[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 130 (Friday, September 25, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H8722-H8732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4578, PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY 
          ACCOUNT, AND H.R. 4579, TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT OF 1998

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 552 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 552

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4578) to amend the 
     Social Security Act to establish the Protect Social Security 
     Account into which the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     deposit budget surpluses until a reform measure is enacted to 
     ensure the long-term solvency of the OASDI trust funds. The 
     bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendment 
     recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in 
     the bill shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; (2) a further amendment printed 
     in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 
     6 of rule XXIII, if offered by Representative Rangel of New 
     York or his designee, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
     read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. After disposition of the bill (H.R. 4578), it shall 
     be in order without intervention of any point of order to 
     consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4579) to provide tax 
     relief for individuals, families, and farming and other small 
     businesses, to provide tax incentives for education, to 
     extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes. 
     The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The 
     amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now 
     printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate

[[Page H8723]]

     on the bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means; (2) a further amendment printed in the 
     Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 6 of 
     rule XXIII, if offered by Representative Rangel of New York 
     or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention 
     of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall 
     be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 4579, the Clerk 
     shall--
       (1) add the text of H.R. 4578, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 4579;
       (2) conform the title of H.R. 4579 to reflect the addition 
     of the text of H.R. 4578 to the engrossment;
       (3) assign appropriate designations to provisions, and 
     conform cross references, within the engrossment; and
       (4) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.
       (b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 4578 to the 
     engrossment of H.R. 4579, H.R. 4578 shall be laid on the 
     table.

                              {time}  0930

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a structured rule providing 
for consideration of two bills, H.R. 4578, the Protect Social Security 
Account, and H.R. 4579, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1998. These are two 
extremely important measures for the American people.
  First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4578 in the House 
without intervention and point of order. The bill is considered as read 
and the Committee on Ways and Means amendment in the nature of a 
substitute now printed in the bill is considered as adopted.
  The rule further provides for one hour of debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, the committee of jurisdiction.
  The rule provides for consideration, without intervention of any 
point of order, of an amendment printed in the Congressional Record and 
numbered 1, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or 
his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be debatable 
for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Secondly, Mr. Speaker, after the disposition of H.R. 4578, the rule 
then provides for consideration of another bill, which is H.R. 4579, 
again, without intervention of any point of order. The bill will be 
considered as read, and the Committee on Ways and Means amendment in 
the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill, as modified by the 
amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying this 
rule, is considered as adopted.
  The rule further provides for one hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  The rule further provides for consideration, without intervention of 
any point of order, of an amendment printed in the Congressional Record 
and again numbered 1, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), which shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 1 
hour, equally divided and controlled by, again, the proponent and the 
opponent.
  The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Finally, the rule provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 4579, the 
Clerk shall add the text of H.R. 4578, as passed by the House, and that 
upon the addition of the text, H.R. 4578, shall be laid on the table.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule and the two bills before us demonstrate that we 
can achieve two very, very important goals: We can save Social 
Security, and we can cut taxes.
  The package before this House today, and Members ought to look at 
this, because the American people are looking at it the taxpayers of 
this Nation are looking at it the package before the House today sets 
aside 90 percent of the projected budget surplus over the next 10 
years. We are very, very fortunate today that based on the philosophy 
of Ronald Reagan and Reaganomics, we have had this surging economy now 
for all these years, very unusual in the history of this Nation. But it 
has happened because of major, major tax cuts that were implemented way 
back in 1981. That pumped money back into the pockets of people so that 
they could either spend it on things they wanted to spend it on, 
whether it was on buying a house, buying a car, educating their 
children, or saving it so that they would have monies available to them 
later on when they got around to retiring.
  So let me just repeat one more time, this package before the House 
today sets aside 90 percent of all of that new projected surplus that 
is rolling into the coffers of this Nation, and that is about $1.4 
trillion over the next 10 years. That money is set aside to help 
replace the monies that have been legitimately and legally stolen out 
of the Social Security trust funds.
  Now, the remaining 10 percent of that surplus, which is only $80 
billion of the $1.4 trillion, $80 billion is used to provide tax relief 
to families, to farmers, to small businesses across this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House today is really quite simple. 
Do we believe that the American people, both families and businesses, 
deserve lower taxes? It is as simple as that. Of course, we know what 
the answer is. It is unequivocally yes.
  As the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means said so eloquently 
during debate in my Committee on Rules meeting yesterday, when 
testifying before our committee, he said the tax burden on American 
families is higher today than at any previous point in our peacetime 
history.
  That means we are taking more money out of the pockets of people than 
ever in peacetime before. This vibrant domestic economy, driven by the 
hard work of both main street and Wall Street, Mr. Speaker, deserves a 
break. A tax cut now will provide taxpayers with more flexibility in 
establishing important consumer and investment priorities for families.
  For instance, let me give Members an example, the Taxpayer Relief Act 
of 1998 will provide marriage tax relief for over 48 million married 
taxpayers. How many? Forty-eight million married taxpayers will receive 
an average tax cut of $243 per tax return.
  You may not think that is much, Mr. Speaker, but I had five children. 
And my wife and I were struggling for a long time. And lo and behold, I 
came to this Congress about 20 years ago, I do not know what the salary 
was in those days, about $37,000 or something, but we struggled to 
educate those kids. I will tell you, do you know what $247 extra means? 
It means an awful lot. It means an awful lot to my family. It would 
have meant a lot to us.
  Six million married taxpayers who currently itemize deductions on 
their returns will no longer need to do so. That means you do not have 
to go out and hire an accountant. Do you know what it costs the average 
family, a young couple, because of the complicated tax system? They are 
going to go out and spend 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, $600, maybe even $1,000, if 
they happen to be a small businessman or family running a small 
business. And in this bill, these 6 million married taxpayers who 
currently itemize deductions on their returns will no longer need to do 
so. This represents tremendous simplification.
  Many of the provisions of this bill simplify the tax code and result 
in the elimination of several tax forms that taxpayers currently are 
required to file.
  Again, if you are a small businessman, like I was, you find the cost 
of doing business is so great because of all of the Federal and State 
and county, town, city, village, and local mandates. Aything we can do 
to relieve that is going to help make these businesses and these 
families prosper. That is what this bill does.
  In addition, 68 million taxpayers are provided tax relief by 
excluding from taxation a portion of the interest and

[[Page H8724]]

dividend income received. Let me repeat that. Sixty-eight million 
taxpayers are provided tax relief by excluding from taxation a portion 
of that interest and dividend income received.
  This will provide very visible tax relief for families by allowing 
them to keep portions of interest income that they now have to pay 
taxes on, even from small savings accounts. You have a small savings 
account with maybe $1,000 or $2,000, right now you have to pay 100 
percent tax on that. This is going to give relief to these families, 
tax free, and simplify their tax filing.
  And I think this is more important, because we have heard a lot of 
rhetoric, every morning we have one-minutes in this House, where 
Members can come down. And the Democrats line up over here and the 
Republicans over here, and we hear all this rhetoric. I hope that we 
will follow my infinite wisdom and do away with those things or put 
them at the end of the day and not have it stir things up in the 
morning. We have heard a lot of rhetoric about Social Security.
  Let me tell you what this bill does for Social Security, this tax cut 
bill. This bill increases the Social Security earnings limit, thereby 
increasing the amount of money seniors can earn without losing Social 
Security benefits, something I have been trying to accomplish in this 
body for years.
  My wife is drawing a Social Security check. She worked all of her 
life, and now she is in a part-time business. She sells real estate. 
And now she has earned more than the $14,500 limit, and she has had to 
pay back the meager I think it is about $4,000 that she had gotten she 
has to pay all that back. Yet that was from a forced savings account. 
She was forced to put aside, in Social Security all these years, her 
own money. Now the government is taking it away from her.
  Well, this year that limit is $14,500. And now, under this bill, next 
year we are raising it up to $17,000. That means my wife, your wife, 
all the people out there on Social Security now can earn $17,000 and 
not pay that two-for-one penalty that should not be there at all. Then 
the following year, 2 years later, the limit is going to be raised to 
$18,500.
  Do you not think that is going to make a difference to people who are 
living on a fixed income? Then 3 years later, in other words, in the 
total of a three-year period, we are raising that to $26,000. That 
means that a man and wife can go out and they can earn a little bit of 
extra money, and yet they will not have to pay a penny of their Social 
Security back if they earn less than $26,000. That is what this bill 
does.
  Now, another major tax relief is the 100 percent health insurance 
deduction for the self-employed and farmers. It is accelerated to take 
full effect on January 1, 1999, providing 3.3 million taxpayers an 
average tax benefit of $382 in 1999, $382 into the pockets, again, of a 
couple who own a small business or a farmer who is trying to live on 
about $25,000 in income.
  Credit under the estate tax, or what is otherwise called the death 
tax, is accelerated to take full effect on January 1, 1999. Again, I do 
not know about all the rest of my colleagues, but I represent the 
Hudson Valley in upstate New York. It has the Catskills on one end, the 
Adirondacks on the other. In between are very, very small dairy farms, 
50 head each. It is the 20th largest dairy producing district in 
America. One would not think that in New York, would they, from 
Arkansas over there? And we have apple orchards. But these people have 
trouble keeping the new generation on the farm because it is so 
difficult, first of all, even to make a living. And secondly, they 
cannot even inherit the farm because of the inheritance tax.
  What this does is move the credit under the estate tax up to make it 
fully effective January 1, 1999. And it means that those farms now are 
going to be turned over to the children. And we are going to be able to 
keep them operating.
  This, combined with other small business and agriculture provisions, 
will provide needed and immediate tax relief to many family-owned small 
business and family farms, many.
  Mr. Speaker, key tax relief is also provided this is something that 
is very close to me to military personnel by making it easier for our 
Nation's men and women in uniform to qualify for the capital gains tax 
relief on the sale of a home due to the fact that their duties often 
require them to be away from home for long periods of time. They lose 
the capital gains benefit that the ordinary citizen would have when 
they sell their home. Civilian homeowners can take advantage of it. Our 
military personnel cannot do that. So that is a glitch in the law, and 
we are making a correction.
  The Taxpayer Relief Act also will extend various expiring tax 
incentives necessary to grow the economy, such as research and 
experimentation tax credits, very, very important.
  It also extends the work opportunity tax credit and the welfare to 
work credit, which is extremely important.
  Finally, the bill before us today includes landmark language which 
authorizes the creation of 20 renewal communities designed to help 
fight poverty.

                              {time}  0945

  This is extremely important to Members on both sides of the aisle. 
Patterned after the work of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis), these communities would be eligible for capital 
gains tax relief, increased expensing for small businesses, wage 
credits for workers, deductions for cleaning up brownfields--very, very 
important--a commercial revitalization tax credit, and tax incentives 
for Family Development Accounts. This is an historic initiative aimed 
at addressing the travesty in impoverished rural and urban areas 
throughout our country.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing let me just address those of my colleagues 
who claim that the surplus tax revenue generated by hard-working men 
and women of this country should be kept here in Washington and not 
used for tax cuts. This is something that just gets under my skin. 
First, let us remember that the tax revenue that pours into this city 
from all over this country does not belong to us, it does not belong to 
the government. Rather, it belongs to those who sent it here, the 
taxpayers of this Nation. When the taxpayers send the government more 
money than is necessary to run it, the government is duty bound to 
return that excess.
  Second, everybody knows, and, believe me, all Members know it we are 
going through it right now everybody knows that any dollar not nailed 
down to a Federal program in Washington, D.C. is a spent dollar. We 
know the Congress is going to spend those dollars. In order to prevent 
the frivolous spending of taxpayer dollars the government does not 
need, we must cut taxes and give them back to the American people. That 
is exactly what this bill does.
  Cut taxes and save Social Security by voting for this rule and for 
these two bills. It is the responsible thing to do. My grandson told me 
that this morning. He said, ``Granddad, it's the right thing to do.'' 
Ladies and gentlemen, it is the right thing to do. Come over here and 
vote for this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 
The rule sets the stage for Congress to take up a destructive, 
irresponsible set of proposals that will simultaneously raid the Social 
Security trust fund and explode the deficit. This package threatens to 
destroy our hard-won budgetary discipline and send us, like Alice in 
Wonderland, through the looking glass into a place where long-standing 
budget rules do not apply and a budget deficit is called a surplus.
  This rule will allow Congress to consider H.R. 4578 and H.R. 4579, 
the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of budget politics. The first bill, H.R. 
4578, would set aside a portion of the Social Security surplus in a 
mythical special reserve account where it would supposedly be saved. 
The second bill, H.R. 4579, would use the remainder of the Social 
Security surplus to pay for tax cuts. It is bad enough that these 
proposals are irresponsible and shortsighted. To make

[[Page H8725]]

matters worse, we are being denied a full and open debate on them. The 
modified closed rule does a disservice to the American people by 
barring the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) from offering his 
alternative. The Stenholm proposal would cut taxes without raiding 
Social Security or threatening to increase the deficit. Unfortunately 
this fiscally responsible bill was banned from the House floor in favor 
of the majority's reckless plan to raid future retirees' savings. In 
addition, constructive proposals sponsored by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Maloney) were denied the opportunity for floor consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4578 and H.R. 4579 illustrate how the majority is 
indulging in creative accounting to invent a surplus that they can use 
to justify tax cuts. Over the next five years our Nation is projected 
to have a Social Security surplus of $657 billion and a budget deficit 
of $137 billion. The majority is using the Social Security surplus to 
cancel out that budget deficit and declare a total budget surplus of 
$520 billion free for the taking.
  But as my colleagues can see, the surplus is not a real surplus. It 
is a mirage. It is a surplus of Social Security taxes which we need to 
hold in reserve for that approaching day when Social Security begins to 
have financial problems. The Federal budget will remain in deficit or 
just barely in balance until at least the year 2005 even assuming the 
economy remains as robust as it is now. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 
Greenspan has warned repeatedly that our economy could take a downturn 
which could wipe out the surplus and multiply the cost of the proposed 
tax cut.
  H.R. 4578 places 90 percent of the Social Security surplus in a 
reserve account in the U.S. Treasury. This account is nothing but a 
budget gimmick. There is nothing to prevent Congress from spending 
these funds in the future. If the majority is spending the surplus on 
tax cuts now, what will stop them in the future for using it for other 
purposes? The majority is referring to their proposal as the 90-10 
plan. I would suggest that that means if you live to be 90 you might 
get 10 percent of the Social Security benefits you are due.
  Democrats are committed to reserving all, 100 percent, of the surplus 
for Social Security. Our alternative will place the entire surplus in a 
special account in the New York Federal Reserve Bank where Congress is 
completely unable to reach it. This is the only proposal that 
guarantees the surplus will be used solely to save Social Security and 
not for politically irresistible goodies.
  Democrats support tax cuts. Most of the proposals in the majority's 
package were originally Democrat bills. But we will not cut taxes 
without paying for them. The Democratic alternative includes all the 
same tax cuts but provides they will not take effect until Congress has 
enacted legislation to preserve Social Security. Social Security is a 
Democrat program, and we have always kept our promises to the Nation's 
seniors. We will again before we start making new promises to 
Americans. The Democratic alternative enacts tax relief and saves 
Social Security.
  I would like to note that the majority's misguided proposal has no 
chance of becoming law. The President has vowed to veto any proposal 
that raids the Social Security surplus to pay for tax cuts. Americans 
should recognize this tax bill for the cynical election-year ploy that 
it is. Democrats will protect Social Security while Republicans protect 
their majority.
  We should save Social Security first. This bill is an unwelcome 
flashback to the Reagan era of deficit spending. The majority's 
proposal places in jeopardy the Social Security benefits of over 44 
million older Americans, many of whom rely on their benefits as their 
sole source of income. While we would all like to cut taxes, we cannot 
do so at the expense of the balanced budget and the Social Security 
trust fund. We owe our senior citizens and all Americans better than 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time. If 
it is an election year, it must be time for a tax cut. At least that is 
what the Republicans think. And they do not really care how they 
finance it. We on the Democratic side like tax cuts, too. In fact, we 
voted for tax cuts last year because they were paid for within the 
budget. They were paid for in the context of a balanced budget. This 
year, though, the Republicans are not worried about that. They are 
going to raid the Social Security trust fund to pay for tax cuts. That 
is not right.
  The fact of the matter is we do not even have a surplus yet and if we 
get one, we do not know how much it is going to be. So we ought to at 
least let the ink dry on the surplus before we start giving it away. 
More importantly, if the surplus is not as great as we think it will be 
or if there is a downturn in the economy, we will not have those 
revenues but we will have shortchanged the Social Security trust fund.
  Americans believe that Congress ought to deal with the big issues. 
The big issue facing our society is how we will deal with Social 
Security when the baby boom generation moves into its senior years.
  We on the Democratic side have a simple proposition. Any revenue we 
get, any and all of that surplus ought to be set aside for that rainy 
day. The Republicans are saying, ``Well, let's shave a little bit off 
and give it away.'' The problem is, that will raid the Social Security 
trust fund and will not maximize the security we ought to provide for 
our seniors.
  Now, they will come down and tell you, ``We've got this terrible tax 
burden and that's what we're really fighting against.'' The fact of the 
matter is the economy is doing very well. Unemployment is down, 
employment is up, interest rates are down. They say, ``Well, there's a 
burden on the average family.'' Let me tell you this: The tax rates on 
the average American family are at its lowest point since 1978. We want 
to give tax breaks when we can pay for them, but if we cannot pay for 
them, we do not believe we ought to jeopardize the Social Security 
trust fund. We ought to put all the surplus back into the trust fund to 
protect long-term national interests.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Wise).
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. We hear a lot 
about there being a surplus but the reality is it is in Social 
Security. I have the greatest respect and friendship for the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. He is irrepressible 
when it comes to the Reagan years, and certainly President Reagan was a 
strong President in many ways. He was also strong because he left us 
the strongest deficit in history. We went from $70 billion to $200 
billion and deficits as long and far as the eye can see according to a 
former Reagan aide.
  So what does this bill do? It continues the same pattern, because you 
cut taxes, that was part of the Reagan formula, and yet you do not do 
anything really about the spending. I do not support election-year tax 
cuts that come from Social Security.
  Now, they say they are going to put 90 percent of it in a lock box. 
But my question is, if you are going to save 90 percent of Social 
Security, why not save 100 percent? What happened to that radical idea, 
100 percent of Social Security? I support tax cuts but not until Social 
Security is preserved.
  The irony to this is the American worker pays into Social Security, 
you are going to tell them that you are giving them a tax cut and yet 
the tax cut is going to come at the price of what they have been paying 
into for many years for their retirement.
  I look at this, a lot of us, whether we are parents or grandparents 
or whatever take our children to McDonald's. And so what this does is, 
you drive in, you give them a Happy Meal today, then you take the 
hamburger and the fries and what the worker is left with is a plastic 
googol toy that after the first five minutes ends up as election-year 
junk in the back of the car.
  Mr. Speaker, this is simply taking for election-year purposes, giving 
a tax cut at the expense of Social Security. What my constituents, 
300,000 senior citizens in West Virginia, hundreds of thousands of more 
getting ready to retire, what they say is save Social Security first, 
then look at the tax situation.

[[Page H8726]]

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel).
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if I could have a statement today on this 
rule which I oppose, it would be to my dear friend and fellow New 
Yorker (Mr. Solomon). Because the gentleman from New York is leaving 
this great body, but he leaves with a great reputation as a feisty 
fighter for all of the things that he has believed in all of his life 
as a true American and a true Marine. I feel awkward, because having 
moved to be the senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, some 
of the ways I used to think have now been replaced by having the 
responsibility of not being able to express my liberal ways the way I 
used to enjoy them before.
  I would believe that if a surplus was there, spend the darn thing. 
Put it in education, build some houses, let America's quality of life 
be a little better. As far as Social Security is concerned, what the 
devil. If we do not have money for the check, the country is not there, 
anyway, so forget it.
  But that is not the way Americans have been thinking. The Republicans 
have been so good at telling us if you do not have the money, you do 
not spend it. They have been so good in saying you pay as you go. They 
have been so good in saying that we have got budget rules, that you 
cannot even do it without violating the very principles of the House. 
Yet this rule today would allow us just to waive all of the disciplines 
that we have learned to work together in a bipartisan way to respect.
  The whole idea of having a tax cut that you cannot pay for is 
repugnant to everything I thought Republicans stood for. For those 
reasons and others, I oppose the rule.

                              {time}  1000

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleagues what my 
constituents are saying about this bill and why they want me to oppose 
this Republican tax plan.
  What they are saying is that a few years ago; I think it was in the 
1970s; this Congress passed a tax increase in order to provide more 
money for the Social Security Trust Fund through the payroll tax 
essentially because there was a recognition that in a few years there 
would be a lot more baby boomers who turned 65 and we would need more 
money in the Social Security Trust Fund to pay benefits for that baby 
boom generation. But that money now is being borrowed by the general 
revenue, by the budget in general, used for purposes other than Social 
Security, and now we are being told that even though that surplus is 
there in the Social Security Trust Fund to be paying benefits in the 
future, we are going to take even more of it and spend it on a tax cut 
that primarily, I would say, goes to wealthy individuals.
  Well, my constituents are saying that that is not fair, it is not 
fair to raise taxes on the average guy, on his earnings, on his payroll 
tax and then take it away in a tax cut when that money is supposed to 
be saved for the future when it has to be paid out in benefits. And my 
constituents are saying what Congress is telling me is that the money 
is not going to be there to pay out the benefits when I get to be 65 
even though I have been paying more to make sure that it is there. And 
then they are saying we know what is going to happen in the future. We 
are going to have to raise taxes because we have taken the money away 
that supposedly we were saving.
  So the consequence of this Republican action is that 5-10 years down 
the road we are going to have to raise taxes more, most likely, on that 
wage earner, on the payroll taxes, to make sure money is there for 
Social Security or, alternatively, that there will be pressure to cut 
back on Social Security benefits, to cut back on the COLA, to raise the 
age before one can get Social Security or to even suggest other kind of 
crazy ways to deal with retirement because there is no money in Social 
Security.
  This is wrong, and that is why we have to vote against this rule and 
vote against the Republican tax cuts.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a tax cut but not 
to raid the Social Security Trust Fund.
  My esteemed colleague from the 17th District of Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
yesterday introduced a rule before the Committee on Rules that would 
provide for a tax cut but not to rob the Social Security Trust Fund, 
and that is what we should do.
  This rule waives the budget rules that got us to the balanced budget; 
it throws it out the window. It says what we have been doing is the 
wrong thing to do. This is how we get to a $5 trillion debt. We owe the 
American people more than this. We owe them more than to rob Peter to 
pay Paul.
  Yesterday in the Committee on Rules the point was made that was quite 
outstanding that said we have got to spend this money before someone 
else does. I cannot think of a more ridiculous idea or a less 
responsible idea than this.
  These folks have a heart as big as a washtub, as they say where I 
come from. We are going to rob Social Security on one hand and leave 
our constituents in poverty at age 65, but we are going to give them a 
small tax cut before we do that.
  Let me urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and vote for 
responsible fiscal management.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think I heard right. The gentleman from 
Arkansas said he heard something upstairs that Republicans want to 
spend this money before somebody else does.
  We want to cut taxes and put the money back into the pockets of 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith), one of the most fiscally responsible Members of this body.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I invite the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) to come over and join the 
Republican party. We still believe in that philosophy that he is 
starting to think.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that there is so much rhetoric, and we 
are shy on some upright honesty on what is happening in Social 
Security.
  First of all, let me suggest that with a unified budget deficit last 
year of over $20 billion, this year, in that same way that we figure 
surplus and deficit, we are going to have a surplus of $70 billion. And 
let me also suggest that almost every Democrat on that side of the 
aisle last year voted for the tax cuts even though we had a much larger 
deficit than we do this year. And what happened? Because of the fact 
that there is some way to treat taxes to make it more fair to stimulate 
the economy we have ended up bringing in more tax revenue this year, 
and it has been a stimulus to a stronger economy in this country. That 
is part of the solution, long term, to any Social Security solution.
  Let me additionally suggest, Mr. Speaker, to whoever might be 
listening to our debate, that neither approach, the Rangel amendments, 
nor this rule, move in the direction of saving Social Security. All we 
are saying is, let us start paying down the public debt a little bit, 
and that is good. That is going to help a little bit. But what we are 
really going to have to do to save Social Security is to increase the 
return on the investment that working men and women in this country are 
putting into their Social Security tax.
  Right now, Mr. Speaker, the Tax Foundation says that, on average, 
they are going to have a negative return on that money that they pay 
into Social Security. A negative return; the estimate is between a 
negative \1/2\ and a negative 1\1/2\. What we have got to do to save 
Social Security is have a better return on that investment. We cannot 
continue as a pay-as-you-go program for Social Security. So, all of 
this pretense that we are setting the money aside is just that, it is 
pretense.
  I went to the Committee on Rules, and my amendment in the Committee 
on Rules, and that is my disappointment, Mr. Speaker, with the 
Committee on Rules; my amendment incorporated my House Bill 4033 that 
says from now on when the government borrows money from Social Security 
it should be marketable, negotiable

[[Page H8727]]

Treasury bills. It is not that today. They are just blank IOUs, as will 
this new account be. It also said that from now on OMB and CBO, the 
administration and Congress' budget people, will not consider the 
surplus coming into the Social Security Trust Fund as revenue in terms 
of defining a deficit or a surplus.
  I think the important thing as we start solving Social Security, that 
we be up front, that we be honest with the American people.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, there is going to be a lot of talk today on 
the floor of the House about a surplus. Let us get one thing straight. 
There is no surplus. The so-called surplus, 100 percent of it is the 
Social Security Trust Fund. We are overcollecting today in Social 
Security taxes. Seventy-three percent of Americans pay more in Social 
Security taxes to the United States Government than they do income 
taxes, with the idea that that money will be available tomorrow and the 
day after to pay future Social Security benefits.
  But guess what? The Republicans want to spend that money today. They 
want to over collect from 73 percent of the American public with the 
false promise of Social Security being there in the future, and they 
want to spend that money tomorrow in a new tax cut. That is the worst 
of bait and switch. At least they could have the guts to do both bills 
on the same day and say to the American people, ``Yes, we are spending 
your Social Security and tax cuts that will flow to a different group 
of people than paying the tax, but we think that's good policy. And 
don't worry, we'll somehow honor your benefits 10 and 15 years hence.''
  This is bad legislation. The Republicans know it is bad. They want to 
give tax cuts. Yes, actually they are not bad tax cuts for the 
Republicans, probably the best tax cuts the Republicans have ever 
proposed because they are trying to hang Democrats out to dry. But we 
are not going to be hung out on the line here. It is the Republicans 
that are being hung out because they are spending the Social Security 
Trust Funds. They are not protecting the Social Security Trust Funds. 
What a magnanimous gesture. They will only spend 10 percent of them, 
and they will put the other 90 percent in a phony account in the 
Treasury that will be immediately borrowed and spent on other things.
  Mr. Speaker, this provides zero protection for Social Security. What 
is worse, it spends the Social Security Trust Fund of tomorrow on tax 
cuts today.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the Republican rule in the 
bill because it does not put Social Security first, it does not put 
senior citizens in this country first who work to build communities, 
families and to protect the country, it does not protect working 
families who are paying the FICA taxes for both their future security 
and their present security of their parents and grandparents and 
because it is fiscally irresponsible.
  On the tax bill this rule that we are considering would automatically 
adopt a provision to waive the budget law, and what does that law say? 
It requires that all tax cuts be fully paid for. The provision is 
intended to keep the country, the reason that law exists, is to keep 
the country from returning to the days of creating huge tax breaks at 
the expense of the deficit in terms of going back to that credit card 
mentality.
  Instead of following the path of fiscal responsibility, Mr. Speaker, 
Republicans have irresponsibly decided to dip into the Social Security 
Trust Fund for tens of billions of dollars to pay for the costs of 
these tax cuts even before any action has been taken to deal with 
Social Security's long-term solvency.
  Now where are my friends from the CATs, the conservative action 
teams? As my colleagues know, we are constantly talking about being 
fiscally responsible. How is it that my colleagues can begin to spend 
money, how is it possible to begin to spend money before the ink even 
dries on a projected surplus? That is clearly not fiscally responsible.
  And this question about a separate account; the separate account has 
no lock, has no guarantee, has no provisions to preserve Social 
Security. It is fiscally irresponsible, it does not put our seniors 
first, it does not put our country first, and it does not continue us 
on the path of fiscal stability.
  The fact of the matter is, if we want to put our seniors first and 
working families, we should reject the rule, reject the bill and adopt 
the Democrat proposal.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 
All Members who care about fiscal discipline, all Members who care 
about the Social Security system, all Members who care about the legacy 
we leave for future generations should vote against this fiscally 
irresponsible rule.
  I was sincerely disappointed that the Committee on Rules choose to 
report a rule which did not allow for consideration of the bipartisan 
Stenholm-Berry-Neumann amendment which would require that tax cuts be 
paid for out of general revenues and prohibits funding a tax cut out of 
the Social Security surplus. Once again the Committee on Rules denied a 
free and open debate on an issue of which some of us on both sides of 
the aisle feel are very important. That is the reason why everyone 
should oppose this rule, Mr. Speaker.
  The Stenholm-Neumann amendment would establish the common-sense 
position that we should wait until a true budget surplus materializes 
before tax cuts which are not paid for take effect.
  The rule does make in order a Rangel substitute that delays 
implementation of the tax cuts until the Social Security trust fund is 
restored to actuarial balance. I will support the Rangel substitute 
because it would make the underlying bill more responsible and add 
meaningful protections for the Social Security trust fund. However, the 
Stenholm-Neumann amendment would have set a significantly tougher 
standard by requiring us to balance the budget without using the Social 
Security trust fund surplus. The vote on the rule will be the only 
opportunity Members will have to express support for the principle set 
forth in the Stenholm-Neumann amendment that we should not be funding a 
tax cut from the Social Security trust fund.
  Let me be clear. I, too, support tax cuts, but not if they are paid 
for with Social Security Trust Funds. We should not talk about budget 
surpluses so long as we are counting Social Security Trust Fund. Under 
current projections there is no surplus available to use for tax cuts 
unless we are willing to use Social Security Trust Funds.
  The substitute amendment that Mr. Neumann and I proposed contained 
all of the tax cuts in the package reported by the Ways and Means 
Committee, but would add a requirement that any tax cuts which are not 
paid for be delayed until we have an on-budget surplus large enough to 
pay for the tax cut without relying on the Social Security trust fund 
surplus. This amendment would have ensured that the tax cut is not 
funded out of the Social Security surplus, and establishes the position 
that we should wait until the surplus materializes before tax cuts 
which are not paid for take effect.
  We should not talk about budget surpluses so long as we are counting 
the Social Security trust fund surplus. Under current projections, 
there is no surplus available to use for tax cuts unless you are 
willing to use the Social Security trust fund surplus.
  Over the next 5 years, CBO estimates the surplus of Social Security 
Trust Funds will be $520 billion, of which 657 of that 520 is Social 
Security Trust Fund. Over the next 10 years, it takes 10 years before 
we find $31 billion that are not Social Security Trust Fund.
  Enacting a permanent tax cut that is not paid for would result in 
continued deficits into the future as far as the eye can see.
  In a letter sent our earlier this week, the Concord Coalition warned 
us that ``the election year temptation to use Social Security surpluses 
for other purposes will lead to a dangerous breakdown in fiscal 
discipline.'' We should maintain the discipline that has put us on a 
path to a truly balanced budget that puts Social Security off budget 
once and for all by 2002.
  The West Texas tractor seat common sense I hear when I go home also 
reminds me that we should not count our

[[Page H8728]]

chickens before they are hatched. The surplus exists only in 
projections, not reality. According to CBO, a recession similar to the 
1990-1991 recession would turn the projected surplus into a deficit.
  Even a modest slowdown in economic growth could reduce revenues and 
increase spending by tens of billions of dollars, quickly turning a 
projected surplus into a deficit. Lawrence Lindsey, a Republican 
economist and former Federal Reserve Governor, warned that the surge in 
income taxes that has contributed to the surplus in the unified budget 
may not continue, arguing that ``The prudent thing to do when you enjoy 
a windfall from some good luck is to save it, you might need the 
cushion in bad times.''

                              {time}  1015

  I cannot believe my friends on the other side of the aisle are not 
taking a conservative approach to the economy today, when everyone is 
saying that is what we should be doing. People out in West Texas know 
that when we get a little extra money, our first priority should be to 
pay off our debts, particularly if we have a debt.
  We should use the opportunity presented by the strong economy and 
improved budget projections to reduce the $5.4 trillion national debt, 
instead of leaving that burden for future generations. The current 
projections of a budget surplus follow years of deficit spending that 
has resulted in a national debt of $5.4 trillion. Federal Reserve 
Chairman Alan Greenspan, former CBO Director Rudy Penner and countless 
other economists have told us that the best course of action for the 
economy is for Congress to use the surplus to reduce the debt. Reducing 
the national debt will help maintain a strong economy by reducing 
interest rates and increasing the amount of savings available to the 
private sector to invest in the most effective way possible.
  The senior representative in my State in the other body the other day 
echoed the view that I share when he said, ``I think I know the people 
I represent would agree we ought to save social security. I do not have 
to see a poll to know that.''
  We have a tremendous opportunity to prepare for the retirement of the 
baby boom generation by reducing the debt and reforming entitlement 
programs.
  I have worked extremely hard over the last 3 years in a bipartisan 
effort with the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mark Sanford), the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Nick Smith), and other Members on both sides of the aisle 
to bring us to a point where we are seriously discussing the long-term 
reforms necessary of the social security system. The task of enacting 
meaningful social security reform will be even harder if we use the 
projected budget surplus for a short-term, politically attractive tax 
cut.
  Members know that. I know that. Anyone that is serious knows there 
are going to be transition costs. We should not spend it today.
  I also strongly oppose this rule because it includes several major 
waivers of the Budget Act discipline. This legislation represents one 
of the largest violations of the budget enforcement rules since the 
enactment of the Budget Enforcement Act.
  At the same time that the Committee on the Budget is considering 
legislation that would take a positive step towards making it harder to 
waive the Budget Act, we are being asked to vote for a rule that makes 
at least four major waivers of the Budget Act. These are not routine 
waivers of technical violations of the Budget Act, but are major, 
substantive waivers of budget discipline.
  I hope that my colleagues who have joined me over the years in 
complaining about waiving the Budget Act would join me in opposing now 
the blatant violation of budget discipline in this rule.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and I have joined in this 
fight so many times over the years, when the gentleman was in the 
minority and I was in the majority, and I was differing with my party. 
The gentleman and I stood on this floor and said, we should not do 
this. Today, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is bringing a rule that does 
it, and he is waiving it. I cannot believe it that the gentleman is 
doing that.
  Mr. Speaker, the exemption from the PAYGO rules that allows the bill 
to be funded out of the Social Security surplus instead of being offset 
by spending cuts or revenue increases is a dangerous step toward 
weakening existing budget enforcement rules. The pay-as-you go budget 
rules have put us on a path to a balanced budget. Now is not the time 
to be waiving, suspending or otherwise violating our budget discipline 
rules. The recent volatility of world financial markets makes it even 
more critical that we reaffirm our commitment to maintaining the 
discipline that has produced a dramatic improvement in the federal 
budget and a strong economy.
  The conservative thing to do with the budget surplus is to be 
conservative. It is extremely important that we follow the path of 
fiscal responsibility and take advantage of this opportunity to 
preserve the Social Security system for future generations. The bill 
before us, for all its merit, would undermine fiscal discipline and 
jeopardize our ability to preserve Social Security. I strongly 
encourage all members who are committed to maintaining fiscal 
discipline and maintaining the integrity of the Social Security trust 
fund to vote against this rule so that the House may consider a tax cut 
that is not funded out of the Social Security trust fund.
  Vote down this rule and let us do what the country needs.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I respect every Member of this 
body. I love all of them. The gentleman from Texas is one of my best 
friends. However, sometimes we have to ask whose ox is being gored 
here?
  I heard the gentleman stand up here and say that he is for tax cuts, 
but he is not going to vote to cut taxes if it is going to have 
anything to do with Social Security. Yet, I am looking at a bill here 
that just passed the House September 15. It was a bill that spent 
billions of surplus funds on the agriculture emergency bill. It is the 
same surpluses. Then it was okay to spend it, but no, it is not okay to 
cut taxes with it now.
  Mr. Speaker, I am just looking at the whole list of all my good 
friends on that side of the aisle. Every one of them--I just drew the 
line here--every one voted for that surplus bill. Spend those 
surpluses, take it out of that Social Security. Yet, when we start 
talking about 48 million Americans that are married taxpayers, we 
cannot spend some of the surplus on them. We cannot give them a tax 
break. We cannot give 6 million other Americans an exemption on their 
itemizations. We cannot give 68 more million Americans a tax exemption 
on their interest on their income.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Morris, the 
south suburbs of Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  We can tell this is an election year, with the political rhetoric we 
are hearing. People are talking about the social security trust fund, 
and of course politicians say a lot of things in an election year, 
particularly 6 weeks before the election.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on Social Security, I thought I would 
share with everyone here, the Social Security Administration says that 
the tax cuts we are going to vote on tomorrow eliminate the marriage 
tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer. It will have no impact 
on the social security trust funds.
  In fact, in response to a question by the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Archer), ``As a result of the tax bill being considered by 
the committee today, will there be any impact on the monies in the 
social security trust fund,'' the chairman asked Judy Chesser, deputy 
commissioner of the Social Security Administration, she had a very 
simple answer: ``No.''
  So if we want to be honest about this, this legislation has 
absolutely no impact. The tax cuts have absolutely no impact on the 
social security trust fund. Let us be honest today. The Social Security 
Administration is honest. All politicians should try and be honest once 
in a while.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an exciting day. Let us think about it. As a 
result of last year's balanced budget, we now have projected a $1.6 
trillion surplus. Today we are going to vote to set aside $1.4 trillion 
to save social security. What a victory. 2 years ago we had massive 
deficits. Today we have that opportunity to save social security, 
setting aside $1.4 billion.
  I was one of those who stood up and applauded in January of this year 
when

[[Page H8729]]

the President said, let us take the surplus from the budget and use it 
to save social security. I applauded. In fact, I stood up like everyone 
else in this room, and said, good idea. At that time the surplus was 
projected to be $600 billion. Today we are going to vote to set aside 
more than twice what the President asked for, $1.4 trillion.
  I have heard a lot of messages in the forums and town meetings I have 
had on social security in the south suburbs and south side of Chicago: 
Keep politics out of it, use most of the surplus to save social 
security, and let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  I oppose this rule, Mr. Speaker, and I am very disappointed that the 
Republican leadership is bringing this forward. We have worked very 
hard for the past 6 years to bring in a balanced budget, including the 
1993 economic program on deficit reduction, that we passed without a 
single vote from the Republican side of the aisle. But we did come 
together, Democrats and Republicans, on budget discipline.
  The pay-go rules were put in for a reason. The pay-go rules say very 
simply that we cannot spend money unless we have a way to pay for it. 
We cannot cut taxes unless we have a way to pay for it. It is very 
simple.
  Yes, we have voted for tax cuts, we did last year, but we paid for 
them. We did not take it out of the surplus. We paid for it. Yes, we 
can fund true emergencies through the budget rules without waiving the 
budget rules, because that is the rules we are operating under. But we 
cannot cut taxes, we cannot raise spending, unless we pay for it under 
the pay-go rules.
  What do the Republicans do? They bring out a rule that waives the 
pay-go rules. It says that ``We waive pay-go requirements with respect 
to a bill making the revenue loss not covered under pay-go,'' the 
height of hypocrisy. If they did not do that, they would have a 
Medicare cut next year of $6.7 billion under sequestration; the year 
after that, $8 billion. They did not want that to happen, but they did 
not want to pay for it.
  That is wrong. There is no surplus, but for the fact that social 
security is running a cash surplus. We do not have any surplus to 
spend. It is very possible that we are going to enact permanent tax 
cuts, and then what happens two or three years from now, if we do not 
have the money they are talking about, it is not going to be 10 percent 
of the projected surplus that comes about as a result of social 
security, but it could be 20 percent, 30 percent, or 40 percent. That 
is wrong. That is why we worked together, Democrats and Republicans, 
for budget discipline rules.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, in a week, just a week, the government will declare a 
budget surplus for the first time in 30 years. This is a landmark 
achievement, and in large measure it is the result of rigorous budget 
rules that Congress enacted in 1990, in 1993, and in 1997, which were 
followed consistently. Now, on the verge of the first surplus in 30 
years, the House is about to throw budget discipline to the wind and 
dissipate the surplus before we have even declared it, even put it in 
our pockets and realized it.
  When we did the budget summit agreement with President Bush in 1990, 
we adopted something we call colloquially the pay-as-you-go rule. 
Congress extended that rule in 1993, we extended it again in 1997, 
because it has worked. It has been the foundation of our fiscal 
discipline, and it has been a major factor in bringing the budget to 
balance.
  Under that statutory rule, increases in entitlement spending or 
decreases in taxes have to be fully offset. If not offset, the 
initiatives have to be paid for. They are entered on a pay-go 
scorecard, and money is sequestered at the end of the fiscal year which 
otherwise would go to the farm program or Medicare or Medicaid, certain 
selected entitlement programs.
  We all know there is a unified budget surplus over the next 5 years, 
but we also know that when the surpluses in the social security trust 
funds are backed out, the budget is in deficit by $137 billion.
  If this rule is enacted and if H.R. 4579 is enacted, we will raise 
that deficit from $137 billion to $217 billion, and postpone the date 
when we are truly in surplus well beyond the year 2008. This is 
backpeddling. This is the first step down the slippery slope. When we 
are finally at the point of success, we are about to blow it.
  I support tax cuts. I find a lot of the provisions in this tax bill 
very appealing. But I think it is a mistake to dispense with our budget 
rules and the budget discipline that has brought us this far in order 
to pass this bill.
  The rule for H.R. 4579, everybody should note this, everybody should 
know it when they vote for it, has to bust the budget rules, has to 
break the budget rules and the discipline that we have established in 
four different ways for this bill to come to the floor.
  First of all, it has to amend the tax bill to provide the pay-as-you-
go requirements, to override these pay-as-you-go requirements which are 
present, which this Congress reaffirmed and extended just last year. We 
have to override them altogether.

  It is buried here. It is the last paragraph in this thing. It says, 
``Upon the enactment of this Act, the director of the Office of 
Management and Budget shall not make any estimates of the changes and 
receipts under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of '85 resulting from the enactment of this Act.'' In other 
words, disregard fiscal reality.
  Secondly, we have to violate section 306 of the Budget Act, which 
says that only the Committee on the Budget, not the Committee on Rules, 
can change statutory budget rules like the pay-go rule.
  Thirdly, this rule waives section 311 of the Congressional Budget 
Act, in effect because the tax bill cuts go well beyond the tax cuts 
that we explicitly agreed to in last year's budget agreement and 
implemented in the Tax Relief Act of 1997.
  Fourth, the rule must waive section 303 of the Congressional Budget 
Act, because it amends the revenue law before Congress has agreed to a 
budget resolution for this year. We do not have a budget resolution. We 
passed one in the House, the Senate passed one. We never even had a 
conference. The rules say that we cannot do this until we have adopted 
a budget resolution.
  This is a long list of violations which we will waive. They are 
serious, not trivial violations. I urge that we stick with the fiscal 
discipline that has brought us to this day on the verge of a surplus, 
and not throw budget discipline to the winds. Let us vote against this 
rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am just surprised to hear the gentleman, whom I have 
great respect for. He was a member of the Committee on the Budget in 
1993, along with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo). They asked 
for the same kind of waivers, but for spending, not for tax cuts. In 
1997, the same thing happened, for spending, not for tax cuts.
  By the way, if there is an attempt to defeat the previous question 
and to make in order the Stenholm substitute, it, just like the Rangel 
substitute, requires the same kind of budget waivers. Let us get that 
straight, so Members, when they come over here, know what they are 
voting for.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman 
from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Vito Fossella).
  (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
upstate New York, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that we are having this discussion, this 
debate, and indeed the opportunity to

[[Page H8730]]

vote on this rule, because really, what we have is providing the 
American people, people on Staten Island and Brooklyn, the opportunity 
to determine what side here is for providing more tax relief for the 
American people, more tax relief for married couples, better 
opportunities for small business owners, and what side just wants to 
keep all our hard-earned money here in Washington for more big 
government, more spending, more bureaucracy.

                              {time}  1030

  I think the issue is clear. Frankly, I believe the American people 
are taxed too much. I think they work hard every single day. When their 
paycheck comes every couple of weeks or every month, or when they are 
filing their taxes, they recognize that they pay too much in taxes.
  The reality is, we want to send that money back to the people, 
whether it is in Staten Island or Brooklyn or San Diego or anywhere 
across this country.
  Last year, there was a debate about cutting taxes on hard-working 
Americans to stimulate our economy and allowing people to keep more of 
what they earned. We were told that there was a budget deficit and that 
we could not afford to cut taxes.
  Now we are told that there is a budget surplus and we cannot afford 
to cut taxes. This is the logic that defies ordinary Americans. If we 
have a deficit and a surplus and we cannot afford to cut taxes in 
either case, then when can we?
  The reality is that we have a great opportunity today to support a 
rule and underlying legislation that brings tax relief to hard-working 
married couples, to small business owners across America. Let us get 
the money out of Washington back to Staten Island and Brooklyn and 
across this great country where it belongs. Where people who work hard 
every single day who created the surplus, not the people here in 
Washington, the Americans, let us give them the tax relief they need.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins), an outstanding Member.
  (Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the bill. I think we 
all need to be grateful from the standpoint of being able to balance 
the budget. One of the reasons why I returned to Congress, was to do 
anything I could do to balance the budget, and also to try to provide 
some tax relief for a lot of the working families in this country.
  We can also be very proud of the fact that we are setting aside 90 
percent of the projected surplus to help protect and secure Social 
Security. A 90 percent set-aside or $1.4 trillion is more than any 
other time in the history of our country. An historic record breaking 
amount of dollars that we are willing to set aside to protect Social 
Security.
  Also, as one of the previous speakers said, President Clinton, 
proposed a set-aside in January, of approximately $600 billion. We are 
setting aside over twice as much; $1.4 trillion is over twice the 
amount that President Clinton proposed in January.
  So, I think we can be very thankful with what we have done to protect 
Social Security. The 10 percent will help save our farmers and our 
ranchers. Let me share with you what that 10 percent does.
  One, it allows us to provide income averaging with a 5-year carryback 
to farmers and ranchers. And let me tell my colleagues, my farmers and 
ranchers who are hurting with low prices and the worst crisis since the 
Great Depression. They feel that the 5-year carryback is one of the 
best provisions they could possibly have to help them survive through 
this time.
  It also allows 100 percent deductibility on health insurance for the 
self-employed. We are not only talking about farmers and ranchers being 
able to have health insurance, but also the small business on Main 
Street. Most of them are self-employed and they do not have the 
opportunity to have health insurance today, or they are not allowed to 
have 100 percent deducted.
  A lot of ministers are under this provision of being self-employed. 
This is something that they have been wanting for a number of years.
  The elimination of the marriage penalty which affects millions of 
people across this country. This is a good working family middle-class 
tax cut and our senior citizens will receive 90% or $1.4 trillion to 
help protect Social Security well past the year 2030.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to urge my colleagues to join me 
in opposing the rule. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment that will be offered if the previous question is not ordered 
at this point in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.

       On page 4, line 1, strike ``and (3)'' and after the 
     semicolon, add the following:
       ``(3) a further amendment printed in the Congressional 
     Record and numbered 2 pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII, if 
     offered by Representative Stenholm or his designee, which 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, 
     which shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent; and (4)''.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) is 
recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, the bill, 
and in support of the Democratic substitute.
  For too long this Congress has had the habit of using the Social 
Security trust funds to hide the true amount of our deficit. Now 
Republicans want to use the Social Security trust fund to inflate the 
value of the budget surplus.
  This money should not only be saved, but it needs to be saved to 
ensure the solvency of the Social Security program. Let us be honest 
about the budget. It is only in balance because of Social Security. If 
we remove Social Security trust funds from our budget calculation, we 
would still have a deficit.
  This bill to supposedly save 90 percent of the surplus for Social 
Security is a sham. By supporting this bill, the Republicans are doing 
nothing more than taking from America's seniors to pay for a tax cut.
  Democrats want to save 100 percent of the surplus to pay for a 
program that has worked well for seniors and their families but is in 
need of repair--Social Security.
  By voting for the Republican fig-leaf bill and against the Democratic 
substitute, Republicans are voting to cut the money available for 
strengthening Social Security.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to read this sign here. It says: 
Social Security Administration says the tax cut plan has no impact on 
Social Security trust funds. Quote, ``As a result of the tax bill being 
considered by the committee today, will there be any impact on the 
monies in the Social Security trust fund? No.''
  Now, who said that? It is Mrs. Judy Chesser, Deputy Commissioner, 
Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs, Social Security 
Administration of the Clinton administration.
  Is that clear?
  Later on this year, before we adjourn in the next couple of weeks, we 
are going to be voting on some very critical things where we have to 
come up with emergency monies. One of them is Bosnia. Ever hear of it? 
We have to pay for it. Y2K, billions of dollars. We have to pay for it. 
Disaster aid in New York and California and all across this country. We 
have got to pay for it. National security, we have to pay for it.
  As I pointed out before, 178 Democrats did not hesitate for a minute 
to come on this floor 2 weeks ago and vote to spend billions of dollars 
of these surpluses--spending it, not cutting taxes. Now today we want 
to put aside 90 percent of these funds, 90 percent of over $1.5 
trillion and save that for Social Security. But we want to take 10 
percent of it and we want to give 87 million Americans a tax break in 
this country, all middle-income, low-income Americans that need the 
help.
  Mr. Speaker, what is this all about? I urge Members to come over here 
and vote for the rule and let us vote for the Social Security bill and 
then let us vote for the tax cut bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this 
rule, which governs the debate on two separate bills that gravely 
affect our Social Security and tax systems.

[[Page H8731]]

  This rule prohibits the free and open debate of the social security 
system. It only allows for one amendment to be made on each of these 
important bills, that effect the lives and livelihoods of millions of 
Americans around the country.
  Social Security is an extremely important program. For many 
Americans, it provides their only source of retirement. Their only 
source for sustenance after they retire from work. Both of these bills 
threaten the stability of their accounts. They take part of the money, 
that should entirely be set aside on their behalf, as was contracted 
the moment that funds were garnered from their paychecks, and put it 
towards election-year tax cuts. Such important legislation should not 
be unreasonably limited in debate, or in deliberation, as they are here 
today.
  H.R. 4578 purports to save Social Security, but any elementary school 
teacher would be quick to stamp it ``incomplete''. It puts aside only a 
portion of the hard-earned money of the American people. The 
Republicans admit it is a 90-10 plan. They acknowledge that 10% of the 
Social Security Fund is left unprotected. I say that 10% is 10% too 
much.
  The Democratic substitute for this bill sets aside every penny of 
Social Security and places it into the New York Federal Reserve for 
safekeeping, away from lawmakers looking to earn quick votes. I intend 
to vote for the substitute, and hope that its passage signals to the 
Republicans that their efforts to bring about tax cuts do not have to 
come at the expense of the people around the country.
  Now, this resolution does allow for one Democratic amendment to H.R. 
4579, which takes funds out of the Social Security surplus and uses it 
for tax cuts. Tax cuts that are intended to benefit the middle class. 
However, to truly ensure that the middle class will receive the 
benefits, those cuts must be carefully targeted. Targeting requires 
careful debate and deliberation. Under this rule, we are afforded 
neither. We get only one substitute.
  Furthermore, under this rule, H.R. 4579 ``self-executes'', meaning 
that a portion of the Budget Act is waived automatically! The Budget 
Act requires that all tax cuts be fully paid for before being enacted. 
Why is that waived in this case? Because the Republicans know that 
there is no surplus to spend. It is prima facie evidence that this bill 
takes money away from the Social Security Trust Fund.
  I urge all of you to vote against this rule, and for the workers of 
this great nation.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the 
resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 202, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 461]

                               YEAS--219

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     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
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     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
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--202

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Burton
     Cubin
     Engel
     Goss
     Kennelly
     Livingston
     McDade
     Meeks (NY)
     Moakley
     Norwood
     Paul
     Pryce (OH)
     Rogers

                              {time}  1056

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:

  On this vote:

       Mr. BURTON of Indiana for, with Mr. MOAKLEY against.

  Mrs. LOWEY and Mr. ACKERMAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, 
nays 208, not voting 11, as follows:

[[Page H8732]]

                             [Roll No. 462]

                               YEAS--215

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     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
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     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
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Condit
     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
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Burton
     Cubin
     Goss
     Kennelly
     McDade
     Meeks (NY)
     Moakley
     Norwood
     Paul
     Pryce (OH)
     Thornberry

                              {time}  1106

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________