[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 48 (Thursday, March 25, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1699-H1710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 2000
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 131 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 131
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 68) establishing the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2000 and setting forth appropriate budgetary
levels for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2009. The
first reading of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed
with. Points of order against consideration of the concurrent
resolution for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule
XIII are waived. General debate shall not exceed three hours,
with two hours of general debate confined to the
congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Budget, and one hour of general debate on the subject of
economic goals and policies divided and controlled by
Representative Saxton of New Jersey and Representative Stark
of California or their designees. After general debate the
concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under
the five-minute rule. The amendment specified in part 1 of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in
the Committee of the Whole. The concurrent resolution, as
amended, shall be considered as read. No further amendment
shall be in order except those printed in part 2 of the
report of the Committee on Rules. 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 as read, shall be debatable for 40 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and
shall not be subject to amendment. All points of order
against the amendments printed in the report are waived
except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration
of the concurrent resolution for amendment. After the
conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for
amendment and a final period of general debate, which shall
not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Budget, the Committee shall rise and report the concurrent
resolution, as amended, to the House with such further
amendment as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution
and amendments thereto to final adoption without intervening
motion except amendments offered by the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical
consistency. The concurrent resolution shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question of its adoption.
Sec. 2. Rule XXIII shall not apply with respect to the
adoption by the Congress of a concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2000.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley),
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.
[[Page H1700]]
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 131 is a structured rule providing for
consideration of H. Con. Res. 68, the budget resolution for fiscal year
2000.
H. Res. 131 provides for three hours of general debate with two hours
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget, and one hour on economic goals
and policies equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
The rule waives clause 4(a) of rule XIII requiring a 3-day layover of
the committee report. The rule also considers the amendment printed in
part one of the Committee on Rules report as adopted upon adoption of
the rule. The rule also makes in order only those amendments printed in
part 2 of the Committee on Rules report to be offered only in the order
specified, only by the Member designated, debatable for 40 minutes
equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, and
shall not be subject to amendment.
The rule waives all points of order against the amendments except
that if an amendment in the nature of a substitute as adopted, it is
not in order to consider further substitutes. This is a very important
point, because Members need to know that there will not be any king of
the hill or queen of the hill procedures used here today. There are no
free votes.
The rule also provides, upon the conclusion of consideration of the
concurrent resolution for amendment, for a final period of general
debate not to exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
The rule also provides and permits the chairman of the Committee on
the Budget to offer amendments in the House to achieve mathematical
consistency pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the Budget Act. Finally,
the rule suspends the application of House rule XXIII with respect to
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 131 is a conventional rule for consideration of
the budget resolution and provides for the consideration of a number of
substitutes, including the Blue Dog budget offered by the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), the Democratic substitute offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and President Clinton's
budget. It strikes me as odd that the Committee on the Budget Democrats
would not offer the President's budget for consideration, and that as a
result, Members on our side of the aisle had to offer it to get it
considered.
Mr. Speaker, this budget takes advantage of this historic opportunity
to save Social Security by ensuring that 100 percent of the money
destined for the Social Security Trust Fund remains in the trust fund.
That is $1.8 trillion over the next decade for retirement security. The
President's plan only sets aside 62 percent of the funds destined for
the Social Security Trust Fund, about $100 billion less than the
Republican plan. Our budget strengthens Social Security and ensures
that big spenders can no longer raid the fund to pay for their big
government spending programs.
Mr. Speaker, after saving Social Security and Medicare, the real
question is, what should we do with the remainder of the surplus? We
say, give it back. When previous Congresses could not figure out how to
run the government, they turned to the American people for more taxes.
Now that we have a surplus, the big spenders do not want to give the
people a refund. They want to spend it on new, wasteful, bureaucratic
programs.
I welcome this debate because it will speak volumes about the
differing opinions on the role of the Federal Government in the lives
of the American people.
A few months ago, we received a preview of this debate when the
President said, and I quote, we could give it all back to you and hope
you spend it right, closed quotes. But the President then proceeded to
explain that he really should not give back the surplus because Federal
Government bureaucrats could make wiser choices with your paychecks
than you could.
That is the ideological conflict we are dealing with today. Our
budget is designed to provide more freedom and more power to the
American people. The President's budget is designed to keep taxpayer
money controlled inside of the Washington, D.C. bureaucracy.
The Republican budget expands upon our efforts to provide every
American with as much personal freedom and liberty as possible. We
simply believe that individuals make much better choices about their
lives than bureaucrats do.
The President's position on taxes illustrates his belief that the
government makes wiser choices with the paychecks of the American
worker. In a budget that weighed 12 pounds and was 2,800 pages long,
the Clinton budget did not contain any real tax cut. In fact, his
budget proposal actually included billions of new taxes and fees.
Today, your tax rate is about 2 percent lower than it was 2 years ago
because Congress provided the first Federal tax cut in 16 years. Yet
Federal tax revenues still comprise a record percentage of Gross
Domestic Product. In fact, Americans pay more in taxes than for food,
clothing and shelter combined.
The President responded to this growing tax burden by stating,
``Fifteen years from now, if the Congress wants to give more tax
relief, then let them do it.''
Well, if waiting until the year 2014 to get a tax refund does not
appeal to people, they will be pleased to know that the Republican
budget states that the surplus does not belong to government. The
Republican budget will provide $800 billion in tax relief, including
$10 billion to $15 billion in the first year. It is a reaffirmation of
our belief that the American people know best how to spend their money.
The President's budget, which the Democrats would not even offer
today, spends $341 billion of the Social Security surplus over 10
years, it breaks the balanced budget caps, and proposes $30 billion
more in outlays than allowed under the law in just the first year.
It should be noted that despite the President's rhetoric, his budget
actually cuts Medicare by $11.9 billion over 5 years. The Republican
budget rejects the President's Medicare cuts, including those he
proposed for certain prescription drugs.
Even the President's own Comptroller General, David Walker, has
criticized the Clinton Medicare proposal for essentially doing nothing
to alter the imbalance between the program's receipts and benefits
payments. The President's $11.9 billion cut in Medicare and his fiscal
shell games are endangering the quality of our seniors' health care.
Conversely, our budget locks away all of the Social Security trust
fund surpluses for the Nation's elderly to save, strengthen and
preserve Social Security and Medicare.
This budget continues our determined efforts to provide more
security, more freedom, and less government to the American people. In
its entirety, our budget is a common sense plan to provide security for
the American people by preserving every penny of the Social Security
surplus, return overtaxed paychecks to those who earned it, pay down
the national debt, rebuild our Nation's defense, and improve our public
schools.
Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget reaffirms our belief in the
Ronald Reagan adage that it is not the function of government to bestow
happiness upon us. Rather, it is the function of government to give the
American people the opportunity to work out happiness for themselves.
That is why this budget resolution is written in such a way to provide
more freedom to American families and communities by returning money,
power and control back to them.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. I urge my colleagues to support it
so that we may proceed with the general debate and consideration of
this historic budget resolution and the substitute resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the
customary half hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, people are starting to get their hopes up with this
budget. With the new surplus and the new millennium, it looks like
anything is possible. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, they
[[Page H1701]]
are in for a huge disappointment. Last week's unveiling of my
Republican colleagues' new budget proved to be more of the same: All
bad ideas.
Despite predictions of Medicare and Social Security catastrophes
looming on the horizon, the Republican budget does nothing to extend
the life of either Social Security or Medicare for even one day. But it
still manages to siphon $775 billion into tax cuts for the richest
Americans, instead of investing in education, health care, to prepare
this country for the next century.
{time} 1015
Like Nero, Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget fiddles while Social
Security and Medicare burn.
The chief actuary of the Social Security Administration has said this
budget will have virtually no effect on the date that Social Security
becomes insolvent. It will just make sure that it goes broke on
schedule. That is not me speaking, Mr. Speaker. That is the chief
actuary of the Social Security Administration.
In contrast, the Democratic budget has a lock box which will protect
Social Security until the year 2050 and protect Medicare until the year
2020. My Republican colleagues propose a plan that is less secure than
the Democrats', and Treasury Secretary Rubin recommended that the
President of the United States veto it.
Because in reality, Mr. Speaker, the Republican lock box is more of
an open till. The differences do not stop there.
The Democratic budget reduces the debt more than the Republican
budget every year that it is in effect. The Democratic budget provides
$40 billion more for veterans' health care over the next 10 years than
the Republican budget. Mr. Speaker, we made our veterans a promise. We
must keep that promise. America's fighting men and women risk their
lives for this country. They deserve the very best health care, the
best services we can give them. But my Republican colleagues will not
allow a vote, will not even allow a vote on the Clement veterans'
amendment.
The Democratic budget provides more for defense spending over the
long run than the Republican budget because, in the later years, my
Republican colleagues had to choose between defense spending and tax
cuts. What do my colleagues think, Mr. Speaker? They chose the tax
cuts.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic budget still manages to
provide some balanced tax cuts and keep our economy from slipping back
into deficit. The Republican budget, on the other hand, will create a
whole new deficit by the year 2014.
The Democratic budget does more to reduce class size and modernize
our schools than the Republican budget, which will cut spending for
Head Start, cut spending for Pell Grants, and cut money for work study.
The Democratic budget protects important programs like WIC, which the
Republican budget cuts by so much that 1.2 million women, infants, and
children will lose their benefits next year; 16,400 of them live in my
home State of Massachusetts.
Mr. Speaker, the WIC program provides essential nutrition and
education during the early years of the childrens' development in order
to make sure that they start school ready to learn. If we do not give
them good nutrition when they are very young, we lose our chance
forever.
Some of my Democratic colleagues tried to make sure that we got that
chance. But this rule does not make in order the DeFazio amendment on
the progressive budget, the Clement amendment on the veterans budget,
or the Mink amendment on education.
This rule does make in order the Shadegg-Coburn amendment which some
people are equating with President Clinton's budget. They say it
reflects some CBO comparison. Mr. Speaker, I want to make something
perfectly clear. The Shadegg-Coburn amendment looks as much like
President Clinton's budget as I look like Gwyneth Paltrow.
Looking at this budget, we would think that my Republican colleagues
have very sharp memories when it comes to bad habits that gave us the
budget deficits in the 1980s and the tripling of our national debt. Now
that our budget finally is in the black, we should be very, very
careful about repeating those mistakes.
So I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If the
previous question is defeated, we will make in order the Clement
amendment to take care of our American veterans. Our veterans deserve
every bit of care we can give them. This country made them a promise.
This country should live up to that promise.
Yesterday's U.S.A. Today says, ``If your Member of Congress comes
home this weekend bragging about having adopted a responsible Federal
budget, don't you believe it.''
So I urge my colleagues to defeat the Republican budget. Today's vote
gives us an unprecedented chance to protect Social Security, to protect
Medicare for the next generation. Mr. Speaker, let us not let that
chance go by.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Atlanta for yielding
me this time and appreciate his fine leadership in this effort.
This morning, as the House opened, since we did not go through one
minutes, a lot of us were here to listen to the prayer delivered by the
Chaplain. The Chaplain said, ``One of the things that we have to do
here is face the challenge of those decisions that will affect the
lives of others.'' This issue of the budget is a very serious one, and
it cannot be taken lightly. That is why I am extraordinarily proud of,
not only the process that we have gone through for consideration of
these different budgets, but the budget itself that is the underlying
effort that was put forward by the Committee on the Budget.
When we think about the impact on lives of others, we think about
retirees and those who are looking towards retirement. We are making
history today when we do in fact pass the committee's budget, which I
believe we will do.
We are locking away Social Security money for Social Security and
ending what has been at least a 3\1/2\ or 4 decade long practice of
raiding Social Security for other spending.
I have got to enter into the Record at this point, Mr. Speaker, a
letter that has come from the AARP, the American Association of Retired
Persons. In it is made very clear that there is a high level of support
and recognition that our plan to lock away Social Security does in fact
provide the greatest opportunity for us to address the needs of
retirees.
The letter is as follows:
AARP,
March 24, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: AARP believes it is important to protect
Social Security's growing reserves and is pleased that the
House Budget Resolution provides that protection. Over the
next ten years, Social Security is projected to contribute
$1.8 trillion of the unified surplus. Preserving Social
Security's reserves not only allows our country to better
prepare for the impending retirement of the baby boom
generation, but also gives us greater financial flexibility
to enact long-term reform in both Social Security and
Medicare once the options have been carefully considered and
their impact understood. In the meantime, maintaining Social
Security's trust fund assets helps reduce the publicly held
debt, further strengthening the economy.
We are also pleased that the Resolution does not call for
reconciliation in the Medicare program. Much work remains to
be done to strengthen and modernize Medicare--work that must
be taken on judiciously and on a bipartisan basis. Currently,
however, the program is still absorbing the impact of the
changes enacted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Until
such changes are fully understood, we should move cautiously
in making additional changes to the program.
The Association remains concerned that the constraints on
domestic discretionary spending will place an inordinate
burden on low-income programs such as elderly housing and
home energy assistance. Inevitably, these caps will lead to
difficult choices in providing for appropriations for these
important programs and may need to be reconsidered in light
of pressing needs.
The Resolution now before the House continues to move this
year's budget process forward in a constructive manner. AARP
is committed to working with the House on a bipartisan basis
to achieve a Budget Resolution that takes advantage of the
opportunities that come from a surplus and at the
[[Page H1702]]
same time continues the course of fiscal discipline that our
nation has worked hard to achieve.
Sincerely,
Horace B. Deets.
Our budget actually devotes $100 billion more than the President's
budget to save, strengthen, and secure and preserve Social Security and
Medicare. Unfortunately, the President's budget cuts Medicare by $11.9
billion. We maintain the spending discipline that brought us the
balanced budget while, unfortunately, the President's package exceeds
the caps by $30 billion.
After locking away the Social Security and Medicare funds, we
returned the rest of the surplus to the American people in tax relief.
That is something I think is very important to recognize, that we have
an overcharge that has taken place, and that overcharge should in fact
be provided as a rebate, and that is exactly what we do.
On the other side, the President's budget in fact raises taxes by
$172 billion. In fact, the President has said that Congress should not
even consider providing tax relief for over 15 years.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier),
my chairman, my very dear friend, keeps alluding to the President's
budget. We did not propose the President's budget. The gentleman's
Members proposed the President's budget so he is using the President's
budget as a straw man. We do not want any part of the President's
budget.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman
from Massachusetts has made an extraordinarily wonderful point when he
says he does not want to have anything to do with the President's
budget.
We made the President's budget in order for consideration when we
move ahead for debate for a very important reason; and that is, I
believe that the President was very serious when he submitted his
budget to the Congress.
I find it very interesting that the budget of the President's had to
be offered by Republicans. Why? Because not one single Member of the
President's party chose to step forward and endorse, support, and
propose this budget that I am proudly talking about and juxtaposing to
the proposal that has come from the Budget Committee.
So I will continue, if I can, to talk about more reasons why
Democrats do not even want to offer the President's budget.
Our budget actually pays down $450 billion more in public debt than
the administration's budget does. For those on the other side of the
aisle who have looked back to the days of liberal rule of the Congress
and budget deficits which went as far as the eye can see, we are making
in order, as I said, this old-fashioned tax-and-spend last budget that
the President submitted for this Congress, the 20th Century.
I think it is unfortunate that the President chose to do that. But we
have to take seriously what the President has submitted to us. That is
why our Republican colleagues, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) will in fact be offering
that.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to once again yield to the gentleman from
South Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the distinguished ranking
minority member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, as I said, the chairman and I are very
friendly.
Mr. DREIER. And we agree on a lot of things, too.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the director of OMB,
and I would just like to read a couple statements. It says, ``As you
know, Congressmen Shadegg and Coburn will be offering a substitute
amendment as the budget resolution on the House floor today. This
amendment is being characterized as the President's budget. The
administration has not been consulted in the development of this
amendment. It is our understanding that it is based on a set of
assumptions and is quite different from those presented in the
President's budget. Therefore, this is not the President's budget.''
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my friend, for his very valuable
contribution.
I hope that the spirit that was raised as a question from the
distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Budget
earlier this morning to me will be recognized, and I am trying to give
time over to the other side of the aisle because I know that the
gentleman said that he wanted to have, in fact, longer than the 40
minutes. Although I have got to tell my colleagues, as chairman of the
Committee on Rules, I have had Democrat after Democrat who has come up
to me and said, ``Gosh, don't you think, after 10 hours of debate,
maybe tonight we could complete this budget process?'' That is exactly
what we are trying to do.
Frankly, I do not have to leave here tonight or first thing in the
morning, but I have got so many Members on the other side of the aisle
who are urging us to complete this. Let me say, I know that there is
great time. I have tried to yield as generously as I can to the ranking
minority member.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. DREIER. If there is one question, I am happy to yield to the
gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, it is down the gentleman's alley. I would
like for him to elaborate, to explain this so-called trust box that my
colleagues are proposing. It is my understanding that the basic
protection is a rule of order here on the House floor. As the gentleman
knows, as the chairman of the Committee on Rules, he is in the business
of waiving points of order every day of the week.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we have no intention of
waiving that one, I should say, and we do plan to have in fact this
locked up. It is the first time in history that we have ever attempted
to do that. That is what this Congress is doing.
So I hope that, if my colleagues look at the litany of proposals that
have been put forward, I am very happy that we have got the President's
budget, we made the Spratt budget alternative in order, and we made the
Blue Dog budget in order.
Of the alternatives that we are going to have, all three of them were
authored by Democrats. So I have got to say that I think we are being
very fair, very balanced, and I look forward to a vigorous debate on
that.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Traficant).
(Mr. Traficant asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, the President is not reputed for his
accounting. I remember a Bush budget that was offered word for word
that only got 30 votes.
I am going to vote ``no'' against everything. I will tell my
colleagues why. We have an approaching $200 billion trade deficit, and
there is still no address to the critical negative balance of payments.
Number two, neither party secures Social Security. My colleagues can
waive rules. They can take lock boxes and throw them out windows. I
submit a little bill that says we should amend the Constitution that
says it is illegal to touch Social Security. We did it for limiting
President's terms. We did it to allow popular vote for Senators. We in
fact prohibited alcohol in this country. What is more important than
Social Security?
So I will listen to the debate. But, quite frankly, the Republicans
should have offered word for word President Clinton's budget, and it
would have been soundly defeated.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that President
Clinton's budget was put on the Senate floor yesterday and defeated 97
to 2.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), a member of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H1703]]
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me the time, and I rise in support obviously of this very good
rule to bring the budget forward.
{time} 1030
First, though, Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for all my colleagues when
I say good luck, Godspeed, and we are behind our young men and women
who are overseas today doing the very hard work of this Nation's
national security in their mission in Yugoslavia. We are all praying
for their success, for a safe mission and a quick return home.
Mr. Speaker, as has been described, this rule is a fair and balanced
approach to the very important debate we are about to have for the
Nation's fiscal year 2000 budget. I know that some of our colleagues
will be disappointed this rule does not allow for every proposed
amendment. But what we have tried to do is craft a rule that allows for
several different approaches to be debated so that all the major
issues, all of the major issues, can be addressed today. I think we
have succeeded on that point, as we will hear in the 10 hours of debate
that will ensue.
In addition, I point out to my colleagues who have expressed specific
concern about the need to boost defense spending levels, even beyond
what the Committee on the Budget has provided, that we have in fact
taken that advice and this rule will incorporate an enhancement of
defense spending in the base text of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the budget brought forward today by the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, is a
positive blueprint for where we should be headed as we assess our
Nation's finances in the new millennium. The budget outlines our
unwavering commitment to preserving Social Security and Medicare,
living within budget caps, caps we set for ourselves in 1997, and
providing real tax relief to the American people.
We know there is a great temptation among some who see the term
``surplus'' and who conclude that we should be boosting the budget of
all sorts of government programs. But we are committed to maintaining
discipline, even in the face of that kind of temptation, by first
meeting our obligation to ensure the retirement security and the
national security of the American people. They are counting on us and
we are doing it.
Once we have accomplished those goals, we propose to give something
back in the form of tax cuts to the American people. With all the
numbers we will be hearing today, and all the rhetoric and spin that
will come forward, to me, once again, this debate here in Congress
boils down to fundamentally different competing visions of where
America is headed in the millennium.
We propose less government and more control by American families of
their own hard-earned resources. The administration, and some of our
Democrat colleagues across the aisle, propose ever more government and
ever more taxes, and we will hear it here today. It is really just that
simple.
This is a healthy debate for us to have, and this rule allows for
plenty of opportunity for all voices to be heard. I congratulate the
chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), for bringing this rule forward, and my colleague, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), for his beautiful support for it
today, and I urge the support of all my colleagues for this rule and
the underlying resolution.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond to the comments made by my friend who just left the
microphone and to the claim that we are to have 10 hours for debate. I
wish someone would explain. I count 5 hours, if we do not count the
rule. We get 5 hours of debate after the debate on the rule is
finished.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we did a calculation, and my guess is we will
be out of here about 8 o'clock tonight. I suspect we are not doing
anything else today, so I assumed it would be about 10 hours.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Does vote time count as debate time; is that what the
gentleman is telling me?
Mr. GOSS. I think some of the better debate takes place during the
vote time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Well, I think if the gentleman wants to look at the
record, we have 5 hours for debate, not 10 hours of debate, after the
rule is completed.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will permit, I will correct
my statement to say that we will be applying 10 hours of our day today
to this subject.
Mr. MOAKLEY. It is still not a correct statement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, for all Americans, we are now in the
``Goldilocks economy''. It is not too hot, not too cold, just right,
everywhere but on the Republican side and their CBO numbers. Over there
it is the ``Mamma Bear economy''. It is always too cold.
So their CBO numbers right now have the American economy growing at
2.3 percent for this year. Forget the fact that the economy grew at 6.1
percent for the first quarter. Forget the fact that everybody else in
America is projecting 3 or 4 percent growth. And guess what that means?
That means we have to cut back on how much we can help out on Medicare,
how much we can help out on education, how much we can help out on the
environment.
The CBO was off by $100 billion in 1997. They were off by $75 billion
in 1998. And they are off by at least $50 billion this year. And in
July of this year, when the money shows up, guess where it is going. It
is going for a tax break for the rich. This money is in something which
the Republicans, Senator Domenici, is calling right now, he is calling
it a tax reduction reserve plan.
That is the Republican plan, a skeleton key for their lock box this
July that will take $50 or $60 billion for tax breaks for the wealthy.
No money for Medicare, no money for education, no money for the
environment, but money for those tax breaks. That is the secret plan.
That is what this is all about.
They continue to have the remarkable ability to harness voluminous
amounts of information to defend knowingly erroneous premises. This
debate is a fraud.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). All Members will be reminded
that references to Members of the other body are prohibited by House
rules.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
point out that it was President Clinton who said on this floor in his
first State of the Union that he wanted to use CBO numbers, much to the
applause of all the Democrats in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that this Republican
budget has many and serious deficiencies. It is also true of the rule.
The rule, for example, will not allow us to direct our attention to
the needs of American veterans. The rule does not allow us to have an
amendment come to the floor which will allow us to debate the issue of
health care for American veterans. The rule does not allow us to
provide very drastically needed additional funds to provide for the
health care for the men and women who went to war for this country.
Why do the Republicans refuse to allow us the opportunity to provide
adequately for American veterans? It is a tiny amount of money that is
needed. It will not disrupt the budget.
Please, I implore my colleagues, make in order as part of the rule an
amendment which will allow us to debate the issue of veterans' health
care and finally allow us to provide the funds that are necessary to
provide for the health care of American veterans at veterans' hospitals
across this country.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The question before the House is how do we safeguard Social Security,
increase military spending, cut taxes for
[[Page H1704]]
the wealthy, and balance the budget without devastating cuts in
everything else that is important to many Americans, from veterans'
programs to education to law enforcement? The answer is we do not, and
we cannot honestly.
On the Republican side they have revived with gusto the magic
asterisks of the Reagan years, which are so-called undistributed cuts,
meaning we do not know what to do, we are punting, and we will figure
it out later, but there will probably be a whole bunch more cuts or we
will not deliver on these promises. One or the other has got to give.
Unfortunately, the other budget alternatives before us also come up
short in those areas. I tried to offer a progressive budget alternative
that was balanced, did not offer tax cuts to the wealthy, protected
those programs important to Americans, with modest reductions in the
military, and it was not allowed.
It was an honest budget and it was not allowed. It did not have any
magic asterisks that say we do not have the slightest idea how we are
going to do this, we will just put something in that says we will
figure out how to cut later.
This is a dishonest budget with a dishonest debate without a
progressive alternative.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for yielding me this time, and I thank the ranking member of the
Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule and to
this budget resolution for many reasons, but I want to concentrate on
the veterans. Veterans are very important to us because we know how
much they have sacrificed in order for us to be free.
I offered an amendment in the Committee on the Budget, as well as an
amendment in the Committee on Rules, asking for $1 billion for the
veterans for fiscal year 2000 over and above what the Republicans had
requested, which was only $900 million. What I requested was exactly
what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, recommended to the Committee on the
Budget that was adopted but rejected by the Committee on the Budget.
They went with the lower amount.
It is interesting, when I asked the question in the Committee on the
Budget, ``Why did we go along with the lower amount?'' ``Well, the
uncertainties of the veterans' programs in the future,'' was the
answer.
Well, we know what is happening in Kosovo right now. We also know
that a lot of people could get hurt and killed in Kosovo. We know about
all the regional and ethnic conflicts in the world that will continue
in the future as well, because we know about our civilization and we
know about the struggles for freedom and for fairness. And we also know
that we have an obligation to our veterans to do everything we possibly
can to help them in time of need. But are we? The Republican budget
ignores this recommendation.
In fact, the resolution actually decreases veterans' funding over the
next 10 years by $3 billion. This is simply wrong. In an era with
budget surpluses, it is unconscionable to deny our veterans the funds
they so desperately need. Yes, we are going to increase the defense
budget, which I strongly support, but we are going to deny our
veterans.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America,
Disabled American Veterans, and the American Legion have expressed
their strong support of both my amendment as well as opposing the rule.
These groups represent millions of veterans across our country who are
suffering because their hospitals do not have adequate funds to provide
the quality care that they deserve.
For 4 consecutive years the veterans' budget has been essentially
stagnant. This means the same inadequate funding for health care, more
reductions in full-time employees, and new initiatives without new
funding to pay for them. Veterans are growing older and sicker each
year and cannot survive on a flat-line budget. The pattern has to end.
Vote against the rule, help the veterans of this country once and for
all.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip of the Democratic party.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I came back from Hershey, Pennsylvania and I said to
myself, I am going to try to work together to keep my anger from
spilling over on the floor. And I think I have done a good job this
week. But I cannot, on this issue, stand by and not express my extreme
displeasure on the way the veterans of this country have been dealt
with in this budget.
There is no reason why the Clement amendment should not be made in
order; why it was treated the way it was in the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs and throughout this whole process. I came here 22-plus years
ago, and the Vietnam veterans back then could not get a decent hearing
on anything; on Agent Orange; they could not get a decent hearing in
this Congress on outreach counseling.
We put together a group called The Vietnam Veterans in Congress and
we went to work on that stuff, and we finally got some things and
justice done for those veterans. And we are back at the same old game
here today: $3 billion in cuts in the Republican budget. And I might
say, while I am talking about their budget, the President's budget is
not much better. They are both lousy in terms of our veterans.
We have people in this country who have sacrificed, who have put
their lives on the line day after day, month after month, year after
year, fighting right now in Kosovo and in Serbia, without the knowledge
that they are going to have the benefits that they need in health care
and other things when they get out of the service.
Over the top of the building which houses the Department of Veterans
Affairs are written the words ``To care for him who shall have borne
the battle, and for his widow and his orphan.'' Those words are
meaningless if we do not put our dollars and our hearts behind those
words, and we are not doing it. We are not doing it, and it is wrong.
There is a crisis in health care for our veterans in this country. If
my colleagues talk to the people who run these hospitals anywhere in
America, they will hear that the veterans are not getting the service
they deserve. And it seems to me it is only just and right that we vote
down this rule so the committee can go back and do its work, and not
cut veterans' benefits by $3 billion while we increase Star Wars and
all these other things, while we provide tax benefits for the
wealthiest people in this country.
It is not right, it is not just, and I hope my colleagues on this
side of the aisle and on that side of the aisle will reject the
President's budget on this and the Republican budget on this.
{time} 1045
The veterans' organizations are in agreement with us on this. The
DAV, the VFW, the Paralyzed American Veterans, AmVets, the organization
that I belong to, Vietnam Veterans of America, say ``no'' on this rule.
Vote ``no'' on this rule so we can get a decent budget for the people
that are fighting for our country right now.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in opposition to
this budget and in support of our Nation's veterans.
This rule does not even allow the veterans of America to have a vote
on the budget that they recommended to us to take care of their health
needs, to take care of the cemetery needs, to take care of all of the
issues which have been left up in the air in the last few years'
straight-line budget.
The Democrats in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs could not even
have their amendment to raise the budget by $3.2 billion, which is what
the veterans advocate. We were not even allowed a vote in our
committee. We went to the Committee on Rules to ask for a vote on this
on the floor. The Committee on Rules did not give us a vote.
The veterans of this Nation fought for our country's democracy,
fought for
[[Page H1705]]
freedom of speech, fought for the right to be heard. And yet their
budget is not even allowed to be heard on any committee or on the floor
of this House.
Reject this rule. Reject this budget. Vote ``yes'' for American
veterans.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. This budget is a disaster
for American veterans and this rule is a disaster for veterans. And
that is why this rule is being opposed by almost every major veterans
organization in the country, including AmVets, the Blinded Vets, the
DAV, the Paralyzed Vets, the VFW, and the Vietnam Vets.
The truth is that the President's budget for veterans is totally
inadequate and the Republican budget for vets is even worse. It is
unacceptable to me that in a time when some Members of this body want
to give tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest
people in this country, we cannot come up with $3 billion to protect
medical care for veterans all over this country.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, by a unanimous vote, the Senate did the right
thing and they raised the amount of money available to vets. We need to
defeat this rule, send it back, so that we can join in the Senate and
say ``yes'' to our veterans and make sure they get the medical care to
which they are entitled.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Linder) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the
consideration of this budget has gotten so partisan. Because I tell my
colleagues, this area of veterans' health care is an area where we
ought to be able to reach bipartisan agreement, as the other body did
in a 99-0 vote last night.
We ought to be improving the President's budget in the area of
veterans' health care, and instead the Republican budget makes it
worse. Over the next 5 years it would cut discretionary spending for
veterans, which primarily goes to health care, a total of $400 million
below nominal 1999 levels.
Long-term care issues are going to be increasingly important as our
veterans population ages. Making the Adult Day Health Care program
permanent could be unobtainable if this resolution is passed.
I fought hard on the Committee on Appropriations for increases to the
VA medical research budget, increases that could not be maintained if
the Republican budget passes. Mental health services that are funded
through our veterans' centers and which need to be expanded would have
to be cut back if the Republican resolution is adopted.
The majority leadership owes this House the opportunity to have a
vote on this critical funding. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Clement) deserves a vote on his amendment. Vote against this rule. Vote
for the Democratic substitute.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller).
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I also
rise in support of the Republican budget.
Listening to the rhetoric from the other side, one would think that
the Republican budget cuts veterans' funding. Actually, the Republican
budget increases veterans' funding by $1.1 billion. It is the Clinton-
Gore budget that cuts veterans' funding, particularly veterans' health
care funding.
Why I support the Republican budget is pretty simple. The Republican
budget reflects Republican values of good schools, low taxes, and a
secure retirement. It is interesting, when we compare the Clinton-Gore
budget with the Republican budget, this is really an historic day.
The Clinton-Gore budget raids the Social Security Trust Fund by $341
billion, cuts Medicare by almost $12 billion, cuts veterans' health
care, whereas the Republican budget does something that the folks back
home have asked for for almost 30 years. We wall off the Social
Security Trust Fund.
How often have I heard in a town meeting or in a senior citizens
center folks saying, ``When are the folks in Washington going to stop
dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund for other purposes?'' Our
budget puts an end to that. We wall off the Social Security Trust Fund
and say hands off.
The President wants to spend over $300 billion in Social Security
Trust Fund surpluses on new government spending, not Social Security.
We protect Social Security in this budget. We do provide for small tax
relief. And I believe we should eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
That should be our top priority when it comes to tax relief for
families.
The Republican budget pays down the national debt. We increase
funding for education by over $1 billion more than the President
requests in his budget, and we provide over a $1 billion increase in
funding for veterans' health care.
I also want to point out the Republican budget rejects the Clinton-
Gore cuts in Medicare that hurt our local hospitals.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all make the point that in
both fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, the President of the United
States in his budget recommended cuts in veterans.
Many of my colleagues who--well, let me not characterize some of
their comments, because I get very concerned when politicians play on
the fears of people in this Nation. We have seen it exhibited on this
floor in regard to Medicare. We see the administration trying to play
on the fears of our seniors on Social Security and Medicare, to the
point where a Democratic member of the United States Senate said that
they only care about politics, they do not care about the seniors. We
see the same kind of rhetoric out here today on veterans.
I wish I had heard a little bit of talk about this when the
President's budget director came up to the Committee on the Budget,
when it came to the issue of the veterans. For the last 2 fiscal years,
the President has recommended cuts in veterans' health care. We
recommended increases. Now in this next fiscal year, of course, we have
increased the funding for the veterans by $1 billion.
Now, people come down here and they make an argument there ought to
be some amendment in order. I have been in the Congress now, this is my
17th year. Since 1995 we have been in the majority. I never saw
amendments made in order. In fact, I did not even see the old majority
let a lot of budgets in order.
The fact is, in the last 3 years, we have significantly increased
funding for veterans' medical health care. I think the time has come
for politicians as we head into the next millennium to stop using the
politics of fear in order to scare people, in order to use it as a
club.
They have this seminar down at Hershey where we are supposed to have
greater comity, to be able to get along better. Well, we should. Maybe
that ought to extend to the American people so that we are not beating
them up every day and playing to their worst hopes and fears.
The fact is, at the end of the day we do better for veterans in this
budget than the President did. And this will be 3 years in a row that
we have done a better job than the President has, and at the same time
will protect Social Security and Medicare and provide tax relief to the
American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise that the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, during recent days Members of both
parties have spoken very reverently about our sailors and soldiers and
Marines, showing their concern for our troops deployed overseas. And I
join them. But, unfortunately, they are not doing it here today.
[[Page H1706]]
And unfortunately, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) left. There
is not $1 billion over Clinton's budget. There is $900 million over
Clinton's budget in their budget today. And the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kasich) forgot to tell them the other half, that in the subsequent
4 years they eliminate $3 billion from the budget of the veterans. He
should tell them the truth.
And while he is doing that, it is not a small, modest tax break. In
that budget, in the first 4 years, there is $142 billion in tax breaks
for the richest in this Nation. And in the next 5 years, they add
another $437 billion, most of which goes to the wealthiest in this
Nation. Yes, my colleagues, $779 billion in tax breaks for the richest
in this Nation, and they cannot find $3 billion for our veterans. Shame
on this House.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Pryce) a member of the Committee on Rules.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia
for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this fair and
balanced rule. It provides for a full and free debate of our Nation's
budget priorities.
The House will have the opportunity to debate not only the Republican
budget proposal but also the President's budget, as well as two other
budgets offered by House Democrats. That is right. Out of the four
plans we consider today, three were written by our Democratic friends.
I would like to take a moment to recognize the hard work of my friend
from Columbus, Ohio (Mr. Kasich). He is a tireless advocate of balanced
budgets, fiscal discipline, and the Republican principles of smaller
government and lower taxes. The GOP budget resolution embodies these
values.
First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget is honest. It
comes to terms with our Nation's true budget situation by recognizing
that the surplus that everyone is talking about is really Social
Security money. Instead of spending this money, the Republican budget
locks away 100 percent of the Social Security surplus to be used only
for Social Security benefits, debt reduction, or Medicare reform.
Secondly, the Republican budget is responsible. In 1997 the
Republican Congress and President Clinton agreed to a historic balanced
budget agreement that has steered our Nation down the path of economic
prosperity. In the Republican budget we honor the balanced budget deal
we made with the President by sticking to those limitations. Promises
made, promises kept; and our country will be better for it.
Further, the GOP budget provides Americans with security today and in
their future by investing in our national defense and the education of
our children. We wish we could do more in these areas, and we will do
more as our budget situation improves and additional resources become
available.
It is today's fiscal discipline that will ensure those resources
materialize in the future. When a true budget surplus is achieved,
Congress will have the flexibility to bolster our Nation's defense
budget, prop up special education, and check off some other items on
our wish list.
For Republicans, this wish list includes some long-awaited tax relief
for American taxpayers. I, for one, am amazed that the tax rate in
America is at its highest level since World War II. These high taxes
have real effects on real people's lives. Am I the only one receiving
mail and phone calls from students, newlyweds, and young parents who
are trying to get ahead in life, only to be set back by crippling tax
bills?
One man from my district who was downsized, out of his job, is being
taxed at the rate of 28 percent on his severance pay. In frustration,
he wrote to me asking why the government is hitting him while he is
down. He is trying to put two kids through college. Meanwhile, the
government is taking $700 from him while he is unemployed.
{time} 1100
I cannot explain the government's greed, but I can tell him that the
Republican budget anticipates giving back some of that surplus to the
people who earned it so they can spend their money as they see fit on
their priorities.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule, which gives ample
opportunity to debate the priorities of both Republicans and Democrats.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Evans) the ranking member on the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The irony of today is that as many brave American servicemen and
women are joining with our allies in a military campaign to bring an
end to uncontrolled aggression, Congress is turning a deaf ear and a
blind eye to the health care needs of its veterans.
The budget resolution for next year provides a modest $900 million
increase in funding for veterans' health care. This increase is one-
half the increase recommended by the Republican majority of the House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. It is less than one-third the total
increase for VA funding supported by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Democrats.
Would Members of Congress want to rely for their health care on a
health care system as underfunded as the VA's? I doubt it. But Congress
apparently has a different, lower standard for health care for our
servicemen and women.
Even more troublesome is the fact that its supporters tell us time
and time again that it provides an unprecedented increase in funding
for veterans' health care. What they fail to say is that the Republican
budget provides an unprecedented decrease of $1.1 billion for Veterans'
Affairs in fiscal year 2001.
After years of inadequate funding under both Democratic and
Republican administrations, a consensus exists today for the added
funding needed to provide veterans with the highest quality health care
and other benefits and services that they have earned.
As Republican Members of the House have said, ``We must keep our
promises to the veterans.'' I agree. Approving additional funding for
veterans' health care as proposed in the Clement substitute and other
budget alternatives would do that and would be an important step for
this Congress to take if Congress is going to do more than simply talk
the talk on veterans' issues.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this year's budget falls far short
of providing the funds needed to honor our commitments to our
servicemen and women. Even with the increased support last week by the
Committee on the Budget, funding for fiscal year 2000 is $2 billion
short of what is needed to provide for our veterans' health and well-
being.
The budget falls short in keeping up with medical inflation in our
aging veterans population. As our veterans grow older, we must dedicate
funds to expand health care programs, expand home and community-based
services, build more veterans nursing homes and, yes, build more
veterans cemeteries.
Veterans are in a budget disaster. Let me say, there is no surplus
when your bills are not paid. Let me repeat that. There is no surplus
when all of your bills have not been paid. The veterans have paid their
bills, they have served us well. All of us, when the veterans come
here, we talk a great talk. It is now time to walk that walk for the
veterans.
Mr. Speaker, this year's budget falls well short of providing the
funding needed to honor our commitment to our service men and women.
Even with the increase voted last week by the Budget Committee, funding
for Fiscal Year 2000 is 2 billion dollars short of what is needed to
provide for our veterans health and well being.
This budget falls short in keeping up with medical inflation and an
aging and vulnerable veterans population. As our veterans grow older,
we must dedicate funds to:
1. Expanding long term care programs;
2. Expanding home and community based services;
3. Building more veterans nursing homes; and
4. Building more veterans cemeteries.
Veterans are in a budget disaster.
The Budget Committee increased the figure for veterans health care by
$1.1 billion dollars last week. Given the 3.9 percent rate of health
care cost inflation, this is still a flat-line budget. Given the new
initiatives VA is to be tasked with, this is still a flat-line budget.
A flat-line budget is still a budget reduction.
We've all heard talk about giving away the budget surplus. There is
no surplus when all
[[Page H1707]]
the bills have not been paid. Last week, many of us on the Veterans'
Affairs Committee who see this need spelled it out in detail in our
``Additional and Dissenting Views and Estimates.''
This was after Mr. Evans attempted to introduce a proposal within the
Committee calling for adding 3 billion dollars to the Administration
budget. That debate was not permitted.
Mr. Speaker, this was not a partisan effort. It was a simple
statement of dollars and common sense. We need an opportunity to
present the case to the full House for more funding for veterans
programs.
Mr. Speaker, this is still not a partisan effort. In all fairness,
we need a rule that allows such a discussion.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I have worked well with the
Republicans since coming to Congress. I think it is important to try to
work together. But what this Republican budget does is cross that line
of reason. This is a bait and switch budget. Republicans are saying
with one hand, look at all the good things we are doing over here and
then with the other hand they are cutting programs and not telling you
what they are doing.
Let me give my colleagues an example. Education. They say, ``Well,
we're increasing education,'' and they are in spots. But on the other
hand they are cutting in the year 2000 $1.2 billion of the education
budget.
Democrats are extending the life of Social Security to the year 2050.
The Republicans make doing nothing about extending the life of Social
Security just sound good. The same is true for the Medicare budget. The
life of the program is not extended one day under this bait and switch
budget.
All of this so they can talk about a tax cut. Now, I support tax
cuts, but I think a $779 billion tax cut is too much while we have
ignored the fact that we are not adding one day to Social Security or
Medicare solvency.
Oppose the rule on this bait and switch budget.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Wise).
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, budgets are about priorities. That is where
this Republican budget falls so short. It fails to adequately protect
Social Security with the guarantees that are needed. It does nothing to
protect Medicare, to extend it beyond its insolvency date of 2008. And,
Mr. Speaker, on veterans it falls woefully short.
I come from the State, West Virginia, with the highest number of
veterans per capita in the Nation. I cannot go back and point to this
budget and say that I voted for it. Today, Mr. Speaker, the next
generation of veterans are being forged in the fire over Kosovo. Yet
this budget does not say to them, we recognize that sacrifice. Yes, it
gives an increase of $900 million the first year, trails off and
disappears in the years to come. This is a totally inadequate budget
for veterans.
So we want to talk about priorities. Bad on Social Security, bad on
Medicare, woefully short on veterans. This is not about families and
veterans. This is a bad priority, Mr. Speaker, and it is a bad budget.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, every day I rise,
come in and listen to people come to the well and talk about how they
support the troops. Well, I think that every surviving troop becomes a
veteran and that is not acknowledged in this bill.
Regardless of what is being said, even the veterans have read this
bill and they understand that they have not been treated well. We have
homeless veterans, we have dwindling health care being offered to the
veterans. It is unconscionable that we present a budget like this that
treats our veterans in the fashion in which they have been treated in
this budget. There is no real future for America that is reflected in
this budget, you see, because education has been cheated, Medicare has
not been addressed. We have got a lock box that has a trap door. The
guardians of the privilege, they are doing well in this budget. They
are taking care of the rich in this budget but they are ignoring the
working people of this country. This is Robin Hood in reverse.
I ask everyone to vote against this rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions), a colleague on the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, what we are engaged in here today is the
debate that always takes place in Washington, and that is over how much
money can we spend, how much bigger can we make government, and then
how we are going to fight to try and save this country.
The bottom line is there is no doubt that the choices today are
clear. The President prefers the status quo. He prefers bigger
government. And he prefers that the government be the answer or the
solution to America's problems. Republicans place our faith in
families, communities and the marketplace to solve our Nation's ills.
This is just yet another chapter in the string of successes of what
will be for this country and for the Republican Congress. Welfare
reform, a balanced budget, and tax relief are all successes that this
President and his party at one time or another fought vehemently and
now campaign and act like they were their ideas.
The bottom line is that the Republican Party offers a simple message.
There is only one way to speak honestly to the American people, and it
is called discipline. It is called dedicating 100 percent of Social
Security dollars for Social Security and Medicare. The Republican plan
dedicates 100 percent. The difference between 100 percent and 62
percent will be clear to the American public. There is one thing that
Democrats do do and that is that they fully fund big government. Their
budgets increase government spending across the board. In fact, the
President's budget busts the bipartisan spending agreement that we had
just 2 years ago. He increases spending by more than $200 billion in
new domestic spending, creating over 120 new government programs.
Mr. Speaker, our message is plain and simple. We will keep producing
ideas worth being stolen by the Democrats, but we are going to take
credit for this one. It is called discipline and doing what we said we
would do.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the
Budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
This rule allows just 2 hours of general debate for a budget with
$1.7 trillion of spending authority. That is a travesty. Let me tell my
colleagues how this kind of haste makes waste, just one way that you
can mask the numbers in a debate so short about a matter so complex as
the budget. This budget, as now drafted, this Republican budget
resolution, means that our military personnel will not get the 4.4
percent pay raise that the Joint Chiefs of Staff asked for and the
troops thought they were promised by the President and the Congress.
The Republican resolution does provide extra money for defense, but
nothing for an increase in military retirement benefits, nothing for
extra pay raises to help retain critical personnel.
Now, we were able to ferret this out because every pay raise requires
a corresponding increase in the contribution to the military retirement
trust fund, function 950 of the budget. Look at function 950 in their
budget, the Republican budget. There is no entry, no adjustment, no
provision for these major pay increases, these major retirement reforms
that have been promised. They are in ours. We followed the President's
lead. We did it right, they did it wrong.
You pass this budget and everybody is on notice. Unless you do the
numbers in this resolution over, you are breaking faith with our
troops. You are denying them the pay raises and the benefits that they
have been told were coming. This is no way to treat the armed services.
The same goes for the civil service. The same mistake has been made.
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia to explain that briefly.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, not only does this Republican budget resolution not fund
military pay raises, but on a party line vote they refused to treat
civilian Federal employees the same as military
[[Page H1708]]
employees as has been done for 50 years. It breaks a precedent, it is
not fair to any Federal civilian employees around the country. It is a
resolution that should be defeated.
Mr. Speaker, when the budget resolution was before the committee
last week I offered an amendment which would have ensured that federal
civilian and military employees received equitable and fair pay raises
for the next ten years as they have for the last fifty years.
I expected that the amendment would be noncontroversial and pass.
After all, the President recommended a 4.4 percent increase for
military and civilian employees, and the Senate recommended a 4.8
percent increase for both.
So, I was surprised by the vehement objections raised by those on the
other side of the aisle. It failed on a party line vote. Yesterday, I
learned why.
You see, House Republicans do not support a fair pay raise for either
the civilian federal employees or the military. They did not include
any funding above the baseline for either the military or civilian
retirement trust funds--funding which would be required if they favored
a fair pay raise.
They couldn't afford it because of their $779 billion tax cut. Mr.
Kasich admitted this yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, federal employees have contributed over $220 billion
toward deficit reduction in the last decade in foregone pay and
benefits. The sacrifices made by our military personnel in the name of
deficit reduction have been significant.
We have downsized more than a quarter million civilian Federal
employees over the last year, so those remaining must work much harder
with far fewer resources.
The time has come to restore fair and equitable pay raises for these
men and women who have dedicated their careers and, for many, their
lives to serving their country.
Mr. SPRATT. Function 950 of this budget is fatally flawed. That is
the best reason yet to vote against the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous
question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to make in order the
Clement amendment which does increase the Veterans' Affairs function by
$1.9 billion. We made a promise to our veterans and this country must
keep our promise.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 131 To Be Offered if the Previous
Question Is Defeated
to make in order an amendment to keep our promises to our veterans
On page 2, line 23, before ``.'' insert the following:
``or in section 3 of this resolution. The amendment in
section 3 of the resolution shall be considered before the
amendments in the nature of substitutes printed in the
report, may be offered only by Representative Clement of
Tennessee or his designee, shall be debatable for one hour
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment nor to a
demand for a division of the question''
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
SECTION 3.
Amendment to H. Con. Res. 68, as Reported
Offered by Mr. Clement of Tennessee
In paragraph (16) of section 3 (relating to Veterans
Benefits and Services (700)) increase budget authority and
outlays by the following amounts to reflect fundings for
veterans' medical care:
(1) For fiscal year 2000, $1 billion in new budget
authority and $900 million in outlays.
(2) For fiscal year 2001, $3.2 billion in new budget
authority and $2.822 million in outlays.
(3) For fiscal year 2002, $3.283 billion in new budget
authority and $3.106 million in outlays.
(4) For fiscal year 2003, $3.369 billion in new budget
authority and $3.283 million in outlays.
(5) For fiscal year 2004, $3.456 billion in new budget
authority and $3.423 million in outlays.
(6) For fiscal year 2005, $3.546 billion in new budget
authority and $3.512 million in outlays.
(7) For fiscal year 2006, $3.638 billion in new budget
authority and $3.603 million in outlays.
(8) For fiscal year 2007, $3.733 billion in new budget
authority and $3.697 million in outlays.
(9) For fiscal year 2008, $3.830 billion in new budget
authority and $3.793 million in outlays.
(10) For fiscal year 2009, $3.929 billion in new budget
authority and $2.891 million in outlays.
In paragraph (1) of section 3 (relating to national defense
(050)) reduce budget authority and outlays by the following
amounts:
(1) For fiscal year 2000, $1 billion in new budget
authority and $900 million in outlays.
(2) For fiscal year 2001, $3.2 billion in new budget
authority and $2.822 million in outlays.
(3) For fiscal year 2002, $3.283 billion in new budget
authority and $3.106 million in outlays.
(4) For fiscal year 2003, $3.369 billion in new budget
authority and $3.283 million in outlays.
(5) For fiscal year 2004, $3.456 billion in new budget
authority and $3.423 million in outlays.
(6) For fiscal year 2005, $3.546 billion in new budget
authority and $3.512 million in outlays.
(7) For fiscal year 2006, $3.638 billion in new budget
authority and $3.603 million in outlays.
(8) For fiscal year 2007, $3.733 billion in new budget
authority and $3.697 million in outlays.
(9) For fiscal year 2008, $3.830 billion in new budget
authority and $3.793 million in outlays.
(10) For fiscal year 2009, $3.929 billion in new budget
authority and $3.891 million in outlays.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I predicted in the Committee on Rules meeting yesterday that the
Democrats would trot out the veterans one more time and use them as a
pawn in a political battle to try and force a vote. It is even more
clear that they are pawns when we see that six people who spoke on
behalf of the veterans today, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Gutierrez), the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior),
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown) are all members of the Progressive Caucus which has
put its own budget forth in which they are cutting defense spending by
nearly $220 billion over 5 years. In a time when 11,000 military
families are on food stamps, they want to cut funding for the military
even further, it seems that they are far more concerned about using the
veterans as a political pawn than they are allowing our own active
members of the military enough income to provide for food for their own
families.
This has been trotted out virtually every year that I have been here.
I have said that they would use the veterans on a vote against the
previous question. I urge all Members to vote in favor of the previous
question, to vote for a rule that gives a fair opportunity to be heard
on several Democrat alternatives to the Republican budget.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following extraneous material for the
Record:
House of Representatives,
Committee on Rules,
Washington, DC, March 24, 1999.
Hon. Denny Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: As you know, H. Con. Res. 68, the
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2000, was filed by
the Committee on the Budget on Tuesday, March 23. As
reported, H. Con. Res. 68 contains matters within the
jurisdiction of the Rules Committee.
Specifically, Section 5 (the Safe Deposit Box for Social
Security Surpluses), which establishes a point of order
against consideration of a budget resolution, an amendment
thereto or any conference report thereon which provides for a
deficit in any fiscal year, falls solely within the
jurisdiction of the Rules Committee. Although the Rules
Committee has not sought to exercise its original
jurisdiction prerogatives on this legislation pursuant to
section 301(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has discussed these provisions with the Budget
Committee. It is the understanding of the Rules Committee
that the Leadership has scheduled the resolution for floor
consideration on Thursday, March 25. In recognition of these
facts, I agree to waive the Rules Committee's jurisdiction
over consideration of this legislation at this time.
Nevertheless, I reserve the jurisdiction of the Rules
Committee over all bills relating to the rules, joint rules
and the order of business of the House, including any bills
relating to the congressional budget process. Furthermore, it
would be my intention to seek to have the Rules Committee
represented on any conference committee on this concurrent
resolution.
Sincerely,
David Dreier.
____
The previous Question Vote: What It Means
The previous question is a motion made in order under House
Rule XVII and is the only parliamentary device in the House
used for closing debate and preventing amendment. The effect
of adopting the previous question
[[Page H1709]]
is to bring the resolution to an immediate, final vote. The
motion is most often made at the conclusion of debate on a
rule or any motion or piece of legislation considered in the
House prior to final passage. A Member might think about
ordering the previous question in terms of answering the
question: Is the House ready to vote on the bill or amendment
before it?
In order to amend a rule (other than by using those
procedures previously mentioned), the House must vote against
ordering the previous question. If the previous question is
defeated, the House is in effect, turning control of the
Floor over to the Minority party.
If the previous question is defeated, the Speaker then
recognizes the Member who led the opposition to the previous
question (usually a Member of the Minority party) to control
an additional hour of debate during which a germane amendment
may be offered to the rule. The Member controlling the Floor
then moves the previous question on the amendment and the
rule. If the previous question is ordered, the next vote
occurs on the amendment followed by a vote on the rule as
amended.
____
DEBATE & AMENDMENTS ON HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTIONS
[Fiscal year 1990-99]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Time
Year Budget Res. Rule Number General Debate Time Amendments Allowed Vote on Rule Consumed \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999.................. H. Con. Res. 284..... H. Res. 455.......... 3 hrs. (1 HH) \2\... 3 (1-D 1-R)......... Adopted: 216-197.... 6 hrs.
1998.................. H. Con. Res. 84...... H. Res. 152.......... 5 hrs. (1 HH) \3\... 5 (3-D 2-R)......... Adopted: 278-142.... 7 hrs.
1997.................. H. Con. Res. 178..... H. Res. 435.......... 3 hrs.\4\........... 3 (2-D 1-R)......... Adopted: 227-196.... 6 hrs.
1996.................. H. Con. Res. 67...... H. Res. 149.......... 6 hrs.\5\........... 4 (2-D 2-R)......... Adopted: 255-168.... 10 hrs.
1995.................. H. Con. Res. 218..... H. Res. 384.......... 4 hrs. (1 HH) \6\... 5 (3-D 2-R)......... Adopted: 245-171.... 9 hrs.
1994.................. H. Con. Res. 64...... H. Res. 131.......... 10 hrs. (4 HH) \7\.. .................... Adopted: voice vote. 16 hrs.
.................... ..................... H. Res. 133.......... .................... 4 (2-D 2-R)......... Adopted: 251-172.... ................
1993.................. H. Con. Res. 287..... H. Res. 386.......... 3 hrs. (1 HH) \8\... 3 (1-D 2-R)......... Adopted: 239-182.... 13\1/2\ hrs.
1992.................. H. Con. Res. 121..... H. Res. 123.......... 5 hrs. (2 HH) \9\... 4 (1-D 3-R)......... Adopted: 392-9...... 11 hrs.
1991.................. H. Con. Res. 310..... H. Res. 382.......... 6 hrs. (3 HH) \10\.. 4 (1-D 3-R)......... Adopted: voice vote. 13 hrs.
1990.................. H. Con. Res. 106..... H. Res. 145.......... 5 hrs. (2 HH) \11\.. 5 (3-D 2-R)......... Adopted: voice vote. 12\1/2\ hrs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes hour on rule, general debate time, and debate time on all amendments. Does not include time taken on rollcall votes and walking around
time.
\2\ The 3 hours of general debate were allocated as follows: 2 hrs. Budget Committee and 1 hr. (HH) between Rep. Saxton of New Jersey and Representative
Stark of California. Additional debate time on amendments was as follows: 1 hr. Neumann and 1 hr. Spratt.
\3\ The resolution provided for an additional 20 minutes of debate controlled by Representative Minge of Minnesota. Additional debate time for
amendments: 20 min. Waters, 20 min. Doolittle, 20 min. Brown, 20 min. Kennedy and 20 min. Shuster.
\4\ Additional debate time for amendments: 1 hr. Payne, 1 hr. Orton and 1 hr. Sabo. The resolution provided for an additional 40 minutes of general
debate, following the conclusion of consideration of the proposed amendments, divided and controlled equally by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Budget Committee.
\5\ Additional debate time for amendments: 1 hr. Gephardt, 1 hr. Neumann, 1 hr. Payne and 1 hr. by the minority leader. The rule provided for a final
ten minute period of general debate following the disposition of the amendments.
\6\ In addition to the hour on HH, Reps. Kasich and Mfume was each given 1 hr. of general debate time to discuss their substitutes. This was followed by
5 substitutes under ``king of the hill'' (1 hr. Frank, 1 hr. Solomon, 1 hr. Mfume, 1 hr. Kasich, 1 hr. for the final substitute identical to the
reported budget resolution).
\7\ The 4 hrs. of general debate were allocated: 2 hrs. Budget Committee, 4 hrs. HH, 2 hrs. to discuss the Mfume substitute, 1 hr. to discuss the
Solomon substitute, followed by 4 substitutes under ``king of the hill'' (2 hrs. Kasich, 1 hr. Solomon, 1 hr. Mfume and 1 hr. Sabo (identical to the
base resolution)).
\8\ Three substitutes were allowed under ``king of the hill'' (30 min. Dannemeyer, 1 hr. Gradison, 8 hrs. Towns-Dellums).
\9\ Of the 4 amendments allowed, the first was a perfecting amendment by Rep. Ford of Michigan for which 1 hr. was allowed, followed by three
substitutes under ``king of the hill'' (1 hr. Dannemeyer, 1 hr. Kasich, 2 hrs. Gradison).
\10\ General debate began on April 25th under an unanimous consent request agreed to on April 24th. Four substitutes were allowed under ``king of the
hill'' (1 hr. Kasich, 1 hr. Dannemeyer, 2 hrs. Dellums, 2 hrs. Frenzel).
\11\ Of the five amendments, one was an amendment by the Chairman of the Budget Committee, 30 mins., followed by 4 substitutes under ``king of the
hill'' (1 hr. Dannemeyer, 3 hrs. Dellums, 1 hr. Kasich, 1 hr. Gephardt).
Source: Rules Committee Calendars (Note: HH stands for Humphrey-Hawkins debate which relates to the economic goals and policies underlying the economic
projections assumed in the baseline of the budget resolution).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
bill because it prohibits the open and free amendment process that
governs most of our budgetary and appropriations debates.
This debate that we will engage in later today is an important one
for the American people. We will be deciding the future of our Social
Security system. We will be deciding the fate of the Medicare system.
Our constituents care about these programs, because they know just how
valuable they are.
Earlier this week, I met with several senior citizens groups in my
district, which resides in Houston, Texas. Without exception, each of
them relayed their concerns to me that both the Social Security and
Medicare systems should not have their benefits reduced in any way.
They were also concerned about the longevity of both programs--and
making sure that Medicare and Social Security will be here for their
children, and their children's children.
This puts into proper perspective the gravity of our chore. Without a
completely open rule, we cannot dissect the Republican resolution and
directly address the concerns of our constituents.
Having said that, I am thankful that the rule contains provisions
which allow for the debate of the Democratic substitute to this bill,
sponsored by Ranking Member Spratt. I only wish that we would have a
more extensive debate on that amendment--meaning more than 40 minutes,
so that my Democratic colleagues could voice their support for the
measure.
I urge each of my colleagues to vote against the rule, and to vote
for the Democratic substitute when it comes to the floor for
consideration.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
{time} 1115
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). 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.
Mr. MOAKLEY. 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 9 of rule XX, 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 224,
nays 203, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 72]
YEAS--224
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
[[Page H1710]]
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--203
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--7
Barr
Brady (TX)
Cummings
Emerson
Engel
Lowey
Stupak
{time} 1134
Mr. BOSWELL and Mr. BISHOP changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. PICKERING, HORN, STUMP, BISHOP and JONES of North Carolina
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 73, my voting card was not
operable and is now being replaced. Had the voting card worked, I would
have voted ``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228,
noes 194, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 73]
AYES--228
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--194
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--11
Barr
Brady (TX)
Buyer
Emerson
Engel
Franks (NJ)
Gonzalez
Johnson (CT)
Lowey
Stupak
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1144
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.
____________________