[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.

                          ____________________