budget saves $280 billion in spending off of the projected 
levels of spending. Many in Washington call

[[Page H4195]]

that a cut. However, when you are increasing by 2.6 percent, although 
it is below the rate of inflation, only in Washington would that be 
referred to as a cut.
  The CATs budget is the only budget to cut taxes. We have $150 billion 
in tax cuts. It is the only budget that will cut it by that amount. 
President Clinton in his budget raises taxes by $120 billion. This 
Congress in the last vote rejected that budget overwhelmingly. The 
Committee on the Budget cuts taxes by $100 billion. But the CATs budget 
would provide $150 billion in tax cuts, relief for all Americans, 
including total elimination of the marriage penalty, an across-the-
board tax cut for all Americans by increasing the 15 percent bracket, a 
cut in capital gains, and elimination of the death taxes.
  If the economy continues to grow, the CATs budget will be able to 
have $480 billion in tax cuts, allowing us full deductibility of health 
insurance, indexing of capital gains, repealing of the alternative 
minimum tax, providing for educational savings accounts, and repealing 
President Clinton's tax increase on Social Security.
  The way we do this is by designating 50 percent of any additional 
revenue collected beyond that projected so that if the economy 
continues to grow, 50 percent of that extra revenue will go to tax 
cuts, 50 percent will go to pay off the $5.5 trillion national debt.
  The CATs budget addresses the moral imperative of protecting Social 
Security. One of Washington's dirty little secrets is that Social 
Security tax surpluses are being set aside and saved for future 
generations. In reality, for 20 years they have been spent on 
government programs. The CATs budget puts real assets into the Social 
Security trust fund by purchasing negotiable Treasury bonds. We put 
$275 billion in real assets into Social Security.
  National security is also a priority in the CATs budget. We make our 
national defense a priority, because today we read about China being 
given national security secrets so that they can develop nuclear 
weapons that will hit every State in the union. India and Pakistan are 
becoming nuclear powers. Saddam Hussein has been able to thumb his nose 
at President Clinton who cannot re-create the Gulf War to stop him 
because we have cut our defenses too much. In fact, President Clinton's 
defense budget request, $270 billion for next year, represents a 1.1 
percent decrease in real terms for defense spending. This is a 39 
percent drop from the spending levels of the 1980s. As a result, we 
hear about jet fighters not able to fly because their parts are being 
cannibalized, about soldiers training without bullets because there are 
no supplies, about men and women in our armed forces being sent out on 
active duty twice as long as during the Cold War because there are not 
enough ships in our Navy, not enough divisions in our Army, not enough 
battalions in our Marines and not enough air wings in our Air Force. So 
critical is this problem that it is now questionable whether we are 
able to meet our global responsibilities or counter hostile powers in 
an increasingly unstable and dangerous world. The CATs budget increases 
defense spending by 56 percent over the budget agreement. This is the 
amount equal to inflation and would allow America to continue to be the 
preeminent superpower.
  Mr. Chairman, while all of us are pleased with the committee's 
budget, specifically its commitment to eliminate the marriage penalty, 
we can do more and we must do more. The CATs budget demonstrates that 
this is very possible. We make government smaller, we provide overdue 
tax relief for Americans, we protect Social Security, and we increase 
spending on national defense.
  I urge all of my colleagues and certainly all of my colleagues who 
wish to call themselves a conservative, vote for the Conservative 
Action Team budget so that we can put this Congress back on track the 
way the American people want us to go in this year, 1998. I commend the 
members of the CATs team who worked on this budget.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I have not had the opportunity to read the 
Neumann substitute, but I have read the Kasich resolution, and I have 
read the report that accompanied that resolution, dated May 12, which 
amplified where the cuts he was proposing might come from.
  I would like to pose some questions to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Neumann), the sponsor of this substitute, which I will allow him 
to answer on his time because I do not have enough myself to grant him, 
but here are the questions:
  I am concerned, interested, curious to know if the gentleman's 
substitute corrects what I view as some serious faults, defects, 
shortcomings, inequities in the Kasich resolution. Does he correct 
these problems or in his zeal for a bigger tax cut does he actually 
make them worse?
  First issue raised on the floor last night: The Kasich resolution 
delivers America's veterans a double whammy. They have already suffered 
a $10 to $17 billion extinguishment of their disability rights when in 
the transportation bill we wiped out their rights to smoking-related 
disability benefits. And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield at the end, and I 
will give the gentleman from Wisconsin a list of these things so he can 
respond to it because it is a rather lengthy list.
  The Kasich resolution, despite the fact that the transportation bill 
has already extinguished those benefits, the Kasich resolution has 
reconciliation directions in it to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
which calls on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to cut veterans' 
benefits by another $10 billion. I would like to know if the 
gentleman's resolution does the same thing or does he correct this 
gross inequity?
  Another point: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) in a last-minute 
move shifted $10 billion in cuts from Medicare over to the account 
known as income security, and we all know where that cut is coming out 
of. It is coming out of the welfare block grant, the so-called TANF 
block grant.
  The gentleman's governor, Governor Tommy Thompson, wrote a stinging 
letter yesterday with nine other governors calling that deduction, $10 
billion out of the TANF block grant, a breach of the agreement that the 
Governors made with the Federal Government when they signed off on 
welfare reform. He and Governor Tom Ridge and Governor Tom Carper and 
Governor John Engler, 10 governors altogether, have written opposition 
to that in a stinging letter. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin correct 
this problem?
  Now just a minute ago, another point, the House voted overwhelmingly 
to denounce the President of the United States for including user fees 
of various kinds in his budget. As a matter of fact, if my colleagues 
read the Kasich budget closely, they will find that the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has seven new user fees in his budget. These user 
fees altogether cost $11 billion. Here is a list of them. I will let my 
colleague look at them, $11 billion in user fees.
  In light of the resolution we just adopted, in light of the motion to 
recommit, the resolution that we just defeated, does the gentleman 
include these fees in his budget also, or does he plan to exclude those 
fees since the House has overwhelmingly said it disapproves of them?
  Another point: The Kasich budget cuts energy. It is hard to tell 
where those cuts are coming from. He wants to abolish the Energy 
Department. But one of the things he wants to do, according to the May 
12 report, is sell at least three power marketing administrations: 
Southwest and Southeast. And these power marketing administrations have 
a one-time return to the government of about $3 billion.
  Since the gentleman is seeking an additional $50 billion in cuts, 
does he want to sell not just three power marketing administrations but 
five or six or all of them? Does he want to sell Bonneville? TVA?
  The Kasich resolution also cuts law enforcement, incredibly cuts law 
enforcement. Here we are seeing a reduction in violent crime 
persistently over the last 3 to 4 years, and the Kasich budget would 
cut law enforcement by $8 billion. This would whack the FBI; it would 
whack the Drug Enforcement Administration. It would mean the end of 
community policing, a very popular

[[Page H4196]]

program that has put 80,000 police on the streets of America.
  Crimes rates are coming down. Does my colleague want to pull a bunch 
on crime? Is he going to take $8 billion out of the crime program?
  Medicaid. Last year one of the greatest things we did in the balanced 
budget agreement was balance the budget but show that we could still 
promote a few priorities, and one of those priorities was children's 
health care. We created the children's health insurance plan at a cost 
of about $16 billion.
  But the Kasich budget comes along and whacks Medicaid by $12 billion, 
whacks the health account by that amount. Does that mean we are not 
going to have a children's health insurance plan? Does the gentleman 
correct that? Does he provide for children's health insurance? Does the 
gentleman also want the acute care under Medicaid to be block granted, 
as Mr. Kasich would, or has he corrected that in his resolution?
  There is a gaping hole, in addition, in the Kasich resolution, a 
black hole, because he does not specify where the increases in the 
highway spending bill which this House and the Senate have already 
enacted $48.8 billion in budget authority, $23.3 billion in outlays 
over the next 5 years. We do not know how that is going to be 
accommodated. What gets bumped? Displaced? Does the gentleman's 
resolution clarify this black hole or does he only deepen it? In his 
zest to go for a $50 billion tax cut, do we now have a $75 billion 
black hole instead of a $25 billion black hole?
  And what about cuts in the environment? That was a protected 
priority. We listed the amount of money we were spending on environment 
each year in the balanced budget agreement. Mr. Kasich cuts the 
environment and natural resources by $4.6 billion. Does the gentleman 
restore that, or do we also take that out?
  And what about education? That was a protected priority. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) would cut education and training, 
would cut education by $5 billion. One of the truly cockamamie ideas, 
if my colleagues will, in this May 12 document was the notion of taking 
title I, one of the most successful programs we have got, a program 
which takes 95 percent of its money and puts it in the classroom, a 
program that helps individual kids keep pace with other kids in their 
peer group, would take that program and convert it from a school grant 
to a student grant, voucherize the title I program. Would the gentleman 
do that, or does he correct that particular deficiency?
  And basically what I would like to know, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kasich) would in effect add about 6 percent of additional cuts to 
discretionary spending, nondefense discretionary spending, meaning that 
overall it would be cut by about 18 percent by the year 2003. Since the 
gentleman is going for an additional $50 billion in tax cuts, will that 
be a 30 percent cut in discretionary spending? A 35 percent cut in 
discretionary spending? Or has the gentleman somehow figured out a way 
to mitigate cuts that I do not believe will ever be made?
  So the bottom line in my request to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Neumann) is does his resolution improve or correct these problems, 
these discrepancies, in the Kasich resolution, or does he worsen them?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond 
briefly.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) leveled 8 attacks 
against the Kasich budget and somehow implied they are about the 
Neumann budget. First of all, they are not. Let me respond to all 
eight:
  False, false, false, false, false, false, false and false.
  And let me respond specifically to the first one as it goes to 
veterans. The Kasich plan, as written, has $6.5 billion more for 
veterans benefits in the spending category than what was called for in 
last year's budget agreement that passed through the House and was 
signed into law.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues believe 
their constituents are overtaxed, then they ought to vote for this 
budget. This budget is the only one that we will debate that puts 
taxpayers first and stops wasting their money in Washington.
  Each year the average American works until May of each year just to 
pay their taxes. If we add State, local and Federal taxes together, and 
the average family of four pays almost 40 percent of their income in 
taxes, that is more than we pay for food, clothing and housing 
combined.
  The American people deserve to have that corrected, and this budget 
does that.
  This conservative action team budget will return to the American 
people more than $150 billion in their tax money providing across-the-
board tax relief, eliminating the marriage penalty, eliminating the 
estate or death tax and restoring a 12-month holding period on capital 
gains. The American people need real reform from the crushing burden of 
taxes, and this budget provides it.
  Now we have been talking about defense. This is the only budget that 
increases our Nation's defense spending by $56 billion in order to just 
keep up with inflation. No other budget does it.
  Recent events in India and Pakistan remind us what history has taught 
us. Americans cannot ensure economic security for our families unless 
we have real security in our defense of the Nation. In order to provide 
security we have got to invest in our Nation's defense. A strong 
defense is the only way America can remain the No. 1 leader in the 
world, and this budget is the only one that just barely maintains the 
defense at just inflation level. It is our duty, in fact it is our 
primary function, I believe, in this Congress to ensure the security of 
these United States. Let us do it. It is imperative to our survival. 
This budget plan returns the most money to hard-working American 
families, helps preserve the Social Security and shores up our national 
defense.
  As my colleagues know, Americans want, need and deserve tax relief. 
This is an all American budget and deserves my colleagues' votes.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Neumann CAT 
budget and the Kasich Republican budget and in support of the 
bipartisan Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which is incorporated in the 
Spratt substitute.
  Last year we worked together, Democrats and Republicans. We produced 
a balanced budget and a surplus this year, the growth in our economy. 
Since 1993 we brought the deficits down from $300 billion to now we 
have a $40 billion plus surplus.
  The Republican Kasich budget is a partisan blowup of that agreement. 
It would return us to large deficits and/or irresponsible, extreme 
budget cuts.
  My Republican friends claim this is just a 1 percent cut in the 
budget, yet when we look at what they are trying to fund, the hundred 
billion dollars tax cut, the transportation bill that has already been 
passed, other spending that the Republicans would increase and the fact 
that 2 out of every $3 in the Federal budget are exempt from any of 
these cuts, then most programs are looking at cuts of up to 30 percent 
and higher. We do not have to guess about that. We have Mr. Kasich's 
list, which shows us how we need to cut the budget in order to achieve 
the Kasich budget.
  Let me just give my colleagues a sampling of some of the cuts that 
would be required:
  Eliminate the Department of Commerce, and yet at this time when we 
are trying to increase U.S. products in foreign markets; eliminate the 
Department of Energy when we are trying to become more energy self-
sufficient, and some of us still remember the gasoline lines; 
jeopardize title I funding for our disabled children, our most 
vulnerable in our population; cut the Environmental Protection Agency 
by 15 percent. These are on Mr. Kasich's list. It is not a 1 percent 
cut.
  The welfare-to-work program is jeopardized. Two years ago we 
successfully worked a partnership with our States and returned the 
administration of welfare to our States in welfare-to-work, in 
partnership with the Federal

[[Page H4197]]

Government helping provide the dollars so people could get off of 
welfare to work. This budget reneges on that commitment. It is welfare 
to nowhere if this budget became law.
  To our veterans: Look at the budget document. They take $10 billion 
out and they do not fund it. We are not meeting our commitments to our 
veterans today. We should be doing more, not less. The Kasich budget 
would take $10 billion more unaccountable.
  The elimination of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We have 
already had that battle here. It has not been agreed to, but yet it is 
on the Kasich list.
  Cops on the beat. I have Democrat and Republican county execs in the 
Baltimore area applauding our efforts to put more cops on the beat. The 
Kasich budget would decimate that program, a $6 billion cut in law 
enforcement, jeopardizing the progress that we have already made in 
this area.
  And the list goes on and on.
  This is not a 1 percent cut. If the budget became law, it would 
destroy many of the programs that are so important. We would be 
returning to Republican extremism that led to the shutdown of our 
government.

                              {time}  1130

  Do not take my word for it. We have the comments of the Republican 
leaders in the other body. Chairman Domenici said the budget would make 
a mockery of the process. Chairman Stevens said Congress could not 
function under the plan. These are our Republican leaders in the other 
body.
  Fortunately, we have an alternative. We have the Spratt substitute. I 
urge my colleagues to vote for the Spratt substitute.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, since my colleagues from the other side seem to have 
aimed their attacks against the Kasich budget, rather than against our 
plan, I assume that means they are basically in support of our plan.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, any way they want to try to cook it, they 
can cook it. But the fact is, think about this for a second, Federal 
spending is going to go from $7.8 trillion over the last five years to 
$9.1 trillion over the next five years, and we are arguing that we 
ought to be able to find a penny out of a dollar from this government.
  The American family had a chance to vote on whether the Federal 
Government can live with $9 trillion, rather than $9.1 trillion. We 
could help the families to get more, and not cave in to the Washington 
culture, and not cave in to all the special interest groups that want 
to keep taking from families.
  Then, you know, you actually have to vote against mine. And I am not 
surprised that the people who for many years have supported running 
America from the top down, taking more and more money from families to 
give to government, would oppose this. But it is patently absurd when 
you even watch the news at night, ``The Fleecing of America,'' to think 
that we could not squeeze one penny out of a dollar out of this 
inefficient government.
  Let me further say to my colleague who just spoke and some of them 
who spoke, the President has a budget that increases taxes by $130 
billion and increases spending by $150 billion, and they love that 
plan. They love it, because when the President's man came up to the 
Committee on the Budget, they supported him.
  The fact is, if you think that this biggest, most bloated institution 
on the face of the earth can save one penny on a dollar and live with 
only $9 trillion in spending over the next five years, so we can take 
those savings and help the family and eliminate the marriage penalty, 
vote for my resolution. If you cannot, frankly, you are living in the 
past.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  (Mr. MINGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, we have had a great deal of rhetoric this 
year about the optimistic surplus forecasts for the Federal budget. It 
is truly a great day if we can say that there is a surplus. But the 
truth of the matter is that we do not have a surplus, we still have a 
deficit; we are still in an era of deficit spending.
  Why is this? The chart that is right to my right here indicates what 
is happening. The red line shows the surplus in the Social Security 
trust account each year. It continues to grow because the baby-boom 
generation is paying in record amounts for Social Security.
  At the same time, that lower line shows the rhetoric, the expectation 
that we actually have some sort of a surplus in the budget, down here, 
as much as $4, $5, $8 billion.
  The truth of the matter is, this line shows what is actually 
happening. That is the deficit that we are running.
  What does this mean? It means that the attractive, the appealing, and 
to a certain extent the deceptive promises that we can have new 
programs, that we can cut taxes, that this will be painless, that 
somehow the political system will accept these sacrifices that are 
necessary to achieve these ends, all of this is illusive.
  We have worked through the political process here in Congress. We 
know what the constraints are. We know what our colleagues will accept. 
Some say we will cut defense; others say we will cut agriculture; 
others say we will cut education; some say we will just cut waste, 
fraud and abuse.
  But the fact of the matter is, we have to live with the political 
reality that exists in this Nation, and the fact of the matter is that 
if we are going to stop deficit spending, if we are going to stop 
relying on the Social Security Trust Fund to finance other programs of 
the Federal Government, we are going to have to make some very, very 
tough decisions.
  We are going to have to decide, is it more important to have tax 
cuts, which all of us want, now, or to defer the gratification? We are 
going to have to decide, are we going to expand and inaugurate new 
programs, which almost all of us would like to have, or are we going to 
defer the gratification?
  I submit, Mr. Chairman, that what we need to do is face up to the 
hard, cold reality that exists. We are still under these budgets 
borrowing from Social Security, and we are not addressing the very 
important task of actually bringing our budget into balance.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 3\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on National Security.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Neumann substitute, 
mainly because it is the only budget we are considering today which 
increases defense spending. Really, it does not increase defense 
spending; it just barely keeps up with inflation. I want to repeat 
that. It barely keeps up with inflation. We need more than that.
  We are here debating all these various budget proposals, discussing 
cutting things and increasing things and all the rest, and the very top 
priority of our government, any Federal Government, protecting our 
people, the security of our Nation, is the only thing that is left out. 
We have our priorities mixed up.
  Let me remind Members of something. If you are not aware of it, 
people need to be reminded: We are at this very minute, not tomorrow, 
not in the future, at this very minute we are faced with devastating 
threats from all over this world, and we are unprepared to defend 
against these threats which threaten our people, our constituents, our 
troops stationed throughout the world, our allies all over the world. 
At this very minute we are faced with these threats.
  We are faced with threats from China, ICBM's, intercontinental 
ballistic missiles, with nuclear warheads. We cannot defend against one 
of them. Even one launched accidentally from somewhere in the world, we 
cannot defend against it. It would destroy millions of lives in this 
country and puts the very survival of our Nation at risk, and we cannot 
defend against it.

[[Page H4198]]

  In this day and time we have the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction throughout the world. They can be put together in 
laboratories in inexpensive and low-tech ways. They can be used as 
warheads on short range missiles or cruise missiles. Cruise missiles 
can be launched from various platforms, bringing everyone within range 
of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, bacteriological 
weapons. Can you imagine what it is like to defend against these? We do 
not have a defense against them.
  Can you conceive of what these things mean to the lives of our people 
and the very survival of our nation?
  Can you conceive of losing 1-3 million people in Washington, DC if 
200 pounds of anthrax is released in the air above us?
  We have cut our military too much--this is already the 14th 
consecutive year of budget deductions. Spending for defense has been 
cut 33%--all other spending, however, has increased.
  We have done to our own military what no foreign power has been able 
to do--tear down the greatest defense of freedom to the extent that it 
cannot properly defend this country.
  I will say this, and I mean what I am saying, and I want people to 
listen to it: The people who put this Kasich budget together that puts 
our country at risk are guilty of dereliction of duty.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget claims to cut $100 
billion below last year, and this amendment would add $50 billion to 
it. Yet I have in my hand a sheet of requests from Members to the 
Committee on Appropriations asking us to add 7,000 items totaling $353 
billion above the President's request.
  In energy and water, for instance, there are at least 120 Members of 
the Republican Caucus who have written us asking us for spending above 
the President's request. In transportation, at least 40 Members on that 
side of the aisle are asking us to spend money above the President's 
request. Yet in the generic, they pretend they are going to cut $100 
billion here today.
  I have just one question, Mr. Chairman. Is that kind of hypocrisy 
learned, or does it come naturally?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I come here to support the Conservative 
Action Team's budget. Let me say, first of all, there are perhaps three 
reasons why all Members should consider it. First of all, it has the 
lowest increase relative to inflation of all the budgets. Second of 
all, for those folks who want higher defense spending, this budget has 
it. The third reason is it has a lockbox, a lockbox dealing with the 
Social Security Trust Fund. As I understand it, it is the only one that 
has the lockbox, which means any savings in this budget are going right 
back to the Social Security Trust Fund.
  Of course, lastly, for those of us concerned about user fees and 
taxes, this budget has the most amount of reduction in user fees and 
taxes. For all of those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the 
Conservative Action Team.
  We have had a lot of rhetoric on this side, but this budget in fact 
brings it down home. So you have less taxes, higher defense spending, 
and, at the same time, a lockbox for Social Security.
  Mr. Chairman, the debt is going up in this country. Every year the 
debt is going up. Yet we talk about a balanced budget. How can the debt 
go up if we are balancing the budget? Because we are not. We are taking 
funds from the Social Security Trust Fund, and that is not right. A 
lockbox and the Conservative Action Team will stop that.
  Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment my colleague from Ohio, Chairman 
Kasich, for his tremendous efforts in bringing his FY '99 budget to the 
floor today.
  While I agree with him that we need to continue placing restraints on 
spending and provide additional tax relief, I find that the alternative 
offered by Representatives Neumann, McIntosh, and Johnson, the 
conservative action team (CAT substitute) is a better way to achieve 
these goals.
  Thomas Jefferson stated: ``The same prudence which in private life 
would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids 
it in the dispensation of the public money.''
  The CAT's budget continues to honor our pledge to reduce Government 
spending without increasing taxes.
  This budget alternative chooses family over big Government spending 
programs.
  If Government were forced to pay its bills in the same manner as the 
citizens who finance it, the bill collectors would be knocking down our 
doors.
  The CAT's budget offers us the opportunity to continue what we 
started last year by holding down spending and cutting taxes. Together, 
these two components will ensure that our Nation's economy will 
continue to experience the growth it is currently enjoying well into 
the next century.
  There is one area of the budget that has me particularly perplexed. 
That is the way in which we use our Social Security trust fund to pay 
for other programs. The CAT's substitute doesn't just offer rhetoric 
when it comes to saving the Social Security trust fund, it provides the 
necessary safeguards to achieve that goal.
  The trust fund is projected to be running a surplus of $100 billion 
dollars for FY '99, I would hope that we will stop using this fund to 
mask our Nation's deficit. Instead, let's use a portion of the surplus 
to replenish the money borrowed from the Social Security trust fund and 
as the CAT's budget does, let's create a Social Security ``lock box'' 
that would prevent any future raiding of the fund.
  The Social Security trust fund's surplus shouldn't be used to fund 
other programs. And it should not be used to mask our Nation's debt.
  Mr. Chairman, I am firmly convinced that our Nation's future is tied 
to the restoration of traditional family values. The Neumann budget 
addresses this by standing up for human life, increasing the role of 
the family in education, by cutting taxes, and by increasing our 
defense budget to keep up with inflation.
  There is one additional area that I would like to mention. I want to 
echo Chairman Kasich's remarks when he stated at the Budget Committee 
markup that he hoped the appropriators could give the NIH an even 
bigger boost than the budget recommended. I want to thank him and I 
appreciate all the excellent efforts of the House Budget Committee 
members to increase the NIH funding. I respectfully urge them to recede 
to the Senate Budget resolution on NIH funding for FY '99 when they go 
to conference. Only progress through health research will truly reduce 
the costs of programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
  I would be remiss if I didn't mention my commitment to ensuring that 
our Nation's veterans also receive the necessary funding so that we 
fulfill the pledge we made to them.
  To sum it up, the Neumann budget taxes less, spends less, places 
restraints on Government growth, provides for a strong defense, 
restores family values, and dedicates the surpluses to reducing taxes, 
preserving Social Security and repaying the debt.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, we keep the surplus 
intact to save Social Security, and we do not have $11 billion in user 
fees, as the Kasich resolution does.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Neumann amendment and to the Kasich budget resolution. We would like to 
talk about the budget resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich).
  As has been pointed out already today, without any disagreement to 
the contrary, there is approximately $25 billion in the Kasich budget 
that is unaccounted for because it has already been spent to pay for 
the transportation bill. This is the same grave omission that caused 
many Democrats and Republicans to vote against the transportation bill 
when it left the House, because it threatened to spend the surplus. 
That is the grave sin we commit here today. The budget resolution 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) takes us down the road 
of spending the surplus.
  Now, the argument has been made this amounts to a 1 percent cut in 
spending. There has also been an admission that we are going to spare 
defense and Medicare. There has been absolutely no response to the very 
specific points made about how deep the cuts will have to be made in 
Medicaid, education and other important core functions because of the 
way the budget resolution has been written.
  This is not a day for speeches. This is our day to put a very 
detailed plan on the floor of the House, and those details are not 
forthcoming. There is a

[[Page H4199]]

reason why Republican and Democratic governors are opposing this budget 
resolution, because those details are missing and because the best work 
we do here when we are balancing the budget is working with the States. 
We are ignoring them.

                              {time}  1145

  One of the important lessons we should have learned from 1995 is that 
we are not just talking about numbers here today. We are talking about 
people's lives, and we are failing to address the impacts these cuts 
could have on the lives of the people we represent at home.
  One thing is perfectly clear, whether this budget resolution passes 
or not, and that is, it is going to leave us rudderless. We have chosen 
not to work with the Senate, not to work with the President. As a 
result, this budget resolution becomes irrelevant.
  What is the price we are going to pay for that? The price we are 
going to pay is, as the pressure begins to rise to spend money and to 
cut taxes, we are going to do it without regard to protecting the 
surplus which we should be using to pay off this massive Federal debt 
and prepare Social Security for the future. We have an opportunity to 
protect that surplus. We are going to blow it, and that is why we need 
to defeat the budget resolution.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the Chair, please, the 
remaining time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Neumann) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, for those of us who recognize the 
constitutional responsibility of the Congress, to protect ourselves 
against things like India's nuclear capability, Pakistan's nuclear 
capability, China's ability, not only with nuclear but the ability to 
deliver a nuclear weapon or weapon of mass destruction, we say to them 
today, and they will be hearing from most of us who have that specific 
responsibility, the Neumann substitute is the only proposal before us 
today that even helps us keep our head level with the water. It does 
not get us out of the water where we ought to be.
  Just yesterday my subcommittee completed the markup on the defense 
appropriations committee. As we went through that markup, I was 
convinced more and more of this one thought, that when we talk about 
national defense, if we have enough national defense, if we have what 
we need and do not have to use it, that is good. That is deterrence. 
But if we do not have enough, that is bad. That is disaster.
  I can tell my colleagues that the President's budget does not provide 
enough, and the only measure before us today is the Neumann substitute 
because it does give us enough to at least try to keep level with 
inflation.
  We cannot do more with less. I do not care how good we are, we cannot 
do more with less. We have had more deployments in the last 5 years, 
other than war, than any other President. It has cost us a lot of 
money. We are wearing out our troops. We are wearing out our equipment. 
We are cutting down the size of the force but extending their 
deployments more and more. We just cannot continue to do more with 
less.
  The Neumann substitute gives us the opportunity to have more, to do 
more things that we need to do. In 2 minutes it is difficult to talk 
about this entire problem. Today, the size of our active duty force has 
been cut by 36 percent in the last 10 years. Army overseas deployments 
are up 300 percent from the rates that we sustained during the Cold 
War.
  For the Navy today, on any given day 57 percent of our ships are at 
sea on deployment. In 1992 the figure was only 37 percent. The list 
goes on and on.
  If we have enough, that is good. If we do not have enough, that is 
disaster.
  Mr. Chairman, this member of Congress takes a back seat to no one 
when it comes to casting the tough votes to balance our federal budget 
and reduce the size of our federal government. However, this member of 
Congress also knows that each and every member of this House takes an 
oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
  One of the principle responsibilities given Congress under our 
Constitution is to provide for our common defense, to raise and support 
armies and to maintain a navy. Today I am here to tell you that we are 
on the verge of abrogating this Constitutional responsibility because 
we are on the verge of returning to a hollow military.
  As the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on National 
Security, I visit on a regular basis with officers and enlisted 
personnel from all branches of the service. From four star flag 
officers to new recruits, there is widespread concern that we are 
overextending our troops and wearing out our equipment to the point 
that our readiness could soon be compromised.
  For 13 years in a row, our national security budget has declined in 
terms of the what we can buy for each dollar we spend. During that 
time, real spending on our national security has declined by 40 
percent.
  The budget President Clinton has sent Congress for our national 
security in Fiscal Year 1999, which is reflected in the budget 
resolution reported to this House by the Budget Committee, provides for 
the lowest level of spending in constant dollars in more than 40 years. 
And over the next five years, the President's budget reduces spending 
on our national security by $54 billion.
  Already there are 700,000 fewer troops in the field, in the air, and 
at sea than there were 10 years ago. This is a 36 percent cut in our 
active duty forces.
  Not only are the number of uniformed personnel falling, but so is 
their morale. Every service chief tells us that they are finding it 
difficult to retain the best and brightest of our officers and enlisted 
men and women. The reasons are many. Military pay is not keeping pace 
with pay in the private sector and as a result I am ashamed to say that 
we have members of our all volunteer force who need food stamps to try 
and make ends meet for their families. Base housing is aging to the 
point where some is virtually uninhabitable.
  And we are asking our troops, during a time of peace, to deploy more 
often and for longer periods of time than at any other peaceful period 
in our nation's history. Since taking office in 1992, President Clinton 
has sent our troops on more overseas deployments than any other 
president. Many of these deployment are for reasons of questionable 
national importance.
  Army overseas deployments are up 300 percent from those rates 
sustained during the Cold War. This year, on any given day one of every 
three Army soldiers is deployed abroad.
  For the Navy today, on any given day 57 percent of its ships are at 
sea. This is 25 percent higher than 1992.
  For the Air Force, the number of Air Force personnel deployed away 
from home today is four times higher than in 1989--yet the Air Force is 
\1/3\ smaller.
  For too many years now, we have been asking our men and women in 
uniform to do more with less. Well guess what--the Secretary of Defense 
estimates the President's five year budget proposal, which further 
shrinks our nation's defense, will require a reduction in end strength 
of 54,000 active duty personnel and 49,000 reservists. So while this 
President continues to deploy our troops on more missions around the 
world, he continues to shrink the size of our forces, and jeopardizes 
our overall readiness.
  Is it any wonder that pilot retention in the Air Force is down 
significantly. Just a few years ago, the re-enlistment rate for pilots 
was 75 percent. Today it is 36 percent, well below the Air Force's 
target of 58 percent.
  Both the Navy and Air Force tell me that they are well below their 
reenlistment targets for first term sailors and airmen. The Air Force 
is 18 percent below its re-enlistment goal and the Navy 7 percent. The 
Navy Times newspaper recently reported that 75 percent of the sailors 
surveyed plan on leaving the service as early as possible.
  Not only are we wearing out our troops and their families, but we are 
wearing out our equipment. Mission capable rates for our Air Force and 
Navy aircraft have fallen every year since 1991. There are increasing 
shortages of spare parts and cannibalization of existing aircraft is on 
the rise. Remember the hanger queens of the Carter Administration? Well 
they're back in the Clinton Administration and the situation will only 
become worse.
  Last year my committee had to add $600 million to the President's 
budget to pay for the additional need for spare parts. Still, the 
Commander in Chief for the Pacific region tells me cannibalization 
rates have doubled in just the past two years.
  Stop to consider tat our principal Air Force fighter aircraft were 
designed in the early 1970's. The President's budget calls for the 
procurement of only two fighters this year.

[[Page H4200]]

This would be the lowest number in the history of the Air Force.
  Stop to consider that the average age of the Army's medium truck 
fleet is 25 years old. More than half of those trucks qualify for 
antique plates. Under the President's budget, this fleet will not be 
replaced for another 30 years.
  Stop to consider that under the President's budget, the Navy proposes 
to build only six new ships next year. This is far below the 10 ships 
per year that would be required to sustain the current fleet of 326 
ships.
  Since Desert Storm, we have cut our active-duty Army from 18 
divisions to 10, our combat tactical aircraft by 40 percent, our bomber 
fleet by 59 percent, and our combat ships by 35 percent.
  Don't just take my word for it. Listen to our service chiefs.
  The Commandant of the Marine Corps told me he is $500 million, or 
half a billion dollars, short of what he needs in the 1999 budget for 
equipment procurement alone. He said the cumulative effect of year 
after year of these shortages will be devastating to the Corps.
  The Chief of Staff of the Army told me just a few weeks ago that 
under the current budget scenarios the Army could go under.
  A frustrated Navy Commander told a newspaper reporter that his F-14 
squadron was a hazard to operations because the unit has only averaged 
two mission capable aircraft instead of the usual 14.
  And Secretary Cohen, who is President Clinton's top civilian adviser 
on national defense matters, just testified before Congress saying with 
regard to readiness that ``We are starting to see signs of some 
erosion, certainly on the edges of things.''
  Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, my wife Beverly and I had the honor 
of participating in commissioning ceremonies for U.S.S. Pearl Harbor  
(LSD 52). More than 1,500 Pearl Harbor survivors came from all over the 
nation to be a part of these ceremonies.
  As I told all those veterans gathered there in San Diego, as well as 
the first crew to bring U.S.S. Pearl Harbor to life, we can never repay 
our debt of gratitude to those who have served our nation in uniform 
and to those who have paid the ultimate price. We can however, dedicate 
ourselves to ensuring that in their honor and memory we do all within 
our power as members of Congress to maintain the strongest, most ready 
national defense.
  Mr. Speaker, I close with this thought. When dealing with national 
defense, to have it and not need it is good. That is deterrence. But to 
need it and not have it is a disaster.
  Every one of us in this Congress today should decide it's time to 
stop the decline in our commitment to a strong national defense and 
begin the steady progress to modernize our force, boost the morale of 
our troops, and prepare for whatever threat may present itself to our 
nation and our national interests in the coming century. That is our 
sworn Constitutional responsibility.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I thank our leader who is leading this 
debate for us.
  Mr. Chairman, two years ago I watched this kind of debate on my 
television set at home in Michigan. Last night, as I went home and 
watched the very end of the debate again on my television in my little 
apartment, I had deja vu all over again, as they say.
  What I saw was a replay of the 104th Congress talking about the 
potential for dramatic cuts and threats to Medicare, education, the 
environment, and a focus on providing tax breaks for the wealthy and 
trying and essentially to blow up a balanced budget agreement that we 
came to in historic fashion just a year ago. It was extremely 
disheartening.
  My constituents asked me to come here during this session to do away 
with that. They do not want the days of possible government shutdowns 
or threats to those things that affect their lives every day.
  Last year we passed a historic balanced budget agreement. I rise 
today to support that by rejecting the Neumann substitute, the Kasich 
budget, and supporting the Spratt budget that allows us to continue the 
balanced budget that we agreed to in a bipartisan way, truly protect 
Social Security, and stand up for those things that affect our families 
every day.
  We need to focus on those priorities that people care about in the 
context of balancing the budget. I can assure my colleagues that the 
only way we truly effect Social Security protection and preserve it is 
through the Spratt budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and a ``yes'' 
vote on the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Military Procurement.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me add my strong support to that of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence), and on behalf, I think, of the men and women who 
wear the uniform of the United States in all the services, for the 
Neumann budget.
  We asked the service leaders to tell us what they needed, what they 
were short this last year. They were pretty gutsy. Even though their 
commander in chief, I am sure, was not happy, they came forward and 
said, ``This is the list of things that we need,'' and they gave us a 
list of things like ammunition, spare parts, components for systems 
that cannot fly now. All of those things added up to $58 billion.
  The Neumann substitute stops the slight in national defense. It does 
not give us a lot of things, no new systems, but at least allows us to 
have enough ammunition so we can carry out the two-war scenario.
  If we really care about the mothers and fathers of this country, the 
best service we can give to them is to make sure that their youngsters 
come home alive in the time of a conflict. The Neumann substitute is 
the only vehicle we have here that keeps, as the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) said, the head of our military above the water. Please vote 
for the Nuemann substitute.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 40 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, these are some mighty strange cats. They 
offer the opportunity to fatten up the fat cats, and they offer a 
little cat chow for everybody else. They call it conservative, but when 
it comes to conserving our resources and seeing that every penny of the 
budget surplus that was achieved this year in historic terms is 
allocated to reducing the debt and protecting Social Security, they say 
no way.
  They do not give our public schools very much to meow about either, 
because they really do not believe in any Federal commitment to public 
education. What a change it was to go from this Congress home to Texas 
and to see the enthusiasm for learning of young people, the 
determination of our professional educators, and the involvement of 
parents to see their young people graduate this spring. How incredibly 
contradictory at the very time we are celebrating learning and the 
struggle of American families that these Republicans in one budget 
called one thing and one called another do the same thing, and that is, 
to rip the heart out of American public education.
  I had a blue ribbon school winner, the kind of principal who is there 
turning a gang-infested area around into a success story for young 
people. I asked her about this Kasich budget to rip out Title I and in 
her words, she said ``We would die without those Federal funds.'' That 
is what is at stake here, not just some rhetoric about who can be more 
conservative than someone else.
  In my community we are turning the corner on crime. It has not hurt a 
bit to have 200 new officers on our streets to help deal with the 
problem of juvenile violence. These folks say forget that, we want to 
cut what is there now, not help to do more about juvenile violence.
  They say they can do it with just a penny across the board. Well, 
they could not find one penny, one $400 hammer out of the Defense 
Department bureaucracy to cut. Not a penny do they cut there. They say 
they have got to have more money in order to succeed.
  Mr. Chairman, they say there is more than one way to skin a cat, but 
I maintain that, under either of these Republican budgets, it is only 
the American people that are going to get skinned.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a point that when the cats 
are making their case, they are never going to dog it.
  Then I would like to correct a couple of the minor misstatements. The 
budget that we are currently considering that I have presented here 
puts more

[[Page H4201]]

money aside for Social Security than any other budget that has been 
considered in Washington, D.C. this year. It is offensive for anyone to 
get on this floor and somehow say this budget is not the best budget 
for Social Security, because anybody who looks at the numbers will 
realize that there is more money for Social Security in this budget 
than anything else under consideration here.
  Education. Education has got inflationary increases in spending. We 
do not increase the role of Federal Government; we leave that to the 
parents, families and communities.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all say I am disheartened 
by what I just heard. The misstatement of fact is inappropriate for 
this body.
  Should the size of this government grow? That is the question we need 
to ask. Should this government get bigger? There is only one budget 
that says no, we will grow it right with inflation and not let it get 
bigger, and that is this budget.
  Is there any budget that truly puts teeth in protecting Social 
Security? There is only one. It is Nuemann. We put it in negotiable 
bonds. It is not paper anymore. It is truly bonds.
  Do we really save Social Security? You bet. Is the money that goes 
into the trust fund really put into something that matters, not just 
more paperwork that we can flip around with the transportation bill and 
use?
  We heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) talk about education. 
This budget, the Neumann budget, sends the money to the classrooms. It 
sends 95 percent of the education dollars to the local classrooms and 
lets them do it: the teachers, the principals, the local school board. 
So that is another reason that it is better than any proposal.
  Number five, it cuts taxes. You bet. It eliminates the marriage 
penalty. It expands the 15 percent tax bracket, which happens to be 
where most people are in this country. It eliminates the death tax on 
the farmers and the ranchers and those that can least afford to pay it.
  Finally, yes, it reduces the holding period on capital gains, because 
for once we now can prove that lowering that actually generates more 
revenue for the country.
  Finally, it dedicates 50 percent of everything that comes in above 
excess revenues for reduction in the debt.
  It is unfortunate that we hear rhetoric that does not match the 
facts. It is unfortunate that this body is abused in that manner. I am 
sorry that we have to hear that. But if the American public does not 
want this government to grow any larger, then they should, in fact, 
insist on the Neumann budget. It does what the American people ask.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad budget. It is a bad 
amendment to a bad budget. We Democrats are grateful that our 
Republican colleagues would bring up something like this, because it 
makes clear the differences between the parties: cuts in education, 
cuts for senior citizens, cuts in health, cuts for the environment, 
cuts for the protection of natural resources, cuts for things that are 
important to the little people of this country. That is what is in the 
budget that comes from over here, and that is what is in the 
substitute.
  It is only 51 days that we are late bringing this up. I can 
understand my Republican colleagues were probably ashamed to put this 
kind of travesty before this body. It is, however, something which 
makes very clear the difference between the two parties. It shows where 
our Republican friends are coming from.
  They are not interested in maintaining the agreement which we had 
last time on the budget, which has helped give us perhaps the greatest 
level of prosperity which we have had. They are not interested in 
preserving programs which are helpful and of value to the little people 
of this country. They want to cut the things which are investments in 
the future of this country, like education, protection of our natural 
resources, and things of this kind.
  We have not worked very hard this session. I think, perhaps, given 
the way this budget reflects the behavior of my Republican colleagues, 
that is probably a very good thing.
  There are a lot of things that we could be doing which would be 
helping the people. We could deal with the managed care problem. We 
could address the problem in Superfund. But, no, we are out here today 
cutting programs which are important to the people.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, one fact is very clear today. Two out of three are not 
bad. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) offers a budget 
alternative that increases spending and increases taxes. The gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) 
offer budgets which spend less and tax less. Clearly the budget of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) is the budget which is best for 
Social Security.
  Mr. Chairman, let us remember what the number one goal of this year 
should be. That is to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, because the 
most fundamental question we should be answering is, is it right, is it 
fair, that 21 million married working couples pay on the average $1,400 
more just because they are married? That is wrong. The Neumann budget 
and the Kasich budget make their centerpiece the elimination of the 
marriage tax penalty.
  We have two opportunities out of three votes today to eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty. Let us vote aye on Neumann, let us vote aye on 
Kasich. Mr. Chairman, they both deserve bipartisan support.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I am not here to speak about the CATS' 
meow. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. To placate the extremists, the 
Republican leadership has brought to the floor a budget which is so 
extreme that the Republican Senate Committee on the Budget chairman has 
called it a mockery. Republican Governors say that this Republican 
budget violates the agreements that were made with the States. The 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in the Senate says that 
Congress cannot function with this Republican budget.
  Mr. Chairman, budgets are not just about numbers, budgets are about 
values. Budgets are about priorities, and they are about who we are as 
a Nation.
  Let us take a look at the Republican values, as illustrated in the 
Kasich budget, the Republican budget. The budget fails to preserve 
Social Security. It would cut health services to seniors, to pregnant 
women and children who cannot afford health insurance. It would cut an 
additional $10 billion out of veterans' health care services, and it 
shortchanges our future by killing investments in child care and in 
education. I ask the Members, are these the kinds of values that we are 
about in the United States of America?
  This budget eliminates the investment in improving the quality of 
early childhood education, to help children start school ready to 
learn. It eliminates child care assistance to the working poor, so they 
can leave welfare, go to work, and be able to know that their kids are 
safe. I ask Americans, does this budget reflect their values?
  It eliminates Title I funds to help our most disadvantaged children 
catch up to their peers in school. Does this really reflect our values? 
It eliminates funds to help teachers update their curriculum, to teach 
our youngsters to the highest standards. It eliminates funds to 
modernize schools, and to put computers in every classroom. I ask the 
Members, does this budget reflect American values?
  The budget eliminates funds to increase the number of qualified 
teachers in the early grades. Mr. Chairman, this does not reflect our 
values.
  The Republican budget walks away from the needs of children, it walks

[[Page H4202]]

away from the needs of American families, it walks away from American 
values. We ought to oppose it. The papers in the last few days have 
characterized this as budget baloney, budget theatrics, budget mockery. 
Let us defeat the Kasich budget. It is wrong for the values of the 
United States of America.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to 
my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. John Hostettler).
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Neumann 
CATs budget, in that it maintains a commitment to our national defense. 
The United States Constitution declares, ``We, the people of the United 
States, in order to provide for the common defense, do ordain and 
establish this Constitution.''
  The Neumann CATs budget merely maintains defense spending at the rate 
of inflation. It does not even increase defense spending, when we put 
into account inflation. This budget does what liberal Democrat 
Congresses have not done in the past. It merely maintains inflation.
  If Members agree with the leader of that party who, in his formative 
years, in a December 3, 1969 letter to a Colonel Holmes said that he 
``loathes the military,'' Members will vote against the Neumann CATs 
budget. If Members believe that we should maintain our commitment to 
the military, if they love the men and women in uniform and they 
believe that we should maintain the rate of inflation and they do not 
loathe the United States military, I suggest Members vote for the 
Neumann budget and support our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to nobody on my support for the 
military. On military construction, we have had hundreds of calls for 
add-ons to the military construction budget, but our allocation is so 
low we are not able to do it. There were calls from Republicans and 
Democrats.
  We rewrite history around here pretty regularly. I remember when 
Ronald Reagan was President, a group of us went up to Camp David and we 
were talking about budgets. I said, Mr. President, what is going to 
happen to us if the economy does not operate like you think and we get 
down to the point where we have these tremendous deficits? God bless 
his heart, he said, we will just have to face that when we get to it. 
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Charlie Stenholm) was there.
  Our distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget, my good 
friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. John Kasich) and the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Newt Gingrich), the Speaker, this morning, talked 
about, and the gentleman with the belt last night, talking about we can 
only cut one penny, one penny.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, that gentleman referred to was the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), my good friend.
  Mr. HEFNER. He wears that big a belt?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Nine feet.
  Mr. HEFNER. He said we can cut one penny, but they do not cut 1 
percent. We have two-thirds of the budget that is untouchable. Members 
know that. We have been around here a long while.
  The Speaker asked this morning if Members cannot find 1 percent, but 
that is not 1 percent they are going to find. In 1993, and one of the 
gentlemen last night, and I will not call names, he got up and said 
that was a disaster, that the only thing that got this economy moving 
again was when we elected the new Republicans. That is not true. In 
1993, without one single Republican vote in the House or the Senate, we 
passed a package that got this economy moving, with interest rates 
down, low unemployment. Members can talk whatever they like about it, 
but something made it happen. That is the only thing we did, and that 
is what made it happen to make this possible for us to even have a 
surplus to talk about.
  But at that time, let me just quote what some of the folks in the 
Republican Party said about that package that we passed. In fact, when 
it passed, a woman that voted for it, they stood on that side and said, 
``Bye-bye, bye-bye, you are going to lose because of that.'' So they go 
out and spread the stuff that we had raised taxes on low-income people, 
which we did not.
  Mr. Chairman, we raised taxes on 2 percent of the wealthiest people 
in this country, and Ronald Reagan said 50 percent of Social Security, 
that was to be taxed. We raised that, but we also raised the threshold 
of what people could make before there was a tax, so there was no tax 
on working people.
  Here is what some of the Republicans said when we passed that 
package. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Newt Gingrich) said, ``The tax 
increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will 
force people off of work and onto unemployment,'' and the deficit will 
actually increase.
  Our distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget said, 
``We're going to find out whether we have higher deficits, we're going 
to find out whether we have a slower economy, we're going to find out 
what's going to happen to interest rates, and it's our bet that this is 
a job killer.'' And the unemployment rate is lower than it has been in 
decades.
  Here is something else our chairman said. ``It's like a snake bite. 
The venom is going to be injected into the body of this economy, in our 
judgment, and it's going to spread throughout the body and it's going 
to begin to kill the jobs that Americans now have.''
  I maintain that the Republican budget will do exactly that.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to 
my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Neumann 
budget, because it sets the right priorities.
  But before I begin my remarks, let me just comment on the mystifying 
debate on this floor which continues to use the word cut, cut, cut, 
cut. There is not a single cut in this budget. This budget grows 
spending. It grows it from $1,705 billion in the first year to $1,894 
billion in the last year. Over the last 5 years we have grown spending 
by $7.8 trillion. In the next we are going to grow it by $8.9 trillion. 
There is no cut.
  This debate raises the fundamental question, should government grow 
at 2 to 3 times the rate of the growth in salaries of the American 
people? Because make no mistake about it, that is what that side wants. 
Government has an insatiable appetite for more money and more spending, 
and that is what they want.
  What does that mean to the American people? For the last 8 years, the 
average American has seen his or her salary go up 3.4 percent, a 3.4 
percent increase in their compensation. But government, government has 
grown at almost double that rate. Domestic discretionary spending in 
1991 went up by 6.9 percent, in 1992 by 9.6 percent, in 1993 by 6.64 
percent, in 1994 by 6.1 percent, in 1995 by 4.6 percent.
  Over the period, while Americans have seen their wages go up only 3.4 
percent, government has grown at double that rate, 5.2 percent in 
domestic discretionary spending. But what has happened in mandatory 
spending? Means-tested entitlements have grown at three times the rate 
of the growth in the income of the average American family. Total 
mandatory spending is growing at double the rate, 5.3 percent versus 
3.4 percent.
  This budget sets the right priorities for Americans. While defense 
spending is declining, it makes up that. Defense spending has gone down 
during this time period by 11.6 percent. We must set the right 
priorities and protect defense spending, and reduce the rate of growth 
in discretionary spending.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.

[[Page H4203]]

  Mr. Chairman, as we continue to talk about the budget, and I have 
listened intently, it seems to me that we have some strange priorities 
in this country. I hear us talking about how well the economy is doing. 
We are continuing to grow and expand, and then at the same time, I hear 
us talk about taking away entitlement opportunities for the needy, 
taking away programs for those who are not a part of the expanding 
economy; talking about retrenching public housing.
  Under this budget, there is a possibility that 1 million low-income 
families could lose public housing vouchers and certificates over the 
next 5 years. If this is the budget of priority for the American 
people, then I certainly hope it can be realigned, changed, and 
realtered. Let us come with a budget that helps all of the people of 
America, as opposed to only those who are most affluent and at the top.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that budgets are not only 
instruments and tools of management; but they are also indicators of 
direction and priorities. If this is indeed the case, then I have some 
grave concerns and reservations about the budget resolution which has 
been put before us by the majority in this House.
  At a time when we are experiencing vast economic expansion and 
growth, the majority resolution seeks to place deep cuts in programs 
designed to assist the needy and working class in this country. The 
resolution cuts Medicare by $10.1 billion, and Medicaid--the program 
that provides health care for the poor by $12 billion over five years. 
In addition, the Republican resolution cuts funding for education and 
child care, and eliminates direct federal funding to school districts 
by repealing Title I grants and other non-defense discretionary 
programs by $45 billion over a five year period.
  The Republican budget turns its back on seniors, children and Social 
Security, and focuses on cuts, and more cuts to those who need help the 
most. While at the same time it rewards the rich and more affluent with 
private retirement accounts at the expense of Social Security, and 
provides $101 billion in new tax cuts. Under this proposal, 1 million 
households could lose federal housing vouchers and certificates by year 
2003.

  The Democratic alternative on the other hand preserves Social 
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Education. It invests in the future 
of our children. The Democratic alternative is good for working 
families, senior citizens, children, and for the average person. It 
strengthens America. I urge that we oppose the Republican budget 
resolution and support the democratic alternative. It is better for all 
America.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 30 seconds to 
my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, very briefly, each one of these bars represents how 
much money has been spent by the Federal Government for each one of 
these years, 1994 through 2003.
  In 1994 we started out at $1.4 trillion. We are ending up in the 
committee's budget at $1.9 trillion. What happens? I am going to draw a 
line here. The budget of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Mark 
Neumann) suggests that we stay with inflation, and we actually reduce 
very slightly the spending over the next 5 years. The Democrat or the 
Spratt budget actually suggests that we increase spending. It is 
important to know that we have to live within inflation.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, Senator Domenici has called it a mockery, and Senator 
Stevens has asked us where will we get the $45 billion in discretionary 
cuts. My Republican colleagues, many in the Committee on the Budget, 
have all said these cuts are not desirable or attainable.
  I say to my friends in Memphis, in Cummings and Winchester and 
Goodland, and at Idlewilde Elementary who are graduating today, I 
apologize for not being there, but I assure the Members my Republican 
colleagues who raised this budget resolution issue last night, at 11:30 
last night, is the reason I am not home.
  With schools crumbling around our Nation, our Republican colleagues 
and, I might add, even some of my Democratic colleagues are to blame as 
well, but we have to point the finger where the finger ought to be 
pointed. Republican friends of mine in the Congress, despite the fact 
that a Democratic President balanced the budget, lowered interest 
rates, lowered inflation, and lowered unemployment, instead of working 
together to save Social Security, to preserve those initiatives, which 
many of my colleagues, I look at the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Duke Cunningham), who serves so ably, he will move on from this 
Congress one day and benefit from Medicaid and Social Security. Let us 
preserve that first.

                              {time}  1215

  I say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) who said that we 
spend too much here in Washington on education, 95 percent of the 
funding and policy decisions in education in America are made at the 
local level. Let us do more at the Federal level to rebuild our 
schools, hire teachers, develop after-school programs, and prepare the 
next generation of Americans.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).
  (Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support a budget that 
will provide America's families with $150 billion in tax cuts and also 
take a big whack out of our national debt. I also rise today to support 
a budget that will make national defense once again a national priority 
by taking less of families' hard-earned income and paychecks, taking a 
bite out of our national debt and strengthening our national defense.
  The Neumann budget will strengthen our families, our economy, and our 
Nation. I appeal to my colleagues to support this legislation because 
America's families deserve nothing less.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support a budget that will provide 
America's families with $150 billion in tax cuts and also take a big 
whack out of the national debt. I also rise today to support a budget 
that will make national defense, once again, a national priority. That 
legislation is the substitute budget offered by my friend from 
Wisconsin, Rep. Mark Neumann, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
measure.
  Mr. Chairman, last year, the average income for a family in which 
both parents worked was $55,000 a year. Of that money, roughly half of 
that family's income went to pay federal, state and local taxes. My 
friends, how can we expect a family to take care of themselves and 
their children when the government takes half of what they earn? It 
just doesn't make any sense.
  That's why I support the Neumann substitute budget, because it would 
provide America's families with $150 billion in tax relief, so families 
can keep more of their hard-earned paychecks. The Neumann budget would 
also eliminate the so-called marriage penalty, which is basically a tax 
increase couples must pay once they become married.
  But that's not all. The Neumann budget realizes that we can't give 
our kids a $5.5 trillion national debt and expect them to have a better 
future. So it calls for 50 percent of any remaining budget surplus to 
go towards reducing the national debt, so we can give our kids a clean 
financial slate for the future.
  The Neumann budget also seeks to increase defense spending by an 
additional $56 billion over last year's budget. With threats to our 
national security in Iraq and all across the world, we cannot afford to 
be lax in the maintenance of our military. The Neumann budget gives our 
troops the resources they need to be successful in any mission they 
might undertake.
  By taking less of families' hard-earned paychecks, taking a bite out 
of the national debt and strengthening our national defense, the 
Neumann budget will strengthen our families, our economy and our 
nation. I appeal to my colleagues to support this legislation, because 
the families of America deserve nothing less.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member, very much for yielding 
me this time, and I rise to vigorously oppose this budget which 
destroys our commitment to the families of America and the children of 
America.

[[Page H4204]]

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mr. NEUMANN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to set this discussion in 
proper perspective today. Recently one of the polling companies from 
here in Washington, D.C., asked 2,000 American adults, ``Do you think 
the United States Government should increase faster that the rate of 
inflation, faster than the family budget; at the same rate as the 
family budget; or slower than the family budget?'' It was a 90-to-3 
answer. Ninety percent of Americans believe that the United States 
Government should not increase faster than the family budget or faster 
than the rate of inflation.
  So we decided we were going to put together a proposal that met the 
wishes and the demands of the American people. This black line on this 
chart that I have here shows inflation. That is how fast the family 
budgets are going up across America.
  The farthest column, that shows how fast the CAT's budget is 
increasing spending out here in the government. And I would point out 
that it is the only proposal that we are considering, the President's, 
the Senate, the House, the Democrat alternative, it is the only 
proposal that we are considering out here today that allows government 
spending to go up at a slower rate than the rate of inflation.
  Mr. Chairman, 90 percent of the American people believe that the 
Federal Government should not increase its spending faster than the 
family budget, and this is the only opportunity we have today to keep 
that and to meet that wish.
  The House budget, the Kasich budget, if we take Social Security out 
of the picture, it also meets that. With Social Security in the 
picture, it goes up slightly faster than the rate of inflation but it 
is the second closest to meeting the wishes of the American people.
  I have heard a lot of rhetoric about preserving Social Security. 
Baloney. The only budget out here that puts more money aside for Social 
Security is the budget we are about to vote on. The CAT's budget puts 
$275 billion aside to preserve and protect Social Security.
  I believe every senior citizen in the United States of America has a 
right to get up tomorrow morning knowing that their Social Security is 
safe and secure. So in the CAT's budget we put more money aside for 
Social Security than any other budget being considered.
  So let us cut through the rhetoric out here and let us get down to 
the facts of what is actually being considered. The CAT's budget puts 
aside $275 billion for Social Security; the House budget, $223 billion; 
the Senate proposal, $149 billion; and the President's proposal just 
under $100 billion.
  So if Members are serious about preserving Social Security for our 
senior citizens in this country, the CAT's budget is the right vote.
  What about the tax burden on American workers? The tax burden is too 
high. A generation ago 25 cents out of every dollar that workers earned 
went to taxes. Today that number is 37 cents out of every dollar they 
earned. Let us translate that into what it means. It means that 
American workers have to take second and third jobs in order to pay 
that extra tax burden from this government. That is wrong.
  That is why the CAT's budget proposes $150 billion in additional tax 
reductions. Eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Across-the-board tax 
cuts. And, shoot, the inheritance tax, we have already paid taxes on it 
once. I believe every American in this country after working hard 
should have the opportunity to pass their inheritance on to their 
children, not to the United States Government. That is why we have 
proposed extensive tax relief.
  How are we able to set aside for money for Social Security and 
provide additional tax relief? That really goes back to the first 
chart, and again this first chart shows it emphatically. This is the 
only budget that holds spending increases in this government at or 
below the rate of inflation. These others that are going up faster than 
the rate of inflation will say good-bye to the tax cuts, will say good-
bye to that money is that supposed to be set aside for Social Security, 
because every nickel over the rate of inflation, that is money that 
should be set aside to preserve and protect Social Security and reduce 
the tax burden on our American families.
  Let me close with what I believe the priorities of this Nation are, 
because we have been hearing about these priorities and where we place 
our priorities in this country. I believe our priorities should be to 
defend our Nation. I believe it is the number one role of this 
government, to make sure that this Nation is safe and secure for our 
children.
  I think our responsibility is to return the control of education back 
to the parents and the teachers and the community. Control of education 
should not be out here at the United States Government. And just for 
the record, this budget allows inflationary increases in education.
  Preserve Social Security and reduce the tax burden. Those are the 
priorities of the CAT's budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Neumann substitute is an amendment and its main 
failing is that it fails to amend, correct, fix the many defects that 
are in the Kasich budget. In fact, it worsens them.
  At the outset I read a long bill of particulars to ask the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) if any of these problems in the Kasich 
budget had been cured or corrected in his substitute, and I have yet to 
hear an answer.
  He wants to go 50 percent further with spending reduction beyond Mr. 
Kasich. In income security, where the Kasich resolution would take $10 
billion out of TANF, we already have a letter from the gentleman's 
governor, the governor of Wisconsin, a stinging rebuke saying this is a 
repudiation of the governors' agreement with respect to welfare reform. 
Presumably the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) would go further, 
$15 billion out of the TANF block grant.
  Law enforcement, Kasich cuts law enforcement by $8 billion. If the 
gentleman from Wisconsin wants to go 50 percent further, presumably he 
will take $12 billion out of law enforcement.
  Section 8 housing, which has just been raised by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis), the Kasich budget claims to provide the outlays 
to renew 1 million section 8 contracts. Presumably the gentleman from 
Wisconsin would put 1.5 billion people out of housing. Kasich is bad 
enough. Neumann is worse. It is ultrabad. Vote it down.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 262, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 208]

                               AYES--158

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood

[[Page H4205]]


     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--262

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Ballenger
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     McDade
     Mollohan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sabo
     Tanner

                              {time}  1242

  Mr. NEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. PACKARD, and Mr. BARR of Georgia changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 2 printed in part 2 of House Report 105-565.


     Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Spratt

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Part 2 amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute 
     offered by Mr. Spratt of South Carolina:
       Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1999.

       The Congress declares that this is the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1999 and that the 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2000 through 
     2003 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,321,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,341,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,379,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,436,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,491,000,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1999: -$900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: -$200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $700,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,420,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,463,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,503,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,537,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,611,200,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,403,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,445,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,484,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,501,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,578,300,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1999: $82,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $104,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $104,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $64,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $87,300,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,582,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $5,756,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $5,926,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,059,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $6,211,100,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 1999 through 2003 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $274,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $280,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $269,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $272,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $279,800,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$600,000,000.

[[Page H4206]]

       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,000,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,700,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,300,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,900,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,100,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,700,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $145,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $143,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $151,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $151,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $159,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $159,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $166,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $167,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $177,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $178,600,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $209,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $210,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $221,510,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $220,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $242,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $251,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $248,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $273,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $273,400,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $246,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $247,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $259,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $258,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $280,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $278,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $291,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $288,900,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,300,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,800,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,600,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $297,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $297,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $297,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $297,800,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$800,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$37,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$39,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$39,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$43,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$43,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$42,700,000,000.

[[Page H4207]]

       (B) Outlays, -$42,700,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Submissions.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     adoption of this resolution, the House committees named in 
     subsection (b) shall submit their recommendations to the 
     House Committee on the Budget. After receiving those 
     recommendations, the House Committee on the Budget shall 
     report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all 
     such recommendations without any substantive revision.
       (b) Instructions to House Committees.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending to decrease outlays 
     by $0 for fiscal year 1999 and decrease outlays by 
     $40,000,000 for fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
       (2) Committee on banking and financial services.--The House 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending to decrease outlays by $212,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1999 and decrease outlays by $1,045,000,000 for fiscal years 
     1999 through 2003.
       (3) Committee on commerce.--The House Committee on Commerce 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending to decrease outlays by $707,000,000 
     for fiscal year 1999 and decrease outlays by $2,765,000,000 
     for fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
       (4) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction that that provide direct 
     spending to decrease outlays by $86,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1999 and increase outlays by $3,443,000,000 for fiscal years 
     1999 through 2003.
       (5) Committee on resources.--The House Committee on 
     Resources shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that that provide direct spending to decrease 
     outlays by $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and decrease 
     outlays by $381,000,000 for fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
       (6) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending to decrease outlays 
     by $437,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and decrease outlays by 
     $892,000,000 for fiscal years 1999 through 2003.

     SEC. 5. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF COMPENSATION AND PAY FOR 
                   FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       In the House, for purposes of enforcing the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, any bill or joint resolution, or 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, establishing 
     on a prospective basis compensation or pay for any office or 
     position in the Government at a specified level, the 
     appropriation for which is provided through annual 
     discretionary appropriations, shall not be considered as 
     providing new entitlement authority or new budget authority.

     SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON TOTAL BUDGET SURPLUSES AND 
                   SOCIAL SECURITY.

       It is the sense of Congress that:
       (1) The total budget surplus should be reserved until the 
     Congress and the President enact comprehensive measures 
     providing for the long-term solvency of Social Security, 
     while preserving its core protections for present and future 
     generations of American families.
       (2) There should be established within the Treasury a 
     ``Save Social Security First Reserve Fund'' to be used to 
     save budget surpluses until a reform measure is enacted to 
     ensure the long-term solvency of the Old-Age, Survivors, and 
     Disability Insurance Trust Funds. The Secretary of the 
     Treasury should pay into the account at the end of each 
     fiscal year an amount equal to the surplus, if any, in the 
     total budget of the United States Government for that fiscal 
     year. Balances in that account should be invested in Treasury 
     securities and interest earnings should be credited to the 
     account.

     SEC. 7. RESERVE FUND FOR POTENTIAL TOBACCO LEGISLATION.

       (a) In General.--Budget authority and outlays may be 
     allocated to a committee or committees for legislation that 
     increases funding to promote smoking prevention and 
     cessation, curbs cigarette smoking among teenagers, makes 
     payments to the States to mitigate the costs incurred of 
     treating smoking-related illnesses, provides support to 
     tobacco farmers, makes payments to other claimants against 
     tobacco companies, or funds Federal medical research, within 
     such a committee's jurisdiction, if such a committee or the 
     committee of conference on such legislation reports such 
     legislation, and if, to the extent that the costs of such 
     legislation are not included in this concurrent resolution on 
     the budget, the enactment of such legislation will not 
     increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous or previously 
     passed legislation) the deficits in this resolution for--
       (1) fiscal year 1999; and
       (2) the period of fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
       (b) Revised Allocations.--Upon the reporting of legislation 
     pursuant to subsection (a), and again upon the submission of 
     a conference report on such legislation (if a conference 
     report is submitted), the Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the House of Representatives may file with the 
     House appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised 
     functional levels and aggregates to carry out this 
     subsection. Such revised allocations, functional levels, and 
     aggregates shall be considered for the purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional 
     levels, and aggregates contained in this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget.
       (c) Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (Medicare Part A 
     Trust Fund).--Congress intends that any tobacco proceeds not 
     used for increased funding under subsection (a) should be 
     deposited in the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund 
     (established under section 1817 of the Social Security Act).

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE ACT.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) 33 percent of all American households have no or 
     negative financial assets and 60 percent of African-American 
     households have no or negative financial assets;
       (2) 46.9 percent of all children in America live in 
     households with no financial assets, including 40 percent of 
     Caucasian children and 75 percent of African-American 
     children;
       (3) in order to provide low-income families with more tools 
     for empowerment in lieu of traditional income support and to 
     assist them in becoming more involved in planning their 
     future, new public-private relationships that encourage 
     asset-building should be undertaken;
       (4) individual development account programs are 
     successfully demonstrating the ability to assist low-income 
     families in building assets while partnering with community 
     organizations and States in more than 40 public and private 
     experiments nationwide; and
       (5) Federal support for a trial demonstration program would 
     greatly assist the creative efforts of existing individual 
     development account experiments.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, 
     in carrying out its reconciliation instructions pursuant to 
     this concurrent resolution, the Committee on Ways and Means 
     should include the text of H.R. 2849 (the Assets for 
     Independence Act) in its submission to the House Committee on 
     the Budget.

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ON 
                   CLINICAL CANCER TRIALS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the committees of 
     jurisdiction should consider legislation this session that 
     would establish a 3-year demonstration project providing 
     medicare coverage for beneficiaries' participation in 
     clinical cancer trials.

     SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE INTERIM PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR 
                   HOME HEALTH BENEFITS UNDER MEDICARE.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the interim payment system for home health service has 
     adversely affected some home health care agencies and 
     medicare beneficiaries;
       (2) if home health care is threatened and further reduced, 
     health care costs to Federal and State governments, as well 
     as families, may rise to cover more expensive post-hospital 
     and long-term care;
       (3) the committees of jurisdiction should initiate a 
     revision of the interim payment system, paying particular 
     attention to providing a more gradual reduction in home 
     health care costs and additional time for home health care 
     agencies to adjust to lower rates and reimbursements;
       (4) due to the critical nature of this issue, Congress 
     should enact an equitable and fair revision of the interim 
     payment system before the adjournment of the 105th Congress; 
     and
       (5) the Health Care Financing Administration should fully 
     implement by October 1, 1999, the prospective payment system 
     that was enacted into law last year.

     SEC. 11. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON TAX RELIEF.

       It is the sense of Congress that the committees of 
     jurisdiction should accommodate high priority tax relief of 
     approximately $30,000,000,000 over 5 years within legislation 
     that fully offsets revenues lost by closing or restricting 
     unwarranted tax benefits. Such tax relief should--
       (1) accommodate the revenue effects of improving rights for 
     medical patients and providers in managed care health plans;
       (2) expand tax credits to alleviate the costs of child care 
     for families;
       (3) reduce financing costs for primary and secondary public 
     school modernization;
       (4) extend long-supported and previously renewed tax 
     benefits that will soon expire such as the Work Opportunity 
     and Research and Experimentation credits; and
       (5) mitigate tax code ``marriage penalties'' in a manner at 
     least equal in scope to the 1995 tax relief provision of H.R. 
     2491.
       Amend the title so as to read: ``A concurrent resolution 
     establishing the congressional budget for the United States 
     Government for fiscal year 1999 and setting forth appropriate 
     budgetary levels for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 
     2003.''.

                              {time}  1245

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Pursuant to House Resolution 
455, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

[[Page H4208]]

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, when I finally got a good look at this 
Republican budget, it reminded me of a country song that I once heard 
entitled My Daddy Took a Back-Hoe and Built Me a Sand-Castle of Sludge.
  Mr. Chairman, what a mess. After a long wait, with lots of noise, 
lots of rumbling and too much slip-sliding around the details, my 
colleagues across the aisle have come up with a budget that just will 
not stand up. I think we would all be lucky if a big wave just came 
along and washed it all out to sea.
  Fortunately, the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, has 
developed a budget plan that is both solid and sensible. I want to 
congratulate him on his work. The Democratic budget is a responsible 
budget, it shows fiscal restraint, and it harnesses this Nation's 
potential to help move this country forward.
  The Democratic budget invests in education. It includes funding to 
modernize our schools, to reduce class size, to improve discipline and 
to help our students excel.
  From Head Start to Pell grants, this budget says that the strength of 
our Nation tomorrow depends on the education we give our children 
today.
  In addition to education, the Democratic budget invests in better 
health care. It expands Medicare, it protects Medicaid, it funds 
medical research and moves to establish a Patients' Bill of Rights so 
that doctors and patients and nurses can make medical decisions and not 
insurance companies.
  The Democratic budget protects the environment. On this I want to pay 
particular compliment to my friend from South Carolina and the 
Democrats on the Committee on the Budget, because they provide vital 
resources to clean up our rivers and our lakes, to get rid of toxic 
waste sites and to preserve our great natural inheritance for 
generations to come.
  The Democratic budget proposal protects Social Security. It sets 
aside the budget surplus until we can reach a bipartisan plan to fund 
it for the long term. Our parents, Mr. Chairman, should not have to 
worry about their retirement and neither should their children.
  The Democratic budget also offers working families $30 billion in tax 
relief. It cuts the marriage penalty, it expands the child care tax 
credit, it helps small businesses, and it makes health care more 
affordable.
  All in all, it is a good budget. It is a balanced budget. It is a 
budget that invests in people and creates opportunity. It stands, I 
sadly say here this afternoon, in stark contrast to the Republican 
budget.
  The budget was due on the 15th of April. We have waited, patiently, 
and we have waited. This budget that they submitted is the latest 
budget in the history of the United States Congress. What did they 
finally come up with? They came up with the same old bilge that 
Americans have rejected time and time again.
  The Republican budget begins to dismantle Social Security, it slashes 
Medicaid, it cheats education, it bulldozes the environment, it 
squanders the surplus. Even Senator Domenici, excuse me for mentioning 
the other body, Mr. Chairman, distinguished gentleman from New Mexico, 
a Republican, he called the Republican House budget, and I quote, a 
mockery.
  This budget that they have proposed moves us backward. That is the 
wrong direction. We cannot afford to backslide. We need better schools. 
We need a cleaner environment and more affordable health care, not the 
same old slash-and-burn tactics of the Contract on America.
  The Democratic budget plan builds on our current successes, it keeps 
the budget in balance, it helps working families, and it invests in the 
future of this great country.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt budget and oppose the 
Republican budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), my colleague on the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I will make this very brief. I am going 
to have to vote against the Spratt substitute budget since it suggests 
a variety of policy changes that I do not think are appropriate. But I 
will support the Kasich budget. I feel we need to keep the process 
moving.
  Having said that, in all honesty, I do this with a great reluctance. 
Let me tell my colleagues why in three reasons.
  First of all, the premise of long-term tax cuts partially paid for by 
short-term expense reductions violates the pay-go principles that we so 
hard fought for several years ago. This is like taking out a 30-day 
note to pay for your dream house which you hope to live in for the rest 
of your life. It does not make any sense at all.
  Secondly, I worry about putting expense numbers on a piece of paper 
which are important, impact the future but which are totally 
unrealistic. This does not represent profiles in courage.
  Thirdly, I have lived long enough that a tree does not grow to 
heaven. We are enjoying a strong economy, maybe even a bubble economy. 
I do not think we should do anything to do something untoward at this 
particular time, so we really understand what we are going through now.
  So one can ask, why do I feel and why am I going to vote for this 
budget at all? I feel it is important for the body to send a document, 
imperfect as it may be, to conference with the Senate. I stand behind 
the process. I want to keep it moving. However, as a parting shot, if 
the numbers come back to us after the conference as they are set out 
before us now, I am going to vote the other way.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Spratt 
substitute.
  Let's be honest: the Republican budget resolution is a political 
document that fails even the most basic test of mathematics and fiscal 
reality. Its authors know it, I know it, we all know it. Even their 
party's most respected budget expert in the Senate, Senator Domenici, 
called this GOP budget ``a mockery.''
  The National Conference on State Legislators, the National League of 
Cities, and many Governors--of both parties--have also expressed their 
opposition to the resolution.
  Instead of keeping faith with last year's Balanced Budget Agreement, 
the Republican leadership's budget requires cuts in domestic programs 
that are so draconian that its authors don't even have the courage to 
tell the American people what they are. What we do know is that $100 
billion dollars--in addition to the reductions adopted last year--would 
have to be cut from Medicare, Medicaid, education, environment, 
veterans and other domestic programs over the next five years.
  As has been the case time and time again, these budget cuts will hurt 
low- and moderate-income working--and tax-paying--families the hardest. 
If this budget is adopted, it also will force us to turn a blind eye to 
serious national problems such as crumbling and overcrowded schools.
  Because of the restrictive rule governing this debate, the only 
responsible budget plan before us is this substitute offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt. This resolution keeps faith 
with last year's bipartisan budget agreement, includes $30 billion in 
carefully targeted tax cuts, and will provide funding to fix school 
buildings, provide affordable child care, hire 75,000 new teachers, and 
boost investments in medical research. It also protects Americans' 
retirement income by reserving all budget surpluses for Social Security 
until a long-term plan for preserving Social Security is adopted.
  For the sake of our children, our veterans, and the future of our 
Nation, I urge support of the Spratt substitute and opposition to the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly).
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Spratt substitute because I think the gentleman from South Carolina, 
with his years of experience in the budget process, has put together a 
substitute that makes sense and does not repeat failures of the past, 
such as in 1981 when we made promises to cut taxes, to increase defense 
spending, and to cut discretionary spending to pay for

[[Page H4209]]

those things, which of course, never happened.
  When I look at the budget resolution that is before us today, I see 
that same thing happening. I see it in a particular area of great 
interest to me, and an area that I have put a great deal of time into, 
and that area is the marriage penalty, something that affects millions 
of families. I do think our budget should move in that direction, to 
help the working families of America.
  I have worked for years to fix the marriage penalty. In fact, I 
called for the CBO report which is now the definitive study and which 
we can look to to help us get where we want to go. I am the leading 
Democrat on a bill to reinstate the two-earner deduction which is I 
think the best way we should go, and it has the bipartisan support of 
182 cosponsors.
  But when I look at the budget resolution before us today, I see a 
suggestion that we address the marriage penalty with a $100 billion 
solution. That is the top of the mark. We may like that solution, we 
would like to address the marriage penalty, but to pay for it by 
cutting other programs, I wonder if that will ever happen. I think same 
of us have seen some polling, and perhaps this is an issue that has 
become very popular. I say that because back in 1995, the majority had 
an opportunity to fix the marriage penalty, tried to fix it in a very 
small way and in a very intricate way that was very, very difficult to 
administer.
  I stand here today saying to the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget that his efforts have always been good in the past, but that 
right now I see him not doing what he should do to help American 
families. He says he is going to fix the marriage penalty. I do not 
know from where he is going to get the $100 billion. I hope this 
question, of the marriage penalty, goes to the Committee on Ways and 
Means and that the Committee gets back to resolving it in the way we 
should, in a fair way that does not penalize others while getting rid 
of the penalty for some. Fixing the marriage penalty is a good idea, 
but we should do it with some common sense.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).
  (Mr. COSTELLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Spratt 
substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, every year since I began serving in this body, I have 
sponsored a Constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget. 
This year's balanced budget reflects that hard work which allowed us to 
achieve that goal. I am proud of the way Members of Congress and the 
Administration worked together last year to responsibly improve the 
efficiency of government programs and cut taxes. It is these values 
that should govern our future budgets.
  Unfortunately, the budget document before us today does not adhere to 
these principles. This resolution includes $101 billion in unspecified 
cuts. It repudiates last year's bipartisan agreement, and conjures 
memories of 1995, when the same House leadership shut the government 
down twice with an equally illogical budget proposal. This budget 
threatens the solvency of Social Security, and makes deep cuts to non-
discretionary domestic spending. The American people deserve better 
than this, Mr. Speaker. This budget is not a blueprint to govern.
  This budget does not adequately protect the surplus. Earlier this 
year, the President stated that the surplus should be used to guarantee 
the future of Social Security. There is no doubt that the Social 
Security Trust Fund has long-range financing problems. Insolvency of 
the Disability Insurance portion of Social Security is projected to 
occur in 2015, with the retirement survivors account reaching 
insolvency in 2031. That is why the budget surplus should be reserved 
until a bipartisan Social Security Commission, the President and 
Congress can address the long term requirements of the system. This 
resolution, however, already falls short of funding current programs 
and it depends too much on unspecified future cuts to offset proposed 
tax cuts. This irresponsibility will siphon off the surplus before it 
can be used to protect Social Security.
  The resolution also cuts another $45 billion from discretionary 
spending over five years--well beyond the tight limits imposed by the 
Balanced Budget Agreement. We have heard many people today claim that 
this is just a 1% across the board cut, which seems very minor. The 
truth is far more disturbing. In this proposal, three-fifths of the 
budget is exempt from any cuts. That means all of these cuts will come 
from 40% of the total federal budget, which hardly qualifies as an 
``across the board cut.'' Under this plan, non-defense discretionary 
programs will suffer a 19% loss in purchasing power by 2003. While this 
document does not contain cuts to specific programs. Republicans have 
made some of their cuts known in an earlier budget document. The 
Economic Development Administration, Legal Services Corporation, 
AmeriCorps, and the Airport Improvement Program are all targets for 
cuts under this resolution.
  The Economic Development Administration has offered assistance to 
many disadvantaged communities in my congressional district. Working 
with the Southwestern Illinois Development Agency, the EDA has helped 
communities attract employers and create jobs in areas where  
unemployment is well above the national and state average, areas that 
have been affected by the closing of coal mines and the migration of 
industrial plants which employed thousands of people. This is not a 
program that benefits bureaucrats, it helps real people find jobs and 
improve their communities.

  The Legal Services Corporation is another good example of a federal 
program that is effectively being administered at the local level. The 
creators of the LSC recognized that decisions about how legal services 
should be allocated are best made not by officials in Washington, but 
at a local level, by the people who understand the problems that face 
their communities.
  Today, the LSC provides funds to operate programs in approximately 
1,100 communities nationwide, providing services to more than a million 
clients per year, benefitting approximately five million individuals, 
the majority of them children living in poverty. Family law makes up 
one-third of all of the cases handled by LSC programs each year. In 
1995, legal services programs handled over 9,300 cases involving abused 
and neglected women and children.
  AmeriCorps is another valuable program enabling estimated 50,000 
students to earn funds for college while performing community service 
in tasks ranging from assisting teachers to working on environmental 
clean-up. There are two highly successful AmeriCorps sites in my 
congressional district. The program in Belleville, Illinois places 34 
participants in the disadvantaged Abraham Lincoln and Franklin 
neighborhoods to clean up damage from the flood of 1993, and offer 
conflict management training. The 24 participants in the AmeriCorps 
program in East St. Louis have developed a successful tutoring program 
in schools where resources are scarce.
  The Airport Improvement Program is another critical federal 
initiative that is jeopardized by this budget. With airline passenger 
traffic expected to continue to grow, we need to ensure that airports 
across the country are equipped to handle future capacity. MidAmerica 
Airport in my district was recently opened to address the congestion 
program in the St. Louis and MetroEast community. This airport was 
completed in part through the Airport Improvement Program. Without the 
development of MidAmerica Airport, the region would face considerable 
capacity limits in the near future. The AIP is a critical component of 
safe and efficient air travel.
  In addition to these severe cuts, the assumptions addressing 
transportation spending in this resolution are nothing short of 
fantasy. On May 22, the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed a six-
year transportation bill including funding for highways, highway 
safety, and mass transit. The budget resolution before us today falls 
short of paying for this legislation by over $20 billion! Mr. Speaker, 
it is completely ludicrous that this budget does not include funding to 
pay for this legislation which has already passed overwhelmingly in 
Congress.
  Congress realized this funding is vital because our infrastructure is 
crumbling around us. In my home state of Illinois, for example, a 
quarter of all the bridges are structurally deficient. Forty-three 
percent of roads in Illinois are in poor or mediocre condition. Driving 
on these roads costs Illinois motorist $1 billion a year in extra 
vehicle operating costs. That is $144 per driver. These statistics are 
shameful. As we enter the next millennium, we cannot allow our nation's 
infrastructure to languish in the past.
  In my district in Southwestern Illinois projects funded in TEA21 are 
critical to meet the transportation needs of many communities. For 
example, the MetroLink light rail system provides a vital 
transportation link for commuters and travelers in the St. Louis-
MetroEast area. MetroLink, whose ridership has surpassed all 
expectations, has had an enormous impact on the environment, 
transportation efficiency and economic development in my district and 
the entire St. Louis metropolitan region.
  This budget also fails to identify ways we may improve the use of our 
resources. In his

[[Page H4210]]

budget for this year, the President included funding to modernize and 
improve our public schools. I strongly believe this program should be 
included in the House budget resolution. It provides incentives to 
communities to invest in local school facilities through the use of 
leveraged bonds. The program targets the 100 poorest school districts 
in the nation, while providing money for the state's to use on poor 
districts within their jurisdiction.
  Often we dedicate our resources to the disadvantaged schools in large 
urban areas, overlooking the many needy schools in rural areas. My 
congressional district in Southern Illinois has many schools which 
would benefit from this program. Many of the schools in my area are 
dilapidated and over 50 years old. When the school buildings are warm, 
safe, and comfortable, children are free to concentrate on learning. 
That is something that will benefit us all.
  This resolution does not save the surplus, it does not adequately 
protect Social Security, it does not allow vital programs to continue, 
it does not pay for programs already passed into law, and it does not 
recognize ways in which government can improve its service to people. I 
cannot support a resolution that violates the Balanced Budget Agreement 
and threatens the solvency of Social Security. That is why I will 
support the Spratt Amendment to save Social Security and honor the 
Balanced Budget Agreement, and why I cannot support the Kasich budget 
plan.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt 
amendment. I would much preferred to have been supporting the Blue Dog 
budget, but as we know that was not to be.
  Let me make certain that all of my colleagues understand what the 
Spratt budget does and does not do. The reason I can support it, it 
stays within the balanced budget agreement of last year. It does not 
spend any more money than what we agreed to last year, nor does it 
raise any more taxes than what we agreed to last year. No matter how 
many other people say it differently, they should know that is not 
true.
  In addition, the Spratt budget is honest with the BESTEA, ISTEA, the 
TEA 21 bill by fully funding the additional amounts needed for highways 
and transit. If we look carefully at what the gentleman from South 
Carolina has done, we will see that in all aspects he is totally honest 
in the manner in which he pays for those additional spending proposals 
that he calls for, within the confines of the balanced budget 
agreement.
  I think that that is so important for us today, because I have 
listened to the previous debate regarding the so-called CATs bill, and 
I am reminded of Yogi Berra. That was deja vu all over again. Anybody 
that believed that that would have worked as was proposed has got to be 
smoking something.
  This bill that is before us in the amendment today will keep us on 
the track of the economy that we are now on. It lives within the 
agreement that we made last year. It certainly deserves our support.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
leadership on the Committee on the Budget. On fiscal matters generally, 
I think in my own view, he is probably the most credible spokesperson 
in this House in either party on these issues. I am pleased to 
associate myself with his remarks.
  Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for that and I commend the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). He has done a great job in 
putting forth a budget that all of us, hopefully a few on the other 
side of the aisle, can be supportive of.
  If you agree that we set the country on the right track with the 
balanced budget agreement, if you agree that our economy is moving in 
the right direction, if you agree that we have the lowest unemployment 
in 25 years, if you agree that we have the lowest inflation, then let 
us stay with that game plan. Let us not change it. Let us not go for a 
budget like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) puts out here today 
that is back end loaded, that promises spending cuts but only in 2002 
and 2003.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. NUSSLE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Miller), my colleague on the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the 
time to discuss this, the budget from the Democrats today.
  Last night we debated the budget that was presented by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) of the Committee on the Budget, and one of the 
earlier speakers on the other side said the two budgets stand in stark 
contrast to each other, and I would have to agree with my colleague, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), on that issue because this is 
a contrast that shows a vision of whether we believe in more government 
or less government, whether we believe in more taxes or less taxes and 
whether we want to keep more power in Washington or if we want to shift 
power back to the States and individuals. And that is exactly what this 
is.
  Fortunately, the Spratt budget, I have to admit, is a lot better than 
President Clinton's budget; so that is one good thing I can say about 
it, because it does not have as many new programs and as much new 
taxes, but it does have more taxes, and it does create many new 
programs, and that is the problem of creating more government here in 
Washington.
  This is my sixth year on the Committee on the Budget, and the past 3, 
under the chairmanship of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), we have 
had tremendous success. We are now at a stage where we are going to 
have a surplus in our budget this fiscal year ending September 30 in 
the total amount of money coming in, the total amount of money going 
out. We are going to have a surplus for the first time since 1969, and 
that is because of the budget leadership provided by the Republicans 
since we took control of this House in 1995. We have cut taxes. We have 
had significant entitlement reforms such as welfare reform and Medicare 
reforms, and these reforms will save money in the long term because we 
are going to save the Medicare program from bankruptcy.
  But the thing is it is better for the people in the programs, it is 
better for the senior citizens in this country under the Medicare 
program because now they are going to have choices and more options 
than they have had in the past.
  Now what the Spratt budget does, it wants to expand the Medicare 
program while the Medicare commission is meeting right now and coming 
up with recommendations. Why not wait? Why do my colleagues want to 
expand more government and especially with a program that is in the 
process of going bankrupt?
  In the past 3 budgets we have made a significant accomplishment in 
the area of discretionary spending, especially domestic discretionary. 
We have gotten rid of over 300 programs in the Federal Government, and 
actually in 1995 in the 104th Congress we actually had a reduction in 
discretionary domestic spending. That is a real accomplishment.
  We need to stick with the budget presented by the Committee on the 
Budget, move forward and reduce the size and scope of the government, 
and I urge defeat of the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, our colleagues should vote for 
this budget, everybody on both sides of the aisle, for 3 reasons.
  First, it is a honest budget. No games playing. What we see is what 
we get.
  Secondly, it is a responsible budget. It keeps us on the road to 
fiscal responsibility, it maintains a budget surplus, it does not get 
us into the kind of partisan political gamesmanship that ultimately 
resulted in $300 billion deficits and a $5.4 trillion Federal debt. It 
keeps the momentum going towards fiscal responsibility that was 
reflected in the Bipartisan Balanced Budget Agreement just a few months 
ago.
  And thirdly and perhaps most importantly, it is doable. We pass this 
budget, and we get into conference with the Senate, and we can agree to 
a budget within a matter of weeks. We will get this budget enacted, and 
then we will get our appropriations bills enacted.
  And then we do not have to worry about the government shutting down.

[[Page H4211]]

 We do not have to worry about this Congress being embarrassed at our 
lack of inaction or lack of ability to work together in a constructive 
way.
  I want my colleagues to think about this:
  The Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee called the 
budget that is the alternative, the Republican budget that is the 
alternative to this that we are offering, ``a mockery''. Senator 
Stevens, the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
called the majority's budget, a budget that would result in ``Congress 
not being able to function''. Why? Because it has got things in it that 
my colleagues cannot go home and justify to their constituents.
  Mr. Chairman, I dare anybody that has Federal employees in their 
congressional district to go out and explain why they voted to cut the 
Federal employees health benefits plan down to a 50 percent required 
contribution on the part of employees. Go ahead and explain it, justify 
it.
  My colleagues should not do this to themselves. Vote for the Spratt 
budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who just spoke, said do not 
worry, do not worry, this is a doable budget, do not worry, this is a 
doable budget.
  Do my colleagues know why it is a doable budget, know why the Spratt 
substitute is a doable budget? Because it does nothing. It basically is 
a status quo, do nothing budget. It does nothing to suggest that the 
government is already too big and spends still too much. It does 
nothing to the number of programs that need to be consolidated. It does 
nothing with regard to suggesting to families and individuals and 
farmers and small business people that they pay enough in taxes. It 
does nothing for some of the waste that has been rooted out through a 
number of hearings, everything from $800 outhouses in the Delaware 
Water Gap National Recreation Area to $584,000 homes built for park 
employees in Yosemite National Park to 26, and here is a do nothing, 
here is a let us keep the status quo: 26,000 people in 4 States 
receiving food stamps who are dead.
  So, yes, let us do nothing, let us keep the status quo, let us vote 
for a budget that basically says we cannot do better than that. We 
cannot find a penny on the dollar. We cannot say to the American people 
that what they earn and what they make and what they save is more 
important than what happens out here in Washington, D.C. on a daily 
regular basis. That is do nothing.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not have to worry because we have got the IRS. We 
can take their money out here. We do not have to worry, as the 
gentleman says from Virginia. Well, okay, I guess they do not want to 
worry.
  I guess most of us on this side, and the reason why the Republicans 
put this budget together, was because we are worried. We are worried 
about the future for our kids, we are worried about the future for 
Social Security, we are worried about the future for health care, we 
want to make sure that the welfare reforms continue to progress in a 
responsible and a positive way, we want to make sure our kids get a 
decent education, controlled at home.
  We are worried; that is why you need to vote for the Republican 
budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) to respond.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman. 
I am worried. I am worried that we will not maintain this momentum of 
fiscal responsibility.
  Does the gentleman imply that the Senate is not worried about fiscal 
responsibility? The Spratt budget is very much like the Senate budget. 
That is why I suggest it is a doable budget. It is very much like the 
President's budget.
  And would the gentleman not agree that the balanced budget agreement 
of just a few months ago reflected our concerns, was a responsible 
instrument? The Spratt budget is virtually the same as the balanced 
budget agreement. It continues the balanced budget agreement, it 
continues our commit to fiscal responsibility. That is why it is 
doable, and that is why the Republican budget is not doable, because it 
departs from the balanced budget agreement that we agreed to just a few 
months ago.
  That was my point, and I think it is a very valid one, and the Senate 
happens to agree with us. That is why I want my colleagues to vote for 
this budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
  Basically what he is saying is, ``You don't have to worry. Just keep 
going. Nothing needs to be changed. There's nothing wrong with what 
happens in Washington. There isn't one program that wastes money. There 
isn't one bureaucracy that needs to be changed. There isn't one program 
that needs to be reformed. There isn't one thing that needs to be done 
other than what we did last year to continue, just maintain the status 
quo.''
  That is what the gentleman is saying.
  Oh, last year's agreement was so good, we do not have to change a 
thing.
  Well, go ahead and vote for that, and, as far as the Senate comment, 
do not make me answer whether or not we can do better than the Senate. 
We usually do as a body, and we will continue with this budget as well.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic budget 
plan. This is really the best budget that we have seen for several 
years although it certainly does not have everything that any of us 
would like to see in a budget, but it has some things that most of us 
would like to see. The Republican budget lacks details, is mean-
spirited because it still takes from the middle class and the poor, and 
it adds to the silver plate for the rich. The Democratic plan, however, 
gives $10 billion in tax cuts through entitlement initiatives, and it 
does not allow Republican cuts in health care, welfare to work, 
education, environmental protections, infrastructure, veterans and 
other programs critical to the health of our Nation.
  We are in one of the most prosperous periods, yet in the midst of our 
celebration of our wealth we are ignoring and passing by a sizeable 
part of our American family. One-third of our population have less 
buying power than 20 years ago. Our schools and our cities, countryside 
and housing are in shambles, yet this House majority acts as if the 
majority of people in this country are millionaires.
  The Democratic budget is a coalition budget which accommodates the 
values of a broader group of fellow Americans. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Fazio).
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, the New York Times calls it 
budget bologna. The Washington Post dubs it budget theatrics. Even the 
Senate Budget Chairman Pete Domenici, our longtime Republican leader 
there, calls it a mockery.
  But no matter what it is labeled, the budget offered by the 
Republican leadership even at this late date is another example of 
their inability to conduct the Nation's business.
  As we have heard today, there is little appetite for a budget, even 
among many Republicans in this House and certainly in the Senate, that 
would wipe out the Energy and Commerce Departments, privatize the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, eliminate the Legal Services 
Corporation and AmeriCorps, the national service program, and abolish a 
tax break for low income couples without children.
  Although the outrage from the American public has forced retreat on 
some of these proposals, the latest offering from the Republican 
leadership continues to be unrealistic and radical. It deviates from 
last year's balanced budget plan so much so that Office of Management 
and Budget Director Frank Raines calls it a rank repudiation of the 
balanced budget agreement on which we shook hands just 1 year ago. This 
new plan makes deep cuts of $101 billion in domestic programs to pay 
for 101 billion in new tax breaks that primarily help upper income 
people, and it contradicts legislation that the House just passed to 
increase transportation spending by $22 billion by calling for a cut in 
highways and mass transit of $5 billion over 5 years.
  This is patently ridiculous on its face.

[[Page H4212]]

                              {time}  1315

  In many ways, this budget is similar to what House Republicans 
proposed in 1995. As you may remember, President Clinton refused to 
buckle under to pressures from the House leaders to sign a radical 
budget, and Republicans shut down the Federal Government twice before 
relenting. It is possible that that scenario could be repeated, if 
Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership continue to play 
politics with this Federal budget and this process.
  Last year we had a bipartisan agreement on spending that would keep 
our Nation's books balanced. We agreed on funding levels that would not 
put our Nation's neediest senior citizens at risk, and would boost our 
commitment to transportation, education, health care and the 
environment. If the Republican leadership walks away from this 
bipartisan agreement in an attempt to gain political points in this 
election year, they face a risky confrontation with those of us in 
Congress who demand that the government meet its needs with an honest 
budget blueprint.
  The Spratt substitute is just that blueprint. It puts Social Security 
first, it protects Medicaid and Medicare, it allocates money so we can 
enact the Patient's Bill of Rights that will give Americans in HMOs the 
kind of care they deserve.
  Instead of cutting funds for veterans, the environment and our 
police, it increases funding for drug enforcement, law enforcement, 
clean water and national parks. Instead of cutting education and 
highway funding, it calls for the hiring of 75,000 teachers to reduce 
class size, and fully funds the bill we passed here a few weeks ago to 
rebuild the nation's infrastructure.
  Let us not repeat the debacle of 1995. Let us approve an honest plan, 
that keeps our budget balanced and does not put our vibrant economy at 
risk. We saw today how solid our employment statistics are, with low 
inflation. We ought not to be experimenting, creating an atmosphere in 
which we could once again balloon the deficit because we do not have 
the discipline that the Kasich budget would break.
  Let us support the Spratt amendment. Let us reject this political 
charade. Let us stay the course and keep America moving in the 
direction that it has been moving under the Clinton Administration.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller).
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for all of his work and 
effort in bringing to this Congress for a vote today a budget that is 
not only responsible, but also meets the priorities and the needs of 
the American people. It meets the needs of our families in the areas of 
education and health care.
  That is a dramatic contrast to the budget that is being served up by 
the Republican majority. There they failed to set out priorities in 
education, they failed to set out priorities in health care, and one of 
the areas where they not only failed to set out priorities, but in fact 
provide substantial reductions and threats, is to our national 
environment and the programs provided to protect the environment of 
this Nation.
  With an excessive $5 billion cut in the area of natural resources, 
they threaten programs to improve our water quality, to take care of 
the refuges, to take care of the recreational areas, the national parks 
and wilderness areas of this country that are visited by millions of 
Americans every year. They slashed the programs to acquire additional 
lands. Each and every year we do this, those lands become more 
expensive and harder to acquire to protect for the use of the American 
people.
  We see that they have refused to provide monies to those agencies 
that are essential to protecting the revenues that the American people 
are entitled to for the use of their lands, revenues from mining 
companies that pay us no rent as they take billions of dollars of gold 
and platinum off of the public lands, the hundreds of millions of 
dollars and billions of dollars that the oil companies are underpaying 
the American taxpayers for the use of those lands as they take off 
billions of dollars in oil and gas resources from those lands.
  The Republicans' answer is to slash the budget of those agencies that 
have oversight of that. Rather than charge those companies a fair rent, 
a fair charge for the use of the public resources, they would rather 
cut nutrition, they would rather cut health care, they would rather 
threaten Medicaid and Medicare, rather than making people pay their 
fair share.
  The problem with all of this is it threatens the very resources that 
tens of millions of people in this country will be using this summer, 
our national parks, refuges and national forests. This budget is 
devastating to those environmental programs.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield three minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, last night when we closed debate on the 
rule, I was trying to figure out over the weekend an analogy which 
would demonstrate what this debate is really all about.
  There are really two debates going on here. One is inside the 
Beltway, and one is outside the Beltway. Inside the Beltway we hear 
people saying we cannot tighten that Federal budget belt one notch.
  Let me demonstrate. What I had my staff do was go out and get three 
belts. We put them together. What we have here is a nine foot belt. 
Every foot on this belt represents $1 trillion worth of Federal 
spending over the next five years. That is $9 trillion. That is a nine 
foot belt. I do not think anybody in this House could actually wear 
this belt.
  All we are asking in the Kasich budget is for our friends on the 
appropriations committees to tighten this belt one notch, one inch out 
of a nine foot belt. Yet we hear from some of our friends here inside 
the Beltway that that cannot be done, that nine feet is not enough, 
that there is no waste, there is no fat, there is nothing left in the 
Federal budget that can be trimmed so that we can tighten this belt 
even one notch.
  Now, inside the Beltway, I think to a lot of people on that side of 
the aisle, that debate makes sense. But I will tell you what, outside 
the Beltway in that great middle part of America, the places you call 
``fly-over country,'' out there I think most Americans would look at 
this belt and they would think of this analogy, and they would say to 
me things like, ``You mean only one notch?''
  But the great news is, if we can get our friends on the 
appropriations committees to tighten that belt just one notch, guess 
what? We can eliminate the marriage penalty tax. Every year over 21 
million American families pay a penalty of almost $1,400 per family 
just because they are married.
  My wife and I celebrate our wedding anniversary this week. We have 
been married 26 years now. I believe she still loves me, but I wish the 
IRS would stop tempting her to leave me. That is what happens to 21 
million American couples. Every year they pay a penalty just for being 
married.
  All we are asking here today is if we can possibly get our friends on 
the appropriations committees and our friends over in the other body to 
tighten this budget belt just one notch, so that we can eliminate the 
marriage penalty tax, so that my wife will not be tempted to leave me, 
and a lot of other spouses, not only of Members in this body, people 
all over the United States.
  Let us eliminate the marriage penalty tax, let us protect Social 
Security, let us start paying down some of that debt, and let us 
eliminate some of the fat, the waste, the fraud and the abuse in the 
Federal budget so we can do the right thing, not only for American 
families but for future generations of Americans as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Kasich plan. I respect the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the budget plan they are offering. I 
think the only plan that can pass is the one offered by Mr. Kasich and 
the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for the purpose of a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the

[[Page H4213]]

chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy 
with the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
  Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, H. Con. Res. 284 as passed out 
of your committee includes a budget savings allocation of $1.6 billion 
to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. This allocation 
would directly impact Federal workers and retirees.
  While the current budget resolution does not detail specific program 
reduction recommendations, an earlier version specified that reductions 
should come from the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, the 
FEHBP, and through increased retirement contributions past the current 
expenditure dates. It cannot help but be implicitly perceived as 
continuing to endorse such reduction in Federal retiree benefits, and, 
I might add, current employee benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, it is I my understanding based on our earlier 
conversations that the Committee on the Budget will hold harmless the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in the event the committee 
does not respond to its savings direction included in this budget 
resolution.
  Could the gentleman comment and clarify this situation?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman 
from Virginia is correct. Despite the fact that the budget resolution 
draft does not include specific assumptions, the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight is reconciled for savings of about $1.6 
billion. It is not our intent under this resolution that these savings 
be achieved by reducing benefits in the FEHBP or any of these other 
payer benefits of Civil Service or Postal Service employees or 
retirees.
  The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, notwithstanding 
these instructions, will not be held accountable for these 
reconciliation savings in the event the committee is unable to achieve 
its instructed savings.
  Let me further say we would not go around the committee to the 
Committee on Rules in order to get that done. We will make sure we work 
with the Senate to make sure that $1.6 billion does not come out of 
those programs. But we will figure out a way in which to be able to 
make our marker without having to do this.
  I also know that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) are deeply concerned that when we 
get about the penny on the dollar, we be very cautious and 
compassionate about the way we do it, which is exactly how we will 
proceed. I understand the concerns of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and want to make it 
clear that we will be very sensitive.
  I also want to say to the gentleman from Virginia, it is our intent 
out of that one penny on a dollar to be able to get ourselves in a 
position of where we can make government more effective and more 
efficient and squeeze out an awful lot of the waste and duplication in 
order to get this job done.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman. I would just simply add that Federal employees are the 
greatest asset we have in this government. We need to properly 
compensate and incentivize this. I am comforted by the remarks of the 
chairman.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) the minority leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, this budget is our common sense vision, 
our road map for a new century and a new economy. Our budget rejects 
the misguided and extreme policies and priorities of this Republican 
slash-and-burn budget and comes up with a moderate and responsible 
alternative.
  The Republican leadership has put forward a budget that is so unfair 
and unwise that it is already dead on arrival. It is unacceptable, not 
only to many Democrats, but also to many Republicans as well.
  I have been amused to hear the answers to questions about the budget. 
There is so little specificity because no one seems able to put the 
specificity behind the budget that it needs. So we hear, ``Well, that 
problem will be handled in conference.'' Translated, that means we are 
going to have the Domenici budget, I suppose, because everything is 
going to get settled in conference.
  This Republican budget is expired milk poured into new cartons. It is 
more of the same fiscal radicalism based on the same irresponsible cuts 
which the American people specifically rejected in the election of 
1996. Do not be fooled. This budget that we are voting on in the next 
few minutes is the same budget that we had in 1995 from the Contract on 
America.
  The Republican path steers us into a dead end, where American 
families fend for themselves and are at the mercy of the global 
marketplace. They want to withdraw from our commitments to education, 
to health care and the environment, key areas critical to the future of 
our country and the prosperity of our people.
  Democrats are united behind a different vision, the vision contained 
in the Democratic alternative. We want to build upon the economic 
success that we currently enjoy, a success that owes a lot to the 
Democratic budget of 1993, a budget that we passed without one 
Republican vote in the House or in the Senate. If it were up to the 
Republicans in Congress, we would not have made the wise and prudent 
fiscal choices that have brought about the strongest economy that we 
have seen in decades in this country.

                              {time}  1330

  We have more work that still needs to be done. Democrats want to meet 
the challenges presented to us by the changing economy and workplace. 
Government must play a limited, but critical role in ensuring that the 
growth we currently enjoy continues and its benefits are widely shared 
by all working families.
  While Republicans talk about protecting Americans and their 
retirement, their budget threatens the safety and integrity of Social 
Security. The Democratic budget ensures that any surplus will be used 
to protect the foundation of retirement security for all Americans.
  While Republicans talk a lot about the breakdown of the American 
family, the Democratic budget does something to actually address the 
problem. The Democratic budget makes a commitment to an act, the 
Patients Bill of Rights Act, so that families will receive the health 
care they need and pay for.
  Our budget makes the investments in child care, which will enable 
Americans to balance the needs of their families with their demands 
from work.
  The Democratic budget makes the smart investments in education that 
we desperately need to modernize and upgrade our public schools so our 
kids receive the knowledge and the skills they need to compete in a 
world marketplace.
  While the Republicans profess to care about preserving the 
environment, their budget makes drastic cuts in environmental 
protection. Democrats are fighting to safeguard our natural heritage by 
increasing the funding of toxic waste cleanups and expanding parks and 
open spaces.
  The Kasich budget has been repudiated by moderate Republicans. It has 
been renounced by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). It has been 
ridiculed by Pete Domenici, and it should be rejected by this Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt substitute, the only 
honest and responsible budget alternative that has been before us.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make something clear. I have some 
concerns about this resolution, especially with regard to the 
provisions which I believe single out Federal employees and retirees 
for unnecessary and unfair reductions.
  I am encouraged by the statement of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kasich) to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) that the $1.6 
billion in savings from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight will not mean benefit reductions in the Federal employees 
health benefits program or any

[[Page H4214]]

other pay or benefits of civil service or Postal Service employees or 
retirees.
  With that assurance, I will vote for the resolution to move the 
process forward, but it does not mean that I will vote for it when it 
comes back in the conference report. I will weigh it then.
  One other thing, if I could just get the gentleman's attention. I 
would urge the gentleman from Ohio that when he looks at the final 
agreement to remember the poorest and the most vulnerable in our 
country.
  In the Bible, there are 244 references to the poor; 172 in the Old 
Testament, 72 in the New Testament. The oppressed are mentioned 45 
times. I must tell the gentleman, in this whole body, both sides, that 
the passage of the highway bill, which was laden with pork barrel 
spending projects, was very troubling to me, especially the full court 
press lobbying efforts and the hiring of certain lobbyists to get 
certain projects in that bill.
  I just wanted to say that the way the Congress, I believe, has 
pursued the recent highway bill, which funds $216 billion over the next 
6 years for surface transportation, while transportation funding is 
necessary, I believe that the Congress got greedy, and we have 
effectively blown the budget caps and all that for a lot of special 
pork barrel projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, I think he 
knows I started a fight against corporate welfare in this House, which 
I fight every day. That is because I made the argument that we just 
cannot take from one group. We cannot reform welfare for the poor 
without reforming welfare for the rich.
  The fact of the matter is government is a final safety net for people 
who do not have anything. Where I come from, it is a sin not to help 
people who need help. But I also say it is always a sin to continue to 
help people who need to learn to help themselves.
  I would say to the gentleman that we want to be very sensitive to 
this and not pick, as one person once said, on the weak clients in our 
society without having the guts to stand up and take on some of the 
special interests. As the gentleman knows, I share his concern in a 
number of areas, and I have worked hard, worked hard to try to 
ameliorate some of those rough edges and keep at it.
  Mr. WOLF. Well, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Next week, I 
will send the gentleman a letter on this issue that I would like to 
share. I know probably no one will read it, and many will think it is 
too preachy, but it will be a letter to the entire Republican caucus on 
this issue, which includes the passage of the unfortunate highway bill.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), my colleague on the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me. There is much concern in this House on both sides of the aisle 
with every budget that comes before us. It is a document. It is a 
political document which can become troublesome, particularly during 
election times.
  However, it is the responsibility of us to pass a budget. It is our 
responsibility to read these budgets and to come up with the best 
particular budget that we can.
  In reading over the Kasich budget, there was concern and there is 
concern that has been expressed in this House as to what is going to 
happen to TANF. That is welfare. It was this Republican Congress that 
passed welfare reform. We did it in cooperation with the governors in 
this country, in partnership with the governors of this country. We 
gave our word to the governors that we were going to hold the funding 
for 5 years, and that is exactly what we are going to do.
  I chair the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over TANF, and I will 
give my word now to each Member in this Congress that we are not going 
to cut TANF this year. The final budget that comes out of Congress will 
exactly back us up on that particular matter. We have given our word. 
We keep our word.
  Let us get on with this. Let us vote down the Spratt budget and vote 
up the Kasich budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains for both sides, and 
who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ney). The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) has 14 minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) has the right to close.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let us just go back for a second and think 
about what we are talking about here. Over the last 5 years, the 
Federal Government has spent $7.8 trillion. Over the next 5 years, we 
are scheduled to grow from $7.8 trillion to $9 trillion.
  The American family would say, frankly, if we sat down with them and 
said, do we need to go from $7.8 trillion to $9.1 trillion, they 
probably would not serve us dinner that night.
  We are not even asking to make any difficult or serious reduction in 
government. All we are suggesting is, instead of the government going 
from $7.8 trillion to $9.1 trillion, they go to $9 trillion.
  We save a penny on the dollar. You cannot run away from it. You 
cannot escape it. You cannot hide from it. It is designed to save one 
penny on each dollar of Federal spending.
  We take those savings, and do you know what we do with them, Mr. 
Chairman? We help the American family. We say that we want to get rid 
of this marriage penalty. We also want to work with the small business 
community to make it easier for them to thrive, because, you know, in 
some ways, the small business community is synonymous with the health 
of the American people.
  So our approach here today is to try to trim some of the excess out 
of government, to make government more efficient and more effective. We 
do not see a reason why we need 150 separate job training programs and 
340 programs in housing, including 103 that are inactive.
  We do not see a reason why we should have an $800,000 outhouse in the 
Delaware Water Gap or to spend $584,000 per home in Yosemite. We 
certainly do not see a reason to spend $34 million to do closed 
captioning of the Jerry Springer Show and Bay Watch.
  I mean, the fact is, in an institution that is the largest 
institution on the face of this globe, it is the one major institution 
on the face of this globe that has not undergone any downsizing.
  What we have to ask ourselves today is can we begin to change the 
culture of Washington. Any time there has got to be some kind of a 
change, people jump up and say do not affect me. But we have got a 
choice. If we cannot affect the culture of Washington, if we cannot 
save a penny on a dollar, then we are telling the American family the 
government is more important than they are. That is not a message that 
any of us want to communicate out of this Chamber.
  The fact is we all know intuitively, and of course we know by solid 
example, that, in fact, we can live under this heavy yoke of only $9 
trillion in spending to be able to help our families.
  In terms of the President's budget, folks, look, $150 billion in new 
spending and $130 billion in new taxes. He essentially is trying to 
reinvent the era of big government. In the Spratt budget, there are no 
tax cuts. They want to have more tax increases and blow through the 
spending caps and wreck the discipline that Alan Greenspan told us 
would hurt this economy.
  The bottom line is it is a reasonable proposal. Do you know what I 
wish? Do you know who I wish was here today to vote on this? All the 
people outside of this Beltway who go to work for a living and struggle 
every day to make ends meet.
  Members are sitting in their offices, and they are thinking about 
this vote, and ask yourself, can we save a penny on a dollar and 
communicate to our constituents that mom and dad and the kids are the 
most important thing going on in this society today?
  In light of all the incidents that we have seen over the last couple 
of months, I think the answer is unquestionably yes. We just resist 
some of the culture. We just resist some of the people that are trying 
to trap us in this city, resist some of the people who say

[[Page H4215]]

that America should be run from the top down.
  Let us transfer power, money, and influence from this city back to 
the people so they are in charge in their communities to develop local 
solutions to local problems, strengthen the family, and strengthen the 
community, and build America from the bottom up.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes just to point out 
something. It is interesting, as we actually look through the Spratt 
proposal, and this is probably something that would surprise many 
people because of all of the rhetoric that we have heard here today. 
But interestingly enough, the Democrats cut Medicare.
  They cut Medicare from the Republican budget; in fact, $600 million 
the first year, $300 million the second year, $400 million a third 
year, $300 million the fifth year. They cut Medicare.
  These are the same folks who were down here in the well just a moment 
ago talking about how important health care was to them, and, yet, they 
are running around cutting Medicare. It is one thing to claim that you 
are cutting, and it is another thing to claim that you are actually 
being responsible.
  I am sure there is a logical explanation for all of these Medicare 
cuts. I am sure they are going to claim it has something to do with 
fraud or waste or something like that. If that is what it is, of course 
I am amazed to find out all the Democrats can find within a Medicare 
budget is only $600 million worth of fraud.
  But it just points out that sometimes the rhetoric that we hear on 
the floor does not meet the reality of the words and figures that are 
on the pages. There are things like that that make it very frustrating.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman, it is 
important that we have talked about the Clinton budget, but, frankly, 
we need to talk about what we are all about, why we took charge in 
1995, what we came here to do as a majority party, joined with some of 
our friends on the other side of the aisle. We came to make the budget, 
government budget smaller and the family budget bigger.

                              {time}  1345

  In order to do that, we are going to create a mechanism in this House 
that will create the reforms, the commonsense reforms, that the 
American people really want.
  I would say to my Republican colleagues, we do not want to forget the 
reason why the people sent us here. It was to reduce government. It was 
to reduce regulation. It was to return power, money, and influence to 
the people. It was to make government more effective. It was to make 
government more efficient. It was to reject the notion that big 
government can solve our problems.
  Do Members want to know something? That is what the people in the 
neighborhoods are saying today, give me a chance to get up to bat. Give 
me a chance to have some of my power back. Give me a chance to have 
some of my money back, and make the Federal Government more effective 
and more efficient, and stop having to take too much from me. Make it 
work.
  I would say to the gentleman, this is the incentive we need to get 
this done. I want to suggest to the gentleman, we can change the 
culture. We can respond to what the people want and we can improve our 
country.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, who will engage in a colloquy with the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me for the purposes of a colloquy that I might have with the chairman 
of the Committee on the Budget, to just put in the Record precisely 
what this budget document intends and what it will permit in the 
writing of a tax bill, to give relief in the amount of $101 billion 
that is provided in the budget document.
  Mr. Chairman, I think there has been some degree of misunderstanding 
about this. It is my understanding, and I would like for this to be 
confirmed by the chairman, it is my understanding that, number one, 
this budget is designed to reduce the record tax burden on the American 
people. That is, we reduce that burden, and that we will have a 
balanced bill which will include a number of different items.
  Certainly we should take action against the marriage penalty, reduce 
the complexity of the capital gains, pay down the debt, save Social 
Security, pass additional middle-income tax relief measures, create 
incentives for growth, savings, and job creation, so that as we have 
done in the past, we will put forward a bill of comprehensive tax 
relief in a balanced way.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Let me just say to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, I would 
like to underscore with an exclamation point everything that he has 
said. That is precisely what our agenda is.
  Frankly, I would like to say to the gentleman that I share his great 
frustration with a lot of the government estimators in this town who we 
have used for a long period of time to make sure we stay on a path, but 
frankly, who have been wildly inaccurate in terms of their projections 
of what was going to happen to this economy.
  One interesting thing I would say to the chairman, the chairman of 
the Fed, Mr. Greenspan, came to the Committee on the Budget and made an 
argument at one point that if we zeroed out the capital gains tax it 
would not cost the government a dime.
  What we have seen is by reducing the capital gains rate, it has 
generated more revenues, like most of us thought it would, the same way 
that when we repeal a luxury tax, we begin selling boats again in this 
country.
  So I say to the gentleman, we are in sync. Both of us have a 
commitment to get to the same place: to empower people, be pro-growth, 
give people a fair shot, limit the growth of government, expand the 
personal power through tax relief.
  I really look forward to the day, and it is coming soon, when we are 
going to have surpluses even in that general fund, where the gentleman 
from Texas (Chairman Archer) is going to be able to return those big 
high revenues that float into this city right back into the American 
people's pockets, rather than let people in this town have any 
incentive to think about spending them.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I began this debate by saying that the 
Kasich resolution is not realistic. I could not have given more graphic 
proof for my argument than what has just happened before our very eyes 
here in the House of Representatives, right here in the well of the 
House. We have seen this budget come unraveled, piece by piece. First 
of all, we started this morning.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the gentleman 
from South Carolina, did we not hear in the last few minutes the 
highway bill of $21 billion has not been accommodated in the budget?
  Mr. SPRATT. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. The user fees have been renounced at about $8 billion 
to $10 billion?
  Mr. SPRATT. This morning we passed a resolution renouncing the fees, 
but the Kasich bill has $8 to $10 billion in new user fees, $7 in all, 
in it. Presumably they are not going to repudiate their principle and 
impose user fees of their own when they have denounced the President 
for doing it.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Can I ask the gentleman if the agriculture research 
money we voted for last night was there?
  Mr. SPRATT. Absolutely not. We passed a bill, it costs $2 billion, 
and it is not accommodated in this budget.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Can I ask the gentleman about the veterans' expenses,

[[Page H4216]]

which was included in the transportation bill?
  Mr. SPRATT. When we passed the highway bill we repealed some veteran 
benefits, and in return, to palliate, we added $1.6 billion to the 
Montgomery G.I. bill. It is not in this bill. Instead, this bill still 
has a remnant that is out of date. It calls on the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs to reconcile another $10 billion. They take a double 
whammy, a double hit.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Did I not hear, can I ask the gentleman, that Federal 
employee cuts were restored in the last few minutes?
  Mr. SPRATT. Right here a few minutes ago the gentleman saw them 
restore it. It validates what I have said. These cuts are not 
realistic. They will not happen. They undid them right here on the 
House floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the gentleman quickly about 
the back and forth on TANF. Does not the budget resolution say that 
there shall be a $10 billion reduction in Function 600?
  Mr. SPRATT. It does indeed, and I do not know where it will come, 
except for TANF. This is another example of the budget resolution 
saying it will, and then Members getting up here and saying it will 
not, and then voting for a document that says it will; such 
contradictory statements.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentleman will further yield, Mr. Chairman, I 
will say that Senator Domenici called this budget a mockery. That is 
what has happened today on the floor with this budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. We say it has a $50 black hole, and it is getting bigger 
by the minute.
  Mr. Chairman, less than a year ago the House approved the balanced 
budget agreement of 1997. It was a good agreement, a bipartisan 
agreement. It built on the Clinton budget of 1993, which wiped out the 
deficit, and paved the road for surpluses as far as the eye can see.
  Our resolution, the Spratt resolution, the Democratic resolution, 
sticks by that agreement. The spending totals, the revenue totals, all 
of our numbers are in sync with the balanced budget agreement. We save 
the surpluses because we want to save Social Security. We spare 
Medicare from further cuts. In fact, we broaden its coverage, because 
we believe in Medicare.
  We protect Medicaid because we believe in Medicaid, and particularly 
the children's health insurance program, because we are proud of that 
achievement in the balanced budget agreement last year. We think it 
would be unconscionable to tell children and their parents that they 
have coverage at last, only to jerk it away from them the next year.
  We fund key initiatives in education, in child care, and call for $30 
billion in tax relief, tilted towards working families.
  There is one thing of particular fiscal importance in this bill, in 
this resolution. On September 30, when we close the books on fiscal 
1998, the Federal Government will show a surplus for the first time in 
30 years, a surplus of $40 to $60 billion. That surplus was hard-
earned, and we think we should husband it.
  Sure, we proposed some initiatives in education and child care 
because these are the things we believe in, but we offer offsets to pay 
for these initiatives. We do not take a single dollar out of the 
surplus. We say, instead, that the surplus should be saved, held in a 
reserve fund, as it were, to save Social Security for the long run.
  Over the last several years this government has enjoyed a surge of 
revenues, but until we know that surge is permanent and recurring, 
until we have taken the next step, the giant steps necessary to ensure 
the solvency of Medicare and Social Security for the long run, we are 
wary of cutting back revenues deeply and drawing down this surplus.
  In the balanced budget agreement, we have provided for tax relief. We 
think there is room for more. We think the tax code is full of 
deductions, credits, exemptions, and preferences that could stand a 
scrub. We recommend that the Committee on Ways and Means search the 
code for $30 billion in unwarranted tax benefits, call them what we 
will, and redistribute the tax burden just a bit more in favor of 
working families.
  Surely we can do this much to help hard-working families. Surely we 
can do this much to help hard-working families afford the cost of child 
care and to mitigate the so-called marital tax penalty.
  We ourselves have scrubbed spending to come up with $10 billion in 
cuts over the next 5 years. This is a small sum, but we think the money 
can do more good if it is used to help school districts, reduce the 
pupil-teacher ratio in grades 1 through 3, or if it is used to fund the 
early learning fund.
  Here are a few of the other things we propose: broadening the 
coverage of Medicare so those between 55 and 65 can buy into it. Here 
are a few of the things we propose in the context of a balanced budget: 
improving the child care tax credit so it applies to families with 
incomes up to $60,000, so that families of four with incomes of $35,000 
or less will have no tax liability if they take full use of the credit, 
passing a patient's Bill of Rights.
  So our budget sounds some new themes, but they are all fully offset 
and paid for. At bottom, this is a balanced budget agreement which the 
House passed overwhelmingly last year. If Members ask me to tell them 
in a sentence what this substitute does, I will tell them. It restores 
the budget to reality. It restores funds that the Kasich resolution 
takes.
  If they ask me in a sentence to tell them what this budget does, I 
will tell them, it restores this budget to reality. The gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) presents this budget as a 1 percent cut in spending, 
but since the largest accounts in the budget, Social Security and 
defense and debt service, are not cut, they are increased, the accounts 
that are cut take heavy hits.
  The remaining cuts are far, far greater than 1 percent. By our 
calculation, the Kasich budget will cut domestic discretionary spending 
by at least 6 percent, on top of the 12 percent in cuts already 
dictated by the balanced budget agreement, and still being 
administered. Bob Reischauer, whom we respect on both sides of the 
aisle, has pointed out that really about half of discretionary spending 
is not subject to cuts. It is essential administrative functions of the 
government, the FBI.
  This means that to achieve the cuts the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kasich) is talking about, the cuts will have to go as deep as 36 
percent. As one Member, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) on the 
other side of the aisle, said, this will mean deep cuts in some 
programs and the extinction of others.
  Which programs are in the crosshairs? Law enforcement gets cut $8 
billion, education nearly $5 billion, the environment $5 billion. It 
goes on and on and on.

                              {time}  1400

  Our resolution is not a duplicate of the resolution that passed the 
other body, but we are close enough to bridge the differences in a 
concurrent resolution. We give Members a responsible choice. We stick 
close to the bipartisan Balanced Budget Agreement and we cut the 
clearest path to a concurrent resolution.
  There are many reasons this resolution should be the budget 
resolution this House passes, but if Members voted for the Balanced 
Budget Agreement, if they want to see a budget resolution become a 
concurrent resolution, if they want to save the surplus for Social 
Security, if they want to protect Medicare and Medicaid, they should 
vote for this and reject the Kasich budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I think that this is in 
some ways as historic a vote as the votes of the last three or four 
years. It did not start out this way this year. We had a budget 
agreement that was going to last for five years. I commend the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) who helped with that last 
year. It was an historic bipartisan agreement.
  But then Washington just could not allow things to go on in a normal 
implementation. The President, for good and legitimate reasons, sent up 
a budget that had much higher spending. It

[[Page H4217]]

had higher taxes. We just voted a while ago and this entire House, I 
believe unanimously with the exception of one Member, voted against all 
the tax increases the President sent up.
  But it was clear to us, and I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Kasich), because he from a very early point sensed what was 
happening. The pressures in this city for more spending, for higher 
taxes, the pressures in this city to avoid reforming the system, the 
pressures to say the bureaucracy is perfect, we cannot find any money, 
we cannot change anything, just give us more of the American people's 
money, let us have more power in Washington, those pressures were 
building.
  I am told that today, and I do not know if they have done it, but I 
am told that today the Federal Communications Commission may vote a 
tax, something which in all of American history has never occurred. A 
constitutional abrogation of power to a group of bureaucrats, appointed 
figures, who will tax every telephone line in America. Because in this 
city if we do not tame it, if we do not get it under control, if we do 
not fight for the taxpayers, this city grows every day and it takes 
more money and more power and it says, ``Come to Washington and beg the 
bureaucrats to get your own money back.''
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) came to us and said, ``You know, 
we ought to make a big effort to establish the principle that we are 
going to be for lower taxes and lower spending. That Washington is not 
tamed yet.''
  Some might say why would we listen to the gentleman? The fact is, and 
it is one of the great stories that is not covered very much in this 
city because it makes this city so comfortable, that 3 years of our 
effort is working.
  We passed welfare reform and my good friends on the left got up and 
opposed it. We passed it three times. It was vetoed twice. Guess what? 
Welfare reform is working and in 49 States welfare rolls are lower. In 
New York City welfare roles are the lowest they have been since 1967 
because reforms are working.
  Then we said let us cut domestic discretionary spending. And let me 
say that the Committee on Appropriations led by the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Chairman Livingston) was brilliant. And while everybody on 
the left yelled and screamed, we cut out $103 billion, we closed down 
over 300 small programs and we saved the American people money.
  And then we said let us get to a balanced budget. And I remember how 
the people on the left and the news media laughed at the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) when he said let us get to a balanced budget. And 
then we said let us get to it by 2002 and we were told, oh, that is too 
soon.
  Then we said let us get to it and cut taxes. Let us save enough money 
by reforming enough government to cut taxes and balance the budget, and 
we were told that was impossible. Guess what we did? We passed a 
balanced budget with smaller government and lower taxes, and what was 
the result? We cut capital gains tax and, as we predicted, we raised 
more revenue because more people cashed in their capital gains, and in 
April alone there was $12 billion more from capital gains that came 
into this city at a lower tax rate, which I would argue means we ought 
to go to a 15 percent capital gains rate and get even more money. So my 
liberal friends could actually get more money out of the rich with 
lower capital gains because we have real proof, but their ideology 
would not permit that.
  Then we said what if we were to balance the budget and lower interest 
rates? Guess what happened? We balanced the budget and the Federal 
Reserve has kept interest rates low. What is the result? Chrysler last 
month sold more cars than in any month in its history. Why? Because 
interest rates are lower, the economy is growing, taxes have been cut, 
people are at work. We have the lowest unemployment rate. We have the 
lowest interest rate. We have cut taxes. We are balancing the budget, 
not in 2002, we are balancing the budget in 1998, four years ahead of 
schedule.
  Now, one would think with that kind of track record we could come to 
our friends and we could say to them why do we not work together? Oh, 
reform the bureaucracy? The unions would not like that. Shrink 
government in Washington? The liberals would not like that. Return 
power to the American people? The ideologues would not like that. 
Reduce the number of lawsuits? The trial lawyers would not want that.
  So here is the choice: Is this budget perfect? No, this is a human 
budget written in a human institution by people working their hearts 
out. Will it be improved in conference? I suspect it will, because we 
will meet with our good friends in the Senate who were our partners in 
welfare reform, which is working; in cutting taxes, which is working; 
in saving spending, which is working; in lowering interest rates, which 
is working; and in balancing the budget, which is working. And with our 
partners, we will write a budget.
  We will bring it back to the House and hopefully a few Democrats will 
have the courage to vote for all the things that are working. Then we 
will work with the President, and by this September we will get an 
agreement, I think at the latest in early October, and it will be good 
for America.
  But if Members vote ``no'' on the Kasich budget, they are voting 
against the team that reformed welfare. They are voting against the 
team that cut taxes. They are voting against the team that balanced the 
budget. They are voting against the team that brought domestic 
discretionary spending under control, and I think that is wrong.

  Let me say one other thing. We need, over time, not only lower taxes 
and a smaller government in Washington, but contradictory as it will 
sound to some, we need a stronger defense. We need a stronger defense 
with a reformed Pentagon. We need to have as much courage at saying 
yes, our young men and women deserve good equipment; there ought to be 
enough of them to do everything the President wants without wearing 
them out; and they ought to have the best training in the world. We 
should have enough procurement.
  Mr. Chairman, we are going to revisit that issue over the next six 
months. The lesson of Pakistan, the lesson of India is a lesson that 
the world is dangerous and America has to be strong. The lesson of 
Bosnia and Kosovo and Iraq and the Middle East and North Korea is that 
the world is dangerous and the United States has to be strong.
  But as we approach defense spending, we are going to be for stronger 
spending with less bureaucracy, with more accountability. And I believe 
we can get to that, and I believe in the end the President will work 
with us to get to a bipartisan consensus that America has to have a big 
enough defense, with modern enough weapons, with good enough training 
to be able to lead the entire world.
  So I would simply say to my friends, the Democrats, their leadership 
has to offer a liberal budget. It is okay. They were not with us on 
welfare reform and it was okay. They were not with us on tax cuts and 
it was okay. So do not flinch. The same principles that have worked for 
3\1/2\ years, that have given us the lowest interest rates, the lowest 
unemployment, the best take-home pay, those principles are going to 
work again.
  Defeat the liberal budget and then help us pass a good workmanlike 
budget. Let us get to conference and continue to improve it, and let us 
keep moving this country forward in the right way.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of fiscal responsibility 
and in support of the Democratic Budget Resolution. The Congress has 
traveled a long road to restore fiscal discipline to the budget 
process. This process started in 1990 when the Congress passed the 
first of three deficit reduction packages and continued in 1993 and 
1997. The Democratic Budget Resolution builds on that last agreement 
that we worked so hard to achieve.
  The Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997, reached just nine months ago, 
made some very tough cuts. We agreed then to cut spending by $300 
billion over five years and $1 trillion over 10 years. We cut $115 
billion from Medicare, $13 billion from Medicaid, and $172 billion from 
other programs. At the same time, we met our national security needs 
and made critical investments in education, children's health care, and 
environmental protection in order to keep our economy strong and 
address challenges facing our families. It also provided for $95 
billion in tax cuts over five years, including education tax 
initiatives to help families afford college costs, a child tax

[[Page H4218]]

credit, and reductions in the capital gains and estate taxes.
  Building on the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997 is still the 
responsible course of action. The Spratt substitute does just that. It 
is an honest blueprint for the nation's fiscal policy, which conforms 
with the spending levels set in Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
  As I said very early this morning, the Republican budget resolution 
diverges from the path of fiscal responsibility and does not 
acknowledge reality. It underscores the Republicans inability to 
govern, hence their desire to debate their resolution at a time when 
most of the country is asleep.
  The Democratic Budget Resolution does not play games. It does not 
hide draconian spending cuts in blue smoke and mirrors. It is not built 
on a pithy slogan that is misleading and inaccurate.
  It is built on making crucial investments in education, medical 
research, health care for children, environmental protection and other 
vital programs, This budget resolution spells out how to pay for these 
investments and a $30 billion dollar marriage penalty tax cut. Most 
importantly, this budget resolution saves future surpluses to shore up 
the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund.
  Our budget resolution recognizes the fact that we have a $5.4 
trillion debt and that we spend $250 billion on interest annually. 
Today, 3.1 percent of GDP goes toward paying the interest on our debt. 
Under the Democratic Budget Resolution, interest payments on the debt 
will fall to 2.1 percent of GDP in the year 2003. According to the GAO, 
if we spend the surpluses as the Republican Budget Resolution does, the 
debt will rise by $890 billion dollars over the next 15 years.
  If we abandon fiscal discipline, CBO projects that federal debt will 
exceed 100 percent of GDP by 2040. That is about twice as high as the 
current ratio and is a level previously reached only at the end of 
World War II. Maintaining the status quo without spending the surpluses 
would save us nearly one trillion dollars over 15 years.
  These facts fly in the face of the math that the Majority has been 
peddling. Three quarters of the budget is exempt from cuts including 
interest payments, federal military and civilian retirement, Social 
Security, defense spending and other portions of the budget. Promising 
a tax cut is unaffordable, disingenuous and will result in long term 
structural budget deficits.
  In fact, $100 billion tax cut requires an 18.9 percent real cut in 
non-defense discretionary spending. The Balanced Budget Agreement of 
1997 already requires similar cuts. The Majority's cuts on top of last 
year's cuts are just unrealistic. As a result, tax cuts will be enacted 
first, spending cuts that should come later will never materialize, and 
in effect, the surpluses will have been wasted.
  Included in our $5.4 trillion debt is $600 billion of Treasury bonds 
owned by the Social Security trust fund that will have to be retired 
after 2013. The Democratic budget resolution pays down the debt, which 
in turn reduces interest and principal costs to ultimately strengthen 
the Social Security Trust Fund.
  If we squander the surplus without beginning to retire the national 
debt to a more manageable level, in the long run, we may have to borrow 
more to pay off bonds as they come due, including to Social Security, 
and we will be shortchanging the American people. Without maintaining a 
course of fiscal discipline, the Congress' hard work since 1990 will be 
compromised. Federal budget surpluses will be short lived and we will 
return to deficit spending.
  Given the impending retirement boom, that's not the direction in 
which we want to move. I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt 
substitute.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Alternative Budget 
proposal offered by my colleague Representative Spratt. This Democratic 
budget alternative is faithful to the fiscally responsible, bipartisan 
Balanced Budget Act passed by the House last year. This alternative 
budget does not make drastic new cuts in Medicaid, Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families, the Earned Income Tax Credit, education and other 
vital priorities, as the Republican Budget Resolution does. The 
Democratic alternative does not focus new cuts on working families, the 
poor, the young and the old, as the Republican Budget Resolution does.
  The Democratic alternative offered by Representative Spratt respects 
the agreement this House reached with the Senate last year, and it 
addresses critical priorities in our nation. The Democratic alternative 
dedicates the budget surplus to Social Security to protect our seniors; 
it funds additional public school teachers and school construction 
initiatives for our young people. These are widely supported programs, 
and they answer the crucial needs of seniors and young people. The 
Democratic alternative is responsible and invests in our future. I urge 
my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative budget proposal.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kasich budget 
and in strong support of the substitute amendment offered by the 
Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt.
  When the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee called the House 
Republican budget ``a mockery'' he not only described the substance of 
the Kasich budget but also the procedure by which it is being 
considered. Today the House is considering the budget resolution 51 
days after the April 15 statutory deadline--the most delinquent budget 
process in 16 years. The appropriations committees of the House and 
Senate have long since dismissed the budget resolution as irrelevant 
and are already busily marking up legislation for the coming fiscal 
year. Against that backdrop, a reasonable person might conclude that 
the Budget Committee would propose a resolution that stood a reasonable 
chance of being expeditiously adopted.
  Sadly, this is not the case. By radically departing from last year's 
bipartisan budget accord, the House Republican leadership has managed 
to totally isolate itself not just from the President and the Democrats 
in Congress but also from their Senate counterparts and even many House 
Republicans. Indeed, some of the harshest criticism of this budget has 
come not from Democrats but from Republicans. In addition to Senator 
Domenici's comments, Senator Stevens said that under the cuts proposed 
in the Kasich budget, ``I don't think Congress could function.'' A 
group of House Republicans wrote that the cuts proposed in the Kasich 
budget are ``neither desirable nor attainable.''
  Fortunately, there is a constructive alternative. Like the budget 
passed by the Senate last month, the Spratt budget keeps faith with the 
bipartisan Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The Spratt budget adheres to 
the discretionary budget caps, offsets tax cuts within the revenue code 
and pays for priority initiatives with reductions in entitlement 
programs. Most importantly, by continuing to steer the path of fiscal 
responsibility. The Spratt alternative fully safeguards the budget 
surplus until Congress and the President enact legislation to ensure 
the long term future of Social Security.
  I say to my colleagues--especially on the other side of the aisle--
who wish to build upon the work of the 1997 budget agreement, to 
reserve the surplus for Social Security, and to support a budget that 
can be reconciled with the Senate and adopted, I urge you to support 
the Spratt alternative.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Spratt 
Amendment because it is a rational approach to meeting the needs of our 
society. For example, it provides for 75,000 new teachers, it allows 
people under 65 to buy into Medicare, $1.2 billion for child care and 
early childhood education, $600 million for Medicaid, including an 
outreach program for children and provides an option to cover all legal 
immigrant children.
  It provides for a patient Bill of Rights Act and tax credits for 
businesses that provide child care services to their employees. It 
saves all the budget surpluses for five years until a comprehensive 
Social Security Financial Plan is agreed upon.
  The Spratt Amendment is honest, responsible and addresses the needs 
of the American People.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Mr. Spratt's 
substitute to the misguided Republican budget resolution. Unlike the 
Republican proposal, the Spratt substitute meets the requirements of 
last year's balanced budget agreement without calling for the deep and 
drastic cuts to critical programs, both mandatory and discretionary, 
that the majority has included in its plan.
  The Spratt substitute ensures that the needs of America's children 
and working men and women will continue to be met, by providing for 
billions more in education and training funding than the Republican 
proposal. In addition, the Spratt budget provides health care funding 
that will protect maternal and child health, enable the continuation of 
important research at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers 
for Disease Control, and provide grants under the Ryan White AIDS 
program. Mr. Spratt's plan calls for law enforcement spending that will 
help keep drugs off our streets and out of our communities, and that 
will fund important crime reduction initiatives. And the substitute 
provides increased funding for programs that will protect our precious 
environment and natural resources.
  Furthermore, the Spratt substitute includes several major initiatives 
that will benefit our nation's children. The proposal provides funding 
which would allow the hiring of 75,000 new teachers to reduce classroom 
size, sets aside substantial funds for child care and early learning, 
and includes a Medicaid outreach program for children. There is no more 
important task than ensuring that the health and education needs of our 
children are met, and I am pleased that the Spratt budget recognizes 
this priority.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Spratt substitute. 
it is not a perfect proposal, but it is one which will enable us to

[[Page H4219]]

move on with the budget process. This substitute, because of its close 
similarities to the Senate budget resolution, its the best vehicle with 
which to reach an agreement with the other body that will allow our 
respective appropriations subcommittees to continue their difficult 
tasks with a framework to guide them. Let us adopt this substitute, 
keeping within the boundaries of last year's balanced budget agreement 
and ensuring that our children, our working families, and our most 
vulnerable citizens are protected rather than abandoned.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ney). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 257, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 209]

                               AYES--164

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--257

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Ballenger
     Bilbray
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Lewis (GA)
     McDade
     Meek (FL)
     Mollohan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sabo
     Tanner

                              {time}  1427

  Mr. DAVIS of Florida, and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. WISE, and Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ney). The question is on the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, it is with great regret that I rise today to 
oppose the Republican budget resolution and the Democratic substitute. 
Unfortunately, both of these proposals stray from last year's historic 
balanced budget agreement, and neither of them does enough to reduce 
our national debt and ensure Social Security's solvency.
  The Republican proposal is fiscally irresponsible and economically 
unfeasible. Rather than following the guidelines of last year's 
Balanced Budget Agreement, as did the Senate budget resolution, the 
House Republicans have chosen to cut discretionary funding to such 
programs as veterans health, long-term care for the elderly, and anti-
crime initiatives by over $45 billion. These cuts, according to Senate 
Republicans including Budget Committee Chairman Domenici, are unwise 
and would devastate many important programs for our nation's senior 
citizens. These cuts, according to Senate Republicans, could derail the 
budget process. Some--Republicans and Democrats--suggest that they 
could lead to another government shutdown.
  Furthermore, the House Republican budget does not preserve the 
projected surplus for Social Security. Instead, it actually changes 
budget rules to allow the surplus to be spent on new programs, 
including tax cuts. Given our nation's $5.3 billion in debt (as of May 
31, 1998), not allowing the surplus to be spent on paying off our debt 
is harmful to our economy and to our taxpayers.
  The Democratic budget alternative, while it is much more fiscally 
prudent and sensible, still does not do enough to fit the guidelines of 
last year's Balanced Budget Agreement. In my view, its new spending 
should be devoted to deficit reduction.
  The one budget proposal that would have met all these objectives--the 
Blue Dog budget proposal--was not allowed to be considered on the House 
Floor. Due to concerns that this budget resolution might garner enough 
votes to defeat other proposals, the House Committee on Rules would not 
allow this legislation to be brought to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, the Blue Dog Budget Resolution would have been good for 
this Congress, and good for all Americans. I am proud to support it, 
and disappointed that the will of Congress was not heard on this 
important issue.
  Outlined below are the specifics of the Blue Dog budget resolution:


                           general provisions

  Saves 100% of the projected unified budget surplus ($24 billion in FY 
99 and $225 billion over five years) for Social Security, and 
recommends that the unified budget surplus be reserved to fund the 
costs of Social Security reform legislation.
  Reaffirms the principle that budget discipline should be maintained 
until the budget is balanced without relying on the annual surplus in 
the Social Security trust fund to mask an on-budget deficit.

[[Page H4220]]

  Maintains discretionary spending at the levels included in the 
bipartisan budget agreement. Provides increases in functions for 
education, veterans, health care, research and other functions that 
were designated as priority functions in the bipartisan budget 
agreement. Allows for consideration of tax cuts if they are offset with 
mandatory spending cuts or increases in other revenues. Does not change 
budget rules to allow tax cuts to be offset by reductions in 
discretionary spending.
  Identifies mandatory offsets that were not included in the 
transportation conference report that Congress could use to fund new 
mandatory investments or deficit reduction.
  Incorporates the changes in spending from the TEA-21 Conference 
Report and conference report on S. 1150, the Agriculture Research, 
Extension and Education Conference Report, as estimated by CBO, in 
order to provide a credible budget blueprint that reflects the 
realities of Congressional action.
  Does not reopen Medicare, Medicaid, federal retirement and other 
mandatory programs for additional reductions.
  Does not count on revenues from tobacco legislation that many not 
materialize, but preserves the flexibility of Congress to consider 
tobacco legislation that provides funding for programs related to the 
tobacco settlement.


                            social security

  The Blue Dog budget saves 100% of the unified budget surplus for 
Social Security. The resolution contains a strong statement that 
Congress and the President should strive to truly balance the budget, 
without using the surplus from the Social Security Trust Fund. The 
resolution also states that Congress should use any accumulated or 
projected unified budget surplus to pay for the transition costs of 
Social Security reform.


                                Tax Cuts

  The Senate Budget Resolution contained a tax cut reserve which would 
allow--but not require--Congress to enact additional mandatory savings 
and/or revenue increases for the purpose of tax cuts. The Blue Dog 
alternative would clarify that Congress could also use additional 
savings for debt reduction.


                     Mandatory Investments Reserve

  The Senate budget resolution included a transportation spending 
reserve that identified a variety of spending cuts that could be used 
to pay for increased spending on highways and mass transit. The highway 
conference report used most of the offsets identified in the Senate 
resolution, but there were a few offsets identified in the Senate 
resolution that were not used in the highway conference. The Blue Dog 
alternative would change the transportation spending reserve into a 
mandatory spending reserve that would allow--but not require--Congress 
to use the unused offsets that Senator Domenici identified for 
transportation (approximately $3.5 billion) for new mandatory 
investments. As with the tax cut reserve, the alternative would not 
spell out which, if any, initiatives Congress should fund with this 
reserve. The Senate Budget Resolution, with which we concur, identified 
the following area as key investments: child care, children's health 
education and research.


    Budgetary impact of the Transportation and Agriculture Research 
                         Conference Agreements

  The Blue Dog resolution incorporates the changes in spending from the 
TEA-21 Conference Report and conference report on S. 1150, the 
Agriculture Research, Extension and Education Conference Report, as 
estimated by CBO. The Blue Dog substitute does not endorse or reject 
the spending levels of the transportation bill, but incorporates the 
costs of legislation already enacted by Congress into the budget 
resolution in order to provide a credible budget blueprint. Likewise, 
including the budgetary impact of the agriculture research conference 
report is not an endorsement of the specific policies therein, but 
simply reflects the budgetary impact of the anticipated passage of that 
bill by increasing the allocation to Function 350, Agriculture and 
reducing the allocation for Function 600, Income Security to that would 
result from the enactment of S. 1150.


                    Discretionary budget priorities

  The discretionary allocations in the substitute are virtually 
identical to the Senate-passed resolution, with slight modifications 
within the discretionary spending limits established by the budget 
agreement. In response to the cut in spending for Veterans benefits in 
the TEA-21 conference report, the Blue Dog substitute increases the 
allocation for spending on discretionary programs in function 700, 
Veterans Benefits and Compensation, to allow spending on veterans 
health care to keep up with inflation. The Blue Dog resolution also 
contains higher discretionary spending in Medicare than the Senate-
passed resolution by eliminating proposed fees on hospitals that are in 
the Senate resolution and has higher funding for discretionary programs 
in function 350, Agriculture and Rural Development.
  These increases in discretionary allocations are offset by reducing 
the allocations for function 250, Science, Space and Technology and 
function 300, Natural Resources and the Environment below the 
allocations in the Senate-passed resolution.
  The Senate-passed resolution increased discretionary spending in both 
of these functions substantially above the allocations in the Balanced 
Budget Agreement; even with the reductions the Blue Dog substitute 
still provides more funding in these functions than the budget 
agreement.


                            Tobacco reserve

  The Blue Dog substitute modifies the tobacco revenue reserve from the 
Domenici resolution to allow for consideration of tobacco legislation 
that used revenues from a tobacco settlement to fund programs related 
to the tobacco settlement. The Blue Dog resolution would not make any 
assumptions about the passage of tobacco legislation. The resolution 
would simply include language establish a reserve fund that would allow 
the budget allocations to be adjusted if Congress considers deficit 
neutral tobacco legislation that uses the revenues from the tobacco 
settlement to extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund and 
address tobacco-related issues, such as providing assistance for 
tobacco farmers and communities, creating smoking cessation and 
prevention programs, curbing teenage smoking, assisting States with the 
costs of treating tobacco-related illnesses, providing health care for 
veterans with tobacco related illnesses and funding federal medical 
research.


                                Medicare

  The Blue Dog substitute includes a Sense of Congress provision 
encouraging the Ways and Means Committee to consider budget-neutral 
Medicare provisions that would address regional disparities in Medicare 
reimbursements and to examine the concerns of the home health care and 
hospital industries regarding implementation of Medicare policies.


                              CPI Accuracy

  The Blue Dog resolution does not include any proposals regarding CPI, 
but would contain a Sense of Congress provision encouraging BLS to 
continue to improve the accuracy of the CPI, particular with regard the 
remaining upper-level substitution bias.
  Mr. Speaker, the Blue Dog proposal I have outlined today would have 
been the sensible middle ground in the budget debate. The legislation 
had bipartisan support--and its passage would have put an end to the 
partisan rhetoric and demagoging that we have heard on this issue 
today.
  The American people want a budget--they do not want endless arguments 
and political posturing. The Blue Dog budget would have provided 
Congress with a reasonable compromise. It is indeed unfortunate that 
the Republican majority did not allow its consideration today.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my deep and 
serious concerns about the budget resolution brought to the floor today 
by the Republican Leadership.
  First, let me say that I have nothing but respect for my colleague 
from Ohio, Mr. Kasich, and the work he has done during his tenure as 
Chairman of the Budget Committee. However, I believe the budget 
resolution produced by his committee follows a misguided set of 
priorities and would move our country in the wrong direction.
  I am particularly concerned about the large tax cuts called for in 
this resolution. The measure provides for more than $100 billion in tax 
cuts over the next five years. I feel that the best tax cut for the 
American family is a balanced federal budget. Balancing the budget--and 
keeping it balanced--leads to lower interest rates, more job creation, 
and strong economic growth. With projections showing the federal budget 
will be balanced for the first time in almost 30 years, we should not 
risk returning to the era of deficit spending by enacting massive tax 
cuts at this time.
  I am also concerned about plans to pay for these tax cuts by cutting 
more than $45 billion in discretionary spending. While I am 
tremendously pleased that we have finally managed to balance the 
budget, and I voted for the spending cuts enacted last year, we must 
realize that discretionary spending has already absorbed crippling 
cuts. In 1962, discretionary spending accounted for more than two-
thirds of all federal spending. Today, discretionary spending accounts 
for about one-third of the federal budget, while mandatory spending 
takes up just under two-thirds of the budget.
  The budget resolution asks us to continue this trend by cutting more 
than can be reasonably expected from discretionary spending programs, 
while doing virtually nothing to reform the entitlement programs that 
have grown so fast over the past thirty years.
  Therefore, I believe we should resist calls to enact massive tax cuts 
and focus instead on balancing the federal budget and keeping it 
balanced. The spending cuts contained in last year's balanced budget 
agreement kept us squarely on the path to fiscal responsibility, which 
was begun in 1993. We will be far better off if we do nothing, and 
stick to that agreement, than if we follow the recommendations 
contained in the budget resolution we

[[Page H4221]]

are considering today. And if, as projected, this year's budget should 
produce a surplus, I am committed to the following three priorities:
  First, we should take steps to reform and provide for the long-term 
fiscal health of Social Security, Medicare, and other federal 
retirement programs without increasing the payroll tax.
  Second, I believe it is absolutely imperative that we begin paying 
down the massive federal debt. Since 1980, the gross federal debt has 
grown more than five times in size to nearly $5.5 trillion. Today, the 
debt is two-thirds the size of our nation's Gross Domestic Product, and 
interest payments on the debt consume 15 cents of every dollar in 
federal spending.
  Think about how much better off we would be if this money did not 
have to be spent on interest payments. For every $1 billion in debt we 
retire, we would save $55 million each year in interest payments. Most 
economists say that reducing the debt, and thereby shrinking interest 
payments, would reduce interest rates, increase savings rates, keep the 
tax burden down, and make more money available in both the public and 
private sectors to fuel continued economic growth.
  Finally, we should be investing more in this country's economic 
infrastructure--such as roads, inland waterways, sewage treatment 
plants, and airports--in order to make American workers and businesses 
more productive and profitable.
  Improving roads, updating sewer systems, modernizing airports, and 
making sure our communications system is ready for the 21st century 
enhances our international competitiveness and helps American workers 
remain the most productive in the world.
  Despite the obvious benefits, many infrastructure projects are not 
receiving adequate funds or are simply being ignored. For instance, a 
1995 Department of Transportation study found that nearly one-third of 
the roads in this country are in poor or mediocre condition. The 
Department of Defense estimates that it will be at least 12 years 
before adequate housing can be built for every soldier in the U.S. 
armed forces. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the federal 
government will need to invest more than $275 billion to meet the 
nation's water and sewer system needs over the next 20 years.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a moral responsibility to provide a solid and 
fiscally secure future for the generations that will follow us. The 
Republican budget resolution fails to provide a bright future for our 
children and grandchildren, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, as I stand here, I can't 
decide whether people should be laughing or crying. Is it low farce or 
dark tragedy to spend time doing the people's business debating a 
budget that virtually everyone knows is already dead? Today we debate 
the Budget Committee Majority's sorry, no account, buy today-pay 
tomorrow, credit card budget. In doing so, most Members on both sides 
of the aisle have been made reluctant participants in the spectacle of 
arguing over a corpse.
  The Republican leadership seems to have concluded that since we have 
brought the budget deficit under control it is time to engage in the 
same sort of shenanigans that got us that deficit in the first place. 
And why not? Budget deficits have been very, very good to the 
Republican majority.
  Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore have brought us a smaller government and our 
booming economy and the 1993 budget agreement have led to a balanced 
budget. As a result, the Republicans don't have much reason for being. 
They have become the one trick pony of American politics whose sole 
excuse for political existence is to rail against irresponsible 
government excess. It is hard to show excess if there isn't a deficit, 
so Mr. Kasich's budget promises tax cuts today and pays for them with 
unspecified, politically unpalatable spending reductions somewhere out 
in the future. His budget would again put us on a path for deficits. I 
guess the Republican leadership believes that they can slip this by 
Americans with a lot of arm waving and thin promises of big tax cuts. I 
think that our citizens are smarter than that.
  If this budget were ever to become the official congressional 
position, and I don't believe there is anyone in this room or in the 
other body who thinks for a minute that it will, it would require that 
we make radical cuts in transportation, housing, education and research 
programs. These are the very programs that improve the quality of life 
in this country today and promise a brighter life tomorrow. These are 
the same programs we have been cutting and freezing and cutting again 
for ten years as we wrestled with the deficit.
  In Mr. Kasich's leaked plan his $100 billion in savings comes from 
dredging up such tired old turkeys as eliminating the Departments of 
Commerce and Energy and selling the Power Marketing Administrations--
proposals that have been debated and repudiated time and again. Over 
five years, the Kasich plan would also have us terminate the advanced 
technology program and manufacturing extension programs at the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, cut NASA by one billion dollars, 
cut energy research by four billion dollars and freeze the National 
Science Foundation.
  Mr. Kasich would cut funding for education and training programs by 
$4.4 billion over five years. In housing, the Republicans would freeze 
Section 8 funding leading to a cumulative $18.5 billion shortfall in 
funding for these contracts through 2003. Flood insurance contributions 
would be cut by $1.7 billion leading to higher premiums for those 
living in flood plains and FHA would be cut by $2.2 billion over five 
years.
  The Kasich plan not only fails to provide for Transportation spending 
increases this House just endorsed in the Transportation Equity Act, 
but actually cuts budget authority for these programs by $23.3 billion 
compared to the 1997 budget agreement. The image of this House 
embracing a massive transportation increase before the recess, with 
Members rushing home to brag about their pork, and then repudiating 
that policy by voting for this budget when we come back from recess 
reinforces the old adage that a week is a long time in politics. It 
makes me wonder if there shouldn't be a media warning for C-SPAN 
viewers that they could suffer whiplash from watching this body too 
closely.

  We have been told that the reaction to Mr. Kasich's plan was so 
negative in his own party that it has been withdrawn. Now, instead of a 
plan of savings, the House is offered a lame line about giving 
Appropriators and Authorizers the freedom to find the savings on their 
own. Our Appropriations Chairman apparently took the Budget Committee 
at its word about having freedom. He has already issued his 302b 
guidance to subcommittees based on last year's budget agreement rather 
than the Kasich proposal. I guess we know what the Appropriators think 
of the viability of this budget. Perhaps their view was shaped in part 
by the public comments of the Chairman of the Budget Committee in the 
other body, a self-described friend of Mr. Kasich, who has generously 
described the House Republican proposal as a ``mockery.''
  The Appropriations know what the rest of us know: this budget is an 
irresponsible package that supporters try to make palatable by coyly 
repeating that they are simply asking for a cut of one cent on every 
dollar of federal spending. Mr. Kasich and his friends are not such 
doe-eyed innocents as all that. They know that 70% of Federal spending 
is off the table when it comes to talk of cuts. That means the $100 
billion necessary to reach the tax cut goal will have to be 
concentrated in just a handful of programs and those programs have been 
the target of cut after cut during the last ten years. There is a 
consensus, represented by last year's budget agreement, that investment 
programs such as education, transportation and research cannot bear 
further deep cuts. If there were the votes to do that, Mr. Kasich 
wouldn't have been beaten into withdrawing his plan. But he was and he 
has and for good reason. Instead of a plan, we have a dust storm of 
platitudes. Well, platitudes won't cover the tab for $100 billion in 
tax cuts.
  Over the years there has been a lot of talk, especially from the 
other side of the aisle, about truth in budgeting. If truth in 
budgeting is more than a slogan, this House should unite in a 
bipartisan rejection of the Budget Committee proposal. Defeat the 
Kasich budget, embrace the Spratt alternative and give this House a 
shred of credibility as we embark upon the appropriations process and 
enter into budget conference with the Senate.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 
284, the fiscal year 1999 budget resolution. Last summer, the Congress 
and the President worked together to reach agreement on a balanced 
budget for the first time in 30 years. This resolution breaks that 
agreement. I cannot support this resolution, House Democrats will not 
support this resolution, and the President will not support this 
resolution. Even the Republican Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee 
said this resolution is a ``mockery.''
  Ths resolution includes drastic cuts in non-defense discretionary 
spending. Even more outrageous than the magnitude of these cuts is the 
fact that the resolution does not specify which programs will be cut or 
by how much. However, the list of suggested cuts distributed by the 
Budget Committee clearly reveals the intentions of the Republican 
leadership.
  The cuts are so broad and so sweeping that almost every American 
would feel the impact of this budget resolution. This budget resolution 
will gut environmental protections, law enforcement, low income 
housing, and health care for uninsured children. And it does nothing to 
protect Social Security. I'd like to list just a few examples of just 
how extreme this resolution really is. The budget resolution:
  Eliminates Americorps;
  Cuts the federal commitment to Mass Transit programs, which we just 
increased under the ISTEA reauthorization;
  Freezes future spending on law enforcement, at the same time that 
Republicans

[[Page H4222]]

argue that there is a lack of commitment to fight the war on drugs;
  Ends the federal commitment under Title I which assists low-income 
areas meet their education needs;
  Ends the work of the Legal Services Corporation;
  Ends federal support of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting;
  Ends federal land acquisition programs;
  Reduces the Children's Health Insurance Program, which was part of 
last year's Balanced Budget Act, by 40 percent; and
  Increases premiums for health insurance for all government employees.
  Why are all these cuts necessary? Not to secure the future of Social 
Security. Not to protect the solvency of Medicare. Not to make the 
needed investment in our children's education. The cuts are ``needed'' 
so we can have another tax cut.
  This is not a serious budget resolution. It is a empty political 
gesture and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 
284, the fiscal year 1999 Budget Resolution. This measure would have a 
chilling effect on mandatory and nondefense discretionary spending, and 
its proposed $101 billion tax cut is a poorly timed move as we enjoy a 
stronger economy and budget surplus resulting from last year's Balanced 
Budget Act.
  Although I am strongly opposed to with H. Con. Res. 284, I want to 
make clear that I support efforts to address the inequities in our tax 
code caused by the so-called ``marriage penalty.'' I look forward to 
being in a position to support legislation that ends the current 
situation which requires some two-income married couples to pay more in 
taxes when filing jointly than they would pay if not married.
  This is not that legislation.
  H. Con. Res. 284 calls for $101 billion in spending cuts over five 
years. These reductions are separate and above those enacted in last 
year's budget agreement, with every dollar of these additional cuts 
coming from nondefense spending and all of the savings targeted for tax 
cuts. Of the spending cuts proposed $56 billion would be slashed from 
entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid and $45 billion from 
nondefense discretionary programs.
  The $12 billion Medicaid cut will exacerbate the negative effects of 
last year's $10 billion cut in the program. The state of California is 
still struggling to provide health care to the poor and indigent, 
especially the many uninsured and Medicaid patients in Los Angeles 
County. These cuts could jeopardize the health service delivery reforms 
that the County has struggled to make under its current Medicaid 
waiver.
  The resolution's Medicare cuts may also jeopardize the Health Care 
Financing Administration's (HCFA) ability to effectively administer the 
program, particularly since Medicare's administrative budget is already 
insufficient to meet the Agency's new responsibilities under the 
Balanced Budget Act.
  With respect to the discretionary cuts, the proposed reductions 
include $290 million from important programs like the National Health 
Service Corps, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, and 
health professions' education. The GOP budget cuts $4.4 billion from 
crucial education programs like the Title I program for disadvantaged 
children, and recommends a voucher program which will only serve to 
undermine our public educational system.
  The GOP budget resolution reneges on last year's budget agreement. 
While not perfect, the 1997 budget bill was the product of months of 
very difficult negotiations between the White House and congressional 
leaders. We must say no to these new cuts which will harm the most 
vulnerable of our citizens and threaten our current budget surplus by 
voting down the Kasich bill.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget. 
However, although this budget makes no recommendation on the funding of 
the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) non-power programs, I believe 
that this Congress should carefully review two important new government 
studies of these programs.
  TVA's non-power functions cover dam safety, reservoir management, 
water quality, and natural resource management, recreation, commercial 
navigation, environmental cleanup and other programs. Last year, 
Congress appropriated $70 million along with the Appropriations 
Committee issuing report language claiming that TVA ratepayers should 
be expected to fund the non-power programs beginning in fiscal year 
1999.
  Recently, however, both the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have issued reports within the 
past month reviewing the nature of TVA's non-power programs. Both of 
these reports conclude that TVA is performing services that are clearly 
federal responsibilities.
  In many cases, these are services currently performed by the Corps of 
Engineers elsewhere in the country and paid for out of the federal 
treasury.
  It is simply not fair to the taxpayers of the Tennessee Valley region 
to ask them to pay for items that are clearly federal stewardship 
responsibilities in their own area through higher power rates, while at 
the same time taxing the people of the Tennessee Valley to pay for 
these same services that the federal government provides everywhere 
else in the country.
  The OMB report concludes that ``In the Administration's view, the no-
power programs that TVA now operates are essential for prudent 
stewardship of the resources TVA manages.'' The report further states 
that TVA programs continue to be important to the Tennessee Valley 
region and the country.''
  It is my hope that in the interest of fairness and equity, this 
Congress will continue to appropriate funds for the federal stewardship 
responsibilities performed by TVA just as this Congress accepts and 
appropriates funds for these same responsibilities elsewhere in the 
United States.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget 
which will move this nation in the right direction. It provides 
important tax relief for my constituents, including eliminating the 
marriage penalty which makes married couples pay higher taxes just 
because they are married. The marriage penalty is morally wrong and I 
am pleased that we are moving forward to eliminate this unfair tax.
  This budget provides tax relief while funding programs that are very 
important to the 15th District of Florida. In particular, I am pleased 
that the budget provides stable funding for NASA, by funding NASA at 
least as high as the president's budget. On page 164 of the budget, it 
states that the budget, ``Assumes the administration's funding levels 
for NASA.'' This will guarantee stable funding for the Space Shuttle, 
Space Station and other critical NASA programs important to my 
constituents who work at Kennedy Space Center (KCS). I thank the 
Chairman for hearing my request on behalf of my constituents and 
responding positively.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I, like most Members of the House, 
strongly oppose the Republican Leadership's budget, because it betrays 
the values of working American families on several fronts. We have 
heard of the painful cuts to seniors' and children's programs. But just 
as devastating are the cuts in environmental protection, in particular 
the cleanup of our nation's 1,300 toxic waste sites--known as Superfund 
sites.
  As a representative from New Jersey, which has 117 of these 1,300 
sites--more than any other state, I am offended by this blatant 
disregard for the health and safety of those families that are forced 
to live every day with the threat of a Superfund site in their midst.
  One in every four Americans, including 10 million children below the 
age of 12, now live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. These sites can 
pose serious health and environmental risks to surrounding 
communities--and particularly children. Fifty percent of the Superfund 
sites assessed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
in fiscal years 1993 through 1996 were classified as definite public 
health hazards, and another 30 percent were of indeterminate hazard.
  Already this year, cleanup work at up to 171 of these Superfund sites 
around the country has been delayed due to the Republicans' refusal to 
provide the funding necessary to expedite cleanups. This includes 
cleanups at sites in 44 of the 50 states--and three sites in my 
district alone.
  And now with the Kasich budget and its $5 billion cut in 
environmental spending, the Republicans are asking 1 in every 4 
Americans to hold on--and live with that nearby Superfund site just a 
little bit longer. The Republicans are telling 1 in every 4 Americans, 
including 10 million American children, that cleaning up these toxic 
sites is simply a luxury we can't afford, something that the federal 
budget simply does not have room for.
  Democrats want to speed up the cleanups of these public health 
threats. We want to fund the Superfund program at a level at which two-
thirds of all toxic waste sites in the country will be cleaned up by 
the year 2001.
  I urge my colleagues, on behalf of 1 in every 4 Americans, to vote 
for a healthy environment for our children and against the Republican 
Leadership's budget.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, this week, the House considers the 
Republican Leadership's Budget Resolution for FY '99 (H. Con. Res. 
284). The Budget Committee approved a resolution on May 20, 1998 by a 
margin of 22-16 with every Democratic Member opposing the measure.
  While I could not have come to this floor to support the Committee-
passed resolution, what is before the House today is even worse than 
the product that the Republicans voted out of Committee.
  Today's Budget resolution is a cruel and direct attack on the least 
advantaged Americans. It shows the majority party's true colors.

[[Page H4223]]

They are willing to make our children pay the price for their politics 
in three significant ways:
  The government infrastructure that benefits the common good and each 
individual family--our schools, our environment, our park systems, our 
crime fighting programs--is cut to the bone.
  Programs providing a safety net for the neediest families with 
children are gutted. A $10 billion cut in the Budget category 600 
translates into a 25% cut in budget authority for Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families.
  The proposal to spend $100 billion today on tax breaks for the 
wealthy to please voters at November's polls instead of investing it 
for Medicare and Social Security solvency will only devastate our 
future federal budgets--and our children will pay the price.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that it is not the 
role of government to help the downtrodden, the disabled, the children 
who happened to be born into families without means.
  But is it the role of government to hurt them? That's just what this 
resolution would do.
  This budget must be viewed in the context of the economy. We know 
that this era of prosperity has passed many Americans by. Although we 
have had a long period of economic recovery, our economy has not been 
that robust until the last year or two. In fact, during the first three 
years of the recovery (1991 to 1993), 80% of Americans experienced 
declines in income.
  As the economy grew more robust during the Clinton administration, 
workers experienced some income gains but, in spite of these more 
recent gains, the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen. 
Improvements in wages were just not enough to erase 20 years of falling 
and stagnating wages.
  Census Bureau data analyzed by the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities dramatically demonstrates this growing income inequality in 
48 out of 50 states:
  Between the late 1970s and the mid-1990s, the incomes of upper-income 
families with children increased in every state. On average, incomes of 
the richest fifth of families increased by 30%, or nearly $27,000, 
after adjusting for inflation. In sharp contrast, incomes of the 
poorest families with children decreased in 44 states in this period. 
The decline in the real incomes of the poorest families with children 
averaged 21 percent, or $2,500.
  In the U.S. as a whole, Census data shows that the poorest 20% of 
families with children had an average family income of $9,250 in the 
mid-1990s, while the average income of families in the top 20% of 
income distribution was $117,500, or 13 times as large.

  The income gap is not just between rich and poor. The gap has also 
increased between middle class and high income families between the 
late 1970s and the mid-1990s. By the mid-1990s, there were 40 states 
where the gap between the highest income 20 percent of families and the 
middle 20 percent of families with children was larger than it had been 
for any state during the 1970s.
  This data is clear: economic prosperity has not been broadly shared 
in America. The poverty rate for children has not declined. More than 
one in five children lives in poverty. Although children represent one-
fourth of the population, they comprise nearly 40% of the people living 
in poverty.
  Nor has the pain of budget choices been broadly shared. Under this 
Budget plan, the young and the poor bear the pain, and the rich share 
the gain.
  The Leadership's Budget cuts domestic spending by $101 billion over 
the next five years--a 19% reduction below the amount needed to keep up 
with inflation by the year 2003.
  This is a huge cut below the already tight spending levels approved 
in last year's budget agreement. And, since the Republican budget does 
not include funding for the highway bill, the actual cuts would be even 
deeper.
  More than 40% of the cuts fall on low-income families, even though 
these programs make up only 23% of all mandatory spending.
  The Republican budget cuts Medicaid and children's health by $12 
billion, and cuts education by $5.7 billion over five years.
  The most insidious cut of all is the cut in the budget category 600. 
This category includes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
program (TANF).
  The TANF block grant replaced AFDC, the JOBS program, and Emergency 
Assistance.
  Cutting TANF reduces the funds states have to spend on providing 
basic supports for children. It also reduces state funds to pay for 
caseworkers to assist families making the transition from welfare to 
work. It reduces the funds to assure needy families with children 
obtain the education, training and employment assistance they need to 
help them become self-sufficient and avoid long-term welfare 
dependence.
  If the TANF block grant budget authority is cut from $16.4 billion to 
$12.4 billion each year to achieve $2 billion in outlay savings, as CBO 
estimates, and all the cuts came from TANF assistance: Benefits for all 
TANF families could be reduced by about 25% which would require the 
``average'' welfare family of 3 to live on about $275 a month; benefits 
for about one-quarter of TANF families could be eliminated ending 
assistance for approximately 1.5 million children; and basic education 
and job skills training needed for parents to become employable could 
be reduced or eliminated for up to 2.9 million parents trying to get 
back to work.
  States would have $10.2 billion less over 5 years to make the promote 
job preparation to get families off of public assistance, to prevent 
and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and to provide 
child care for needy children.

  In spite of our budget surplus and beyond our targets agreed to in 
the Balanced Budget Act, this resolution cuts to the quick every way 
our government works to make life better for Americans.
  Why? So we can give $100 billion in tax cuts and still have a 
balanced budget?
  The Chairman of Ways and Means has floated various tax cuts but they 
all disproportionately help the upper bracket folks: estate tax relief, 
deeper capital gains cuts, exclusions for interest and dividends, 
reductions in the alternative minimum tax and marriage penalty relief. 
Even the accelerated deductions for health insurance provide more 
relief for those in the upper brackets than for taxpayers with lower 
wages.
  The tax cuts are unfair and unwise when we know we must address 
solvency issues in both Medicare and Social Security.
  In keeping with our vote today on school prayer, I hope I can reach 
the hearts and minds of my colleagues with a story about Moses.
  About 3000 years ago, Moses interpreted the Pharaoh's dream of 7 fat 
cattle and 7 starving cattle as a prediction that Egypt would have 7 
years of feast, and then 7 years of famine. Like a wise ruler, the 
Pharaoh saved some of the surplus of the 7 good years, so that the 
people of Egypt could survive the 7 years of famine.
  That was a pretty big gamble the Pharaoh took, relying on someone 
else's interpretation of a dream.
  He could have made everyone happy for 7 years and seen his approval 
ratings reach deity levels. He could have abolished the tax code and 
built and built a few extra pyramids for his best friends. Instead of 
the 3 pyramids of Egypt, he could have had 4 or 5. He could have built 
a dozen sphinxes.
  But no, he was wise, and saved for a possible disaster--and the 
disaster came.
  We don't need Moses to analyze the demographics in America.
  We know that our current surpluses are temporary and will turn to 
deficits. We know that Medicare and Social Security will either have to 
be cut or taxes raised in the next 10 years. We also know that we can 
make the problem infinitely easier to solve if we save today's 
surpluses for tomorrow's shortfalls.
  God doesn't have to give us a dream for us to figure out the right 
policy here.
  If we don't pass a budget that saves for future needs, our children 
will wonder if we were so dumb that we could not to see the obvious 
coming--or just too foolish not to prepare for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this budget that guts safety net 
programs for our children so that it can give tax breaks to the 
wealthy. I urge my colleagues to reject it as well.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution is an outrage. If it 
were not for the seriousness of the subject, this proposal would be 
laughable. Surely no responsible legislator on either side of the aisle 
can vote for this resolution.
  Let's look at just one of the worst things this budget proposes to 
do: destroy the Medicaid program and cripple the child health program 
written with such fanfare only last year.
  This budget slashes those programs by $12 billion dollars over the 
next five years. That's actually $2 billion more than the Balanced 
Budget Act took from Medicaid. And every one of the Members in this 
House--certainly every one on the Commerce Committee--remembers how 
difficult and painful those cuts were.
  Now this budget says let's do it again.
  How do they think that can be accomplished? Well, the May 12 document 
suggested block granting the acute care part of the program; that's the 
code word for taking away the entitlement to services that elderly and 
disabled people, pregnant women and kids, rely on to get decent medical 
care and nursing home services.
  And nobody should be fooled into thinking the long term care part of 
the program would be spared. The actual budget proposal takes more than 
twice as much money out of Medicaid as the May 12 document assumed--so 
it is obvious that all the protections in all parts of the program--
including nursing home care--are on the chopping block.
  Some people must have some pretty short memories around here. Maybe 
they've forgotten that when you do this to Medicaid, you are

[[Page H4224]]

saying to widows that there's no Federal protections to keep spouses 
from being impoverished when their husband or wife goes into a nursing 
home. That you are saying to people in nursing homes that the Federal 
Government washes its hands of any responsibility for decent quality, 
staffing and services in nursing homes.
  Maybe they've forgotten that it means saying to low-income Medicare 
beneficiaries that they won't be able to rely on help from Medicaid for 
services like prescription drugs or help with their cost sharing and 
premiums. Why the May 12 document says specifically that it would 
``grant Governors the flexibility to determine how best to address 
provisions for beneficiaries with overlapping benefits.'' That's 
shorthand for saying there's no more Federal guarantee that poor 
Medicare beneficiaries will get any extra help.
  Or should we assume that Mr. Kasich and his majority at the Budget 
Committee think States will just cut services for kids instead?
  Is that the policy they want us to endorse?
  Let's see, what else could they have in mind. Do they mean to slash 
the DSH program so there's nothing left? Or just let people be pushed 
in managed care plans with a totally inadequate capitation rate? That's 
certainly an effective way to undermine any quality care in those 
settings.
  All this is made more outrageous because we already slashed this 
program last year. We've already seen such a dramatic slowing of the 
growth in the numbers of people covered by Medicaid that it's virtually 
flat.
  We've got a surplus, for heaven sakes. But the philosophy behind this 
budget seems to be, well let's cut taxes anyway, and let poor people 
bear the brunt of paying for it. Because in this budget, it's programs 
for poor people that take the massively disproportionate share of the 
cuts.
  This is idiocy. It's mean spirited, it's indefensible. If you vote 
for this budget, you might as well just say flat out to poor widows and 
poor kids in your district and all over the country--forget any 
guarantee of decent medical care. Forget any protections in Medicaid.
  There's lots of other reasons to vote against this budget. But what 
it does to Medicaid is reason enough. Vote no.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the GOP 
Budget Resolution reported out of the Rules Committee. In this 
Resolution the GOP Majority has turned its back on the commitment and 
coherent budget agreement Congress crafted last year. The GOP reneges 
and risks our recent success toward balancing the budget and 
maintaining investment in areas of critical need to our nation and 
people. Instead, the GOP Majority has opted to put forth a measure 
which will force massive cuts in areas important to our nation's future 
such as health care, child care, education and the environment. This is 
not governing. This Republican budget clearly demonstrates 
irresponsibility, abandons the promise to save Social Security first, 
kills important investments in our children's future and clearly 
neglects the American people.
  The Majority Budget Resolution will cut an additional $101 billion 
below last year's budget agreement in people's programs. Although the 
Republican rhetoric attempts to characterize such cuts as simply being 
I cent out of every dollar over the next 5 years, the reality is much 
more alarming than their rhetoric would lead Americans to believe. It 
takes billions from people's programs, Medicaid, TANF, education, 
veterans medical benefits, crime fighting efforts and natural 
resources. Furthermore, the GOP Budget does not add up. At a time when 
our country is in its greatest period of economic growth, when the 
budget deficit is on the way to elimination due to the major work done 
by the Democratic Majority in Congress and President Clinton in 1993--
without a single GOP vote--and a surplus of $40 billion is projected 
this year 1998, congress should be seizing this opportunity. We should 
offer a 1999 budget which invests in working families and provides the 
tools and resources that increase the ability of all people to thrive 
in our nation's booming economy and has a paramount focus on insuring 
Social Security and Medicare's long-term viability. Instead, we have a 
GOP budget that miserably fails this test and our country.
  The proposals contained in this Budget Resolution continue the 
Republican's war against health care. Last year, congress set our 
Medicare reductions of $115 billion for five years. Initial provisions 
in this year's GOP Budget proposal sought more than $22 billion in yet 
new cuts to Medicare and Medicaid on top of what is already set out in 
law. The Republicans planed to use these new cuts to finance a tax cut 
for America's wealthiest taxpayers. Only after intense criticism from 
within their own party and Democrats, the GOP Leadership opted to drop 
the Medicare cuts, but not the cuts which savage Medicaid. And the new 
children's health care program. This change relays a negative message 
to the elderly and the low income families and the disabled who were 
promised and deserve quality health care.
  The Republican Budget cuts $5 billion from natural resources and 
environmental protection programs. this is money that could be used for 
the Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund, our National Parks, 
National Forests and Wildlife Refuges, protecting endangered species 
and funding important environmental cleanup. Protecting the environment 
and preserving the earth's natural resources should be a top priority 
in congress. A close look at this budget leads to the conclusion that 
the GOP Majority is indifferent to its stewardship responsibilities to 
this nation and land.
  Last year's Balanced Budget Agreement explicitly assumed full funding 
for all Section 8 Housing expiring contracts through 2002. However, 
this year's budget fails to maintain the number of households who 
currently receive assistance by refusing to allocate funding for 
existing Section 8 contracts as they expire. This simply is a broken 
promise. Failure to renew expiring contracts will not only reduce the 
number of assisted households, it could force currently assisted 
tenants to face sharp rent increases, displacement or eviction.
  In response to the concerns of the growing number of people whose 
Section 8 housing contracts that are scheduled to expire, the 
Republicans included no outlays for that purpose in their Budget, 
virtually making the budget authority unusable. Furthermore, according 
to the Congressional Budget Office, a freeze in renewing Section 8 
contracts would ultimately mean one million households would lose 
federal housing vouchers and certificates by 2003. Today, rental 
housing assistance provides Section 8 tenant-based and project-based 
programs to over 3 million households. Forty-six percent of this total 
are working class families with children and 32% are elderly. This will 
force needy persons into the streets and into homelessness.
  In addition, the Republican plan slashes education programs by $5.7 
billion over the next 5 years. It eliminates direct federal funding to 
school district by repealing Title I grants and suggests that such 
programs be made into some sort of vouchers. These grants are essential 
in providing supplementary education and related services in low-
achieving children attending schools with relatively high 
concentrations of pupils from low-income families. These additional 
cuts deprive our elementary and secondary schools of much needed 
resources that could be used for more teachers in our classrooms and 
internet access for all schools.
  Furthermore, the Republican budget freezes every program it does not 
cut, specifically veterans' medical care, law enforcement, Superfund 
and Head Start. This adds up to real cuts when even a lowered inflation 
rate will depreciate the level support provided in this Budget 
blueprint. The reality is that 40% of these cuts impact hard working, 
low-income families that deserve our help and encouragement not the 
shabby treatment accorded in this GOP budget blueprint.
  Moreover, just last night the Republicans dropped a special provision 
allowing Congress to use the anticipated budget surpluses on a 
convoluted, untested proposal offered by the Speaker: ``private 
retirement accounts.'' Such accounts are a unilateral, premature, 
partisan maneuver that is intended to superimpose this idea in place of 
a bipartisan agreement to truly strengthen and save Social Security 
first.
  Deciding now to use the surpluses for tax incentive private accounts 
before addressing Social Security's long-term problems would siphon off 
resources that will be needed to maintain the solvency of the Social 
Security Trust Fund. Budget surpluses should be reserved until a Social 
Security Commission, the President, and the Congress address the long-
term requirements of Social Security. This represents just another step 
in the Republican agenda to eliminate the Social Security Insurance 
program and squander away the projected budget surplus upon half baked 
schemes. While abandoning the specifics it is still the intent of this 
budget to tax expend the dollars, so one bad idea may just be replaced 
with another and have a similar impact of disregarding the commitment 
to save Social Security first.
  Overall, this budget fails to meet the needs of the American people. 
The Republicans are a majority in Congress; it is their responsibility 
to put forward a plan that can actually be implemented and to govern. 
Because the Republican plan cuts so deeply and unfairly, and because it 
deviates so markedly from last year's bipartisan budget agreement, it 
hopefully stands little chance of being implemented. Attempts to 
implement it will ensure confrontation with the GOP Senate, 
Presidential opposition and a strong no vote from most Democrats.
  After forty five days late without a budget proposal, the nation has 
a right to expect the GOP Congress to step forward with a sound budget 
plan--a budget that is not just another political, partisan scheme 
loaded with the tax break promises for special interest groups, more 
punitive, punishing cuts on the working

[[Page H4225]]

poor and undercutting retirement, health and education programs so 
vital to our constituents' and nation's future. It seems that this GOP 
led Congress would blow a free lunch after they were handed a working 
model crafted by the gutsy votes of 1993 Clinton/Democrat Congress. 
That proposal has changed the economic path from deficits as far as the 
eye can see to an economic path based upon sound economics and a 
surplus this year and hopefully in to the future.
  Here we go again. After last year's tax breaks and budget deal the 
GOP majority reneges in the name of an election issue. The Republicans 
attempt to break the 1997 Budget agreement and attempt to make a virtue 
of tax breaks for the special interests and breaking faith with Social 
Security and Medicare. Make no mistake about it this will break the 
budget. This is the same old GOP tax break siren song that the band 
plays when the GOP is asked why the numbers didn't add up--Play it 
again, Sam!
   Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 
284, the budget resolution offered by the Chairman of the House Budget 
Committee. I believe that this budget plan is seriously flawed.
  Thr proposed budget resolution would cut $101 billion in federal 
programs over the next 5 years in order to finance a tax cut of 
comparable magnitude. I am concerned that spending cuts of such size--
in the wake of the budget cuts of recent years--would have a powerful 
negative impact on my district that would not in any way be justified 
by the benefits that the proposed tax cut could provide. I am 
especially concerned about the impact that this level of program cuts 
would have on the most vulnerable members of our society--children, 
seniors, the sick, and the poor. Our top priority must be to--at 
least--maintain the existing federal safety net for those individuals 
who desperately need it.
  Moreover, it is my understanding that while the report on the budget 
resolution recommends that some or all of the spending cuts be used to 
eliminate the marriage penalty, the bill does not do that, nor would it 
take $101 billion in savings to do so. While the Budget Committee 
report on H. Con. Res. 284 is rather vague, it seems likely that much 
of the savings from the $101 billion in proposed spending cuts would be 
used for the kinds of tax cuts for the rich that usually characterize 
Republican tax legislation. In fact, H. Con. Res. 284 would not 
actually eliminate the marriage penalty in the tax code. The report 
only urges the Ways and Means Committee to use the savings produced by 
the resolution to eliminate the marriage penalty. The Committee--and 
Congress--would in no way be bound to do so.
  I want to make it completely clear that I support efforts to address 
the marriage penalty in the tax code--I am a cosponsor of legislation 
that would make just such a change--but that the proposed level of 
spending cuts are not necessary to address the marriage penalty.
  Nor do I believe that we should pay for tax cuts for the rich by 
cutting important federal education programs, infrastructure programs, 
environmental protection programs, research programs, anti-poverty 
programs, and health care programs. Some of the cuts assumed by this 
budget resolution would harm the most needy members of our society and 
rapidly reduce the quality of life in many of our communities. Other 
assumed cuts--like those eliminating critical investments in federal 
research, education, and infrastructure programs--would in the long run 
prove to be counterproductive; such federal programs are necessary in 
order to maximize our nation's future economic growth. Moreover, many 
of the program cuts and eliminations assumed in this budget resolution 
have been considered and rejected repeatedly by Congress in previous 
years. If the Members consider the implications of this budget 
carefully, I am certain that a majority of them will reject it.
  I have a number of other serious concerns about this budget 
resolution. It is back-loaded--all the painful cuts would take place in 
the out-years after the November elections. It would change the pay-as-
you-go provisions of the Budget Act that have helped to impose the 
necessary fiscal discipline on Congress. And, finally, it contains none 
of the President's important initiatives on education, child care, 
health care, and the environment.
  In short, this bill has a number of major flaws. The bill does too 
little to preserve Social Security. The spending cuts in this budget 
resolution are excessive and unwise. Many of the specific spending cuts 
that are assumed in the resolution have been rejected before. And, 
finally, while Congress should address the marriage penalty, it could 
do so without the level of spending and tax cuts proposed in this 
budget resolution. For these and the other reasons described above, I 
oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this 
unwise, irresponsible legislation.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, it is highly likely that there will be a 
budget surplus of no less than 50 billion dollars for the coming budget 
year. For the first time in many decades there will be a window of 
opportunity to make meaningful federal investments in education. 
Unfortunately, the federal share of the overall expenditures for 
education is merely seven percent at present. This budget surplus 
offers an opportunity to bolster our national security by increasing 
the pool of brainpower to operate our increasingly complex society. I 
propose that the new budget surplus be divided in accordance with clear 
national priorities. One fourth of the surplus should be set aside for 
social security; one fourth should be used to give tax relief to 
families earning less than 50,000 dollars a year; one fourth should be 
allocated for direct emergency funding for school construction; and one 
fourth should be invested in other education priorities such as smaller 
class sizes, education technology, books, equipment, etc. This 
represents a worthy budget deal which should immediately be placed on 
the table for discussion and debate. We need an open debate on the best 
use for the surplus. What American voters should fear is a closed door, 
smoke-filled room deal in October with only representatives of the 
Republican controlled Appropriations Committees (House and Senate) and 
the White House present. A multibillion dollar deal is going to be 
made. Let this deal be done in the sunshine. Let's do a deal for the 
children of America.


                         do the budget deal now

Start acting real
Right now do a democratic deal
Do this magic surplus deal
Upfront right away
Chase infected cynics
Off the political highway
Make humane rules
Build safe schools
Start acting real
Right now do the deal
Sunshine is now okay
Act fast in the light of day
Invest it the people's way
Stop pushing the no touch lie
In four pieces cut the pie
Start acting real
Right now do the deal
Vote for children's justice fast
Make up for the stupid past
The budget is on even keel
Upfront right away
Do this magic surplus deal.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Boehner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ney, Chairman pro tempore of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 284) revising the congressional budget for the 
United States Government for fiscal year 1998, establishing the 
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 
1999, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 
2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, pursuant to House Resolution 455, he 
reported the concurrent resolution back to the House with an amendment 
adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the concurrent 
resolution, as amended.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- yeas 216, 
nays 204, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 210]

                               YEAS--216

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss

[[Page H4226]]


     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Souder
       

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Ballenger
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     LaFalce
     Lewis (GA)
     McDade
     Mollohan
     Paul
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sabo
     Tanner

                              {time}  1446

  Mr. HILL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________