[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 48 (Thursday, March 25, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1710-H1780]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 72 and 73, I was not
present due to a
[[Page H1711]]
family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to House Resolution 131
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 68.
{time} 1148
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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 fiscal years
2001 through 2009, with Mr. Camp in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is
considered as having been read the first time.
Under the rule, general debate shall not exceed 3 hours, with 2 hours
confined to the congressional budget, equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1
hour on the subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and
controlled by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 1 hour of debate on the
congressional budget.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, today we offer the first budget of the next century and
a new agenda for the new millennium. I think this is a great day for
the House, because we have been able to move forward from an era not
very long ago when, as we looked out across the horizon, the economic
horizon of this country, we saw deficits as far as the eye could see.
The majority came into its position in 1995 when we first advanced
the need for economic stimulus driven by tax relief, giving more power,
providing more incentives for risk-taking, and at the same time a big
dose of fiscal restraint; in other words, starting to get the Congress
of the United States to live within its means.
The fact is that in 1995, Mr. Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal
Reserve System, said that if you can offer a legitimate and credible
plan to balance the Federal budget, he said that he believed that
interest rates would decline by 2 points.
I must also remind Members that in 1995, as we assumed control of the
House of Representatives, interest rates had been rising, the economy
had been slowing, there was concern about unemployment. The fact that
we laid down a plan that would begin to put our fiscal house in order,
to put us in a position where the Congress of the United States would
operate really like the American family, and that we would restore some
of the incentives to risk-take, I believe that has contributed
significantly to the economic gains that we have had in this country.
Now today, as we stand here, as I stand here in the well, we are
about to pass a budget that not only captures the surpluses of Medicare
and social security, but at the same time has the on-budget surpluses
that so many people have sought for years.
In other words, when we take a look at the balance sheets of the
Federal Government, both in the social security and Medicare accounts
and in the non-social security and Medicare accounts, we have been able
to achieve not only a balanced budget, but also some huge surpluses.
Let me say, at the outset, we are doing something that the Congress
of the United States has never done: We are taking all the payroll
taxes that we collect every day that are related to social security and
Medicare and we are locking them into an account so that the
politicians, Republicans and Democrats, cannot raid those accounts for
any other spending item.
That money will sit in an account, and until we enact a plan that
actually saves social security, that money will be used to pay down
part of the Federal debt. Last year we paid down about $50 billion of
the debt. Most Americans do not know that. This year we would
anticipate paying down at least $125 billion of the national debt.
Of course, if I was a citizen listening to somebody in the well of
this House make that claim, I would greet it with great skepticism, but
the fact is that what I am saying is true. Last year the publicly-held
debt was paid down by $50 billion, and in fact this year we anticipate
at least $125 billion of the publicly-held debt to be retired.
That does not allow us to rest on our laurels, by any stretch of the
imagination, because we must work every day to make the power of
government less and the power of people greater. We need to run America
from the bottom up, so people can have control over the education for
their children, so that the baby boomers and the younger generation can
have hope of having a decent retirement by having more control, so
Americans can have more money in their pockets.
The fact is, as it relates to social security and Medicare, we know
those programs have to be transformed, and not just to protect the
retirement benefits of our seniors today. I would argue that that is a
given. Because of a pay-as-you-go system, we know that the baby boomers
are able to carry the load of their parents, but I want the moms and
dads of this country to realize that the people who are really at risk
are their children. I want mom and dad who are on social security and
Medicare to realize that we are going to stand up and protect their
benefits, but it is their children, their baby boomer sons and
daughters, who are at risk.
We must have the courage to transform this system so that the
benefits just do not accrue to our seniors today, but that our baby
boomers and their children will also have retirement security. Sad to
say that the President has taken a leave of absence on this. He is
missing-in-action as it relates to the issue of social security and
Medicare.
Just last week the Medicare Commission, headed by a member of his own
party, was blunted by the action of the President. That Democrat,
leader of this program to try to extend the life of social security and
to reform it so it is available for the baby boomers, that Senator said
last week that the administration and many in his party were more
interested in using the issue of Medicare as a political weapon than
they were interested in being able to transform and save Medicare, not
just for today's seniors, but for the baby boomers and their children.
That is the worst of American politics, to use the threat of
destroying economic security for our senior citizens to try to win
votes. That is not what makes America great. What makes America great
is not just to debate when Republicans and Democrats disagree, but the
ability to search for a common goal, to preserve some of the vital
retirement programs for this Nation, to keep the demagoguery out of
this debate. Let us work together to try to extend the life of Medicare
and social security.
At the same time, we are also honoring the 1997 budget agreement. The
President breaks the spending caps. He breaks the discipline of the
1997 budget agreement. We will not do that. Not only will we not break
the discipline of the 1997 agreement that has contributed to a stronger
economy, but we will not raid the social security and Medicare trust
fund the way the President does.
We have decided to save it all, and to take that and coordinate with
that the 1997 budget agreement by having fiscal restraint. It is about
priorities in America today. What we are saying is that the programs of
defense and education ought to be top priorities in our budget.
There was a paper distributed on the floor with more misleading
information about the fact that this bill does not include a pay raise
for the military. That is false. That is patently false. I am beginning
to believe that many people who stand in opposition to this bill are
just going to ignore the facts. This is not going to be a debate about
what is in the bill, this is a debate about what fictions we can
create.
[[Page H1712]]
There will be provided for in this budget document a pay raise for
our troops. The Committee on Armed Services will come to the floor and
tell us that. We know that it is necessary to boost the spending for
the military. That is precisely what we do in this bill. At the same
time, we also believe we should emphasize education.
The fact is, in education we have provided more money than the
President has, not just for defense but for education as well. As
Members know, we are very interested in education flexibility, so that
the school districts can manage their challenges better at the local
level without having to have a bureaucrat a thousand miles away who
does not even know what time zone it is in these local school districts
to tell them how to manage their challenges.
In addition to all of this, Mr. Chairman, there is tax relief for the
taxpayers. The fact of the matter is there are many on the other side
of the aisle that bristle at the thought of a tax cut for Americans. It
has become almost a philosophy, almost a mantra, to make the argument
that there is something wrong with shrinking the size of the government
and letting peoples' pocketbooks grow bigger.
I want to warn a number of my friends, it is not only wrong for the
country but it is very bad politics to make an argument that the budget
of the government ought to grow while our personal and family budgets
ought to shrink, and that somehow we should pound our chests in self-
righteous indignation at the notion that we want to work to cut the
size of government and give more money to the American people.
{time} 1200
If we are going to run America from the bottom up, if we are going to
let Americans be able to pursue their hopes and dreams, Mr. Chairman,
the more money that one has in one's pocket, the more one can control
one's own destiny, the more power that one has. The smaller this amount
becomes, the less power one has.
Power is a zero sum game. If one has less and the government has
more, who has got the power? When the government has less and if one
has more, who has got the power?
In our country today, as we approach the new millennium and we set
the new agenda for the next century, what we do know is that the
strength of America, harkening back to where our founders was, was a
limited government; the dignity of the individual was to be preserved;
that the individual in our society was what was most important in a
Nation that recognizes that freedom is precious; and that that the
future is ours.
So, Mr. Chairman, we intend not only to preserve Social Security and
Medicare, we not only agree to prioritize the items of national
security and education, but at the same time, we also believe that the
American people ought to be empowered, that the American people ought
to have more money in their pockets in order to provide, not just for
themselves and not just for their communities, but for those that may
live in the shadows of their communities who have less and cannot be
ignored in America.
That is the great tradition of America. More in one's pocket means
more for one's family. For those who have not been so fortunate, we
have an obligation to take care of them.
So at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, I think we present a budget
for the new millennium that is right in pace with where the American
people want to go. The American people hunger for more control over
their lives and more power in order to fix the problems, to meet the
challenges that they see every day.
This budget will begin to preserve and reform and transform the
programs for economic security in our senior years, at the same time
paying down some of the national debt and, most important, beginning to
transfer again, continuing to transfer power, money, and influence from
the institution of government into the pockets of people.
We will move forward on this. We will lay down a good marker as we
enter the next millennium. We will set the pace and set the direction
for what can be a glorious new century for, not just Americans, but for
people all over the world who have come to see us as a model and as an
example of the power of freedom and individuality and compassion and
caring and vision.
Vote for the budget. Reject these alternatives and, at the same time,
reject the President's budget and set ourselves on the right course.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I was trying to get the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich) to tell us why Function 950 of his budget resolution provides
no adjustment as it is required to do to provide for the pay raise, the
extra pay raise for selected pay grades and officers and NCOs and for
the military retirement benefits.
The fact of the matter is, Function 950, the military retirement
account, where that charge needs to be made, is absolutely unadjusted
in their budget resolution. So it does not provide for the pay raise
and the benefits that our troops have been promised.
Let me go to the overarching subject, the budget, and the happy
occasion that we find ourselves in today. I did not ever think that I
would serve to see the day where we have surpluses as far as the eye
could see. I think it is worth taking just a minute to track down the
trail we have followed for the last 10 years that have led us to this
happy set of circumstances.
In 1990, we had a budget summit that lasted 6 months. We finally
brought it to the floor. It was defeated once. Then the Democrats put
the vote up to pass President Bush's budget summit agreement. There
were only 80 votes on that side of the aisle. It implemented
discretionary pay caps, a pay-as-you-go rule, and the kind of
disciplines that have served us well to get rid of the deficit. But it
did not have any obvious effect because it was eclipsed by a recession.
In 1993, when President Clinton came to office, he found on his desk
awaiting him the economic report of the President. In it, Michael
Boskin, his Economic Council chief, said the deficit this year will be
$332 billion. That was the baseline from which the Clinton
administration began.
From that baseline, in 1993, we reduced the deficit with the Deficit
Reduction Act of 1993, which had exclusively Democratic votes in the
House and the Senate from $330 billion projected level, $290 billion
actual level in 1992, to $22 billion in 1997.
Then our colleagues on the other side of the aisle joined with us,
and we finished the job and wiped out that additional $22 billion of
deficit and lay the basis for going into the next century.
It is critically important that we did this, because until we dealt
with the year-to-year deficit, we could not deal with the next problem;
and that is the problem, the challenge of an aging society.
Our society is getting older and older. I am a war baby. A huge
generation of young people were born, babies were born in 1946 until
1964, and they will start retiring in about 10 or 12 years. When they
do, they will put unprecedented strain on the most popular, most
successful program ever invented by the government, the Social Security
program, so much so that they may put in jeopardy its solvency by the
year 2032.
The Medicare program, which runs a close second in popularity, is in
even greater jeopardy because the cost of medical care is rising along
with the demographic increases, and it, too, is threatened with
insolvency in the year 2008.
We have an opportunity to do something about that. We have an
opportunity to take the work we began in 1990 and 1993 and 1997 and
deal with the next problem, which is a daunting challenge, preparing
this country and this government for the burdens of the next century
cast upon us by an aging society.
Our budget, the Democratic budget, rises to that challenge; theirs
does not. We are going to have other speakers who will turn to this
topic, but let me just give my colleagues the highlights and tell them
what is the difference between us and them. I will give it to my
colleagues in a nutshell.
We protect the Social Security Trust Fund. We proposed to protect the
Trust Fund so that 100 percent of the payroll taxes coming into it are
spent exclusively for the benefit of that particular program for the
first time probably in 30 or 40 years. We propose to do it by
[[Page H1713]]
directing the Treasurer of the United States to take that percentage of
payroll taxes not needed to pay benefits that year and to buy down
public debt.
How does that happen? That means that, when the obligations come due
in 2020 and 2030, the Treasury will be in better shape than ever
because it will have lower debt and lower debt service to meet those
obligations.
We also, unlike the Republicans, do something about Medicare, because
we see Medicare and Social Security as linked together. We extend the
life of Medicare, the solvency of the Medicare program from 2020. They
leave it as it is. They leave it in a lurch.
We are still opposed to huge tax cuts in the out years, $143 billion
in the first 5 years and $450 billion plus in the second 5 years,
rising to as much as a trillion dollars between 2009 and 2014, which
will drain the budget dry of the funds needed to do something about the
Medicare program.
Do my colleagues want to know the difference between us and them?
Look at the Trust Fund account for Social Security. In our plan, Social
Security will have $3.4 trillion more money at the end of 15 years.
They will add $1.8 trillion. We are twice as good as they. With
Medicare, we add $400 billion. To their Trust Fund, they add a paltry
$14 billion.
There are significant differences. If my colleagues care about
meeting the challenge in the next century, this is a budget resolution
to vote for.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 14 minutes to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. McDermott), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to
control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Matsui).
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, Social Security is probably the most important program
Americans have had over the years. It takes care of the senior citizens
of America. As anybody knows, if we did not have Social Security today,
half the senior population would live in poverty.
One-third of the benefits of Social Security go to families that have
the bread winner disabled or perhaps dies. So many children who no
longer have a mother or father who are the bread winners in that family
can still go on to school and perhaps college. This is a very, very
critical program.
What the budget of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt)
does is adds 18 more years to that program so that it will be solvent
to the year 2050, 50 more years of solvency total. The Republican plan
does not add one year to that solvency.
As we continue this debate, it is my hope that the Republicans
respond to the March 13 letter from the actuary of the Social Security,
Mr. Harry Ballantine of which everyone bases their conclusions on.
In that letter, in the second paragraph, he says,
The proposal of the Republicans would not have any
significant effect on the long-range solvency of the Social
Security program under the intermediary assumptions of the
Trustee's report. Thus, the estimated long-range actuarial
deficit of 2.19 percent of taxable payroll and the year of
combined trust funds exhaustion would not change.
So when we hear that the Republicans are saying they extend the life
of Social Security by protecting the money, they do not. In fact, they
can use the money for a tax cut. They can use it for a tax cut. So bear
in mind what this is all about, this debate, is to protect Social
Security, and the Democratic bill does that.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) for yielding me this time. I particularly
want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for
providing us with this alternative.
When we talk so much, as both sides have, about Social Security and
Medicare, the people back home are listening to us and saying, have
they really given us a solution? The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) has done that, and the Democratic alternative has done just
that.
He has said let us take aside all of the surplus that we are getting
in the area of Social Security, dedicate it to Social Security and
Medicare, and make sure we come up with a fix, a solution. Set the
money aside and take away the rhetoric of tax cuts and additional
discretionary spending. Solve these problems first before we go home.
Medicare is perhaps one of the most aching problems that is out
there, home health care, prescription drugs. People each day are asking
us in both Democratic and Republican districts, how do we solve this?
It is indeed a problem back home in Rhode Island, because I know home
health care agencies, the most cost effective, efficient agencies are
going out of businesses. People that need the kind of home care, that
is the least costly home care, are not getting it and eventually ending
up in nursing homes and hospitals.
I have a couple in Rhode Island that are 66 and 70 years old.
Prescription drugs is something they never thought about when they
retired. But after open heart surgery and bypass surgery, both of them,
at age 66 and 70, are back working part-time just to pay for the $8,200
a year for prescription drugs they have to pay.
Seniors are doing without paying their rent, without paying for food,
and sometimes not even paying for the prescriptions because the cost is
so high. That is going to come back to all of us in terms of higher
taxpayer costs.
We should not leave here until we resolve this problem. The only way
to do it is, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has
suggested, lock this money aside, not use it for all those rhetorical
questions that are being asked all the time about tax cuts and
discretionary spending, and fix the problem.
Let us bring us to a solution rather than continuing putting us in
this rhetorical oblivion that will never come to a conclusion. End this
problem now. Fix Medicare.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, Medicare and Social Security have improved
the lives of millions of elderly and disabled Americans. Together they
provide a vital safety net which millions of Americans rely on.
However, while Medicare is projected to run short of funds in just 9
years, and Social Security will run short of funds by 2032, the
Republican budget resolution does nothing to extend the life of
Medicare or Social Security.
The Democratic budget alternative that will be offered later today
will extend the life of Medicare through 2020 in addition to extending
the life of Social Security to 2050.
{time} 1215
Only after this commitment is fulfilled would we propose to spend
money on high priority areas like health, education and the
environment.
I believe firmly that I would not be standing before my colleagues
today if it were not for Medicare. Social Security and Medicare
together enabled my grandmother to live independently until she was 90
years old. As her primary caregiver for the last several years, I know
the role Social Security and Medicare play in making ends meet, in
protecting her from making sure that a medical crisis would not lead to
financial ruin.
Medicare and Social Security are not just commitments we made to our
seniors, they are commitments we made to families. And it is just as
important to young people that we have Medicare and Social Security as
it is to our seniors, because it keeps our families and our communities
strong.
We have an historic opportunity to make good on this commitment. The
budget decisions we make today will have enormous consequences for
decades. The Republican budget resolution squanders this opportunity
before us; the opportunity to reduce public debt while protecting the
existence of Social Security and Medicare.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means
and a former member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
[[Page H1714]]
Mr. Chairman, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed Social Security
and worked for its passage, the Republican Party was dead set against
it. When John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson said that having Social
Security was not enough, if there was no health security and advanced
Medicare, 90 percent of the Republicans in this Congress voted to
reject it. When Bill Clinton was elected President, the Republican
Party in this House elected a majority leader, my colleague, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), who said of Social Security, It is
``a rotten trick;'' who said of Medicare that he ``resented'' having to
be a part of it as a compulsory government program.
So I suppose that against that backdrop the American people should
take some confidence and some reassurance in the fact that Medicare and
Social Security are even mentioned in this budget resolution. They are
indeed mentioned in the resolution. When we look to the budget
resolution to see whether there is any money to match the promises
made, there is not $1 truly set aside for Social Security and Medicare
to assure solvency into the future. All that the Republican budget
resolution says is that these vital programs can go broke on schedule,
which is not much help to the people of this country.
The second indication that we get out of this budget resolution of
where the heart of the Republican Party is on these critical issues for
hundreds of millions of American citizens who either benefit from these
programs today or will in the future is to look to the instructions
that they include in this resolution. What instruction do they have
about Medicare and Social Security? They have one reconciliation
instruction, and it is ``Give us our tax breaks.'' They say ``Give us
our tax breaks.''
We say save Medicare and Social Security first. Do the fiscally
responsible thing; pay down the debt, preserve these valuable programs,
postpone the desire to help those at the top of the economic ladder to
some future time, and help those Americans who want these systems
preserved.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Davis), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today we have a very fundamental
choice before us; we can pass the budget resolution that proposes a tax
cut over 10 years of approximately $800 billion, or we can do first
things first, and that is we can take up and pass the Spratt amendment,
which provides a tax cut of about $137 billion but pays down the
publicly held debt, the Federal debt, by more than $137 billion more
than the Republican budget proposal.
Now, why is that so important? The first thing is it is the right
thing to do for our children and grandchildren, and not for them to
have to inherit this debt.
The second thing is, as we begin to prepare for the retirement of the
baby boomers, of which I am one, and funding the solvency of Social
Security and Medicare, we are going to need some of those funds to pay
that.
Thirdly, and perhaps most important, one of the best things we can do
to protect our economy right now is to pay down the Federal debt. As
Chairman Greenspan has testified before the House Committee on the
Budget, it has a direct bearing on interest rates.
In my home, Florida and Tampa, where the average mortgage for a
homeowner is about $115,000, if we drop interest rates two points, down
from 8 to 6 percent, that is $155 a month in that homeowner's pocket
they would not otherwise have.
Paying down the debt and providing that type of tax cut, simple and
immediate, to homeowners, to people holding student loans and car
loans, is the right thing to do for our children and grandchildren and,
most importantly, will help preserve the solvency of Medicare and
Social Security as we begin to prepare for the retirement of the baby
boomers.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a member of the Committee on Commerce and
also the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this Republican bill is a complete fraud.
That is the bottom line. They have got hundreds of billions of dollars
for tax cuts, mostly for the rich, but not one penny to extend the
Medicare trust fund, which is going bankrupt, by the way, in the year
2008.
Let us go back to their balanced budget of 1997. The premise was that
we would have to cut Medicare and home health care, those are visits
made to people's homes who have Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and other
chronic diseases, $115 billion to give a $90 billion tax break for
mostly the wealthiest in America.
Now we have this huge surplus. Now, what do the Republicans say? We
are going to give that money back to the Medicare recipients; we are
going to give that money back to the HMO health care recipients? No,
they say, we do not have enough money for those people.
Now, the problem, of course, is that the programs were cut
fraudulently, using numbers that were not accurate in 1997 in terms of
the problem with Medicare. It turns out today that the CBO says that in
fact they have found miraculously $88 billion more of savings in
Medicare for this 5-year period, and they found an additional hundreds
of billions of dollars of revenues that they did not project.
How much goes back to Medicare on the Republican side? They do not
have a penny.
If we kick them in the heart over here, we are going to break our
toes. They just do not want to help these old people on Medicare.
So, my colleagues, our substitute, with the effort to try to help
those most vulnerable, the senior citizens within our society, intends
on guaranteeing that Medicare is extended 10 extra years in solvency,
so that the senior citizens in our country are going to be given the
protection which they deserve.
My colleagues, the Republican substitute does nothing, nothing to
help the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. Vote ``no'' on the
Republican budget here today on the House floor.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I was elected in 1970 and spent 15 years in the State
legislature and spent 10 years here, and I have never seen a budget
exercise like this one.
Last year, we have to remember, the Republicans did not pass a
budget. They never got a budget resolution through the United States
Congress. This year they said, we are going to do it, but we are going
to do it by jamming it past people so fast they can never figure out
what is happening.
We listened to a wonderful stump speech by the chairman of the
committee today, but when he hands the budget to us 4 hours before and
gives us two pieces of paper with the numbers on it, that is all we
got, two pieces of paper, to spend $1.7 billion, I say this is a smoke
and mirrors budget.
My colleagues can look at these pieces of paper and say there is
anything in here. They can promise the world. They can promise
veterans, they can promise old people, they can promise the National
Institutes of Health, they can promise anything on these two pieces of
paper, because there is no specificity. There were no hearings. It was
simply, ram it through.
Now we come to the floor. We get 40 minutes on the Committee on the
Budget to talk about this issue. Now, is that because we are busy
tomorrow? No. People are going home. Could we have more time on this?
No, the Committee on Rules said we have to be out tonight. Where are we
going? I guess we are just going out for 2 weeks, yet we cannot spend
another 1 or 2 hours on this issue.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is right. I sat on the
Medicare Commission, and the Medicare Commission rightly turned down
the proposal being jammed through by the Republicans to privatize
Medicare, but they are going to do it here. This budget has no money in
it to deal with the problems of Medicare.
What they are going to do is they are going to come in with their
little voucher program. It is going to be called ``premium support.''
They are going to try to ram that out of the Committee on Ways and
Means and run it through here and leave the old people holding the bag.
This is a bad budget, and I urge Members to vote against the
Republican alternative.
[[Page H1715]]
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) may yield time.
There was no objection.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped we were going to come to the
floor today to talk about the real facts contained in the Democrat
budget versus the Republican budget, but it appears we are getting off
base here. But let us look at what the actual dollar numbers are when
it comes to Medicare, and here they are.
We are going to put $1.8 trillion aside over the next 10 years to
save and protect Social Security and Medicare. What does the President
do? He is well below us, right down here.
These are the actual numbers, Members.
Mr. Chairman, today the House is going to consider a budget for the
fiscal year 2000 that addresses the issues that matter most to American
families. This budget, the first for the new millennium, safeguards
Social Security and Medicare, addresses priorities such as education,
defense and agriculture, and provides historic tax relief. This budget
meets the challenges of the 21st century head-on by adhering to several
bedrock principles, each of which is set forth right here.
First, we are going to lock away every penny of the Social Security
surplus for our Nation's elderly.
We are going to set aside more money than the President to strengthen
Social Security and Medicare.
We are going to create a safe deposit box to ensure that bureaucrats
in Washington cannot get their hands on the Social Security Trust Fund
money.
We are going to pay down more debt than the President's budget.
We are going to maintain the spending discipline that carries over
from the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.
We are going to make national defense a top priority by providing
additional resources for things such as pay raises which are
specifically set forth in the budget.
We are going to provide the resources to train, equip and retain our
men and women in uniform, who are in harm's risk as we speak today.
We are going to offer security for rural Americans by providing
reforms in crop insurance and money to fund that crop insurance reform.
And we are going to enact historic tax relief. Yes, tax relief. And
it is interesting that opponents of this budget would get up today and
argue against tax relief. That is almost un-American, and I really
cannot believe we are hearing that in the well today. But, yes, we
favor tax relief, and we are going to support tax relief in our budget
plan for hard-working Americans.
Mr. Chairman, this budget is consistent with the common sense
conservative principles of encouraging our communities and individuals
to grow from the bottom up, not from Washington down. This is a budget
Americans can be proud of, and I urge all of my colleagues to support
the Republican budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
When I came here, we were paying interest on the national debt equal
to about $52 billion. In the years I have been here that bill has gone
up to $252 billion. Dead weight. Produces no goods and services for
anybody.
We have got a proposal in our budget resolution that will drive that
debt down $3 trillion. It is good for Social Security, it is good for
the economy, it is good for the Federal budget, and it is good for our
children and grandchildren.
{time} 1230
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this chart shows where we were
when Republicans took the majority in 1995.
For the foreseeable future, at that time, this government went deeper
and deeper into debt--for as far as the economist could see. We came
in, as the new majority, determined we were going to reduce and slow
down spending. Look, we did it.
This is historic. I went back over the last 40 years. In every one of
those years that the Democrats had control they used the surplus coming
in from Social Security for other Government spending.
Please look, what we are doing now. We do not have to increase the
national debt in this 5 year Republican budget. The President's plan,
the Democrats' plan, has to increase the national debt. Their plan
forces this country deeper into debt by $2 trillion more than the
Republican proposal.
I want to say that again to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt). Your plan goes deeper into debt by $2 trillion more than the
Republican proposal.
Nobody should just talk about the debt to the public. They have got
to talk about the total Government debt. Because what we owe the Social
Security Trust Fund is just as important as what we owe Wall Street.
I want to talk about the caps. The Republicans stay under the caps.
The Democrat proposal does not stay under the caps. I am chairman of
the Committee on the Budget Task Force on Social Security. That
bipartisan task force is working very well together. But I just want to
say very clearly that what we are doing for the first time in recent
history, is not spending the Social Security surplus for other
Government programs.
I mean, it is a giant step forward for saving Social Security. We are
putting that money aside. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) says that they are saving Social Security by adding a giant IOU
to the Medicare Trust Fund and the Social Security Trust Fund. That
makes us go deeper into debt. It is not honest. It is a asset for
Social Security but a deficit for the general fund. In short it is a
mandate for future tax increases for our kids and grandkids.
All the review of the President's proposal that suggests that we can
save Social Security by adding more IOUs--conclude it is smoke and
mirrors. It is!
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
(Mr. SUNUNU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating the budget. In
putting together a budget blueprint, it is important to remember that
the Federal budget is an outline of priorities. It is not a detailed
specification of every single appropriation bill that we are going to
pass over the next year. The Federal budget is $1.7 trillion. The
budget blueprint is intended to talk about what our priorities are as a
Congress for the next year.
In trying to establish those priorities, the Committee on the Budget
tried to answer three questions. First and foremost, what about Social
Security and Medicare? Those on the other side have talked about these
important issues; and we came back with the answer first we should set
aside every penny of the Social Security surplus, every penny of that
trust fund surplus, to strengthen and protect Social Security and
Medicare.
As the debate goes on today, we will see time and again that we set
aside more to preserve Social Security and Medicare than the President
in his budget. We set aside every penny of the surplus for Social
Security, not 60 percent as the administration suggested, because it is
the right thing to do.
Second, we wanted to set priorities about the size and scope of the
Federal Government. And we thought it was appropriate that we keep to
the commitments of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, a bipartisan agreement
that set some control on the growth and scope of the Federal
Government. Keeping those commitments again is an important part of the
integrity of this budget resolution.
And third, what about tax relief? Right now taxes in this country are
at a peacetime high. They have not been this high since 1944. And we
thought it appropriate that, after we set aside 100 percent of the
Social Security Trust Fund surplus, we ought to give back the
additional surpluses to the American workers in the form of lower
taxes.
This is about priorities, our priority of saving 100 percent of the
Social Security surplus, against the administration's priority, if we
can call it that, of
[[Page H1716]]
only setting aside 60 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund
surplus. Our commitment and priority to keep to the promises we made as
part of the 1997 budget agreement. The administration's budget breaks
those caps by $30 billion. Our commitment to lower taxes once we have
ensured that we protect the Social Security Trust Fund surplus. The
administration's commitment to raise taxes by $100 billion. That is the
wrong direction for this country.
In the end, this budget resolution pays down more debt, does more to
protect Social Security and Medicare, and provides fair and honest tax
relief. That is a set of priorities we can be proud of. It is a set of
priorities that makes sense for the country. And that is why I am proud
to support the budget resolution.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Rivers) and ask unanimous consent that she control the
time for yielding to other Members.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of fiscal responsibility
and in support of the Democratic budget resolution and in opposition to
the Republican budget resolution.
When I was elected to Congress, my highest priority was to balance
the unified budget. We have apparently accomplished that goal. Now my
highest priority is to pay down the publicly held debt and extend
Social Security and Medicare solvency.
Mr. Chairman, a week ago the majority on the Committee on the Budget
submitted two pages of numbers and called it a budget resolution. It is
as much a budget resolution as a blank piece of paper is a Pulitzer
Prize winning novel. The budget resolution is two pages, no
explanation. Draconian spending cuts of $181 billion over 10 years are
hidden in blue smoke and mirrors.
This budget says we are going to increase defense spending and
education and cut other programs by $27 billion. It is not going to
happen. The budget builds on the hope that the CBO can re-estimate the
base line just so we can put off until September either any cuts we
have to make and either have a showdown or disaster like last year.
What this budget will do is bust the caps and the pay-go rules. The
majority's budget resolution gives more priority to enacting an $800
billion tax break than paying down the debt. It does not stop Social
Security and Medicare from going insolvent. It locks in nearly a
trillion-dollar tax cut betting on a 15-year projection that, if the
surplus does not materialize, will result in more deficits and more
debt.
The Republicans say they are saving the surplus in Social Security in
the trust fund, but they do nothing to honor the obligation to
extending the life of Social Security and Medicare. Let us look at what
Alan Greenspan has to say. He is adamantly clear that the best policy
is debt reduction. Let me quote him.
``From an economic policy point of view I envisage that the best
thing we can do at this particular state is to allow that surplus to
run. What that means, of course, is that the debt to the public
declines, interest costs on the debt decline, and in my judgment, that
contributes to lower long-term interest rates.''
Make no mistake, the Democratic budget resolutions retires nearly
three-quarters of a trillion dollars of publicly held debt. The
Republicans' do not.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, when asked about the rough-and-tumble world of
politics, Margaret Thatcher said, ``Well, you don't tell deliberate
lies, but sometimes you have to be evasive.''
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that there is considerable evasion in
this budget. Starting with the issue that the Republicans claim to put
aside all of the Social Security money for Social Security, in today's
Wall Street Journal, page A-28, we find a very interesting article. The
Wall Street Journal tells us that their commitment is essentially
toothless and can be waived by a simple majority, which is done on the
floor every day. This is the Wall Street Journal.
They promise us that certain programs will be taken care of, that
certain groups will get the things they need. But they forget to tell
us, or they evade telling us, that $52 billion of cuts have to be found
over the next 5 years to provide what they have in their budget.
An earlier speaker talked about what was un-American. Well, I will
tell my colleagues what is un-American, Mr. Chairman. What is un-
American is not paying our bills, not dealing with our debts, not
dealing with our existing obligations. And as a Nation, we have many:
Social Security, Medicare, and a national debt that is nearing $6
trillion.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) mentioned that Alan Greenspan
said unequivocally that the best way to deal with our current situation
is to pay down the debt and to use both surpluses, on-budget and off-
budget. The Democratic proposal here today puts more than $474 billion
over the Republican proposal in the next 15 years.
The last piece of evasion that I want to speak to today is the
suggestion that the tax cuts that are being proposed come purely from
the on-budget surplus. That ignores the fact that as these tax cuts
play themselves out over the years, by the year 2013 we will be dealing
with an on-budget deficit and we will have to dip into Social Security
money.
Now, that comes at a time when the existing obligations I was talking
about, our baby-boomers, begin to retire, and it will be the greatest
strain on our budget to provide for them.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Nussle), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the
Committee on the Budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
It is so amazing. I mean, really, when it comes right down to it,
both sides have done not a pretty good job of coming up with a budget.
All right? I mean, there are only so many ways we can do it, with
mandatory programs and discretionary programs. There are only a certain
few ways we can do it.
And so what happened was the President sat down and he said, you know
what? I can spend that Social Security surplus and I can have a whole
bunch of new programs that I can pass out to people and make them feel
good.
The Republicans sat down and said, you know what? For the first time
since 1969, we are going to set all of it aside, 100 percent of the
Social Security surplus, so that it is there not only for Social
Security but it is there if we need to find a fix for Medicare. We set
all of it aside. The President did not set all of it aside.
So what happens today? The last minute, the last opportunity, in run
the Democrats, oh, but we did not mean that. We did not quite mean
that. We can do better. We can do better than that. We are going to set
100 percent of it aside because they are. And so they rush in here at
the last minute. Well, even their last-minute plan does not quite make
it.
Let me show my colleagues something here. They are talking about debt
reduction and how much they want to reduce the debt for their
grandchildren and children, and we heard all sorts of speeches waxing
philosophical about that. Let us look at the plan. The Republicans set
aside more money so we can pay down the debt. The Democrats do not.
Those are the facts. Yet they run in here and say, we can do better
than that.
Let me tell my colleagues something else that is interesting here.
When it comes to education, they say this is a priority. Look what we
do. The Republicans, the Republicans, spend more time than the
President, who stood up here for the State the Union address and said
how he is going to support education.
Well, let me take my colleagues one example further. Special
education. Special education. Since 1975, a program that the Democrats,
to their credit, passed one of the most beautiful civil rights pieces
of legislation in history, saying every American child
[[Page H1717]]
ought to be able to attend public school. And what did they do? They
did not fund it. And they have not funded it since 1975.
{time} 1245
For the first time, the Republicans are funding IDEA, special
education, $1 billion extra in our budget than the President's for
special education. Plus we are saying to governors and States who are
crying to Washington to give them more flexibility for education, we
are letting them spend excess dollars from welfare, we are giving them
the ability to transfer funds from other education programs, and we are
allowing them, if we get more money at the end of the year, this
surplus may grow as everyone has talked about so far, in our plan we
allow special education to get a little bump up. That is not in their
plan, either.
Mr. Chairman, it just is amazing to me with the Academy Awards being
last week how they can continue to win more Academy Awards for this
budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Could I have the benefit of the chart of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Nussle), the chart he just used that showed the President commits 62
percent of the surplus and you commit 100 percent of the surplus?
Mr. NUSSLE. The gentleman did not bring his own charts today?
Mr. SPRATT. That is 62 percent of the unified surplus which he
quotes, $1.8 trillion. One hundred percent of the Social Security
surplus, which is part of it, equals $1.8 trillion. They are the same
thing over a different period. Over 15 years it works out to the same
thing.
Mr. NUSSLE. That is the problem, if the gentleman would yield.
Mr. SPRATT. No, I cannot yield because I do not have the time to
yield.
Mr. NUSSLE. He wants to use my chart but I cannot talk about it?
Mr. SPRATT. In a little while we will answer what he just said about
education.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I hope he does.
Mr. SPRATT. Because I do not think the facts will bear him out.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I believe there
was another problem with the charts that were just shown to us in that
while the speaker, I am sure he misspoke, when the speaker said he was
comparing the Republican plan to the Democratic plan on the floor from
House Democrats today, I believe he used numbers from the President's
proposal and not from our budget today relative to debt reduction.
Secondly, the question of IDEA, special education, is one I am very
interested in, because for several years I have offered an amendment to
the Committee on the Budget as well as to the Congress to deal with
fully funding IDEA, making the commitment that was passed so long ago
real, to bring funding up to 40 percent of real cost. That was offered
in the Committee on the Budget last week and to a person every
Republican, including the gentleman from Iowa, voted against doing
that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of our
Committee on the Budget for the terrific job he has done.
Mr. Chairman, if I could yield first of all to the gentleman from
North Carolina.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we want to talk about education. There is a lot that is
wrong with this Republican budget resolution. We need to discuss these
issues in depth. The budget resolution is arguably the most important
single decision we make here. It is the blueprint for how Federal
resources will be used for the coming fiscal year and on into the
future. So the Democratic and the Republican proposals we are
considering here today need to be debated in depth. They are a study,
in fact, in contrasting priorities.
The Republican budget would provide no help in extending the solvency
of Medicare and Social Security. It falls short on veterans health care
and crop insurance for our farmers and other critical needs. The
Democratic alternative would extend the solvency of Medicare and Social
Security, would provide more funding for critical priorities, would
implement targeted tax relief, and would reduce the debt held by the
public more than the Republican proposal.
Mr. Chairman, we want to talk especially about education, because
nowhere is the contrast more stark than with education. Our Republican
colleagues boast about providing some increase for elementary and
secondary education, but, overall, funding for education and training
would be cut by $1.2 billion from the nominal 1999 level in the
Republican budget for 2000. The result would be drastic cuts in funding
for other priorities like higher education and teacher training and
Pell grants and Head Start. Over 5 years, the Republican budget cuts to
education and training would result in a 6.9 percent decrease in
purchasing power, and over 10 years the decline in purchasing power for
education would be over 18 percent.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I find
interesting about this budget is we were told absolutely education is
increased. They did increase it for elementary and secondary education.
But what they do not tell us is that they are cutting it in all other
parts of education. They do not say specifically where they are going
to cut those budgets. But it is cut over 10 years from this level by
$36.5 billion. So they are cutting programs like Head Start and Pell
grants and work-to-school programs. That is where the cuts are.
And so again it is one of those bait and switch budgets that they
tell us we are doing great things over here and then they do not tell
us what the other hand is doing, which is cutting education. This
budget does not reflect that our school facilities are in a crisis
situation. There was a study done by the engineers that said of all of
our infrastructure, our school infrastructure is the one that is in the
greatest need. We would not work in the schools that we send our
children to.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and the gentlewoman from Oregon
(Ms. Hooley) in a further discussion of this. It is important to get
these facts out.
Is it not true that the Democratic alternative would make room for
school construction? The kind of proposal that the President has made
to give tax credits in lieu of interest on bonds in these low-income
areas that need desperately to build or modernize facilities, or like
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) and I have introduced
to target high-growth areas so that our kids are not going to school in
trailers.
I come from a district where we have hundreds of trailers, thousands
of kids going to school in these kinds of facilities. We need to get
ahead of the curve in school construction.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. HOLT. The Democratic budget does indeed provide for modernizing
schools. In fact, it would provide tax credits that would allow
modernizing of up to 6,000 public schools.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, one
of the other things that I think is interesting to note, not only are
schools in bad shape right now and we have talked about trailers. We
have first graders that have to walk across an open area in Oregon
where it rains all the time. This is not a wonderful thing to do to
wash their hands or go to the bathroom. And some of the rooms are in
such disrepair. Again, my colleagues would not work in that facility
but we expect our children to learn in that facility.
The other thing that I think is interesting is there have been
studies that have been done that show that, in fact, students do better
in schools that reflect our society and are not in such disrepair. They
do better when our schools are repaired.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Those studies are very convincing, that
the students perform better when they are in first-rate facilities. It
is not just an abstract issue. We have thousands of
[[Page H1718]]
kids going to school in these facilities. Often they are going to lunch
at 10:30 because the cafeteria facilities haven't kept pace with the
addition of trailers. They do not have adequate gym or restroom
facilities. It simply is a misplaced priority to say that we cannot
afford to do this. The Republican budget squeezes it out. The
Democratic budget would make room for that kind of school
modernization.
Let me ask my colleagues, also, to address the other major initiative
that we are looking at in this Democratic budget: getting class size
down and getting 100,000 new teachers in the classrooms of America. We
made a start on that last year. What is it going to take to keep that
going?
Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman will yield further, indeed, these are
connected. Simple math will tell us, we cannot have more teachers and
get the smaller class sizes in the early years unless we have the
classrooms to put them in. And so this Democratic budget does allow for
both of those, continuation of the hiring of new teachers, the 100,000
new teachers that we are calling for, we will continue down that line
with the Democratic budget, in addition to providing for the loans for
the construction and modernization of facilities.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. We are talking about a stark contrast in
these budget proposals. The one makes room for reduced class size and
for school construction and also lets us make good on what we promised
last year when we passed the higher education act, opening up
opportunity through Pell grants and an improved student loan program.
The other budget makes a short-term increase in education over the long
haul but would drastically decrease this funding.
Mr. HOLT. Unlike the Republican budget, the Democratic alternative
does not cut higher education, training and social services in order to
increase elementary and secondary education programs. That is a key
difference.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I used to be a teacher. I can guarantee my
colleagues that smaller classroom sizes, you have much better
performance by the students. Do not take just my word for it but go out
and look at all of the research on this subject and you will find if we
can get our classroom size to 18 and under, that students' performance
goes way up. Not only does it go up, it stays up. We are trying to get
it down in K through 3. But if you get it down, get that ratio down,
the performance goes straight up and that performance stays up
throughout their years in school.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. And the impact is the greatest in grades
1 through 3, is that right?
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Right.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the way my
colleagues have chimed in here. There is no question that we are
dealing with a stark contrast in many areas of this budget, but
certainly in education. In dollar terms, the Democratic alternative
next year provides $2.6 billion more for education and training, and
then over the next 5 years we are talking about a $10.2 billion gap. It
is a gap that we have got to close.
Vote for the Democratic alternative.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is, this Republican budget locks away
the entire Social Security trust fund surplus for our Nation's elderly,
the entire amount. We set aside more than the President to save,
strengthen and preserve Social Security and as necessary Medicare as
well. We create a safety deposit box to assure Social Security trust
funds cannot be raided. We pay down more public debt than the
President. We maintain the spending discipline for the 1997 budget act.
We provide additional resources to properly train, equip and retain our
men and women in uniform. And we will enact historic tax relief after
we have solved Social Security for our children and our children's
children. That is what we do. The President wants to spend more. The
Democrats want to spend more. We do not.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget brings honesty back
to the budget process and ends a 30-year assault on our Social Security
system. For the first time, every single penny of Social Security taxes
will be locked up for Social Security and Medicare. Over the next 10
years, this budget saves $1.8 trillion for these two critical programs
for our seniors and future generations.
As my colleagues can see on this chart, while the Republican budget
saves every penny, 100 percent, of the Social Security surplus, the
President's budget saves only 62 percent of Social Security over the
next 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, saving just 62 percent of the Social Security surplus
is not good enough. The President's budget spends $341 billion of this
very Social Security surplus over 10 years and provides no Social
Security reforms or protections.
Mr. Chairman, not a dime of the Social Security dollars Americans pay
should be used for unrelated programs. Locking up the entire Social
Security trust fund will help save, strengthen and preserve Social
Security and Medicare, not only for seniors today but for future
generations as well. We must repair Social Security forever, not just
put a band-aid on the problem. This Congress cannot allow the Social
Security program to be bankrupt. We cannot stand by and allow anyone,
even the President, to raid Social Security just to pay for more
Washington-run programs.
Save Social Security. Vote ``aye'' on this Republican budget.
{time} 1300
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran), I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say our colleagues are attacking the
President's budget; it is not even on the floor.
Our resolution is on the floor. It commits a hundred percent, puts
$1.8 trillion into the trust funds over the next 10 years as well.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I plan to yield time to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) as well because we want to address
fiscal responsibility because we firmly believe that our budget is the
more fiscally responsible. Mr. Chairman, what we have been presented by
the majority is the baby boomer budget.
As my colleagues know, the real reason why we have this prosperity is
because our parents put their lives on the line for democracy and free
enterprise. That is why we live in a free and prosperous world. And
now, we the baby boomer children must decide what we are willing to
sacrifice for our children's future.
So what have we done with this opportunity? Mr. Chairman, one of the
things we have done is to build up a $5 trillion public debt that we
are about to leave to our children.
The critical test of the baby boomer generation is, are we going to
be as responsible to our children as our parents were to us? Mr.
Chairman, the answer is no if we do not pay down the Federal debt. The
answer is no, as well, if we do not provide for their retirement
security. That is why it is important to extend Medicare and Social
Security.
But the budget that we have been presented with by the Republicans
says after we die, after we have exhausted Social Security, there is
nothing there left for our kids. It is exhausted in terms of Medicare
in 2008; in terms of Social Security, by 2032. That is it; we have used
it, we are set, and then it is up to our kids to take care of their own
retirement security and to pay down the Federal debt.
That is why this budget, the one we are offering, is the far more
responsible one because it reduces the public debt, it provides for the
retirement security of our kids, and it also provides for the
investment that our kids need to be able to fulfill their potential. It
puts money into education, it puts money into training, it enables them
to live in a safe environment.
This is by far the more responsible budget, the one that sustains the
intergenerational legacy our parents left to us.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious debate. We are
involved
[[Page H1719]]
overseas in a very serious effort, and we need to be serious.
I came here in June of 1981, and I was presented with a budget on
this floor which I voted against, and I voted against it because I
thought it would cause high deficits and high interest rates. I,
frankly, was right. The 1981 budget that we adopted, which was sold to
us as a budget that would do all sorts of good things for America,
created $3 trillion in new debt, and tax cuts were enacted long before
any Republican, as Dave Stockman said, was prepared to vote for the
cuts to sustain the spending cuts to sustain those tax cuts, and as a
result, and I heard the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) last
night on the floor lamenting the fact that our grandchildren were put
deeply in debt, they were by that 1981 program.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest to my colleagues that this budget is very
much like that. It is very much like that in that it retreats from
investments in the future, it promises tax cuts that will be
unsustainable, and notwithstanding how many times our colleagues repeat
they are saving Social Security commitment, it does not do what both
the Blue Dogs' budget does, which I will vote for, which the Democratic
alternative does, which I will vote for, and frankly offering the
President's budget is simply a political charade in which we have
participated in the past ourselves. And I understand that; we both have
done that to one another. Ronald Reagan's budgets were presented 3
years during his presidency. Zero Republicans voted for it the first
time, one Republican the second and 12 the third.
This is a serious debate, and we ought to commit ourselves to the
American public to do real things. I suggest to my colleagues they
ought to vote for the Democratic alternative and, as well, they ought
to vote for the Blue Dogs' alternative because they do real things.
They do not pretend; they do real things.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if this was our parents making
this decision, they would not be giving themselves an $800 billion tax
cut. They would be providing for the retirement security of their
children, they would pay down the debt that they incurred, they would
fully fund the military pay raise, they would fully fund the education
of their children, they would do right for America and make sure the
next generation of Americans is better off than their generation and
the benefits that they incurred from their own parents.
We have a progressive legacy, let us keep it. Let us not be so
selfish and give ourselves a tax cut. Let us take care of our kids
first.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to comment that
when the President gave his budget address, everyone on that side of
the aisle thought it was terrific, and now everyone is running away
from it and denying they ever liked it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut
for yielding this time to me.
As my colleagues know, somebody once said, and it may have been the
Vice President, that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but
they are not entitled to their own facts, and I want to talk about the
facts because we heard earlier today, and there is some revisionist
history that it was the, quote, minimal tax hikes of 1993 that brought
about the balanced budget that we have today.
Mr. Chairman, I am not making up the facts. This is according to the
Congressional Budget Office. This is the direction we were headed in
1995. The deficit was at about $200 billion. They were predicting that
by 2009 we would have deficits approaching $600 billion, and worse,
that included the Social Security surpluses.
Now where are we today?
Mr. Chairman, thanks to some of the fiscal discipline demonstrated by
this Congress since 1994, we are headed in the right direction. Again,
these are not our numbers. This is according to the Congressional
Budget Office.
Now one of the things that we are debating here today is whether or
not there should be tax relief for the average American family. Now
somebody said earlier, and it is true, and this is according to the Tax
Foundation, that Americans now pay the highest tax burden since 1944.
Now our budget does not specifically call for tax cuts, but it does
begin to make room for tax cuts because we believe Americans are
overtaxed.
Mr. Chairman, the average American family, and again not according to
us, according to the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan group, the average
family today spends more in taxes than they do for food, clothing,
shelter and transportation combined.
Now we happen to believe that is wrong, and we may have a difference
of opinion with our friends on the left, but that is the way we see it.
Now it has also been mentioned that our Democratic friends really do
not want to talk about the President's budget, and I suspect this
article, again not something that we said, this is according to the
Investors Business Daily; what they said was balancing the books on the
backs of the poor.
But this is what Investors Business Daily said, and again the source
of the Tax Foundation, that under the President's budget plan he
increases taxes over the next 5 years by about $45.8 billion. Now that
is bad enough, but what is worse, almost 40 percent of those new taxes
will be paid by families that earn less than $25,000 a year.
Now it is no wonder then that our Democratic friends do not want to
talk about the President's budget.
In sum, our budget does four things:
First of all, Mr. Chairman, we say that every penny of Social
Security taxes ought to go only for Social Security.
Second, we say that we are going to keep faith with the spending caps
that we agreed to with the President in the Balanced Budget Act of
1997.
Third, we begin the process of actually paying down some of that
debt. We will begin to pay off some of the debt that is owed to the
public.
Finally, we make room for tax relief.
Now I know that does not sit well with some of our friends on the
left, Mr. Chairman, but we believe that is important.
In sum, what this budget really does is that it ensures lower
interest rates and a stronger economy well into the next century.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing how all we can talk about is
the budget in 1981. This is 1999, and I just remind some of my
colleagues that the budget since 1981 was controlled by a Democrat
House and a Democrat Senate that refused to cut spending. The
difference, as I answer my colleagues, is this is a Republican Congress
that has brought fiscal discipline to the process. In fact, the
Democrats are running as fast as they can away from the President's
budget that he submitted this year. The Senate voted down yesterday by
a vote of 97 to 2 the President's own budget. Why can they not even
support the President's own budget? And by a vote of 99 to nothing, 99
to 0, could not even get one person to vote, the Senate rejected the
President's proposal for the government to invest Social Security funds
into the stock market.
Over the past 4 years, Mr. Chairman, the Republican Congress has
worked very hard to balance the budget; the President took credit for
it. Cap federal spending; the President took credit for it. Provide
much needed tax relief to American families; the President took credit
for it. The Republican budget plan for the year 2000 continues this
shift to restore a solid American common sense to American government.
Now American families know how to balance their checkbooks, and they
know how to stay within a budget. American families know the value of a
dollar. There is no reason why this Federal Government cannot be as
responsible as the average American family.
Over all, the Republican budget returns control to the American
family by taking less of their money, setting very strict fiscal
priorities and respecting spending caps. The Republican budget locks up
100 percent of Social Security surpluses for the first time since
Social Security became a program. We are being honest about the Social
Security Trust Fund. The Republican budget bolsters national defense by
nearly $10 billion, and the Republican budget plans to reduce the
national debt by 1.8 billion over the next
[[Page H1720]]
decade. And the Republican budget cuts taxes by $800 billion over 10
years.
Right down the line the Republican budget trumpets that fiscal
responsibility is the wave of the future. This budget says loud and
clear that Republicans want American families to keep more of their
hard-earned money and send less of it to Washington forever.
When the Republicans took over Congress 4 years ago, the budget
predictions had red ink spilled as far as the eye could see. Today,
because of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that we pushed through and
the President took credit for, there are nothing but surpluses as far
as the eye can see in the future.
Now some budget decisions are very difficult to do, and what we did
not show with the Democrat Congress after 1981, discipline is hard,
discipline is not always easy. But at the close of this century the
Republican budget does it all. It cuts taxes, it reduces the debt, it
saves Social Security, and it bolster defense.
So, Mr. Chairman, if we stick to our guns, America will be freer, it
will be richer, it will be safer into the next century than ever
before, so I urge my colleagues to vote for the Republican budget.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, let us be very clear about what
our budget does and what their budget does not do. This chart tells my
colleagues what our budget does. Our budget locks away the entire
Social Security Trust Fund surplus, $1.8 trillion over the next 10
years, to save, strengthen and preserve Social Security and Medicare.
We set aside $100 billion more towards Social Security than the
President does. We are creating a safety deposit box to make sure that
we do not raid the trust fund in the future. We are paying down $450
billion more in debt than the President is. We are also maintaining the
fiscal discipline of the 1997 Budget Act. And the most important thing
is that we are doing this honestly, we are not playing a shell game.
Honest numbers are finally coming into town, into Washington. We are
maintaining strong defenses, and we are recognizing a historic
commitment to education.
{time} 1315
What I would like to talk briefly about is our Social Security lock
box, our safety deposit box. This is very important because no other
budget proposal coming to the floor today, the President's proposal,
the Democratic proposal, locks away Social Security.
If we take a look at this chart one moment here, we asked David
Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, to analyze the
different Social Security proposals and in looking at the President's
budget proposal he said, although the trust funds will appear to have
more resources as a result of the President's proposal, in reality
nothing about the program has changed. The proposal does not represent
Social Security reform.
Here is what we are doing. We in our Republican plan are setting
aside 100 percent of all payroll taxes, plus interest, for Social
Security and Medicare. We save this money to support those programs,
and what is more important we implement legislation that prevents
future raids on Social Security by creating a lock box. The President's
plan does nothing to do that. The Democratic plan does nothing to do
that.
If we look at page 41 of our budget resolution, we have section 5,
which sets up a safety deposit box legislation because Congress over
the last 30 years has been raiding Social Security. There was nothing
to stop Congress from raiding Social Security.
We are stopping the raid on Social Security. We are saying that
beginning today, there will be no more raids on the Social Security
trust fund and that in the future, we are putting a point of order to
require a supermajority vote in Congress that any budget resolution
ever coming to Congress again has to have a supermajority vote if it
attempts to dip into Social Security.
We are essentially saying, we need discipline now to stop raiding
Social Security but we want to make sure that future Congresses will
not raid Social Security. That is why we have meaningful legislation,
meaningful changes, in this budget resolution.
Now we are told that the President is not interested in passing
legislation to prevent future raids on Social Security. In fact, the
President raids the Social Security trust fund by $341 billion over the
next 10 years. We raid zero dollars. We put all of it towards Social
Security and Medicare.
So because we cannot get a statutory fix to stop the raid on the
trust fund, because the President will not sign that into law, we are
changing the rules in Congress. We are changing the rules in Congress
so we will not raid Social Security, so that future Congresses will
have to go after a higher threshold. If they try to bring a budget to
this floor of Congress in the House and the Senate, they are going to
have to take a supermajority vote to raid Social Security in the
future.
Even though we cannot get a law passed by this President to prevent
the raids on Social Security we are changing the rules in Congress so
that Congress now and into the future will not raid Social Security.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to myself.
Mr. Chairman, we keep having a red herring dragged across the path of
this debate. The principal budgeting contention on the floor, the
alternative to their budget is our budget and it commits 100 percent to
Social Security, is backed up by a statute which requires the treasurer
to take a certain percentage of payroll taxes to buy down public debt.
The general public probably does not understand, but points of order
are honored in the breach on the House floor. We have a Committee on
Rules upstairs which specializes in overriding points of order. It is a
joke to say that a point of order provides any protection whatsoever.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Hoeffel).
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say regrettably that the Republican
budget we are considering falls far short of what the American people
need and what they deserve in terms of environmental protection.
We need to prepare our country for our children and their children.
We need to prepare an America that has clean and vibrant cities, that
has suburban areas not choked with automobiles and strangled by
shopping malls. We need an America that has rural areas that are
prepared to handle the necessary but dangerous pressure of development.
Simply put, the Republican budget does nothing to preserve our
environment. The House Republican resolution for fiscal year 2000
provides $22 billion for discretionary natural resources and
environmental programs. Our budget provides $23.6 billion.
The Republican level of funding is $1.3 billion less than this year's
level of funding, and over 5 years the Republicans would cut funding
$5.3 billion below 1999 levels.
The Sierra Club estimates that the Republican budget would stop up to
135 toxic waste cleanups under the Superfund program and would
eliminate funding for the clean water action program.
The Democratic proposal gives our children a chance to grow up and
raise their children in cities that are clean and safe, in suburbs that
have coherent development patterns and provide park land and green
space instead of chaos and confusion.
A recent series in the Philadelphia Inquirer demonstrates in the
Philadelphia region that one acre per hour is being lost to
development. In the last 30 years, the population in the Philadelphia
area grew 13 percent; development grew 80 percent.
The Democratic budget would provide the tools for better regional
planning, to improve water quality, to help local governments preserve
open space, to reduce traffic congestion and clean the air.
Our proposal does not promote Federal planning. It does not promote
Federal zoning. It is a good proposal, and I ask for support.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Stump), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
[[Page H1721]]
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the veterans' portion of this
budget for awhile. The Clinton-Gore budget has been a total disaster
for veterans' health care over the last few years. It totally has
neglected veterans' health care in favor of other spending priorities
by this administration.
Mr. Chairman, we are the second largest employer in the Federal
Government. We have 173 hospitals to maintain, over 500 outpatient
clinics, and this administration did not give us one dime increase this
year in the area of health care.
This budget provides $1.1 billion in health care alone for our
veterans. Their budget would require a massive layoff in VA health care
and necessitate closing of some of our VA facilities that are needed to
treat our needy veterans.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield just to make
clear who ``their budget'' is, because our budget has $1.9 billion?
Mr. STUMP. I made it clear. I made it clear. I said the Clinton-Gore
budget.
This Republican budget increase has the largest increase in history
for veteran VA health care. I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and the
entire Committee on the Budget, that they have always been there when
we needed them for additional health care monies, which we have had to
ask for every year under this administration.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Combest), another distinguished Member and the chairman of
the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 68
before us today. In contrast to other documents, most notably the
President's budget, this document underscores our commitment to the
recovery and long-term economic health for production agriculture.
This resolution makes available a total of $6 billion in new
agriculture funding authority over the life of the resolution. This
should be viewed as nothing less than a triumph for American
agriculture. They are in time of great need and we are working hard to
create an adequate safety net to ensure their future.
I would remind my colleagues that the President promised crop
insurance reform in his State of the Union address. Unfortunately, his
budget proposed no new money or policy proposals that came forward, not
one idea, not one dime, nothing.
The President has decided to turn his back on this problem so it
falls to Congress to step up to the challenge, and we have.
The $6 billion in new agricultural spending in this resolution is the
first infusion of funding for farmers in recent memory. This money will
allow us to make permanent improvements in the tools farmers have
available to manage the weather and price risks over which they have no
control.
In addition to the $6 billion in new agricultural funding, the budget
resolution creates generous tax cuts in fiscal year 2000 over the next
decade. These reductions will allow Congress to continue working to
provide American farmers and ranchers with tax relief, capital gains
relief, estate tax reform and the creation of farm risk management
savings accounts.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle who care
about the future of farmers and ranchers to support this budget
resolution before us today because it is fair and responsible.
In behalf of American agriculture, I would like to extend special
thanks to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Gutknecht), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) for the great work that they
have done on the Committee on the Budget in behalf of the American
farmer and rancher.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me once again say that our budget resolution, the
House Democratic resolution, provides that same $6 billion a year but
it has a special difference. Because this is a 10-year budget and we
are running out the allocations for 10 years, we don't quit in 2004,
2005. Their budget stops the funding of the crop insurance program just
as it is getting established. It, in effect, says to the agricultural
committees, go find the necessary mandatory spending offsets in order
to pay for it.
We provide $9 billion in the second 5-year period on top of $6
billion in the first to see that this is a 10-year commitment. The same
with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump). The gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Stump), the excellent chairman of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, sent to our committee a request for $1.9 billion a year, I
believe. That is what we put in our budget. The Democratic budget
provides what the Republican chairman of the committee requested; $1.9
billion a year for veterans.
Their budget gives a plus-up of $900 million, a billion dollars the
first year in fiscal year 2000. But in 2001, 2002, 2003, it disappears.
It is nonrecurring. It does not carryover. So it is plussed up a
billion and then dropped back down again; dropped so much that over 5
years, their budget is $500 million for veterans below a 1999 freeze
level. That is the way the numbers are being distorted out here.
Let me go back to education. In education, the budget of the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), which they have touted as being a big
plus-up in education, is $2 billion below the President next year; $3.9
billion below the President in 2001; $3.5 billion below the President
in 2002; $2.1 billion in 2003.
What they say with ESEA and IDEA is we want to give a bigger
allocation but it has to come out of the hide of other higher education
programs; the whole function for education and job training. It is very
improbable that they are going to be able to shove those other programs
aside to make the kind of increases they are not providing because the
function that they are providing for education as a whole does not
increase over this period of time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) for the last half hour has been complaining about how we have
been talking about the President's budget. What did he do? He got up
and talked about the President's budget.
In fact, there are three budget plans sitting over on that desk over
there. There is only one over here. There is one Republican plan, and
one Republican plan that does a good job in these areas, but the
gentleman is picking from three different numbers over there. The
gentleman has to make up his mind.
I understand the gentleman does not like the President's budget but
the gentleman is like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking
chairs right now running around trying to figure out how to run away
from this President's budget. The gentleman has to make up his mind, I
would suggest.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on the Budget, I rise
today in strong support of the Republican budget resolution, H. Con.
Res. 68. This budget prepares our country for the challenges of the
21st Century, and I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich)
and the Members of this committee for putting this altogether.
Over the next 10 years, the Federal Government is projected to run a
budget surplus, as we have heard before, of $2.6 trillion. Our budget
properly utilizes this windfall to strengthen the retirement security
of the American people.
For the first time ever, 100 percent of the Social Security surplus,
and maybe I should say that again, for the first time ever, 100 percent
of the Social Security surplus will be locked away to strengthen Social
Security and Medicare. Over the next decade, this will secure $1.8
trillion, $100 billion more than
[[Page H1722]]
the President's budget, to keep these two programs strong for current
and future retirees. This is historic.
For years, Congress and the President have raided the Social Security
trust fund to pay for wasteful government spending. With 77 million
baby boomers nearing retirement, it is time to end this dishonest
practice.
Our budget also provides the American people with tax relief that
they need. Over the next decade, it cuts Federal taxes by $800 billion.
{time} 1330
This tax cut, the largest since Ronald Reagan's first term as
president, will strengthen working families and keep our economy moving
forward.
Finally, this year's budget provides the resources to improve our
schools and keep our military strong. If the United States wants the
United States to be the world's strongest Nation, we must do a better
job of educating our children, and we must ensure that our military
forces are the best-trained and the best-equipped in the world. This
year's budget takes a giant step forward in accomplishing both of these
goals. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Democrat
budget plan. It invests in health programs to serve all Americans. Our
Republican colleagues talk about their commitment to health, but I
challenge them to put their money where their mouths are.
The Democratic budget demonstrates our commitment to improving
quality health care and access to health care for all Americans. The
Republican plan shows once again their top priority, providing tax
breaks for the wealthiest in this country.
We all support groundbreaking research at the National Institutes of
Health. I support that effort, and the Republican budget does provide
additional funding for the NIH.
But what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not seem to
understand is that all of the research in the world goes to waste if
people do not have access to health care. Their budget would slash
funding for other health programs, like the Centers for Disease
Control, Ryan White AIDS grants, maternal and child health, all in
order to pay for their tax breaks for the wealthiest in this country.
More than 43 million Americans today are without health insurance.
They seem to have fallen from our radar screen. The Democratic budget
includes measures to expand access to health care. The Republican plan
ignores the problem.
Many Americans struggle with no health insurance at all. Millions who
do have insurance are fighting their managed care companies to have
access to the care they need. The Democratic plan includes the
Patients' Bill of Rights, real managed care that would put medical
decisions back in the hands of those where it belongs, doctors and
their patients.
Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget alternative recognizes a key
reality. If we are to save Medicare and social security for future
generations, live within our spending caps, and continue to provide
funding for vital health care programs in this country, we cannot
afford to give tax breaks to the wealthiest members in this Nation.
I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic plan.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, as we look to the future, and that is what a
budget does, we must evaluate where we are as a Nation. It has become
clear to all of us that one of the most important principles that all
Americans hold dear is the idea of security: fiscal security for our
Nation; financial security for us personally, individually; educational
security; security from attack from foreign nations; family security;
and retirement security.
We need to take care of our growing aging population, and we must
also look out for our young people, securing a solid and stable future
for them.
We are at a crossroads today. What will the priorities of our Nation
be? Will security be one of them? If we answer yes, then we must
support the Republican budget, for our elders, our baby boomers, our
Generation Xers, our Y Generations, all are relying on us to save
social security and Medicare.
Mr. Chairman, the most responsible way of doing this is by supporting
a plan that saves all of the social security surplus. By locking away
100 percent of the social security surplus, 100 percent, we preserve
approximately $100 billion more than the President's proposal, more
than the President's budget. By establishing this safe deposit box, we
prevent a hungry bureaucracy from stealing from social security to pay
for other programs, to ensure that retirement money is available for
our elders, for our boomers, for our children, for our grandchildren.
It is more than the President has offered, and we are doing the same
with Medicare.
Speaking of the Democratic alternatives, the President, by
comparison, does not have the trust of the Senate on his proposal.
Instead of saving all of social security, the President would spend
some of it. The Senate voted yesterday 97 to 2 to reject his plan. His
plan of a government-run board investing social security funds in the
stock market was rejected.
There is a better way. Support the Republican budget.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller).
Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the
Committee on the Budget, I rise to support House Concurrent Resolution
68. Our budget plan is the first ever to lock up 100 percent of social
security payroll taxes and interest for the future. This is historic
because over 10 years the Federal budget has been taking social
security funds to pay for other spending programs.
In the year 2000, the GOP sets aside $137 billion, that is 100
percent of social security monies, for social security. The President
pledges 62 percent of that, that is $85 billion, and $52 billion of
social security money spent for other programs.
Between the years 2000 and 2009, we set aside $1.8 trillion for
social security and Medicare. The President's budget sets aside $1.3
trillion for social security, and earmarks about $345 billion for
Medicare. That is $1.645 trillion, over $100 billion less than our
budget.
No matter how we add it up, $137 billion is more than $85 billion. No
matter how we add it up, $1.8 trillion is more than $1.645 trillion.
Two plus two does equal four.
Some on the other side who are using projections on the President's
budget will save over 15 years, compared to our budget, over 10 years.
That, as the saying goes, two plus two does equal five. No matter how
you look at it, we are saving more for social security and Medicare
than the President's budget saves over 10 years.
The President is not only missing-in-action on Medicare reform, he
cuts Medicare by $11.9 billion. He is using a very strange strategy for
claiming the high ground on Medicare. One, he cuts billions from
Medicare. Two, he saves less than Republicans for Medicare. Three, he
single-handedly stops bipartisan Medicare reform from the Medicare
Commission. Four, he leaves us with the status quo. Five, he then
claims to be the champion of Medicare.
If we look at the facts, we know that the Committee on the Budget
resolution does more to protect social security and Medicare than the
President has ever done. Also, anyone who votes for the President's
budget is doing nothing short of stealing from social security and
cutting Medicare. I urge all my colleagues to vote for the GOP budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Democrat
alternative. The Democrat alternative is a budget resolution that
fights for families, advocates for our children, stands up for our
seniors, and is responsive to rural America.
The resolution before us abandons farmers and farm families.
Recruiting and training sufficient numbers of qualified teachers is
difficult throughout all of America, but it is particularly difficult
in rural America. Working for better health care is difficult
[[Page H1723]]
throughout all America, but the problem is magnified in rural America.
The lack of health resources and adequate health providers are harsh
realities.
Farm life is hard, and the risk of injury and death is great. Income
security is difficult in many parts of the United States, but in rural
America, low earnings, slow investment, low economic development, and
pockets of poverty are all too often a way of life. That is why we
should all make sure we take into account the special needs of our
farmers and our farm families.
Small farmers and ranchers are struggling to survive in America. Most
are losing money and fighting hard to stay in the farming business.
That is why the Democrat alternative increases discretionary spending
for agriculture.
The resolution before us cuts discretionary spending for agriculture
by $2.3 billion over 5 years. The Democrat alternative includes funding
for agriculture research, education, and vital farming services. The
resolution before us cuts those services.
The Democrat alternative continues crop insurance spending $14.6
billion more than the Republicans. The Republican resolution before us
ends crop insurance in 2005. The Democrat alternative puts into proper
perspective the needs of farm families and their communities.
It is an alternative that requires our support. It is an alternative
that deserves our support. I urge all of our colleagues, both our
Republicans and our Democrats, to support the Democratic alternative.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be part of this spirited historic debate
today, historic because I believe that this plan before us represents
the best news to come out of Washington in a very long time.
One year ago when I announced my run for Congress, I did so because I
saw a bleak situation here in Washington: social security expected to
be in the red in only 30 years, the tax burden on our families the
highest it has been since World War II, and a national debt long
overdue.
Today I can proudly tell the folks back home that we are addressing
each of those critical challenges. It has also become clear that the
minority will do and say anything to obscure these accomplishments.
Mr. Chairman, the proposal before us accomplishes what too many
people said for too long was impossible.
Number one, our plan ensures that social security dollars are locked
away, to be used only for social security. On the other hand, the
President has proposed spending $52 billion of the social security
surplus in the next year alone.
Number two, our plan allows working families to keep more of their
hard-earned cash, with tax cuts growing only as our surplus grows. On
the other hand, the President's budget proposes 80 new tax increases
that will raise the tax burden on our families by over $172 billion.
Number three, and perhaps most important, this budget works to pay
down our public debt, reducing it by some $1.8 trillion. That is $450
billion more than the President.
Some weeks back the President challenged this Congress. He challenged
this Nation when he unveiled his plan. I want to offer my sincere
thanks to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) for his hard work
and guidance. The chairman has done well, we have done well, and with
this plan, America will do well.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief comment with
respect to agriculture. I know that everybody has struggled with this
budget, but the concern that I have is that we are currently unable to
deliver the farm programs that we in Congress have identified as
critical.
If we cut the Farm Service Agency any further, we are going to
decimate our ability to deal with these programs, and I fear that the
budget that the majority is proposing accomplishes just that.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, the words of my colleague, the gentleman
from Minnesota, are precisely correct. There is a crisis in
agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, these are desperate times on the farm. Therefore, I
cannot understand why the majority's budget cuts discretionary spending
in agriculture; cuts, in fact, that would amount to a reduction in more
than $300 million this year alone.
To project out, the majority's budget would reduce the purchasing
power of agriculture, the discretionary money is reduced to the extent
that purchasing power would be reduced for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture 33 percent over 10 years, 25 percent over 5 years.
The Republican budget is also a sham. I know that my colleague, the
gentleman from Georgia, has worked on crop insurance. There is funding
for crop insurance for 5 years, and then it goes away altogether.
Looking at this budget, we can only conclude it is a sham. They
purport to prop up crop insurance, but only for a few years. Then the
money is zeroed out, resulting in loss of the crop insurance program or
other deep cuts in other mandatory spending areas critical to propping
up farming.
For the life of me, I cannot understand, when we have people that
have farmed for generations being forced off their farms this Spring,
not just in the area that I represent but across the country, we would
have a Republican budget that cuts discretionary spending in
agriculture, and then puts forward a crop insurance program but only
funds it for a couple of years, 5 years, before the funding goes away
altogether.
{time} 1245
Let me tell my colleagues something, the Democratic alternative is
different. We preserve funding for the discretionary account in
agriculture. We are $400 million better next year alone, and we
continue the funding for the crop insurance program, not just for 5
years, my friends, but on into the future altogether.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to remind the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge) and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr.
Pomeroy), who are my friends, when it comes to agriculture issues, that
we are talking about a 5-year budget that we are debating here today.
So we fund agriculture for the 5 years of that budget. Next year we
will have 5 more years. We will fund crop insurance for the additional
out years as they come forward.
When my colleagues talk about cuts, what we are looking at is cuts
which include the supplemental on top of the budgeted baseline numbers
for last year. When we look at real numbers, there are no cuts. But I
would remind my colleagues that the President's budget makes cuts in
agriculture to the tune of 15 percent.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise today, Mr. Chairman, as a member of both the House Committee
on Budget and the House Committee on Appropriations to say that, yes,
this budget proposal is balanced; yes, it locks away all of the Social
Security revenues into Social Security for the first time in a
generation; yes, we increase veterans' benefits significantly over last
year and way above the President's request; yes, we increase education
funding above the President's request; yes, we protect Medicare and do
not cut Medicare benefits as the President's budget does.
But I want to say that the goose that lays the golden egg called the
budget surplus that we are here today to discuss is not us. It is the
economy. The economy must be considered as we look at the fiscal
discipline that I am here to talk about today as a member of the House
Committee on Appropriations.
It is going to be hard later on, no question about it. But should we
exert fiscal discipline? Listen. Chairman Greenspan, the guru of the
American economy, has told us time and time again that, as we exert
some fiscal discipline in this Congress, the economy
[[Page H1724]]
continues to improve. That is the goose that lays its golden egg. We
need to feed that goose, feed that goose by exerting fiscal discipline,
holding the growth of Federal Government spending below inflation in
the last few years for the first time since 1969. That is the fiscal
discipline that we must enter into. This budget does that.
It is going to be a tough year. But let me tell my colleagues, if we
show the markets that, here in Washington, we are not going to spend
foolishly or blindly any longer, the economy will continue, revenues
will continue to sore, the budget surplus will continue to increase,
and we will have good discussions here on the House floor of where to
invest in the American society as opposed to those discussions we used
to have about how to reduce the deficit instead of how to invest the
surplus.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 8\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 9
minutes remaining.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Clement), and I ask unanimous consent that he be
permitted to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican
budget resolution. This resolution ignores the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs' recommendation of a $1.9 billion increase for veterans
funding. As a matter of fact, it actually decreases veterans funding
over the next 10 years by $3 billion. Yes, it increases it the first
year, but I think we need to make it very clear, under this budget
resolution, the Republican resolution decreases it 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 that they so desperately
need.
Veterans hospitals are being consolidated around the country,
including Tennessee, due to the lack of sufficient funds. One of Iowa's
three major veterans hospitals is threatened with closure. Florida's
veterans hospitals are having to lay off employees and close some
inpatient services.
I urge my colleagues on both side of the aisle to oppose this
resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:
The Independent Budget,
March 25, 1999.
Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr.,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Budget, Cannon
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Spratt: On behalf of the Paralyzed
Veterans of America (PVA) I am writing to offer our support
for your budget alternative to H. Con. Res. 68. Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) health care is facing an emergency--
without desperately needed additional dollars the health care
system relied upon by sick and disabled veterans will be
forced to curtail services, close facilities, and lay off
thousands of health care workers. The Spratt Budget
Alternative recognizes the grave condition of VA health care
and takes action to provide a remedy.
The Independent Budget has estimated that VA medical care,
for fiscal year (FY) 2000, must receive a $3 billion increase
over the President's budget submission. H. Con. Res. 68,
although providing a $900 million increase over the
Administration's budget, an increase which is taken away in
FY 2001, does not provide the resources needed by the VA this
year, and over the next few years. The Spratt Budget
Alternative provides $1.8 billion over the Administration's
budget for VA health care, and provides $900 million more
than H. Con. Res. 68. In addition, the Spratt Budget
Alternative provides over $2 billion more than H. Con. Res.
68 over the next four years, nearly $10 billion more over
five years.
The Spratt Budget Alternative provides more of the
resources that the VA needs if we are to provide sick and
disabled veterans with the health care they have earned and
the health care they need.
Sincerely,
AMVETS, Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American
Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States, Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Filner), a real fighter for veterans.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, this is a shameful budget for our veterans,
and veterans across the country are angry. This budget breaks our
contract with our Nation's veterans. We promised health care for life.
But I will tell my colleagues, those who vote for this Republican
resolution, their veterans are going to have to wait for months and
months for appointments in a hospital, if it stays open.
We promised to care for the disabled, but the folks in my colleagues'
districts are going to have to wait years to have those claims
processed. We do virtually nothing for those of our veterans who are on
the streets, those who want education, those who want training.
Over the life of this resolution, we have cut veteran benefits by $3
billion. This is shameful. This is unconscionable. I do not know how my
colleagues wrote a budget resolution that says to those who have fought
for us, who have fought to make this a democracy, who have fought to
keep us here in the kind of condition where we have a surplus, say to
them, ``Thanks, but no thanks. We are through with you.'' Vote no on
this Republican resolution. Protect our Nation's veterans.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) who serves on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, the budget that we are considering today is
a huge number to all of us; and we are talking about Social Security,
Medicare, defense. A small part of it is the veterans number, but the
veterans number is not a small part of the lives of veterans.
This number, the budget number for fiscal year 2000 in the Republican
budget is not adequate. The veterans know it. The Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, both Republicans and Democrats, know it. The VA
hospital doctors and nurses know it.
The only people who apparently do not know that this number was
inadequate were the Committee on Budget members who passed this budget
number out. Not only is it inadequate for fiscal year 2000, but we are
voting on a 10-year budget number.
While this number has $20.2 billion in fiscal year 2000, in 2001 it
drops back to $19.1 billion, which is less than the current fiscal
year.
I think that veterans' communities and veterans around the country
need to know what this long-term budget process does that the
Republicans have put on to this House floor today. The number is wrong.
It is wrong this year. It is wrong for next year. Vote no on this
Republican budget.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the ranking member on the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs' Subcommittee on Health.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, during recent days Members of both
parties have shown their concern for our troops deployed overseas. Yet,
Republicans have betrayed the men and women who have already served our
country, jeopardizing the well-being of our veterans, and ignoring the
values for which they fought.
Democrats have tried to fight for a VA budget proposal for fiscal
year 2000, but the Republicans, a party still apparently wedded to the
idea that the wealthiest Americans deserve another tax break, want to
keep their promise to them and break their promise to protect veterans
health care. The Republicans continue to put their commitment to their
wealthy campaign contributors above America's commitment to our
veterans.
Here is what the Republicans have said no to America: no to $475
million more for VA health care, no to $271 million in long-term care
initiatives, no to $681 million in the Montgomery G.I. Bill.
Just so America understands, this budget is deplorable for veterans,
and remember what they did today. Remember what they did today.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), our distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
First of all, as a veteran, I want to set the record straight. The
President sent a budget up here that said zero, zero increase for
veterans, and I thank my Republican colleagues for giving veterans an
extra billion dollars.
But I want to talk about the overall budget. I sat on that Committee
on
[[Page H1725]]
Budget for 6 years as a member of the minority. What a waste of time.
Let me tell my colleagues, they did everything wrong, and it got us in
the mess we are in.
So I am very thankful for this Republican budget today, because they
do many things: preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare, they
pay down the national debt, they maintain the fiscal restraint of the
Balanced Budget Act, they provide tax relief, and they increase support
for education and defense. That is what I want to emphasize, increased
support for education and defense.
The House resolution provides $65.3 billion in budget authority for
discretionary and mandatory spending in education, training,
employment, and social services. They outdo the President. His is a
1999 actual. They go up another billion two in education.
Do my colleagues know what they do? They help us do what the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and I thought we might be able to
do in a bipartisan effort in that 6 years on the Committee on Budget.
They really put their money where their mouth is, and they put more
money, as we increase the surplus, into special education, something my
colleagues passed 23 years ago. They said they would send 40 percent of
the excess cost back for the 100 percent mandate they sent. They sent 6
percent until I became chairman.
Thanks to the Committee on Budget and the appropriators, we have
increased that by more than $2 billion, and they are ready to do more
of that. That is what the local folks want to hear. The local folks
want to hear that their property taxes do not have to go up, up, up in
order to meet our 100 percent mandate in the area of special education.
So I thank the Committee on Budget. I thank them for doing something
right, even though, for 6 years, I sat there as a member of the
minority while they did everything wrong.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I served on the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs for 2\1/2\ years, and I learned a lot.
Republicans talk a lot about support for veterans; however, their
support ends at the appropriations' door. This Republican budget gives
a one-time increase which is not carried over into the next fiscal
year. Smoke and mirrors again.
Over a 5-year period, the Republican budget resolution cuts
discretionary funding for veterans by hundreds of millions of dollars.
Over a 10-year period, the Republican budget resolution cuts veteran
funding by $3 billion below the 1999 level.
In the area of health care, where our veterans are facing a medical
emergency, the proposed budget includes several new health care
initiatives, but guess what, without providing the necessary funds to
support them.
Unless the veterans' health care system receives significant
increases in funding, critical services will be cut, health care will
be denied, facilities closed, and dedicated employees are out of work.
I have a full-time staff person dedicated to just working on
veterans' complaints. Republicans, I want them to know they cannot look
veterans in the face and tell them that my colleagues care about them
when all my colleagues talk about is flag burning and desecration of
the flag.
My colleagues need to be talking about the real issues of whether or
not veterans are being taken care of, veterans who have served their
times, veterans who my colleagues say they care about, whether or not
they can come forward with a budget like this where they are denying
them the kind of funding that is so desperately needed.
I ask my colleagues to reject this proposal, to reject the turning of
our backs on the veterans who we claim to love so much, and do
everything that we can to increase their funding. They have complaints
that are not adjudicated. I ask my colleagues to do the right thing for
veterans. Reject this Republican budget.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) that we added $1 billion to
veterans that the President did not provide.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, when I first came to Congress in 1993, the
budget debate was a very different one. Under the current President,
but a very different majority in Congress, we were faced with deficits
as far as the eye could see.
{time} 1400
The budget resolution brought before Congress then addressed these
problems with a very different set of solutions. That 1993 legislation
included the largest tax increase in history, significant increases in
Federal spending, and it repeated the mistakes of the past by including
continued annual deficits.
When the current majority took over, we inherited the same budgetary
problems. Despite the 1993 tax increase, which was sold as the answer
to the deficit, in 1995 the new majority still faced an unbalanced
Federal ledger, escalating spending and future deficits stretching out
as far as the eye could see.
But we proposed a very different set of solutions to those problems.
We introduced a balanced budget that reduced Federal spending and
provided tax cuts for the American people. As a result of that
legislation, today our Nation's budget is balanced. We even have a
unified budget positive cash flow, and it appears certain that we will
have a real ``on budget'' surplus this year.
The budget resolution under consideration today continues the effort
we began in 1995. It is balanced, it preserves the spending caps that
we established in the balanced budget agreement of 1997, it ensures
that 100 percent of payroll taxes, or $1.8 trillion, are preserved for
the future of our retirement program.
It also allows the Congress to give back $800 billion in taxes to
American wage earners. That tax relief is still far less than what the
President raised through higher Social Security taxes and marginal
rates in the 1993 tax increase legislation.
The Joint Committee on Taxation has stated that the President's 1993
tax increase will tax the working people of this country for over $850
billion over the next 10 years.
The budget resolution reported by the Committee on the Budget will
balance the budget, it will preserve payroll taxes for the preservation
of Social Security, it will hold the line on Federal spending, it will
make a downpayment on repealing the President's 1993 tax increases, and
it will reduce the public debt.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this important legislation.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I address this body with a great deal of
sadness, because last night, by a vote of 224 to 1, we pledged to
support the troops. Today's budget breaks that pledge.
On this spot last night I asked Members to support the troops not
just at that time but for all times, not only during deployment but
during times of training and growing. Someone was not listening when
the budget was put together.
The priority should be, is, as far as I am concerned, and will always
be to take care of the troops; to take care of the young men and take
care of the young women who go in harm's way for our country. This
budget does not take into consideration or allow monies for the
recommended and promised pay raise or change in reform of the
retirement system. We have to do that. We must do that.
We cannot break our word, we cannot break our faith and trust in
those young people. We must reject this budget because it does not do
what we have promised. Despite some claims that the Republican budget
funds the pay raise, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) said it would
not.
I am pleased, however, that this morning, Mr. Chairman, the senior
leadership of the House Committee on Armed Services, in a hearing,
reiterated its strong support. Several of us spoke on both sides of the
aisle in support of a military pay raise, and cleared up the confusion
by the remarks of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
[[Page H1726]]
Mr. Chairman, this budget does not do it for the troops.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Thornberry), and I say to the previous speaker that our
budget does do it for the troops, and the gentleman from Texas will
illustrate that point.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, there is no higher priority in this
budget for me than making sure that our troops are taken care of and
that there is a pay raise. For some reason, a number of opponents of
this budget have come up with a variety of reasons to try to argue that
it is not so.
I very much appreciate the gentleman from Missouri because I know his
commitment to taking care of the troops is every bit as strong as mine.
But what happens, for example, is that in some press accounts questions
and answers get misrepresented.
The chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for example, was asked
whether the full amount in Senate bill 4 was taken care of in this
budget, and the answer to that, of course, is no. But I can tell the
gentleman from Missouri, as well as all my colleagues, as well as all
of those who are in the armed services, that this budget includes the
pay raise for the members of the armed services. And as a member of the
committee and a member of the subcommittee which has jurisdiction over
that issue, there will be legislation within the next couple of months
on this floor to implement that pay raise, as there should be.
I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that this budget is so strong that some
opponents of the budget have to dig pretty deep to come up with some
reason to oppose it. It is clear, if we look at the numbers, that there
is an extra billion dollars in here for VA; that there is money in here
to take care of the crop insurance program; and that there is room in
here for tax relief, which is so essential, I think, for the American
people.
We have often heard it described that taxes are higher than at any
point in the country's history except for the war year of 1944. Look at
it another way. Under President Clinton, Federal tax revenue has gone
up 52 percent faster than the personal income of this country. And in
the last fiscal year it grew 70 percent faster. So what is happening is
the regular middle class folks are getting squeezed. Their income is
going up a little bit, but their taxes are going up far faster. They
need the tax relief that is included in this budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about the budget
resolution's promises on increases in defense. We have heard some
claims of an increase of $8 billion in budget authority over the
President's request, but this resolution provides almost no increase in
outlay authority.
Now, I have served for 20 years on the Subcommittee on Defense of the
Committee on Appropriations, and I can tell my colleagues that when we
are writing an appropriations budget, budget authority but no outlay to
support it, we have nothing. The problem is if we do not have adequate
outlays, we cannot do the 4.4 percent across-the-board pay raise and we
cannot have the fix in the retirement benefits.
So I believe that this budget, that I think was presented with good
intent, is fatally flawed. It is not going to do the job that the Joint
Chiefs need to have done. It is not going to do the job that all of us
on a bipartisan basis who support defense need to have done.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
This is really a great budget. Let us take a look at what this budget
does. It allows the American people the opportunity to secure their
future as we enter a new millennium.
It locks away the entire Social Security Trust Fund, the surplus that
we are going to be gaining over the next 10 years, $1.8 trillion. We
save it so that we can strengthen and preserve Social Security and, as
necessary, Medicare.
We set aside $100 billion more than the President for Social Security
and Medicare. We create a safe deposit box. What this means is that we
prevent Congress from going and raiding those surpluses and using it
for other spending.
We pay down $450 billion of debt held by the public; $450 billion
more than the President. We maintain the spending discipline of the
balanced budget agreement of 1997.
We allow the American people to secure their future by providing more
for defense, by providing more for education, and providing the
opportunity to enact historic tax relief.
This is the kind of plan that enables us to build on the success of
the last few years and to prepare for the future. It is a wonderful
budget to move forward.
The CHAIRMAN. Two hours on congressional budget debate having
expired, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Stark) each will control 30 minutes on the subject
of economic goals and policies.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in the late 1970s a law was enacted called the
Humphrey-Hawkins Act, and the purpose of it was to provide, among other
things, for this Congress to have oversight over budgetary policy in
terms of how it may or may not have a positive, or how it may have a
negative effect, for that matter, on the economic performance in our
economy.
And so I would just like to use some time, if I may, to take a break
from Republicans blaming Democrats and Democrats blaming Republicans,
to try to take an overall look at what has transpired to create this
wonderful surplus that we have in this fiscal year and the surpluses
that we are now able to anticipate in the coming years.
Let me first say that our current expansion is now the longest
expansion in modern history during peacetime. I think it is well for
all of us to take credit and give each other credit, to the extent that
we can. Employment, income and wealth gains are impressive, and we are
experiencing the lowest unemployment rates since the 1970s.
Sometimes we all like to exaggerate the impact, as if the world
actually revolves around Washington, D.C. But the fact of the matter is
that workers all across this country, business people, laborers, all
share in being able to take responsibility for what has happened here.
And our system itself, our system of free enterprise, has worked well.
Recently, in trying to take credit for some things that happened in
our country, the Vice President took some ribbing for claiming that he
was the inventor of the Internet, and his strong ties to the rural
farmland of northwest Washington, D.C. all drew some chuckles. Well, as
a matter of fact, I wish him well, but his comments and other comments
suggesting that the administration invented the current economic
expansion are just excessive.
Let me try to say what, after much study, the members of the Joint
Economic Committee have concluded has happened. Yes, the Republicans
can take credit for being the initiators of tax cuts. That started back
in the 1980s. And with the exception of 1990, during the Bush
administration, and 1993, during the current administration, taxes have
been kept quite low. And, yes, we can give ourselves some credit around
here for helping to control spending.
Those have been important factors but not, in my view, the primary
one. I think I may surprise my colleagues when I try to give at least
some credit, and maybe the majority of the credit, for what has
happened to an institution that is not directly associated with the
Congress of the United States. Of course, all my colleagues know I am
referring to the Federal Reserve.
{time} 1415
As a matter of fact, the key reasons for the expansion are not
generally very well understood, and that is why I want to take this
time, under the provisions of Humphrey-Hawkins, to at least express
this view for the consideration of my colleagues.
One of the most important explanations for this record-setting and
sustained expansion is the anti-inflationary monetary policy being
pursued
[[Page H1727]]
by the Federal Reserve. Pursuing anti-inflation policy or price
stability policy in a gradual, sustained manner has worked to lower
inflation.
Who would have thought a decade ago that we could stand here today
and say to America, inflation is almost zero? That is an impressive
accomplishment brought about by the Fed. And interest rates have
followed inflation downward and it has fostered economic growth.
This chart here to the left of me shows how inflation and interest
rates have come down together. And anyone who tries to deny the
positive effects of this on the economy has simply not got it straight.
This is an extremely important factor. And I believe that, along with
other policies, this has been a major stimulus to the growth that we
have seen.
We have observed not only a lower rate of inflation, but also a lower
rate of unemployment and healthy economic times all at the same time.
As a matter of fact, during the last several years we have gone a long
way to diffuse or to disprove an old theory that in the circles of
economics is referred to as the Phillips curve.
This second chart demonstrates something that is perhaps not a new
phenomenon, and perhaps there were a minority of people who believed
that this could happen over time. But throughout recent economic
history, there was a common belief among lawmakers and a common belief
among some economists, perhaps many economists, that we could not have
long-term, sustained economic growth without inflation. This period of
economic growth has disproven that theory.
This chart shows that the unemployment rate, which is a by-product,
of course, of good economic growth, has gone down, as inflation has, so
that we now have historic low rates of unemployment and historic low
rates of inflation. And again, we have to look across the street or
downtown to the offices that house the members of the Federal Reserve
to understand how this happened.
The Federal Reserve has simply pursued policies through monetary
policies to gradually squeeze inflation out of our economy. And so,
while it is neat for us to be able to say that we have done this
through the budgetary process, and we have contributed to it some, and
while it is very encouraging that we have been able to over the last
two decades reduce the impact of taxes, the fact of the matter is that
most economists today agree that this policy of squeezing inflation out
of the economy, which has fostered lower interest rates, has been an
extremely important factor.
Let me make four points. First, lower inflation works to lower
interest rates. We have already demonstrated that here on our charts.
Both long-term and short-term interest rates have declined and have
done so with this lower inflation and with expectations that there is
no inflation around the corner. While long-term rates recently have
picked up some, they are not far from their historic lows as compared
to interest rates over the last 30 years.
Interest-sensitive sectors of the economy, like housing and
investments, have performed exceptionally well during this period
because of low interest rates, again brought about by Fed policy on
price stability and inflation.
The second point that I would make is that price stability works to
calm financial markets and this helps to create long-term growth. Lower
inflation fosters less volatility, less uncertainty and, therefore,
more stability in financial markets. As a result, market participants
tend to become more confident and more willing to invest and take risks
and to innovate. And so we see this as an important factor.
Point number three: Lower inflation acts like a tax cut. Anytime we
give more money or provide an opportunity for investors to have more
money to invest and consumers to have more money to consume and savers
have more money to save, we provide economic stimulus which works to
create long-term growth. And in this case, lower inflation reduces the
rates of interest rates and again we have seen a positive result.
Point number four: Lower inflation enables the price system to work
better by reducing the noise and distortions in the pricing system. In
other words, expectations of prices tomorrow being about the same as
they are today because there is no inflation is an important factor in
creating the atmosphere that we need for long-term growth.
So, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point this out today because, as I sat
here waiting for my time to come up, I listened to both sides blaming
the other for this or that or the other thing. The fact of the matter
is that this Congress, both Houses, the administration, have done some
things correctly during the last couple of decades. But during this
decade, if one wants to single out one element in our economic
structure in Washington, D.C., to give the credit to, we honestly need
to look at Fed policy.
Now, I will say one other thing, and that is that this policy of
controlling inflation has worked so well that there are some of us who
are looking at the possibility of amending the Humphrey-Hawkins act to
provide that this be the central feature carried out and the central
objective carried out by the Fed. We think it is proof positive that
this has worked, and we look forward to hopefully many, many more years
of economic growth brought about by this policy.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I come before us this afternoon as the ranking
Democratic member on the Joint Economic Committee, fulfilling a
requirement outlined in the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of
1978 attributed to several of our great colleagues, Mr. Gus Hawkins and
Senator Hubert Humphrey, who put the long-term goal of raising U.S.
living standards far ahead of any of their short-term political aims.
And I rise in strong opposition to the budget resolution before us.
Before I go into details as to how harmful that is, I would like to
put this debate in some context, as my senior Republican from the Joint
Economic Committee on the House side did just a moment ago.
We have had growth in 1998 close to 4 percent, and the economists are
raising their projections for this year every day. Our economy is the
envy of the world. The United States is growing two to three times
faster than Japan or Germany. The unemployment rate is 4\1/2\ percent,
the lowest unemployment since 1969. And the unemployment rate has been
below 5 percent for almost 2 years.
This is all building up and it is continuing good news. Who would
have believed we would have seen us move ahead of Japan in these
measurements in our lifetime? Inflation was 1.6 percent in 1998. We
would have to go back to the early 1960s to find inflation that low.
Furthermore, it has remained low despite falling unemployment, which
confounds many of the economists.
The once famous and now forgotten misery index, the combination of
unemployment and inflation, the lowest point in 40 years. That is
before the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and I even got to
this place. The economy has generated 15 million new jobs net since
1992 and 2.8 million jobs were added in 1998 alone. The average weekly
take-home pay after inflation has increased by 2 percent in 1997 and
1998 after almost 20 years of stagnation. The current expansion is not
just a statistical phenomena. It has improved the standard of living
for many Americans.
Let us not celebrate, because this economic expansion is not yet
shared by all Americans and that is not acceptable to the Democratic
Party. One in seven counties in this country have twice the
unemployment rate of the rest of the Nation. Some research shows that
although there are fewer numbers of people receiving welfare, there is
no definition as to what has happened to them. Are they working, or
have they merely dropped off our statistical radar screen? And what has
happened to their children?
There is still more that we need to know in order to ensure that all
Americans can enjoy the quality of life they deserve. When things go
well, everybody is taking credit. Somebody said, ``success has a
thousand parents and failure is an orphan.'' But it is easy to be
entangled in the cause and effect. And one thing is clear: Eliminating
the budget deficit has enabled interest
[[Page H1728]]
rates to fall, which, in turn, is considered one of the major
stimulants for our economy.
Our first goal in fiscal 2000 should be to ensure that Social
Security and Medicare are financially secure in order to provide health
care to those who need it. The Republicans agree to wall off the Social
Security Trust Fund, but their budget proposal does not do anything to
address the solvency of either Social Security or Medicare. Their
proposal calls for a freeze in Medicare's administrative budget over
the next 10 years.
We have hearing after hearing about how we have satisfied the
Medicare operators so that they can go after fraud and abuse and put
these egregious profit-hungry private HMOs and hospital chains that are
stealing from the Government out of business. We have the lowest
administrative overhead in Medicare of any program in the country,
about 2 percent, compared to 10 to 30 percent for private insurers and
managed care plans. The latter figure includes overhead and profit. But
we cannot continue this good work if we are unwilling in a budget to
support the administrators who make it work so well.
Former Speaker Gingrich once said that Medicare's administrative
agencies should ``wither on the vine,'' as should the program. Although
no longer here, Mr. Gingrich's wishes seem to be with us, as the
Republicans attempt to destroy Medicare and its ability to serve the
need of America's seniors and disabled.
Let us talk about budget surplus. There is a lot of talk about it,
but I did not see one. Once we take Social Security off of the table,
as the Republicans suggest, we are left with about $125 billion over
the next 5 years. And without touching the Social Security Trust Fund,
I do not think we find a surplus until 2002.
So if we are going to make policy based on the surplus, why do we not
wait until we know there is one around and then debate it?
During 1999, defense expenditures were 13 percent greater than all
nondefense discretionary spending. I wonder if this really reflects our
country's priorities. Republicans go further and add billions to
defense, and it calls for a cut in discretionary spending.
Now, I do not happen to think the Pentagon is optional. It certainly
is not. But if the Pentagon is not optional, neither is Head Start,
public health programs, education, job training, housing, veterans'
hospitals, law enforcement, environmental programs, the national parks,
community and economic development, rural programs, highways, energy,
among a few which are being eliminated or cut severely, if the
Republicans do not intend to shove us into the greatest deficit we have
had since Ronald Reagan forced us into a deficit by reckless tax cuts
and even more reckless military spending on things like Star Wars and
other things, which produced nothing but welfare for otherwise
unemployable scientists and would-be soldiers of fortune.
I predicted that we would strike a deal to kick people off welfare,
and we have. But what we have done is harm the children and the
helpless in this country in the Republican effort to grab more tax cuts
for 1 or 2 percent of the very rich, and that is not again what the
Democratic Party is about.
My Republican colleagues did not vote for the 1993 act. Not one of
them voted. They are taking credit for it. But it has not stopped them
from bragging about it. Eliminating the deficit was the single largest
explanation for the current health of this economy, and we must not
jeopardize it again.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget resolution, send them back
to the table to bring one that will help the economy for the long run
and help all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:
Crisis Facing HCFA & Millions Of Americans
The signatories to this statement believe that many of the
difficulties that threaten to cripple the Health care
Financing Administration (HCFA) stem from an unwillingness of
both Congress and the Clinton administration to provide the
agency the resources and administrative flexibility necessary
to carry out its mammoth assignment. This is not a partisan
issue, because both Democrats and Republicans are culpable
for the failure to equip HCFA with the human and financial
resources it needs to address what threatens to become a
management crisis for the agency and thus for millions of
Americans who rely on it. This is also not an endorsement of
the present or past administrative activities of the agency.
Congress and the administration should insist on an agency
that operates efficiently and in the public interest.
Over the past decade Congress has directed the agency to
implement, administer, and regulate an increasing number of
programs that derive from highly complex legislation. While
vast new responsibilities have been added to its heavy
workload, some of its most capable administrative talent has
departed or retired: other employees have been reassigned as
a consequence of reductions in force. At the same time,
neither Democratic nor Republican administrations have
requested administrative budgets of a size that were in any
way commensurate with HCFA's growing challenge.
The latest report of the Medicare trustees points out that
HCFA's administrative expenses represented only 1 percent of
the outlays of the Hospital Insurance trust fund and less
than 2 percent of the Supplementary Medical Insurance trust
fund. In part, these low percentages reflect the rapid growth
of the denominator--Medicare expenditures. But, even
accounting for Medicare's growth, no private health insurer,
after subtracting its marketing costs and profit, would ever
attempt to manage such large and complex insurance programs
with so small an administrative budget. Without prompt
attention to these issues, HCFA will fall further behind in
its implementation of the many significant reforms mandated
by the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997. In the future the
agency also has to cope with a demographic revolution that it
is ill equipped to accommodate and with changes in medical
technology that will increase fiscal pressures on the
programs it administers.
As the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare
grapples with the problem of reshaping the Medicare program
for the next millennium, it would do well to consider two
important reforms concerning HCFA's administration. First,
the commission should recommend that Congress and the Clinton
administration endow the agency with an administrative
capacity that is similar to that found in the private sector.
Second, the commission should consider ways in which the
micromanagement of the agency by Congress and the Office of
Management and Budget could be reduced. Congress and the
public would be better served by measuring the agency's
efficiency in terms of its administrative outcomes (such as
accuracy and speed of reimbursement of various providers),
rather than by tightly controlling its administrative
processes. Only if HCFA has more administrative resources and
greater management flexibility will it be able to cope with
the challenges that lie ahead.
The mismatch between the agency's administrative capacity
and its political mandate has grown enormously over the
1990s. As the number of beneficiaries, claims, and
participating provider organizations; quality and utilization
review; and oversight responsibilities have increased
geometrically. HCFA has been downsized. When HCFA was created
in 1977, Medicare spending totaled $21.5 billion, the number
of beneficiaries served was twenty-six million, and the
agency had a staff of about 4,000 full-time-equivalent
workers. By 1997 Medicare spending had increased almost
tenfold to $207 billion, the number of beneficiaries served
had grown to thirty-nine million, but the agency's workforce
was actually smaller than it had been two decades earlier.
The sheer technical complexity of its new policy directives
is mind-boggling and requires a new generation of employees
with the requisite skills.
HCFA's ability to provide assistance to beneficiaries,
monitor the quality of provider services, and protect against
fraud and abuse has been increasingly compromised by the
failure to provide the agency with adequate administrative
resources. Even with the addition of $154 million to its
administrative budget that Congress included in its latest
budget bill, the likelihood that HCFA can effectively
implement all of its varied assignments is remote. The Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 assigns
many new regulatory responsibilities to HCFA, but a far
larger task is implementing the BBA of 1997. The BBA has more
than 300 provisions affecting HCFA programs, including the
Medicare+Choice option, which will require complex
institutional changes and ambitious efforts to educate
beneficiaries.
Medicare spending accounts for more than 11 percent of the
U.S. budget. Workable, effective administration has to be a
primary consideration in any restructuring proposal. Whether
Medicare reform centers on improving the current system,
designing a system that relies on market forces to promote
efficiency through competition, or moving toward an even more
individualized approach to paying for health insurance,
Congress and the administration must reexamine the
organization, funding, management, and oversight of the
Medicare program. During anything less is short-changing the
public and leaving HCFA in a state of disrepair.
Stuart M. Butler, Heritage Foundation; Patricia M.
Danzon, University of Pennsylvania; Bill Gradison,
Health Insurance Association of America; Robert Helms,
American Enterprise Institute; Marilyn Moon, Urban
Institute; Joseph P. Newhouse, Harvard University; Mark
V. Pauly, University of
[[Page H1729]]
Pennsylvania; Martha Phillips, Concord Coalition; Uwe
E. Reinhardt, Princeton University; Robert D.
Reischauer, Brookings Institution; William L. Roper,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; John
Rother, AARP; Leonard D. Schaeffer, Well-Point Health
Networks, Inc.; Gail R. Wilensky, Project HOPE.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a new member of the Joint Economic Committee.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about the economic security of our
country, the issue that we are now talking as we debate the Humphrey-
Hawkins portion of this.
{time} 1430
But as we talk about the economic security of our Nation, we do
realize that an economic security for this Nation must put as its
foremost goal retirement security, retirement economic security for our
seniors. So that is why we have this raging debate down here in the
well of the floor of the House of Representatives on how we preserve
and protect Social Security.
I would like to draw our attention to the efforts under way to
protect and preserve Social Security. We have been talking about these
different plans. We have three plans on this side of the aisle, the
President's plan and a couple of different Democrat plans, and the
Republican plan on Social Security. Let us assume for a second that
this podium I am standing at here is the Social Security trust fund. I
have the Social Security kitty right here. For the last 30 years, our
FICA taxes have been coming in from our paychecks, real money coming in
from our paychecks. We then deposit it in the Social Security trust
fund. But what they have been doing over the last 30 years has been
raiding that money. They have been taking this money out of the Social
Security trust fund and spending it out on other government programs
and putting in place of it IOUs, putting IOU after IOU coming off of
our FICA taxes into the Social Security trust fund.
Now, we have asked the Comptroller of the United States Government to
analyze the President's plan, which virtually resembles the Democrat
plan being considered here as a substitute. David Walker, who is the
Comptroller General of the United States, took a look at the
President's plan and said, ``Although the trust funds will appear to
have more resources as a result of the President's proposal, in reality
nothing about the program has changed. The proposal does not represent
Social Security reform.''
What does that mean? What does it mean when he says, ``Although the
trust funds will appear to have more resources as a result of the
President's proposal, in reality it does nothing''?
What that means is the President's plan and the Democratic substitute
we are talking about here today simply does this: They print up more
IOUs and stick it in the Social Security trust fund, more IOUs in the
Social Security trust fund. It does nothing to extend the solvency of
Social Security. If we take a look at this chart here, here is what we
are talking about. The Democratic substitute and the President's plan
are double-counting the surpluses. Same old smoke and mirrors, same old
gimmicky accounting. We are dedicating all of FICA taxes plus interest
to Social Security to pay down publicly held debt.
But the Democratic bills say that they are putting $4.3 trillion to
Social Security to extend the solvency. This $4.3 trillion is a sham.
They are simply saying $4.3 trillion of IOUs to go into the Social
Security trust fund, money that a future Congress and a future
President one day will have to come up with to pay for Social Security.
But it is not real reform. It is not real reform. And it does not do
one thing to save Social Security. What we are doing in our budget is
saying, let us stop raiding the Social Security trust fund. We have got
to act as a Congress to stop the raid on Social Security.
What we do with our plan on Social Security is this: 100 percent of
all payroll taxes plus interest is dedicated solely to Social Security
and Medicare. We save that money to strengthen the program until we
have a solution by the President and the Congress to fix Social
Security on its long-term. But here is what we do that the Democrats
are not doing. We are being honest with the number and we are saying it
is going to require a supermajority vote in Congress to pass any future
budget resolution that attempts to raid Social Security. Because the
President will not sign legislation into law preventing the further
raid on Social Security, we have got to do it ourselves. We have got to
change the rules of Congress to do that.
Mr. Chairman, the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget says
that a point of order is meaningless in the House of Representatives.
In the U.S. Senate, it is not meaningless. Under our rule and under our
budget, the way we change the rules, one United States Senator can go
to the floor of the Senate and say, ``I raise a point of order against
this budget because it raids Social Security.'' That one United States
Senator can therefore require a supermajority vote on any budget plan
into the future that attempts to raid Social Security. We are trying to
make it as difficult as possible for Congress to continue to raid
Social Security. And we are not playing fun and games with the numbers.
We are not trying to give retirees the false sense of security that we
are extending the solvency of Social Security into the year 2055 as the
President is doing. We are not going to print up more phony IOUs and
stick them in the Social Security trust fund. What we want to do is put
real money toward the Social Security solution, put that into Social
Security, that is what we want to do, by buying down our debt, by
making sure we are in a better cash position to fix Social Security.
Mr. Chairman, it is important as we go through this debate on how to
improve the economic security of our country that we improve the
economic security for our Nation's retirees. That is why the Republican
budget here today is the only budget that puts away $1.8 trillion
toward Social Security and Medicare, more than the President does, but
makes sure that Congress will not renege on this deal. It really stops
the raid on the trust fund, short of passing a bill by the President,
because the President does not want to pass a bill stopping the raid of
the Social Security trust fund because the President's budget raids the
Social Security trust fund by $341 billion over the next 10 years. We
are simply saying, stop the raid on the trust fund, stop dipping into
Social Security from now on. We are putting the measures in place to
prevent Congress from doing so in the future. On top of it, we are
going to pay down the debt so we can make sure we are in a better
position to save Social Security.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey) one of the leading members of the Joint Economic
Committee, pending which I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from South Carolina, ranking member of the Committee on the
Budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, in response to the last comments, the
difference between now and implementation of the President's proposal
and the proposal that we have put in the Democratic budget resolution
is simply this: We are going to add an additional $1.8 trillion of
bonds to the Social Security trust fund over the next 15 years. That
means in 2032, when the administrator of the Social Security trust
funds would run out of bonds, instead, under our plan, he will still
have enough bonds to cash in at the treasury that will take him to
2050.
I have here a letter from Harry C. Ballantyne, Chief Actuary of the
Social Security Administration, which says that this will extend the
life of the trust fund, the solvency of the trust fund until 2050.
The text of the letter is as follows:
Social Security,
March 12, 1999.
Hon. Richard A. Gephardt,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Gephardt: This letter addresses the potential
long-range financial effects on the OASDI program of
``locking away'' the annual increases in the Social Security
Trust Funds, as proposed by Republican leaders in the Senate
and the House on March 10, 1999. The proposal would require
that annual increases in the OASI and DI Trust Funds would be
used solely to purchase long-term special issue U.S.
government bonds. In addition, the proposal would
[[Page H1730]]
require that the revenue used for the purchase of these bonds
would in turn be used solely for the purpose of reducing
Federal debt held by the public. Of course, the net change in
the Federal debt held by the public in any year would also be
affected by the size of any on-budget deficit or surplus for
that year.
The proposal would not have any significant effect on the
long-range solvency of the OASDI program under the
intermediate assumptions of the 1998 Trustees Report. Thus,
the estimated long-range actuarial deficit of 2.19 percent of
taxable payroll and the year of the combined trust funds'
exhaustion (2032) would not change. The first year in which
estimated outgo will exceed estimated tax income would not be
affected and would therefore remain at 2013.
Any plan that reduces the amount of Federal debt held by
the public may make later redemption by the Trust Funds of
special issue U.S. government bonds easier.
Sincerely,
Harry C. Ballantyne,
Chief Actuary.
____
Social Security,
March 15, 1999.
MEMORANDUM
To: Harry C. Ballantyne, Chief Actuary.
From: Stephen C. Goss, Deputy Chief Actuary.
Subject: Long-Range OASDI Financial Effects of Specified
Dollar Transfers to the OASDI Program--Information
This memorandum provides the estimated effect on the OASDI
program of transferring specified additional dollar amounts
from the General Fund of the Treasury to the OASDI trust
funds according to the following schedule. These transfers
would be in addition to all revenue that will be received by
the OASDI program under present law.
Specified amounts to be transferred to the OASDI trust funds
[Billions of current dollars] Amount
Year:
2000...........................................................$108.5
2001............................................................116.7
2002............................................................123.5
2003............................................................130.1
2004............................................................137.7
2005............................................................156.2
2006............................................................182.8
2007............................................................197.7
2008............................................................207.4
2009............................................................219.6
2010............................................................224.3
2011............................................................226.8
2012............................................................226.9
2013............................................................213.2
2014............................................................203.7
The specified dollar transfer amounts were developed by the
Democratic Policy Committee based on estimated budget surplus
estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. These amounts
represent transfers for fiscal years.
Enactment of a provision to specify the above transfers in
dollar amounts would improve the 75-year OASDI actuarial
balance by an estimated 1.01 percent of effective taxable
payroll, from a deficit of 2.19 percent of payroll under
present law to a deficit of 1.18 percent of payroll. The
estimated date of exhaustion of the combined OASDI trust
funds would become 2050. This is 18 years later than the date
of combined trust fund exhaustion projected under present
law, which is 2032. These estimated financial effects on the
OASDI program are based on the intermediate assumptions of
the 1998 Trustees Report.
Stephen C. Goss.
It is the difference between being a secured creditor with your
credit collateralized by government bonds, backed by the full faith of
the government and being a political supplicant in 2032 when you run
out of bonds to draw down and go to the Treasury window to ask for the
money to meet benefits. That is a big difference.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to turn my attention to
the presentation which was made just a few moments ago by the chairman
of the Joint Economic Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey, in
which he showed the decline in inflation and job loss since 1992 and
1993. That was an interesting presentation, but what it lacked was the
other side of the picture. It focused only on monetary policy. As we
know, fiscal policy is intertwined with monetary policy and in this
particular case led the monetary policy.
When the President gave his presentation here, the budget resolution
in 1993, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve sat up in that chair right
in the middle there and gave his imprimatur to what the President was
trying to do that year. That budget resolution was in fact responsible
for driving down inflation and driving down employment and giving us
the extraordinarily successful economy that we currently enjoy. The
budget resolution currently before us, however, threatens to end all of
that. It threatens to end it by returning to the fiscal
irresponsibility which preceded public policy, fiscal policy
particularly in our country prior to the passage of that budget
resolution in 1993. It does so by pretending to do certain things it
does not do, by pretending to protect Social Security, by pretending to
protect Medicare and in fact Medicare is going to be in serious
jeopardy if this budget resolution passes. It does so, also, by
advancing a series of very irresponsible tax cuts which grow out
exponentially in future years. Those tax cuts will threaten other
essential parts of our budget process which are very important to the
American people, things like Head Start, like public health programs,
job training, housing, law enforcement, environmental programs,
national parks will be put in jeopardy, community and economic
development programs will have to be sharply reduced, rural programs,
energy, agriculture, biomedical research and others will suffer if this
budget resolution passes.
That is why we should defeat this resolution and pass the Democratic
alternative.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to address the
issue that we have been talking about here on saving Social Security
that the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget was talking
about. What their proposal does, and let us be very clear about what
this does. It just puts more IOUs in the trust fund. It simply says
that from now until the year 2055, we have got IOUs in there, that one
day a future Congress and a future President when they get around to it
will honor these IOUs to save Social Security. The letter from the
Social Security Administration essentially admits just that.
So the plan that the President has offered and that the Democrat
substitutes offer does not give us real reform of Social Security. It
simply says more IOUs in the Social Security trust fund. What we need
is real money, from our FICA taxes, going to pay down debt so we are in
a better position of fixing Social Security and improving its solvency.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I indicated in my opening statement here
that there were some factors that were important in terms of how our
economy has performed. One of the factors is certainly the way we have
been able to control spending. The spending controller who is standing
to my left, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, is as
responsible for that as anyone.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich).
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to make a comment. The
gentleman from New Jersey has been very accurate in his ability to be
able to explain why this economy does so well. With the export
mentality of the United States, allowing our economy to be globalized,
to be in a mentality that every market has a potential for us, to be
able to develop and to bring about the production of more goods in this
country has certainly been one of the key components to our economic
growth.
In addition to that, of course, has been the development of
technology that has allowed our workers to be far more productive. I
think the gentleman would agree that within the period of the last
couple of weeks, the most welcome news has been not just the news about
the economic growth but clearly the fact that it is reflected by very
low inflation that comes from rising productivity.
One of the things we have tried to achieve in this country is the
ability to have noninflationary growth. So now we have the best of all
worlds, which is a strong economy, strong economic growth with low
inflation that is accompanied by probably the single best ingredient of
predictor to the future in terms of this economy, and that is high
productivity. One of the things we also know, however, is that we
certainly do not want to do anything to retard the ability of this
economy to grow by letting government become too big and, in fact, this
budget which allows us to preserve the Social Security and Medicare
surpluses to be used to transform Social Security and Medicare for many
of the baby boomers who are in this Chamber today.
[[Page H1731]]
We know that if we can be, in fact, progressive in the use of Social
Security and Medicare, it will not only guarantee a strong program for
the baby boomers and their children while preserving the program for
our current seniors but at the same time by developing the proper
Social Security program, it will not only serve to strengthen the
Social Security program but we believe at the end of the day will
increase the national savings rate. That will again lead to the
continuation of low interest rates which can lead to even better
technological development.
One of the major reasons why this party wants to get the on-budget
surplus out of town and into the pocket of everyday Americans is not
just because we want to run the country from the bottom up, so that our
doorkeeper can have more control over his future, so that the future
can be his so that he has more control in terms of determining his own
destiny, but there is another issue about this and, that is, the last
thing this party wants to do is to take the proceeds of a strengthened
economy and a budget surplus to create a bigger government.
{time} 1445
We came here not just to balance a budget, but to take power, money
and influence from this town, sharpen the actions of the Federal
Government, but get the power from here into the hands of Americans. If
we were to then take the surplus and use it to grow government, it
would be a boomerang effect that we would live to regret. We believe
that a government that is smaller, the people that are empowered, is a
key to a successful economy.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a member of the Joint
Economic Committee.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding this time for me and for his leadership.
For the first time in decades we are working in the black. I believe
the President put it best in his State of the Union speech when he
said:
Our fiscal discipline gives us an unprecedented opportunity to
address a remarkable and needy new challenge, the aging of America.
In other words, protecting Social Security and Medicare, providing
income and health care to the elderly who need it must be a high
priority.
The majority's budget resolution, however, completely ignores
Medicare, and it provides only false promises of protecting Social
Security. The majority's budget fails to protect the elderly. It puts
into jeopardy the surpluses and the economic benefits we have worked so
hard to gain by balancing the budget.
I was elected in 1992 and came to Congress when we faced a $290
billion deficit. I never believed that the major debate before Congress
today would be over what to do with the surplus. When I ran for
Congress in 1992, Federal aid to New York City under Reagan and Bush
for 12 years, it had been cut by 62 percent. Under President Clinton,
aid to New York City has continually risen. In 1992, the unemployment
rate was 7.5 percent. Today it is 4.4. In 1992, inflation rate was at
2.9 percent. Today it is at a phenomenal 1.6 percent. The so-called
misery index, the combination of unemployment and inflation, was 10
percent in 1992 when President Clinton and I were elected. Today it is
at a 30-year low of 6.1 percent. Since 1992, this economy has generated
18 million new jobs, and workers' average weekly take-home pay after
inflation has increased by more than 2 percent in 1997 and 1998. And,
added to that, we balanced the budget.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to put the rest of my comments into the
RECORD and say we should not reverse course and go back to the 1980's
that grew the deficits. Let us follow the program we are on. Vote
against the Republican resolution and for the Democratic one.
The current economic expansion is not just a statistical phenomenon,
it has improved living standards for most Americans.
These are all economic events which occurred since I arrived here.
And I believe that the 1993 budget which introduced fiscal
discipline--a budget which cut the deficit by $52 billion that first
fiscal year--put us on the path of what is now a $70 billion surplus--
and it is growing.
And I just want to remind us all that the first budget which put us
on this path was passed without a single Republican vote.
We balanced the budget, but the Majority's Budget Resolution before
us today reverses course.
We all like tax cuts, but this budget resolutions cuts taxes. This is
the same formula used in the 1980s. The result was astronomical
deficits from which we have just begun to recover.
Are we willing to return to the days of deficits as far as the eye
can see in order to finance the tax cuts?
The costs and consequences of the Republican tax cuts increase as the
years go by.
It postpones the question of how to finance them into some point in
the future.
But we must take responsibility for our actions today and not
postpone the hard decisions to another time, far in the future when it
may be too late.
Instead we must continue to pay down the debt and reap the benefits
of having a budget in surplus.
This is the path which will pay off for us in the future.
A report by the Congressional Research Service, examines the surplus
options.
It concludes that maintaining the surpluses and reducing the debt
``are likely to contribute more than tax reduction to capital formation
as well as to the government's fiscal position. Debt reduction [begins]
when surpluses occur and would end when they end.''
(And we must rely on real surpluses--not offsets--like the one some
of my colleagues are trying to create by the supposed selling of
Governor's Island--for an inflated price to people who would misuse
it.)
Mr. Chairman, let us take the wise path and continue the surpluses,
reduce the debt, protect Social Security and save Medicare.
Let us take that path and not the path towards a new era of deficits
that will be the result of this Budget Resolution.
We learned that their method was wrong and the sound economic policy
of the past six years is what will keep the economy on track.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise in support of this
budget resolution because I think it makes a lot of sense for a couple
of different reasons.
One of the reasons I think would simply be that it recognizes debt is
debt, and it was interesting my colleague from South Carolina got into
a discussion with my colleague from Wisconsin on, well, as my
colleagues know, does the President's proposal save Social Security by
moving actuarial insolvency out to 2055 versus not, and I think to a
degree those are academic conversations because I think what we have to
stay focused on is the promise of Social Security. And the fact is we
have got 70 million baby boomers who begin to march off toward
retirement around 2012, and whether we have marketable security,
nonmarketable security on the budget debt versus off the budget debt is
irrelevant in that it is a drain on the resources of the Federal
Government and has to be addressed at that time.
So, one, this recognizes that debt is debt.
Two, I think it has honest accounting in place. If we were to walk
down the street; I mean it really does wall off Social Security in a
way that has to be done. Do we want to set aside a hundred percent of
Social Security for Social Security, which is incidentally what the
President said two State of the Unions ago, or do we want to wall off
62 percent of Social Security for Social Security? Most of the folks I
talk to back home say let us save a hundred percent of Social Security
for Social Security because if I am taxed on something, I want that tax
to go toward that thing that I am being taxed on, and in this case it
is Social Security.
I say honest accounting because if we were to go down the street and
see a family that had to borrow, as my colleagues know, to put gas in
the car or food on the table, we would say that family was not running
a surplus. In the business world if we borrowed against our pension
fund assets to pay for the current operations of the company, we would
go to jail based on federal law, and yet that is what we have been
doing in Washington.
Mr. Chairman, that is why I think it is so important to set aside a
hundred percent of the Social Security for Social Security.
I think that this budget is also important in the way that it
recognizes spending caps. I mean can one have a
[[Page H1732]]
Power Ranger toy and a Obe Wan Kinobe toy at the same time? My 6-year-
old would say yes. We go in the toy store, and he wants both. And in
Washington we seem to always want both, and I think what is so
important about the spending caps that this budget keeps in place is
that it recognizes that we cannot have the Obe Wan Kinobe toy and the
Power Ranger toy at the same time. At times we do have to make hard and
difficult choices, but nonetheless choices.
Finally, I think what this budget recognizes that is so important is
that right now we are at a post World War II high in terms of the
amount of money that has been coming into Washington, D.C. This budget
does something about that.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge), but pending that I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking
member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, to my friend from South Carolina: What the
President has proposed and what we are proposing even more emphatically
is that the Social Security surpluses, in our case a hundred percent of
those surpluses, first be taken and used solely to buy down public
debt. In return for the receipt of those excess payroll taxes the
Treasury will issue, as is customary, a bond backed by the full faith
and credit of the United States Government to the Social Security
trustees. Then, dollar for dollar of debt reduction, the Treasury will
issue another bond partly to Social Security, partly to Medicare. Over
a period of 15 years, Mr. Chairman, it will double the amount of the
trust fund.
So, the key factor is that, as we build up the assets of the Social
Security Retirement Trust Fund and the Medicare Trust Fund in this
manner, we are also paying down the debt of the United States so that
when those trust funds come due in 2032, the Social Security
Administration will be able to go to the Treasury window, the Treasury
will be in better shape than ever financially to pay those funds.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Minge) for 2 minutes.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
having yielded this time to me.
This day is probably a day of budget overload. There is more debate
on what is the budget, what should the budget be, what are the
implications of different budgets, whose is best, whose is worse,
whether they are accurately characterized or caricatured, and it is
with some reluctance that I raise the spectre of yet another budget.
I have been working with a group of moderate to conservative
Democrats called the Blue Dog Coalition, and we, too, have developed a
budget proposal. We feel that our humble budget proposal is one that is
not as partisan, as spirited, as some of the others that are being
discussed today, and we are not here to say that our colleagues have
irresponsible budget proposals. Like the Republican budget proposal and
the Democratic budget proposal, we are committed to saving a hundred
percent of the Social Security surplus for savings for the Social
Security Trust Fund to reduce the debt. I think that is a common theme
in the discussions today. We ought to rejoice in that.
The next issue that has become quite contentious, where there
certainly is far from any agreement, is what do we do with the
operating surplus in the budget?
We have fortunately achieved the time, maybe we can say it is the
millennium, when the Federal budget is anticipated to show a surplus
even without the Social Security Trust Fund. It is a remarkable
achievement. Our group is suggesting that rather than devoting this
surplus to tax reduction, devoting the surplus to new program
initiatives or to other ways of spending or investing it, that we split
the surplus into three parts, that we devote 50 percent of it to
reducing the national debt, and I submit in the first 5 years this is
very similar to the Democratic proposal.
In this respect the Blue Dog proposal and the Democratic proposal are
very similar, and the Republican proposal would suggest that this 50
percent ought to be used for tax reduction.
Going on, the next 25 percent, we urge that we set that money aside
and invest it in priority programs: health care, education, veterans,
defense, agriculture, the priority programs that Congress would agree
on; and third, to take the last 25 percent and devote that to tax
reduction, be the continuation of tax credits that are expiring,
targeted tax credits, whatever type of initiatives we agree upon here.
I would like to emphasize that this is our proposal, and later on
this afternoon we will deal with it in greater detail. But this
represents a moderate way of trying to bring some consensus here in
Congress as to what we should do on behalf of the American people.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, in his opening remarks the chairman of the Committee on
the Budget got up and said that this was about risk taking, this was
about a budget that would allow people to take risks to keep more of
their money and to take risk. Unfortunately, the people that are at
risk in this budget are the people who seek a better education for
their children, veterans who seek better health care, communities that
seek to lower class sizes, the elderly that want to make sure that
Medicare is secure. Those are the people who are taking the risk in the
Republican budget. They want to pretend as though, if they give back a
tax cut, that everything will happen and everything will turn out all
right, and that is the risk, is giving back the tax cut.
No, the risk for America is in paying for that tax cut because, as we
see in this budget, student loans for higher education, Pell grants for
higher education all need to be cut to make room for that. The hundred
thousand teachers to try to lower class sizes needs to be cut to make
room for that. In fact, what we see is an across-the-board cut in
education at a time when the people in this country are telling us that
they recognize the kind of reinvestment that this Nation, our States,
our local communities need to make in education so that our young
people can compete in a worldwide economy. Those are the people at
risk.
Once again what the Republicans have done is shifted the risk of
their budget priorities to those who can least afford it, those who
have the least ability to make up for their mistakes, those who are
trying to the best of their ability to move forward in American
society, in American economy.
That is where the risk is in their budget, those are the programs
that are targeted, those are the programs that are cut, those are the
programs that are reduced, all to make way for a tax cut that they hope
for people who have simply none of the worries, none of these everyday
worries, that American families have on a daily basis about themselves,
their jobs and their children's education.
{time} 1500
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to conclude the contribution to the
discussion of the Joint Economic Committee today by saying this: I laid
out very carefully, I think, a case in which I believe very deeply, and
that is that Fed has been responsible and successfully so in giving us
an economy in which there is an inflation rate of darn near zero.
I think that that is primarily responsible for the growth that we
have seen, along with other items that I also pointed out.
However, one of the speakers from the other side, following my
presentation, suggested that the tax increase that occurred in 1993 was
somehow responsible for lowering inflation and lowering interest rates.
In fact, the facts do not bear that out in any way, shape or form.
I would just like to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle
that when the tax increase occurred, which is now, of course, referred
to as the budget arrangement that created this expansion, which I think
is false, but when that tax increase occurred in 1993, it went into
effect, the vertical line here indicates the time period during which
that tax increase went into
[[Page H1733]]
effect, interest rates actually spiked upward, not downward, as one of
the previous speakers indicated.
The spike upward is indicated here on the chart by the red line. As
well as the Federal funds rate also went up, as indicated by the yellow
line, and the discount rate went up, as indicated by the black line. So
when individuals try to make the case that somehow the tax increase
that took place in 1993 had the effect of lowering interest rates,
quite the opposite is true. For the following 12 or 13 months after the
tax increase went into effect, interest rates went up, not down.
So I think it is somewhat, I must say, misleading, to be kind, to
make the claim that somehow the President's tax increase had a positive
effect on economic growth.
I do not want to shift the entire credit to the Federal Reserve. I
think they did a good job. I think they have squeezed and squeezed and
squeezed on targeting inflation and have successfully gotten it out of
our system.
It is true that restraint in government spending has played a part.
As a matter of fact, in 1992, our government consumed 22 percent of
GDP. Today our government consumes 19\1/2\ percent of GDP. I think that
is good and good for growth.
I believe that lower marginal tax rates that remain in place today,
in spite of the increases in 1990 and 1993, are good and provide a
positive effect on growth. The marginal rates are lower today than they
were in the fifties or the sixties or the seventies.
Investment has also worked to expand capacity. Business has been
encouraged to invest and, of course, global competition and freer trade
have also played a role in fostering growth.
This is the economic report of the President, and incidentally, I
think it is very appropriate that the cover is red, which claimed that
the tax increase in 1993 produced lower interest rates. This book does
not even mention, does not even mention, the role of the Fed, when the
facts claim quite conversely that the tax increase also created an
increase in interest rates across the board.
I am very pleased to have been able to manage this time on behalf of
the Joint Economic Committee. I hope it has been a contribution to the
understanding that we all have as to what happened to the economy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Nussle) to control.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Iowa is
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance
of my time and its control to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I inquire as to the balance of the time
remaining on this side.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina has 11\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress to recognize that uncontrolled
sprawling development is an economic disaster that wastes human
resources and uses human and financial capital in inefficient and
wasteful ways.
Our Democratic proposal contains a livability agenda that does not
promote Federal planning or zoning but embraces local control,
providing Federal vision with tools to municipalities and counties and
States to better prepare themselves for the 21st Century.
The Democratic budget puts greater power, more money and enhanced
decision-making authority in local hands, to fight sprawl, clean up the
environment and protect the legacy of our land.
Some of the tools in this livability agenda include the proposed
Better America Bonds, which would allow State and local governments to
borrow up to $10 billion to preserve green space, protect water quality
and reclaim brown fields.
The regional connections initiative will promote regional smart
growth strategies across local jurisdictional lines. The community
Federal information partnership will provide communities with grants
for easy-to-use information to develop strategies for local growth; and
the lands legacy initiative will provide $1 billion to significantly
expand Federal efforts to save America's natural treasures and provide
new resources for State and communities to protect local green spaces.
Mr. Chairman, it is wasteful and inefficient and harmful to our
economy to permit sprawling, unmanaged growth, to sit in traffic jams,
to pave over good farmland instead of reclaiming and reusing brown
fields.
We must save the American landscape. We must provide future
generations with livable communities. We owe it to America to support
the democratic proposal.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).
(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican
budget resolution and in strong support of the Democratic alternative.
Mr. Chairman, under the very able leadership of the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the committee, the
Democrats want to keep prosperity on track and protect the American
family.
The proposal of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) would
build upon past Democratic efforts and ensure continued fiscal
responsibility while protecting many valuable Federal programs.
The Democratic plan would save 100 percent of the Social Security
surplus and 62 percent of the total estimated unified budget surplus
for Social Security, ensuring the Social Security trust fund remains
solvent for many years to come.
Our plan also transfers 15 percent of these surpluses to shoring up
Medicare, extending its solvency for at least a decade to grant us the
time we need to fix and to develop and implement a bipartisan fix for
this valuable social program.
Mr. Chairman, education, one of the most crucial underpinnings of our
great country, is barely given lip service under the Republican
proposal.
Many of my colleagues may ask why the Federal Government needs to
become involved in school innovation and construction issues which are
historically local concerns? The simple answer is that the problem has
grown so large that localities and States alone do not have the
resources or the programs to address the overwhelming needs.
For instance, a recent survey by the Division of School Facilities in
New York City concluded that in my district alone 19 new schools were
needed to alleviate overcrowding. Additionally, to bring schools in the
7th Congressional District of New York up to standards deemed fair by
school facility engineers, New York City would have to fund $218.65
million in exterior modernization projects and $53.8 million in
interior modernization projects.
Mr. Chairman, if we support the working men and women of this country
and if we support our Nation's children, we must oppose this budget
resolution and support the Democratic alternative.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the
Budget.
Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget for giving us this opportunity to face Americans and define for
them what kind of country we would like to be.
I had the pleasure of organizing the Congressional Children's Caucus,
a group of about 60 Members who have committed to promoting children
first in the national agenda. We look forward to hearing from Mrs.
Tipper Gore, the wife of the vice president, on the
[[Page H1734]]
issues of mental health services for children.
Keeping that in mind, I am very concerned with the budget as proposed
by the majority leadership, because our children must face the
challenges of competing in a global environment and the new millennium.
We have got to invest in children. This budget does not.
Children cannot learn if they are hungry, tired and improperly
prepared. The majority's budget proposal reduces domestic spending in
programs aimed at protecting the interests of children.
Allow me to call the roll. A program of which many Members of this
House have testified that they graduated from, Head Start, is being cut
$501 million, a 10 percent cut; the WIC program that provides for
women, infants and children, being cut $425 million; Job Corps, which
has allowed many inner city and rural community youth to find an
opportunity out of the seat of degradation, cut $141 million; child
care, there is not a time that I go home to my district when women and
men, parents who say give me the ability to work, provide child care
and help me provide child care for my children, sometimes one-third of
their income, $119 million; the summer youth program, where a mother
gave me the good news of her young person who had graduated through the
summer youth program, now gainfully employed, cut some $109 million;
community services block, cut $54 million; runaway and homeless youth,
which I confront all the time in our community, cut $4.7 million;
Native American Head Start, cut $3.8 million; child abuse, $2.2
million; abandoned infants assistance, $1.3 million.
Mr. Chairman, I can only say oppose this majority leadership budget.
Realize that our children are our best investment. Let us support the
Democratic alternative and invest in our children.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to FY 2000 Budget Resolution
offered by the Majority's Leadership. I come in the spirit of Hershey
and bipartisanism. I come to request a budget that protects the Social
Security Trust Fund for America's citizens. I rise to request a budget
that will protect the Medicare Trust Fund.
We must authorize a budget that will protect the Social Security
Trust Fund. While women tend to collect benefits over a longer period
than men because of a greater life expectancy; women on average receive
lower monthly social security benefits since they have lower earnings
and are more likely to be widowed or unmarried in retirement. The
Majority's budget proposal does not protect women or children or the
Social Security Trust Fund. Under this budget proposal--programs
directed toward improving the quality of life for women and children,
are the first programs to be reduced and cut--in order to give a tax
break to the wealthy.
The majority is suggesting that their budget proposal will save 100%
of the social security surplus but 0% of that money goes to the Social
Security Trust Fund and 0% goes towards strengthening Medicare. This
simply is not true! Domestic programs are not a priority in this budget
resolution offered by the Majority.
We must authorize a budget that will appropriate financial resources
to reduce the average classroom size to promote a learning environment
and to modernize public schools. Educating America's children should be
our number one priority. Our children must be prepared to face the
challenges of competing in a global environment and the new millenium.
Children can not learn if they are hungry, tired and improperly
prepared. The Majority's budget proposal reduces domestic spending and
programs aimed at protecting the interest of our children. $425.1
million would be slashed from the WIC budget, Head Start would be cut
by approximately $501.4 million and LIHEAP funding would be reduced by
$109 million. Nevertheless, the Majority's budget resolution reserves
$800 billion for tax cuts.
We must authorize a budget that will protect and extend the Medicare
Trust Fund. This budget must ensure that patients will have access to
high quality healthcare by guaranteeing important protections such as
access to the specialists, coverage for emergency medical services and
affording prescriptions for seniors. The Majority's budget proposal
leaves the Medicare Trust Fund in a precarious position and its future
in question. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that there
will be a federal surplus of about $2.6 trillion over the next 10
years. We must authorize a budget that will ensure the economic
viability of Social Security, Medicare and our national defense.
We must authorize a budget that will protect America's families.
Families first--America first--Children first--we must authorize
financial resources to assist in expanding after-school programs.
Furthermore, we must enact legislation that will increase the minimum
wage and improve the quality of life for all Americans. The Majority's
budget proposal does not safeguard the interest of our Children. The
Summer Youth Employment program's funding will be cut by over $94.9
million, the Community Services Block Grant Program slashed by over
$54.5 million--we must prioritize families, women and children in the
FY 2000 budget.
We must authorize a budget that will provide law enforcement officers
and agencies with modern technology directed at reducing crime. We must
allocate financial resources to help communities put additional law
enforcement officers on the street. We must authorize a budget that
will protect our most valued and venerable citizens, children and
seniors.
We must authorize a budget that will redirect additional income to
America's families. Congress must empower families to save for their
retirement and provide for quality care for older family members. We
must enact legislation that will protect women, children and America's
families. Congress must put families first!
We must authorize a budget that will safeguard the financial
viability of American's veterans. The Spratt Amendment will add an
additional $9 Billion for veterans. We must pass a budget that will
appropriate an additional $3 Billion for agriculture over the next five
years. We must pass a budget that will allocate $10 Billion for
education and $18 Billion more for healthcare.
We must support a budget that protects America's families, seniors
and children. I urge you to vote ``no'' on the bill and ``yes'' on the
Democratic substitute.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
(Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Spratt Democratic budget extends the
life of Social Security and Medicare. The Republican budget does not.
Do not be fooled. This same Democratic Party that created Social
Security and Medicare is the same party to trust when it comes to
strengthening Social Security and Medicare.
Under the Democratic plan, the Social Security trust fund would have
50 percent more dollars in it than under the Republican plan. There is
a $1.3 trillion set-aside in the Democratic plan, more for Social
Security than in the Republican plan; $1.3 trillion.
For Medicare, the Republican plan does not do anything at all. The
Republican plan does not add one penny of money to extend the life of
Medicare or to strengthen it. The Democratic plan for Medicare will
triple the amount of money put into Medicare, a move that will extend
the life of Medicare until 2020. For all those who care about Social
Security and Medicare and who want Social Security and Medicare to be
there for our generation and our children's generation, there is only
one responsible choice: The Democratic budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget and in support of
the Democratic alternative. The Republican Party, unfortunately, has
always been hostile to Medicare. My senior citizens need Medicare, and
that is why the Democratic plan strengthens Medicare.
When I talk to senior citizens in my district, they tell me that
Medicare is just as important to them as Social Security. When I speak
with my mother, who is my best advisor, she tells me that Medicare
needs to be enhanced.
The President has proposed a prescription drug component. I believe
that that is what we should have. The Republican resolution, it does
not provide a long-term care benefit, nor prescription drug benefit
under Medicare.
{time} 1515
We need to make sure that our seniors do not choose between food and
drugs. The Republican budget has no problem in proposing a $775 billion
tax break for the rich, for the wealthiest of Americans.
We cannot continue to play politics with our seniors' health. The
Democratic plan strengthens social security and strengthens Medicare.
The Republican plan leaves out Medicare. Medicare ought to be on the
table. The prescription drug component ought to be
[[Page H1735]]
part and parcel of the mix. Long-term care is very, very important.
Senior citizens in this country need help. The Democratic plan provides
that help, the Republican plan does not.
Let us work on a budget resolution that enhances Medicare, not hurts
it. We cannot ignore the problem.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Republican budget. The majority attack on education, seniors, and this
Nation's most vulnerable is becoming an annual rite of passage for the
Republican Party. Just recently the stock market broke 10,000, the
highest it has ever been. Despite this wealth, however, we are here
inflicting pain.
What kind of message are we sending to our children when we cut
funding for education by $1.2 billion, essentially crippling Head Start
and undercutting Pell Grants? What are we saying to public housing
residents when this budget would put 1 million of them out on the
street? Where are the compassionate conservatives now?
What is worse about this budget is that it does nothing to ensure the
solvency of social security and Medicare, all in the name of cutting
taxes for the wealthiest families in this country.
This budget asks too high a price of poor Americans, and breaks the
promise of a better tomorrow for our children, elderly, and working
poor. I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget and support the
Democratic alternative.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman who just spoke mentioned how in our
budget plan there are tax cuts for the rich. I have read it. It does
not say that in here one place.
I had a speaker come up here today and said how we cut funds for the
Ryan White AIDS research. I will jump off the Capitol dome if Members
can find the words ``Ryan White'' in here. Look for it, it is not in
here. How do they say that? How do they get away with that? Do they
feel no shame, getting to the floor of the House and saying Ryan White
AIDS research is cut in here? Find it for me. I will wager with them. I
will be glad to do that. They cannot find it.
The other interesting thing about this is that they come to the floor
and they say how they want to put money into veterans, they want to
save social security, they do not want Medicare cuts.
Why did Members not make those arguments to the President? The
President's plan does all of those things. Instead of making those
arguments down at the Rose Garden, down with the President, at the last
minute they rush in here with two, not one but two, alternatives to the
President's plan.
Why are Members running away from the President? Why are they running
away from the person who stood here before the Nation at the State of
the Union and said how he is going to keep education as a priority, how
he is going to keep making sure that Medicare and social security are a
priority? Why are Members running from that plan?
I have a feeling here in the next portion of this debate we are going
to get a little bit of insight into why the Democrats, instead of
supporting the President, instead of even adopting a portion of his
plan, have written their own in a hurry to rush in here and try and
save themselves from the polls that are going south on them.
I think we are going to find out here in just a little bit, as the
gentleman from Oklahoma, the gentleman from Minnesota, the gentleman
from Arizona, are going to point out to us, why the President's plan
has so many people running from it, and particularly people from his
own party; people who we would think would at least find a few things
in the budget that they could agree with.
But instead, they are saying, no, we do not want to do what the
President does for social security, we are running from that; we don't
want to have Medicare cuts like the President, we are running from
that; we don't want to increase taxes like the President does, we are
running from that; we don't want to keep the priority low on education,
we are running from that; we don't want veterans' hospitals to close,
we are running from that.
They are running and running and running. Mr. Chairman, they can run
but they cannot hide. We are about to show them why.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, 6 years ago the President sent us a budget on February
17 which passed this House by 2 votes. Opponents on the other side of
the aisle said it would cut the economy off at the knees and mushroom
the deficit. Six years later, the economy is running strong and the
deficit has dropped from $290 billion to a $70 billion surplus. That is
the finest tribute we can pay to the Humphrey-Hawkins debate.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to both the GOP
budget proposal as well as the Democratic alternative. Both budgets
call for enormous increases in defense spending over the next six to
ten years. I cannot vote for these exorbitant increases in defense
spending--anywhere between $112-134 billion--when the fate of Social
Security and Medicare remains questionable.
The Democratic Budget Resolution, by using the President's plan for
defense spending, endangers already vulnerable programs by needlessly
puffing up the military. The Democratic resolution calls for over $9
billion in undistributed cuts by the year 2000. The question is--where
do we find it? Shall we do away with the Department of Agriculture and
the Department of Energy? Which severely underfunded federal program
will we raid first? Come the year 2000, programs that are already
suffering--like federal childcare and job training programs--will be
sitting ducks.
Proponents of increasing military spending claim that this money is
needed to replace aging weapons systems, improve the military's
readiness and training, and to attract and retain more people in the
armed services through better pay benefits. Since 1996, the
Congressional majority has added nearly $30 billion beyond the
Pentagon's request to help with military readiness. Three-quarters of
this went to pork projects in key members' districts. The proposals
before us today would commit more than $1.8 trillion to the military
over the next six years. There is no justification for increasing
military spending by this amount.
These budgets propose to squander scarce resources in order to
appease the defense industry and procure weapons systems not seen since
the Reagan era. The U.S. alone spends more than twice that of all of
its potential aggressors combined. That means Russia, China, Iraq,
North Korea, Syria, Libya and Cuba combined don't even spend half of
what the U.S. spends for defense.
The U.S. spends up to $35 billion per year maintaining 6,000 nuclear
weapons on hair trigger alert. The Soviet Union is no longer a threat
to the U.S. The U.S. is more threatened by the technicians and
technology in Russia falling into the hands of rogue states. However,
yesterday, in the Supplemental Appropriations bill, my colleagues chose
to reduce the funding to purchase and store the enriched plutonium and
uranium used to make nuclear weapons in Russia.
The budgets before us include spending for a National Missile Defense
(NMD) system on top of the billions already wasted on a futile
deployment. Spending just a fraction of what the U.S. has spent, and
plans to spend, on NMD could do far more to reduce the danger of
missile attacks and weapons proliferation if used on verifiable arms
control and disarmament.
We are marching down the wrong path. Instead of making this a more
livable and peaceful world for our children, we are proposing cuts in
necessary programs for life while increasing spending on weapons of
destruction. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing these
egregious budget proposals.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscally
responsible Republican budget plan that protects Social Security and
Medicare while providing needed tax relief.
President Clinton has called on Congress to use part of the so-called
budget ``surplus'' to protect Social Security, strengthen Medicare and
finance a number of new spending projects. But when we hear President
Clinton and other Washington politicians talk about this great
``surplus'' we have to remember where it comes from--the Social
Security Trust Fund. The federal government borrows money from this
Trust Fund--about $99 billion last year--to finance other government
spending and to mask what is, in reality, a budget deficit. In fact, if
we had taken the Social Trust Fund surplus out of the federal last
year, we would have been $30 billion short of a balanced budget.
For the next couple of years it is expected that most of the so-
called surplus will be due to the Social Trust Fund, which all of us
pay into in the form of payroll taxes. Then, based on current economic
projects, real surpluses
[[Page H1736]]
from the non-Social Security portion of the budget will begin to grow
as taxpayers pay more than the government needs to finance its
operations.
I commend my friend and colleague from Ohio, John Kasich, the members
of the Budget Committee and the Republican Leadership for proposing a
sensible, long-overdue change to the way the Trust Fund is treated. The
Republican budget stops using the Trust Fund to mask the real size of
the deficit and, instead, preserves it for Social Security. This new
approach to the surplus is more honest and more fiscally responsible.
It also results in more surplus being preserved for Social Security
than the President has proposed.
Our plan builds a wall around the Social Trust Fund--creating a
``lock box'' that preserves 100% of the ``surplus'' for Social
Security's needs. By stopping Congress and the White House from
spending the Social Trust Fund, we protect current and future retirees.
That's why the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) has given
the Republican plan its endorsement.
President Clinton's budget also calls for using 15% of the so-called
``surplus'' for Medicare. But in short term, he actually proposes to
borrow money from the Social Trust Fund to shore up Medicare, while at
the same time cutting almost $9 billion from Medicare to pay for new
government spending. This scheme is a classic example of robbing Peter
to pay Paul. It also means, when the Medicare Trust Fund runs out of
money in 2009, taxpayers will foot the bill.
The Republican plan also takes steps to pay down the national debt
and uses honest numbers--not shady Washington accounting--to address
Medicare's financial challenges. Finally, while President Clinton's
budget proposal calls for $100 in new taxes at a time when tax revenues
are at an historic high, our plan provides tax relief beginning in 2000
that grows substantially over the next ten years to reduce the tax
burden on America's families.
With this new plan, we can finally stop raiding the Social Trust Fund
to pay for more government spending. Let's hope Congress rejects the
old ways as represented in the President's budget, and passes an honest
plan to protect Social Security, preserve Medicare and let Americans
keep more of what they earn.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, one of my priorities when I came to
Congress two years ago was to bring good East Texas fiscal
responsibility to Washington. We made great strides in balancing the
budget over the past two years, and we must not stray from this path.
That is why I rise tonight, in the name of fiscal responsibility and on
behalf of hard-working East Texas families, in strong support of both
the Democratic and Blue Dog budget resolutions.
I support tax relief. In fact, I was one of only 19 Democrats to vote
for last year's tax relief bill. Both of these budget alternatives
provide for tax relief for working Americans. I would prefer to see
even more tax relief, but it is important to remember that our nation
still has a $5 trillion debt. The best thing we can do with projected
surpluses would be to pay down the federal debt, which would reduce
interest rates for families and small businesses, prepare for the
retirement of the baby boom generation, and slash the interest payments
of the federal government.
We can't fund a larger tax cut until projected surpluses have
actually materialized and until we fulfill our commitment to preserve
Social Security and Medicare. Instead, we must pay down the debt, honor
our promise to our nation's seniors, and provide for targeted tax cuts,
and both the Blue Dog and Democratic alternative budget resolutions do
just that.
Furthermore, both these budget alternatives spend money wisely on
priority areas. We can fulfill our commitment to reduce class size and
hire 1000,000 new teachers. We can spend more on education to repair
our crumbling schools and expand after-school learning programs in
rural areas. We can provide for the health care needs of the men and
women who have fought on the battlefield and risked their lives for all
Americans. We can help East Texas agricultural producers and fund crop
insurance reform that will provide some meaningful protections for
farmers against those things that are out of their control. Finally, we
can spend more for our nation's defense, improving our nation's
military readiness and increasing military pay.
These are good budget alternatives that preserve Social Security and
Medicare, pay down the federal debt, and spend money where it needs to
be spent. These budget alternatives have been drafted with the fiscal
responsibility I've spent the last two years fighting for. I urge my
colleagues to support them and pass a budget that is good for American
families.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my grave concern
regarding the proposed veterans' budget for Fiscal Year 2000. Currently
veterans are facing a medical emergency. Unless the veteran health care
system receives significant increases in funding, critical services
will be cut, health care will be denied, facilities closed, and
dedicated employees will be out of work.
The Republican budget provides a modest $900 million increase in
funding. However, this increase is a one-time addition that is not
carried over to the next fiscal year. The Republican budget actually
proposes to decrease funding for veterans. In fact, over five years,
the budget resolution cuts funding for veterans by $300 million. And
over ten years, their resolution cuts veterans' funding by $3 billion
below the 1999 level.
During consideration of this budget, while in committee and on the
House floor, the majority refused an attempt to increase veterans'
funding. This important issue, which affects millions, deserves the
change to be considered. Representative Clement's proposed amendment to
the budget would increase veterans' benefits by $1.9 billion over last
year's request, and by $1 billion above the Republican proposal.
Specifically, this increase would provide: $100 million more for mental
health care to reverse the trend of eliminating psychiatric, substance
abuse and other effective mental health programs; $271 million more for
long-term care initiatives to increase options for elderly and disabled
veterans; and $681 million more for the Montgomery GI Bill to increase
coverage for tuition, fees and stipends to service members who are
enlisted for at least three years. Over 10 years, the budget proposal
offered by Democrats would provide over $40 billion more for veterans'
programs. I support this amendment and am very upset that we were
prevented from providing an increase to such an underfunded and
important program.
It is our duty to provide the care and service promised to our
heroes, and the proposed Republican budget fails to give veterans the
benefits they need and deserve. For the fourth consecutive year, the
Veterans Administration budget has been essentially stagnant. This
pattern has to end. To refuse consideration of an increase in funding
for veterans who have given so much to their country is an outrage.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this
budget resolution.
This budget, contrary to the President's proposal, is a responsible
approach to funding the Federal government without turning our backs on
our 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement, an agreement that means so much to
the American public and to our nation's economic future.
And perhaps more than ever, this budget is about providing security
for America's future. We can continue to set the course for a sound
Federal fiscal policy and a strong economy, or we can set up our
children for a future of paying our debts--the President's budget
saddles our children with more national debt, more taxes, fewer
educational opportunities, a bigger government and shaky retirement
prospects.
As we vote to pass this budget, I say to my colleagues who have
joined the President in criticism of our efforts, for a moment, take a
step back from the podium, and imagine you are not immersed here in the
politics of our nation's capital.
For a moment, think of yourself not standing before your colleagues
in debate, but rather, being with your constituents at a town meeting.
Would you still argue to enact the President's budget, the largest in
our nation's history, a budget which grows the size of our government
and breathes more life into a bureaucracy we've been struggling to
contain? Or do you think your constituents would rather know that you
have voted for a Federal budget that keeps our government in check and
may possibly even shrink that once sprawling bureaucracy?
Could you speak passionately to them about the need to pass the
President's budget which only devotes 62 percent of our projected
budget surpluses to preserving and protecting Social Security and
allows him to spend $146 billion of the Social Security surplus over
five years.
Or might you inspire more confidence from your constituents if you
told them the budget you want locks away $100 billion more than the
President to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, a total of $1.8
trillion over a decade, with the guarantee that Washington can't touch
the Social Security surplus--your constituents' payroll taxes--ever?
Again, the families you represent may want to know whether you
support the President's budget, or our Congressional budget plan that
will pay down the national debt by $450 billion more than the President
over the next ten years.
The hard-working Americans you represent might be interested to know
whether you voted for tax increases or tax cuts. The President's budget
raises taxes by $172 billion in the next decade, but our budget
provides $800 billion in tax relief for the same period.
Would the veterans of your District salute you for passing the
President's flat-lined VA budget which raises serious questions about
the quality of care our veterans receive in VA medical facilities, or
do America's heroes of
[[Page H1737]]
the past deserve the $1.1 billion increase we gave them in our budget
proposal?
To the young men and women in uniform who now serve our nation--what
would you tell them? Could you look a young enlisted man or woman in
the eye, one of our brave Americans who has joined NATO forces in
Kosovo, and tell them to do their job even though you voted for the
President's budget which falls $8 billion short of the budget we
propose for our nation's defense?
Improving the education of our young people is not only important to
all of us, it is a critical element of our nation's ability to remain
competitive in the 21st Century. For America's children, do you vote
party or conscience? On your next school visit, do you tell the
students you voted for the President's budget which cuts special
education funding, or do you teach them that principle is above
politics, and you voted for our budget which increases education
funding $1.2 billion more than President Clinton proposes. It includes
more funding for Pell grants, and more flexibility for states to decide
how best to spend this funding. Our budget, $22 billion total for
education, will improve the quality of elementary, secondary, and
special education. Parents and children with special needs may question
your vote for the President's budget because it amounts to a cut in
Federal special education funding. Our budget contains a $1 billion
increase for Federal funding of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. While this is not the full funding I and 75 of my House
colleagues from both sides of the aisle requested, it is a step in the
right direction. In my state of New Jersey alone, if the Federal
government would keep its promise to pay 40 percent of the costs
associated with providing special education, $300 million at the state
level would become available each year--real money that could be used
to hire more teachers, build more classrooms or reduce local property
tax rates.
Our budget proposal provides security for American people and their
future--retirement security, fiscal security, education security,
national security and economic security. But it won't be easy to
achieve these important goals, and is closing. I offer a word of
caution.
Keeping within the confines of our balanced budget is our ultimate
goal, and the Appropriations Committee works hard to balance the needs
of our nation and our government while doing so. As a Member of this
Committee, I can tell my colleagues that there will be sacrifices. We
must understand this at the outset and prepare ourselves for the tough
choices with which we all will be confronted. When the time comes, we
will need to ask ourselves, ``is a future of peace, prosperity,
achievement and financial security for our children worth the sacrifice
and effort today?'' The answer is always ``yes.'' We will need to
remember this in the months ahead.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Republican budget resolution. This budget is a blueprint for another
budgetary train wreck.
The Majority's budget is irresponsible. It is simply wrong to move
ahead with a $778 billion tax cut before taking action to assure the
long-term financial health of Social Security and Medicare. The budget
surplus gives us a unique opportunity to address these programs and we
must not squander it. We should save the entire surplus until we've
taken care of Social Security and Medicare.
No one believes the House can approve the appropriation bills that
would be drawn from this budget template. Do we want a repeat of last
year's budgetary derailment when Congress was unable to complete action
on eight of the thirteen regular appropriation bills? But that's
exactly where we're headed with the Majority's budget resolution.
Under the resolution, non-defense discretionary appropriations would
be cut by $46.4 billion next year, a full 16 percent below this year's
funding level. Which programs does the Majority propose to cut? Energy
assistance for the elderly? Maternal and child health care? Head Start?
Law enforcement? The GOP budget resolution doesn't give any specifics.
The Republican budget also does nothing to shore up Medicare. All of
us know that Medicare is projected to run short of funds in just eight
more years. If Medicare's solvency is the price for the GOP's tax cuts,
that price is too high.
I will support the Democratic substitute that will be offered by
Representative Spratt. The Spratt substitute is a responsible
alternative to the budgetary gridlock that will surely follow adoption
of the Majority's budget resolution. The Spratt substitute fulfills our
obligations to Social Security and Medicare. It reserves 100 percent of
the Social Security surplus for Social Security and extends Medicare's
solvency until 2020.
I want to speak to the issue of legal immigrants. The Spratt
substitute also restores vital benefits for legal immigrant that were
wrongly taken away under the 1996 welfare law. I led the fight last
year to restore food stamp eligibility to the children of legal
immigrant as well as elderly legal immigrants who entered the country
before enactment of the 1996 welfare bill. The Spratt substitute would
permit states to cover legal immigrant pregnant women and children with
Medicaid, restore SSI eligibility for legal immigrants who entered the
country after August 22, 1996 and were subsequently disabled, and would
assure food stamps to legal immigrants who were residents as of August
22, 1996 and are over the age of 65. This is a step in the right
direction.
I urge my colleagues to reject this irresponsible budget resolution
and support the Spratt substitute.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman. I rise to oppose the priorities as expressed
in this Budget.
I strongly oppose this Republican budget because its priorities are
wrong. A substantial number of us, five and a half million, are ill-
housed. 42 million of us are without health care coverage. Our schools
need more teaches and better-trained teachers; our school buildings
need to be rehabilitated.
If we maintain the caps on discretionary spending, as proposed in
this Republican budget, as well as increase the military budget, and
give about $780 billion in tax cuts, the result will be to squeeze out
essential programs that effect the daily well-being of a significant
sector of our society.
The Republican Budget does not adequately protect our elderly. One of
our most important programs Social Security, has kept one of every two
elderly Americans from falling into poverty. Social Security must be
extended and protected. Likewise, Medicare is widely recognized and
appreciated as an essential program by all of us because of its benefit
to the elderly and the families of the elderly. Medicare must be
extended and protected.
The Republican budget allocates, over a ten-year period, just $1.77
trillion to extend Social Security, half of the Democrats' proposal,
which calls for $3.4 trillion. The Democrats' much greater investment
in Social Security is essential to ensure its security.
The difference in budgetary priorities is even greater with Medicare.
The Republican budget, over a ten-year period, sets $14 billion for
Part A, compared with the Democrats' proposal to invest $397 billion in
Medicare, an investment 28 times, greater than the Republicans'
inadequate propositions.
This Republican budget does not protect and invest in our children.
It ignores the needs of our children.
The retention of the budget cap, coupled with the $18.1 billion
increase in defense spending, means that Republicans cut Head Start by
$501 million; Republicans cut by $425 million, they cut Job Corps by
$142 million; they cut child care funding by $120 million; they cut
low-income heating assistance by $109 million; they cut summer youth
employment by $95 million; they cut homeless youth programs by $4.7
million; they cut abandoned infants assistance by $1.3 million.
These are the programs that will suffer deep cuts if this Republican
budget is approved. Of course, there is no money in this Republican
bill for more and better-trained teachers in America's classroom.
This budget is not a responsible, adult budget because it fails to
take care of the basic needs of the nation's families. I urge my
colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise with many concerns about the
majority's budget resolution before us today. Because of the strong
economy and prudent fiscal policies of the past few years, we are on
track towards achieving our first non-social security budget surplus in
a generation. When I first came to Congress in 1995, even the thought
of achieving an on-budget surplus by the year 2000 or 2001 seemed
completely unrealistic.
That is why I believe we must not waste this historic opportunity to
ensure the long-term solvency of the social security system which will
be threatened due to the large number of baby-boomers who will begin
retiring in the next 10-15 years. While the majority's plan ensures
that money dedicated to the social security program should go to the
program, this so-called ``lock box'' approach does nothing more than
ensure that the system will go broke on schedule. A more responsible
approach would be to dedicate surplus funds to the social security
system in preparation for the increased number of retirees early in the
next century.
I am also disappointed that the majority's plan does nothing to
reduce the federal debt. The proposal uses nearly all of the projected
surplus for a yet to be specified $778 billion tax cut that relies on
future revenue projections. Economists have repeatedly stated that
reductions in the public debt would result in lower interest rates
which leads to increased economic growth and opportunities for all
American families.
This proposal represents the type of budget gimmickry that has made
the American people cynical about the entire federal budget process. I
believe the American people understand they aren't being told the full
truth when they hear proposals such as this which claim to cut taxes,
dramatically increase defense spending,
[[Page H1738]]
protect social security and stay within the 1997 budget caps. Believe
me, they are smart enough to realize that schemes like this just don't
add up. We were elected to make the tough choices necessary to keep our
fiscal house in order. I believe the American people deserve better
than this type of smoke-and-mirrors budgeting that relies solely on
future unreliable projections.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this proposal and seize
this rare opportunity to dedicate the surplus to protecting the long
term solvency of social security and to paying down the federal debt.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to explain my priorities as we
debate the budget resolution for FY 2000.
I am a cosponsor of a Constitutional Amendment to Balance the Budget
and have introduced budget enforcement legislation in the past. As
such, I am pleased that we balanced the nation's budget in FY 1998.
However, we should not be complacent.
Before we talk of new spending or new tax cuts, we should keep our
eye on one goal, and that is maintaining a balanced budget: a balanced
budget for our current fiscal year and for FY 2000. Moreover, we should
recognize that trust fund surpluses from Social Security, Medicare, the
Highway Trust Fund and other federal trust funds totaled $150 billion
last year and masked our true situation by making our budgetary
position appear more favorable than it really was. Hence, I feel our
second priority should be to really balance the budget without the use
of any trust fund surpluses.
Thereafter, I believe that we should begin to pay down the national
debt, which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, has reached
an all-time high of $5.5 trillion. By using all the surplus to pay down
the debt, we as taxpayers would save a significant amount of money in
future interest payments. Today those payments total $231 billion. For
every $1 billion in debt that we can retire, we save an average of $70
million in annual interest payments. This savings would benefit every
American regardless of their economic status and I believe it
represents the best tax cut we can give to the American people.
Furthermore, this debt retirement would provide us with more
flexibility in addressing how best to secure Medicare and Social
Security for future generations while maintaining our ability to also
invest in solid programs that can make our economy more productive.
Several budget resolutions have been introduced which take different
approaches to maintaining a surplus and allocating our financial
resources. I favor the resolution proposed by a coalition of
conservative Democrats, since it provides the most fiscally sound
approach. It would reserve 100% of the Social Security surplus for the
Social Security Trust Fund. It also pays down more debt than any other
proposal before the House, thereby providing for lower interest
payments in the future and more flexibility to address unforeseen
problems. Conservative projections indicate that this budget would save
us $113 billion in interest payments on our debt over the next five
years.
Although I am primarily concerned about maintaining fiscal discipline
and believe a tax cut could be detrimental to sustaining a balanced
budget, the tax cut provided for in this proposal is minimal and can be
targeted towards the hard-working middle class families who need it
most.
Mr. Chairman, I close by adding that maintaining the public trust is
the single most important issue we face today. I ask my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to weigh the impact that the budget resolution
will have on future generations.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to give my
enthusiastic endorsement for the Democratic Substitute to the Budget
Resolution offered by the Ranking Member on the Budget Committee, John
Spratt.
This substitute takes a responsible approach to government. It takes
the surplus from this year, and reinvests it back into Social Security
and Medicare. However, what is important is the manner in which this is
accomplished. Unlike the Republican Budget Resolution, this amendment
takes those surplus funds and directly deposits the money into the
Social Security Trust Fund and the Medicare Trust Fund. The Republicans
cannot tell you they are doing that--because they are not. They swear
to put 100% of the surplus aside, but they do not guarantee the
American people what they will do with that surplus once the smoke
clears. On the other hand, this substitute puts its money where its
mouth is--back into the accounts that will extend the life of Social
Security for another 18 years, and Medicare another 12.
And the Democratic budget extends these programs without a loss of
benefits for the people who rely upon them. Earlier this week, I met
with several groups of seniors in my district in Houston. Without
exception, the most pressing concern of theirs as it related to the
budget was the loss of benefits. Under the Democratic Resolution, their
concerns are answered--but we cannot say the same under the Republican
plan, because it set forth how Medicare and Social Security funds will
be spent. We can close the door on the Republican plan of Social
Security privatization today if we pass this substitute--and I urge all
of you to support it.
The Democratic proposal also does more to reduce the debt than the
Republican plan. This budget contains out-year debt reduction that
totals over 474 billion dollars over fifteen years. The Republicans
cannot tell you the same. In fact, if they can pass their budget, you
will much more likely see tax cuts than debt reduction.
However, that does not mean that the Democratic budget does not
contain tax cuts, because it does. Indeed, the Democratic substitute
contains targeted tax cuts of the sort that bring the most relief to
the American family. Those tax cuts adjust the marriage penalty, help
pay for child and healthcare, and extend work opportunity credits. Do
we need anything more than this? I believe that these are the tax cuts
that the American people have been waiting for, and I am happy to
support this budget so we can bring it to them.
This substitute simply does more for children and families than the
budget offered by the Republicans. It contains funding for important
programs like Women, Infants and Children (WIC), Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF), Job Corps, and Head Start that are ignored
in the Republican plan. At the same time, it provides a bedrock
foundation so we can rebuild our schools and reduce class sizes across
the country. In addition, the Democratic plan includes the funds
necessary to hire 100,000 skilled new teachers so our children will be
prepared for the 21st Century.
The Democratic substitute also follows the lead of the President by
increasing the funding for the Department of Defense and the Veterans'
Administration. These increases go above and beyond what the Republican
budget offers--by including higher-than-baseline pay raises for our
service members and a repeal of the Retired Pay Repeal Act (REDUX).
I urge each of my colleagues to do what is right and vote for a
balanced budget, for our seniors, for our future, and for the
Democratic substitute.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise today in proud
support of the Republican Fiscal Year 2000 Budget. Once again my
colleagues and I will continue to give American citizens tax relief
while paying down the national debt and protecting Social Security.
The simply fact is that the American people are over-taxed. President
Clinton's budget calls for $100 billion in tax increases, while our
budget offers $800 billion in tax relief over ten years. The truth is a
surplus is nothing more than an overpayment by America's taxpayers. It
does not belong to Washington and we should return it in the form of
tax relief. In addition, our budget will continue to re-pay the debt by
placing over $1.8 trillion towards the debt over the next decade.
That's $450 billion more than the President's budget.
While the President talks about saving Social Security for the next
generation, his budget actually spends 42% of the Social Security
Surplus. The Republican budget will lock up every penny of the Social
Security Surplus over the next ten years. The American public has made
it clear that Washington has no right to spend away a surplus, which
does not belong to them.
Mr. Chairman, I'm tired of Washington having their hands in the
pockets of the American taxpayer. Let's pass this historic budget for
the new millennium and provide a better and more prosperous future for
all Americans.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the Republican budget
resolution because I believe it emphasizes exactly the wrong priorities
for America's future and does little to make our communities more
livable. By approving this document, we are ignoring the negative
effects this budget would inflict on the health of our communities, our
infrastructure, and our economy for the next decade.
If I had my way, I would place more priority on paying down the debt,
saving Social Security and Medicare, avoid costly new tax cuts and
unnecessary. Unfocused defense spending, and develop a capital budget
to account for infrastructure investments for a more livable future.
However, this budget resolution doesn't extend the solvency of those
trust funds by a single day, and instead of paying down the debt,
offers tax cuts that primarily benefit those who need help the least.
It also calls for unfocused increases in some aspects of our military
spending without assurances that any of this spending will increase our
overall security. An example of this is the call for new ``Star Wars''
spending, an unproven system on which we've already spent over $60
billion in research with nothing to show for it.
It fails to give America's communities the tools they need to improve
their quality of life. The ``Building Livable Communities'' initiatives
[[Page H1739]]
embodied in the Administration's budget offered increased choices for
citizens in the areas of transportation, housing, regional planning,
open space preservation, education, and crime control. The Democratic
alternative recognizes the importance of these initiatives through a
Sense of the House resolution. I believe we have a responsibility to do
all we can to have the federal government be a better partner with
communities and citizens in their efforts to improve very basic
components of everyday life--getting to work and school safely,
ensuring the quality of the water we drink and the air we breathe, and
having economic opportunities for the future.
It should also be noted that long-term budget projections are nearly
always miscalculated, and have been overly optimistic by over $200
billion on average over the last 15 years. Even small errors and
changes in the economic picture can drastically alter what the
government collects and spends. A forecasting error of as little as 2%
can alter the budget balance by as much as $70 billion annually. Future
military conflicts, slower economic growth, stock market fluctuations,
decisions by the Federal Reserve, currency values, natural disasters,
and any number of other variables can also radically alter what the
government spends and takes in.
Therefore it is unwise to push massive tax cuts years down the line,
when it is impossible to know what our economic situation will be. Only
by remaining fiscally cautious now and investing in America's
infrastructure can we make this a budget that helps make our
communities more livable.
This proposed budget would be a disaster if it were implemented. It
siphons nearly a trillion dollars into tax cuts paid for with painful
and unnecessary budget cuts, while ignoring key investments that need
to be made in education, Social Security, and health care. The good
news is that it won't be adopted in this form because even the
Republicans have no intention of implementing it. The bad news is that
it is a license to avoid responsible budgeting. I urge my colleagues to
vote no and instead strive to produce a budget that promotes livable
communities and fiscal stability.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
GOP's Budget Resolution. Again, the Republicans have sent to the House
floor a resolution which abandons older Americans needs by ignoring the
Medicare challenge, fails to protect satisfactorily and extend the
solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds, shortchanges important
health care benefits and services earned by our Nation's veterans,
creates an illusionary increase in education spending, drastically cuts
important funding and investment in our Earth's natural resources and
before the budget surplus is realized, proposes to expend it with a
$779 billion 10-year tax expenditure that will grow even larger and
larger with time and could eventually eliminate the projected on-budget
surplus by dipping into the Social Security Insurance revenues.
Republicans are quick to defend this budget by declaring credit for
spending increases for such programs as defense and education without
ever specifying the severe cuts necessary to meet their overall
spending totals. In this resolution, the GOP would underfund much-
needed people programs by $27 billion for fiscal year 2000. This is
completely unrealistic as it all but ensures a confrontation and
guarantees yet another disastrous appropriations fight this fall.
Modest increases in elementary and secondary education are proposed
while a significant reduction is exacted from post-secondary education.
This resolution fails to save the surplus for Social Security
Insurance. The GOP proposed ``lock-box'' initiative claims to save all
of the Social Security Insurance surplus to pay down government debt.
The facts are clear: this proposal stipulates that the surplus could be
used to set up private individual retirement accounts as a substitute
for Social Security Insurance. This represents a serious threat to the
future solvency of the most successful domestic program ever
established. What kind of message are we sending to the baby boomers
soon to retire and our older Americans who are guaranteed a defined
Social Security Insurance benefit? If the resources already committed
to Social Security beneficiaries under current law are diverted to
private accounts, benefits will eventually have to be cut. Or, workers
will be taxed double to pay for current beneficiaries insurance and
again to divert to such individual accounts. In addition, the GOP's
``lock-box'' proposal would not ensure that the debt held by the public
is reduced. Overall, all this proposal does is ensure that Social
Security goes broke on schedule and not extend its solvency by one day.
Advocates may well speculate that the intent is to create a crisis with
Social Security benefits to justify radical privatization schemes.
While Social Security Insurance benefits are projected to be in
problems by 2032, Medicare is projected to run short of funds by 2008.
Given this Medicare pressing and more urgent problem, our efforts
should be more focused on the stability and solvency of this much-
needed Medicare program. The GOP's insistence of $779 billion in tax
cuts over 10 years would surely come at the expense of Medicare. The
Administration initiated a proposal to reserve 15 percent of projected
budget surpluses to address and close the long-term funding gap of the
Medicare program. By ignoring Medicare, the Republicans have decided to
provide a huge tax expenditure and a significant defense spending
increase. Frankly, the GOP budget lyrics do not match the music and is
unable to face up to the facts. The GOP budget sets in place a
political document which is unworkable and unfair.
The Administration has indicated a willingness not to ``recoup'' the
Federal share of the recent tobacco settlements if there are safeguards
which ensure that Federal contributions are used for public health and
awareness programs. The Republican resolution assumes the Federal
Government relinquishes both the right to recoup funds from the multi-
State tobacco settlement as well as the authority to direct the States
how to use those funds. Frankly, I believe that the national dollars
recovered ought to be directed to health care concerns, not a rebate.
These are Federal funds and we have a responsibility to exact
accountability.
Under the Republican resolution, discretionary veterans programs are
funded at $20.2 billion. While this represents less than a $1 billion
increase over last year's funding levels and a one-time addition. Over
five years, the GOP resolution would cut veterans' funding by $300
billion below the 1999 freeze level. This is completely unacceptable.
After years of inadequate funding levels, many VA employees and veteran
service organizations in my State of Minnesota have joined a national
consensus to push for a substantial funding increase for the VA,
especially for the health care function. This budget does far too
little in 2000 and beyond to address the understaffed VA medical
centers across the nation and the hard working, underpaid VA employee's
that provide veterans the health care and other benefits and services
they have earned. We can not overlook this today. According to the
Independent Budget group, comprised of most of the major veterans
service groups recommended an additional $3 billion more than the
Administration's VA proposal. In this budget resolution, the GOP has
ignored such concerns and requests. A substantial increase is
critically needed to avoid deep cuts in VA's medical care budget. We
owe our veterans adequate health care and services that we promised to
them.
The Republicans boast that their budget blueprint has a strong
commitment to education, which time and again has been promoted by the
American people as a top priority for federal tax dollars. And we can
all see that this resolution does increase funding for elementary and
secondary education. However, in taking a closer look it is apparent
that this is a true case of robbing college student Peter to pay grade
schooler Paul; in order to showcase the $1.2 billion increase over the
President's request for primary and secordary education funding, this
budget severely shorchanges all other education programs. Deep cuts in
higher education initiatives, such as Pell Grants and Work Study, and
reductions in funding for programs which help preschoolers, such as
Head Start, is extremely shortsighted. Education is a continuous
journey, therefore, the idea of focusing entirely on K-12 and ignoring
the needs of students who are preparing to enter school or those who
wish to continue on to higher education opportunities is shallow and
illusionary. A pea and shell game without the pea. Additionally, even
with the increase in funding for elementary and secondary programs,
this resolution leaves no room for full funding of special education
programs, unless other programs for these grade levels are cut. In
addition, the Republicans have decided to do nothing on the President's
and a majority of Congress's initiative of hiring 100,000 more teachers
and reducing class size that will provide our young people the much
needed attention and focus they deserve to succeed in school and in
life.
Many of the environmental programs that our state and local
governments rely on, such as grants to wastewater and drinking water
plants, will receive unacceptable cuts in funding as a result of the
Republican budget. America's greatest natural treasures, our National
Parks, Forests, and the like, will continue their severe backslide in
maintenance and upkeep. And despite Interior's efforts to cure these
ills with what little money they have secured, employees will still be
fired and furloughed in an effort to stay within the spending caps as
proposed by the Republican majority. Many in Congress have seen a grand
vision for the future in preserving greenspace, and making life for
everyone in the Union more in tune with the land in which they reside
as seen in the President's proposed Lands Legacy Initiative. Despite
overwhelming support for this exciting program, the majority has failed
to fund any initiative with this objective.
[[Page H1740]]
We've heard the arguments against this program, that there is too much
of a maintenance backlog in our parks to further expand them, but the
GOP budget blueprint has come full circle--the GOP budget has nothing
for maintenance conservation and restoration of our national treasures
and nothing new for the preservation of America's remaining greenspace.
Such a greenspace that we are losing each passing day. Apparently only
useful as rhetoric to shoot down the President's land legacy
initiative.
According to HUD's estimations, the Republican budget has a negative
impact on several important housing programs. The reduction of 6.8% in
outlays in FY 2000 for the section 8 voucher and project-based programs
means 195,000 fewer households, or 478,000 fewer individuals, will be
served. In addition, the reduction in outlays for public housing will
result in under-funding 86,700 units, or 201,000 needy individuals.
If these reduction initiatives are enacted, HUD projects that $1,335
billion (83%) of HOME program's FY 1999 budget authority would have to
be rescinded and the Congress would be unable to appropriate any budget
authority to the program in FY 2000. HUD assumes that in FY 1999,
78,000 families, or 177,000 individuals, will be assisted by HOME
funds. If we were to rescind this budget authority for HOME, however,
not one of the families or individuals would be served.
Again, the Republican budget fails to provide for the growing number
of homeless or near-homeless individuals. If funds are reduced as under
this GOP resolution, HUD projects that $975 million (96%) of last years
funding levels would have to be rescinded. Such a reduction would
freeze dollars for future investment and spending for our homeless
populations. This would result in a loss of 10,000 beds in transitional
housing and 7,125 permanent beds for the disabled who are homeless.
Because of the extremely slow spend-out rates in these programs,
Congress would have to halt current funding and all carry-over budget
authority from previous years to meet the Republicans outlay reduction
target. In FY 1999, HUD expects to develop 11,300 housing units (8,000
elderly and 3,300 disabled). All of those units would be lost.
Furthermore, if outlays are reduced 6.8% in FY 2000 as required under
this budget, HUD projects that $125 million of the programs' current
funding levels would have to be rescinded. Again, this leaves Congress
without the resources to address and meet future spending needs. This
would result in eliminating aid to 42,000 persons in FY 1999 and 79,000
persons in FY 2000. As a result of this totally inadequate GOP
resolution, the number of persons who would lose housing assistance is
estimated to be almost 1 million Americans.
The inaction on restoring and protecting the solvency of Medicare and
the Social Security Insurance systems, ignoring special and higher-
education programs and reduction in class room size initiatives,
shortchanging our veterans health care, all but eliminating public
housing funding to needy persons, abandoning our existing commitment to
much needed environmental cleanup and protection efforts of our natural
resources all result from one overriding GOP priority: passing a huge
package of tax expenditures. Once again, the GOP has insisted to
increase an all ready over budgeted defense department and provide an
un-timely $779 billion tax expenditure that will in reality raid the
Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. This budget does not provide
adequate investment in people programs and truly undermines our
existing federal commitments by underfunding much needed resources and
programs by $27 billion in fiscal year 2000.
I urge all Members to vote no on this GOP budget resolution that
comes up way short of meeting the needs and investments in people
programs.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Republican
budget resolution that is before us today.
This budget sets the wrong priorities for Congress. It proposes a
massive tax cut, substantial cuts in domestic spending programs, and no
significant action on Social Security and Medicare--whereas I believe
that Congress should be taking action now to preserve Social Security
and Medicare, to address the difficult problems our nation still faces,
and to invest in education and other programs that will improve all
Americans' quality of life in the future.
Mr. Chairman, Americans have much for which to be grateful. The
economy is growing, unemployment is down, and real incomes for working
families are increasing--ableit at too slow a rate. We all know,
though, that these good times cannot last indefinitely. At some point,
the economy will stall. At some point there will be a recession. And in
a few years, the Baby Boom generation will start to retire--and place a
heavy new burden on programs like Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid.
Many of the Republicans in Congress are saying that now is the time
for the American people to relax and enjoy the fruits of our labors.
Well, no one denies that the American people work hard and deserve a
break. And no one wants to turn down a tax cut. But our debate today
should not focus on what we deserve, or even on what we would like to
do; that would be irresponsible. Rather, today's debate should focus on
what we ought to do.
Today, twenty years of deficit spending are over, and budget
surpluses are projected for at least the next ten years. But our fiscal
troubles are not at an end. At best, we have only a dozen or so years
of projected surpluses before dramatic increases in outlays for Social
Security and Medicare--to pay for the Baby Boomers' retirement--
submerge the federal budget again in a sea of red ink. A good economist
will tell you that we cannot even be certain that the projected
surpluses will materialize at all. So I say, let's prepare for the hard
times ahead--not celebrate prematurely.
What steps should we take to prepare for the future challenges that
we can already anticipate? What can we do to ensure that future
Americans can face the prospect of retirement with pleasant
anticipation and without fear? What can we do to ensure that all
Americans have access to safe, affordable health care? And what can we
do to promote our country's future economic growth and provide a better
standard of living for all Americans?
I believe that Congress should be taking this opportunity to restore
the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, and to invest in
education, infrastructure and research that will increase our
productivity and improve our standards of living. Consequently, I
oppose the resolution before us today.
I oppose this budget resolution because I believe that it would
devastate dozens of important federal programs, programs like
educational assistance, veterans' programs, crime-fighting programs,
scientific and biomedical research programs, public works projects, and
anti-poverty programs.
I oppose this budget because it does nothing to help the Americans
who, even in these boom times, are struggling just to keep their heads
above water.
I oppose this budget because it fails to invest in the programs and
projects that would make America more productive and more competitive
in the global economy.
I oppose this budget because it would provide unwise and
irresponsible tax cuts which would be paid for with a surplus that has
not yet materialized--and which in fact, may never materialize.
I oppose this budget because it does nothing to save Medicare from
insolvency.
And finally, I oppose this budget resolution because it does nothing
to save Social Security.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this short-sighted,
self-indulgent budget--and to work together to draft a prudent,
fiscally conservative budget that addresses the American people's
future needs, not just someone's misguided desires.
Mr. McGovern. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the cuts in higher
education in the Republican budget resolution. While some of us are
working to extend the opportunity for higher education through vital
programs like Pell Grants, the Republicans have introduced a budget
which cuts all non-elementary and secondary education, training and
social service programs by $16.6 billion over the next 5 years. Over
the next ten years, the Republicans call for a 12.2% across the board
cut for these same programs. This at a time when increasing tuition
costs are burdening families nationwide.
At a time of anticipated future surpluses and significant increases
in military spending already underway, it is critical that federal
funding for education take its place as a national priority. Making
college more affordable is one of the most important investments we can
make in our country's future prosperity. This year, the maximum Pell
Grant award will provide funding that only covers 35% of the average
costs of attendance at a four-year state college. For a four-year
private college, the Pell Grant barely covers 13% of average annual
costs. Yet the Republicans want to further deny access to higher
education by cutting this important program. Support access to higher
education.
Vote no on the GOP budget resolution.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition of the
rule to H. Con. Res. 68 which blocks a vote on Representative Clement's
amendment to increase funding for veterans health care.
The Republican Leadership's FY 2000 Budget fails miserably to protect
our Nation's veterans. While their budget resolution provides a $900
million increase in budget authority for veterans, this is a ONE time
addition. Over the next 5 years, the Majority's budget resolution cuts
discretionary spending for veterans by $300 million. Over 10 years,
veterans funding will be cut by $3 billion below this year's funding
levels. The Republican leadership should be ashamed to submit a
[[Page H1741]]
budget which slashes funding for the men and women who fought for our
freedom.
This Republican-led Congress has flat-lined the veterans budget for
the last 4 years. As our veterans continue aging, they face more
medical emergencies. Unless funding for veterans' health care is
significantly increased services will be cut and health care will be
denied.
Mr. Chairman, how can you propose several new health care initiatives
without providing the necessary funds to support them? The message you
send to our veterans when the promises made to them are broken is that
the sacrifices they made for our country are meaningless.
Representative Clement's amendment would have increased the Veterans
Affairs budget by $1 billion over the Republican increase of $900
million. This amendment was supported by the Veterans of Foreign War,
Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America and the
American Legion.
Give our nation's veterans what they deserve. I urge my colleagues to
oppose the rule and the Republican budget.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support H. Con. Res. 68,
the Budget Resolution. This resolution continues the hard work of
balancing the budget and putting our fiscal house in order that we
began in 1997.
priorities
The priorities that we should establish in this new ``age of
surplus.'' Those are providing retirement security by saving Social
Security and Medicare, paying down the debt, and reforming the tax
code. These reforms are essential for our future. At the same time, we
must be realistic and fair about maintaining adequate support for all
domestic programs, most specifically education and health care.
social security
Of primary concern is Social Security. As we all know Social Security
is the most popular and important program in the nation's history. It
touches almost every family in America. This budget saves ALL of the
Social Security Trust Fund surplus for Social Security. That is close
to $1.8 TRILLION over the next ten years. But this money must be made
SAFE! Upon passage of a Conference Report on a joint budget resolution
passed by both the House and Senate, we should act immediately to
create a real lock box that through law saves the Social Security Trust
Fund surplus. This money will be used to strengthen and secure Social
Security and Medicare when bipartisan reform legislation beginning
signed into law. We must protect Social Security through law not
legislative shadow boxing. When it comes to Social Security, this
program must be sacrificed to tax cuts or extra spending. I look
forward to the day when we engage in the debate on reform with the
knowledge that every cent in the Social Security Trust Fund is safe.
paying down the debt
Priority must be given to paying down the debt. The National debt is
currently over $5.6 TRILLION. The debt has increased by $95 BILLION in
FY 1999 alone. In 1998 we have spent about 15% of all federal revenues
just on interest on the debt. That is money NOT spent on our children,
on education, or health care. It is money that goes into the fiscal
black hole created by our continued indebtedness. We must reduce the
debt in order to spend less money on interest payments and more on our
future. We must make the commitment to debt reduction. It is immoral
for us to continue to write checks that our children will have to cash.
tax reform
Tax reform not necessarily tax cuts must be a priority over the next
ten years but as I said before not at the sacrifice of Social Security.
Tax reform creates a fairer, flatter, and simpler tax code that results
in a lower tax burden for all Americans. Tax reform includes
eliminating the marriage penalty, rewarding savings and investment so
families can send their kids to school, buy a home, or start a
business, and does not punish their success. A significant portion of
the non-Social Security surplus must be returned to American families
because they know how to spend money better than most in Washington.
blueprint for the future
It is important to remember that this Resolution is a blueprint. It
is not the endstate but the beginning of a process of what I hope is
thoughtful debate on America's future. It is our responsibility, in
this Congress, to ensure the visibility of worthy federal programs and
to create a strong and vibrant economy in which our children and
grandchildren can thrive, succeed, and enjoy the promise of what
America has to offer.
There are going to be difficult decisions ahead. To stay within the
budget caps will not be easy. In some cases, I believe that we should
revisit those caps through the appropriations process to address
priority spending investments in education, health care, and veterans.
While we should not turn the surplus into a spending spree, we must be
sensitive to fair treatment for all domestic programs affecting
families--our children as well as our families.
The next decade will be the best opportunity for us to give our
children the future we hope for them. We must be wise, judicious, and
fair when it comes to spending the surplus. We must not count our
surplus eggs before they hatch and we can not squander this
opportunity. We must set priorities. We owe that to our children.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly oppose
this amendment. This budget contains a net tax increase over the next
five years, a time in which we are realizing surpluses.
This tax increase comes largely from one source: regressive, excise
taxes leveled on those least able to afford them. Americans are
overtaxed. The government does not need more of our money to carry out
its spending plans, lengthening the era of big government. Contrary to
what we have been told, this era is far from over.
Nearly have of these new taxes, $35 billion worth, come from a 200-
percent tax increase on tobacco products, 55 cents on a pack of
cigarettes. This tax increase hurts hard-working family tobacco farmers
in my district and all of Kentucky. These taxes will take away the
livelihood of these working families, who depend on their tobacco crops
to pay for their farms, their homes and their children's education.
But this excise tax increase issue is not confined to states with
tobacco farmers. It has a negative impact no matter what your opinion
is on the use of tobacco products. This huge tax increase in all states
falls most heavily on those least able to afford it.
Who will pay these new regressive excise taxes? Working families who
earn $30,000 or less will pick up nearly half the tab, even though they
account for just 16 percent of total national family income. According
to the Federal Trade Commission, legal adults purchase 98 percent of
all cigarettes. New regressive taxes on these adult products are not
acceptable in this budget.
This administration has stated it wants to help bring prosperity back
to the family farm. So do I. But I do not understand how taxing our
family farmers out of business will achieve this goal. I urge all of my
colleagues to join with me and oppose all attempts by this
administration to finance its big-government budget on the backs of
tobacco farmers and other working families.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Republican's budget resolution. I am truly disappointed that the
Majority has not put forth a more reasonable, workable proposal that
could garner true bipartisan support.
Mr. Chairman, at a time when this Congress has a unique opportunity
to build upon the economic success of recent years under the leadership
of President Clinton, we are presented with a document that is
political in its origin and regressive in its policies. At this crucial
juncture in our Nation's history, we are being asked to look backwards,
not forward. Rather than working together to develop and implement an
economic policy for the new millennium, we are presented with a back
room, cut-and-paste deal that simply can not deliver on its promises
and would set us on a course which can only result in further
escalating the astronomical national debt run-up during the 1980s.
Mr. Chairman, we have been down this road before and it is a dead-
end. We cannot afford to take this route again.
Mr. Chairman, we should be working together to set our Nation's
economic policy on a path that will ensure continued surpluses while
saving Social Security, strengthening Medicare, and paying-down our
debt. We have the ability to achieve a balanced budget for years to
come, while still providing for the needs of our country--education,
health care, and Social Security. We should not, indeed, must not,
pass-up this once in a lifetime opportunity to establish a sound and
lasting budgetary policy.
Unfortunately, the document before us today falls far short of these
worthwhile and obtainable goals. The proposal borders on being reckless
in its approach to our budgetary needs and disingenuous in its
promises. Indeed, some have even referred to this measure as the ``meat
ax'' approach to budgeting.
Mr. Chairman, we are presented with unrealistic spending levels,
under-funding almost every major program in order to once again provide
tax relief for the most well-off in our society. I seriously doubt that
many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle realistically
believe that the requirements of this proposal can be met.
Under the Republican plan, Medicare and Social Security are left
unprotected. We all know that Medicare will become insolvent in 2008
and Social Security will become insolvent in 2032, if this Congress
does not enact meaningful, sensible reform in the near future. This
budget proposal fails to address this looming problem and seriously
weakens our
[[Page H1742]]
ability to face the economic challenges of the next century.
At a time when we should be moving forward, looking to the future,
this proposal hearkens back to the days of isolationism and poor
houses. I ask my friends in the Majority, where is their oft-touted
commitment to the war on drugs, to fighting crime and making our
streets safe, to education, to health care, to the environment and our
natural resources, to science and technology, to our men and women in
the armed services, and to the so many other vital programs which seek
to take care of the less fortunate and ensure a better life for the
American middle class? Where is their commitment to a balanced budget
and paying-down the debt?
Mr. Chairman, under the very able leadership of Ranking Member
Spratt, the Democrats want to keep prosperity on track and protect the
American family. Our plan would preserve 62 percent of the total
estimated budget surplus for Social Security, ensuring the Social
Security Trust Fund remains solvent for many decades to come. Our plan
also transfer 15 percent of these surpluses to shoring-up Medicare,
extending its solvency for at least a decade to grant us the time we
will need to develop and implement a bipartisan fix for this valuable
social program.
Education, one of the most crucial underpinnings of our great country
is barely paid lip-service under this proposal. Many of my colleagues
may ask why the Federal Government needs to become involved in school
renovation and construction issues, which are historically local
concerns. The simple answer is that the problem has grown so large that
localities and States alone do not have the resources or the programs
to address their overwhelming needs. For instance, a recent survey by
the Division of School Facilities in New York City concluded that, in
my district alone, 19 new schools were needed to alleviate
overcrowding. Additionally, to bring schools in the Seventh
Congressional District of New York up to standards deemed ``fair'' by
school facilities' engineers, New York City would have to fund $218.65
million in exterior modernization projects and $53.18 million in
interior modernization projects.
Mr. Chairman, this budget does not ring true. It has a harsh sound
that is indicative of it being out of tune with our current economic
conditions and good government. I urge my colleagues to vote against
this proposal. If you support the working men and women of this
country, if you support our Nation's children, you must oppose this
budget resolution and support the Democratic alternative.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, our Federal budget should be a statement of
our national values. How we spend our money should reflect what is
important to us. The budget should address our current needs and
capitalize on opportunities in the future.
The budget should recognize the strength of our country, not only in
terms of our military might, but also measure our strength in terms of
the health, education, and well-being of American families.
I cannot think of two better measures of a budget than its attention
to educating our children and improving the health status of all
Americans. This budget turns away from both these urgent priorities,
putting tax cuts ahead of all else.
The preschool education program Head Start is one example. Head Start
is one of our success stories. It offers early education and nutrition
services to lower income children and it has been proven effective.
Within 10 years, this budget would decimate Head Start, cutting funding
by nearly one-third. One hundred thousand low-income children would
lose Head Start services.
The Republican budget chooses a tax cut over Head Start funding.
In the area of health, the Republican budget is just as short-
sighted. This country faces many challenges in health care. Forty-four
million Americans are living without health insurance. And at the same
time, we face tremendous opportunities to improve and extend lives with
health research. It is our obligation to act on these challenges and
opportunities. This Republican budget turns away from them.
The budget proposal cuts discretionary health spending by 31 percent
over 10 years without spelling out what will be cut. Will it be health
promotion at the Centers for Disease Control? Health care for the
uninsured at the Health Resources and Services Administration? Health
research at the National Institutes of Health? The answer is that all
these vital areas would suffer under the Republican budget, and that
would have a direct impact on the health status of people across the
country.
This budget also ignores Medicare, calling for unspecified Medicare
``reforms,'' and proposing no tangible resources to shore up the health
care program on which tens of millions of seniors depend.
The Republican budget chooses a tax cut over health care and health
research. This Republican budget is dangerously out of step with our
values. It is short-sighted and it makes its biggest cuts where the
poor will feel them most directly. I urge my colleagues to oppose the
Republican budget resolution.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment printed in part 1 of House Report
106-77 is adopted and the concurrent resolution, as amended, is
considered as having been read for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
The text of House Concurrent Resolution 68, as amended by the
amendment printed in part 1 of House Report 106-77, is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 68
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),
SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2000.
The Congress declares that this is the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000 and that the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2001 through
2009 are hereby set forth.
SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.
The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2000 through 2009:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,408,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,435,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,456,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,532,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,584,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,651,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,684,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $1,733,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,802,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $1,867,500,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $0.
Fiscal year 2001: -$9,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: -$52,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: -$30,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: -$50,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: -$59,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: -$106,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: -$138,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: -$153,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: -$178,200,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,426,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,456,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,487,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,558,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,611,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,665,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,697,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $1,752,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,813,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $1,874,400,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,408,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,435,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,455,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,532,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,583,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,638,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,666,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $1,715,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,781,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $1,841,300,000,000.
(4) Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $0.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $12,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $18,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $17,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $21,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $26,200,000,000.
(5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $5,627,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $5,707,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $5,791,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $5,875,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $5,954,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $6,019,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $6,075,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $6,128,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $6,168,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $6,198,100,000,000.
SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.
The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal
years 2000 through 2009 for each major functional category
are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $288,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $276,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $303,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $285,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $308,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $291,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $318,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $303,600,000,000.
[[Page H1743]]
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $327,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $313,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $328,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $316,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $329,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $315,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $330,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $313,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $332,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $317,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $333,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $318,000,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $13,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $13,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $14,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $14,000,000,000
(B) Outlays, $12,100,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $18,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, -$700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,100,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $22,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $22,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $22,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $22,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $23,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $23,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $23,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $23,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $23,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $24,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,700,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $14,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $11,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $10,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $10,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $10,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,200,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $9,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $13,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $13,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,800,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $51,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $51,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $50,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $52,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $52,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $52,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $52,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $52,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $52,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $52,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,100,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $7,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $5,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $5,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $5,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $5,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $5,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $5,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $5,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
[[Page H1744]]
(A) New budget authority, $5,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $5,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,300,000,000.
(10) Elementary and Secondary Education, and Vocational
Education (501):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $24,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $24,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $25,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,900,000,000.
(11) Higher Education, Training, Employment, and Social
Services (500, except for 501):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $43,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $41,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $41,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $42,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $43,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $43,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $44,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $45,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $46,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $46,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,500,000,000.
(12) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $156,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $153,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $164,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $162,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $173,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $173,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $184,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $185,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $197,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $198,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $212,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $212,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $228,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $228,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $246,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $245,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $265,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $264,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $285,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $284,900,000,000.
(13) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $208,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $208,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $222,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $222,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $230,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $230,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $250,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $250,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $268,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $268,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $295,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $295,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $306,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $306,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $337,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $337,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $365,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $365,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $394,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $394,200,000,000.
(14) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $244,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $248,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $250,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $257,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $262,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $267,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $277,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $276,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $286,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $286,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $298,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $298,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $304,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $305,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $310,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $311,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $323,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $325,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $334,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $335,700,000,000.
(15) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $13,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $15,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $16,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $17,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $18,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $18,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $19,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $21,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $22,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,200,000,000.
(16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $44,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $44,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $44,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $45,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $46,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $48,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $47,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $47,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $48,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $49,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,700,000,000.
(17) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $23,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $24,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $24,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $24,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $26,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $26,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $26,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $26,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $26,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $26,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,400,000,000.
(18) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $11,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
[[Page H1745]]
(A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
(19) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $275,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $275,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $271,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $271,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $267,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $267,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $265,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $265,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $263,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $263,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $261,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $261,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $258,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $258,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $257,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $257,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $254,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $254,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $252,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $252,700,000,000.
(20) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, -$8,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$10,100,000,000
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$8,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$12,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$6,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$20,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$4,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$4,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$4,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$5,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$4,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$5,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, -$4,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$5,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$5,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$5,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$5,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$5,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$5,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$5,900,000,000.
(21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, -$34,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$34,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$36,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$36,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$43,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$43,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$37,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$37,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$37,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$37,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$38,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$38,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, -$38,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$38,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$40,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$40,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$40,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$40,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$41,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$41,800,000,000.
SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.
Not later than September 30, 1999, the House Committee on
Ways and Means shall report to the House a reconciliation
bill that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction
such that the total level of revenues is not less than:
$1,408,500,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 2000,
$7,416,800,000,000 in revenues for fiscal years 2000 through
2004, and $16,155,700,000,000 in revenues for fiscal years
2000 through 2009.
SEC. 5. SAFE DEPOSIT BOX FOR SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the social
security trust funds are off-budget for purposes of the
President's budget submission and the concurrent resolution
on the budget;
(2) the social security trust funds have been running
surpluses for 17 years;
(3) these surpluses have been used to implicitly finance
the general operations of the Federal government;
(4) in fiscal year 2000, the social security surplus will
exceed $137 billion;
(5) for the first time, a concurrent resolution on the
budget balances the Federal budget without counting social
security surpluses; and
(6) the only way to ensure that social security surpluses
are not diverted for other purposes is to balance the budget
exclusive of such surpluses.
(b) Point of Order.--(1) It shall not be in order in the
House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any
concurrent resolution on the budget, or any amendment thereto
or conference report thereon, that sets forth a deficit for
any fiscal year. For purposes of this subsection, a deficit
shall be the level (if any) set forth in the most recently
agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for that fiscal
year pursuant to section 301(a)(3) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974. In setting forth the deficit level
pursuant to such section, that level shall not include any
adjustments in aggregates that would be made pursuant to any
reserve fund that provides for adjustments in allocations and
aggregates for legislation that enhances retirement security
or extends the solvency of the medicare trust funds or makes
such changes in the medicare payment or benefit structure as
are necessary.
(2) Paragraph (1) may be waived in the Senate only by the
affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members voting.
(c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) beginning with fiscal year 2000, legislation should be
enacted to require any official statement issued by the
Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget
Office, or any other agency or instrumentality of the
Government of surplus or deficit totals of the budget of the
Government as submitted by the President or of the surplus or
deficit totals of the congressional budget, and any
description of, or reference to, such totals in any official
publication or material issued by either of such offices or
any other such agency or instrumentality, should exclude the
outlays and receipts of the old-age, survivors, and
disability insurance program under title II of the Social
Security Act (including the Federal Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance
Trust Fund) and the related provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(2) legislation should be considered to augment subsection
(b) by--
(A) taking such steps as may be required to safeguard the
social security surpluses, such as statutory changes
equivalent to the reserve fund for retirement security and
medicare set forth in section 6; or
(B) otherwise establishing a statutory limit on debt held
by the public and reducing such limit by the amount of the
social security surpluses.
SEC. 6. RESERVE FUND FOR RETIREMENT SECURITY AND, AS NEEDED,
MEDICARE.
(a) Retirement Security.--Whenever the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House reports a bill, or an amendment
thereto is offered, or a conference report thereon is
submitted that enhances retirement security, the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget may--
(1) increase the appropriate allocations for each of fiscal
years 2000 through 2004 and aggregates for each of fiscal
years 2000 through 2009 of new budget authority and outlays
by the amount of new budget authority provided by such
measure (and outlays flowing therefrom) for such fiscal year
for that purpose; and
(2) reduce the revenue aggregates for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2009 by the amount of the revenue loss resulting
from that measure for such fiscal year for that purpose.
(b) Medicare Program.--Whenever the Committee on Ways and
Means or the Committee on Commerce of the House reports a
bill, or an amendment thereto is offered, or a conference
report thereon is submitted that extends the solvency or
reforms the benefit or payment structure of the medicare
program including any measure in response to the National
Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, the chairman
of the Committee on the Budget may increase the appropriate
allocations and aggregates of new budget authority and
outlays by the amounts provided in that bill for that
purpose.
(c) Limitation.--(1) The chairman of the Committee on the
Budget may only make adjustments under subsection (a) or (b)
if the net outlay increase plus revenue reduction resulting
from any measure referred to in those subsections (including
any prior adjustments made for any other such measure) for
fiscal year 2000, the period of fiscal years 2000 through
2004, or the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009 is not
greater than an amount equal to the projected social security
surplus for such period, as set forth in the joint
explanatory statement of managers accompanying this
concurrent resolution or, if published, the midsession review
for fiscal year 2000 of the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office. For purposes of the preceding sentence,
revenue reductions shall be treated as a positive number.
[[Page H1746]]
(2) In the midsession review for fiscal year 2000, the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office in consultation
with the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability
Insurance Trust Fund shall make an up-to-date estimate of the
projected surpluses in the social security trust funds for
fiscal year 2000, for the period of fiscal years 2000 through
2004, and for the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009.
(3) As used in this subsection, the term ``social security
trust funds'' means the Federal Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance
Trust Fund.
SEC. 7. RESERVE FUND FOR PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.
(a) In General.--In the House, when the Committee on
Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution, or an
amendment thereto is offered, or a conference report thereon
is submitted that provides new budget authority for fiscal
year 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, or 2004 for programs authorized
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may increase the
appropriate allocations and aggregates of new budget
authority and outlays by an amount not to exceed the amount
of new budget authority provided by that measure (and outlays
flowing therefrom) for that purpose up to the maximum amount
consistent with section 611(a) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411(a)(2)).
(b) Adjustments.--The adjustments in outlays (and the
corresponding amount of new budget authority) made under
subsection (a) for any fiscal year may not exceed the amount
by which an up-to-date projection of the on-budget surplus
made by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office for
that fiscal year exceeds the on-budget surplus for that
fiscal year set forth in section 2(4) of this resolution.
(c) CBO Projections.--Upon the request of the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the House, the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office shall make an up-to-date estimate
of the projected on-budget surplus for the applicable fiscal
year.
SEC. 8. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND
AGGREGATES.
(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and
aggregates made pursuant to this resolution for any measure
shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in
this resolution.
SEC. 9. UPDATED CBO PROJECTIONS.
Each calendar quarter the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office shall make an up-to-date estimate of receipts,
outlays and surplus (on-budget and off-budget) for the
current fiscal year.
SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) persecution of individuals on the sole ground of their
religious beliefs and practices occurs in countries around
the world and affects millions of lives;
(2) such persecution violates international norms of human
rights, including those established in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, the Helsinki Accords, and the
Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance
and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief;
(3) such persecution is abhorrent to all Americans, and our
very Nation was founded on the principle of the freedom to
worship according to the dictates of our conscience; and
(4) in 1998 Congress unanimously passed, and President
Clinton signed into law, the International Religious Freedom
Act of 1998, which established the United States Commission
on International Religious Freedom to monitor facts and
circumstances of violations of religious freedom and
authorized $3,000,000 to carry out the functions of the
Commission for each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) this resolution assumes that $3,000,000 will be
appropriated within function 150 for fiscal year 2000 for the
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom
to carry out its duties; and
(2) the House Committee on Appropriations is strongly urged
to appropriate such amount for the Commission.
SEC. 11. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DOLLARS
TO THE CLASSROOM.
(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) strengthening America's public schools while respecting
State and local control is critically important to the future
of our children and our Nation;
(2) education is a local responsibility, a State priority,
and a national concern;
(3) working with the Nation's governors, parents, teachers,
and principals must take place in order to strengthen public
schools and foster educational excellence;
(4) the consolidation of various Federal education programs
will benefit our Nation's children, parents, and teachers by
sending more dollars directly to the classroom; and
(5) our Nation's children deserve an educational system
that will provide opportunities to excel.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House
that--
(1) the House should enact legislation that would
consolidate thirty-one Federal K-12 education programs; and
(2) the Department of Education, the States, and local
educational agencies should work together to ensure that not
less than 95 percent of all funds appropriated for the
purpose of carrying out elementary and secondary education
programs administered by the Department of Education is spent
for our children in their classrooms.
SEC. 12. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ASSET-BUILDING FOR THE WORKING
POOR.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) 33 percent of all American households have no or
negative financial assets and 60 percent of African-American
households have no or negative financial assets;
(2) 46.9 percent of all children in America live in
households with no financial assets, including 40 percent of
caucasian children and 75 percent of African-American
children;
(3) in order to provide low-income families with more tools
for empowerment, incentives which encourage asset-building
should be established;
(4) across the Nation numerous small public, private, and
public-private asset-building initiatives (including
individual development account programs) are demonstrating
success at empowering low-income workers;
(5) the Government currently provides middle and upper
income Americans with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax
incentives for building assets; and
(6) the Government should utilize tax laws or other
measures to provide low-income Americans with incentives to
work and build assets in order to escape poverty permanently.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
any changes in tax law should include provisions which
encourage low-income workers and their families to save for
buying their first home, starting a business, obtaining an
education, or taking other measures to prepare for the
future.
SEC. 13. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ACCESS TO HEALTH INSURANCE AND
PRESERVING HOME HEALTH SERVICES FOR ALL
MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.
(a) Access to Health Insurance.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(A) 43.4 million Americans are currently without health
insurance, and that this number is expected to rise to nearly
60 million people in the next 10 years;
(B) the cost of health insurance continues to rise, a key
factor in increasing the number of uninsured; and
(C) there is a consensus that working Americans and their
families and children will suffer from reduced access to
health insurance.
(2) Sense of Congress on Improving Access to Health Care
Insurance.--It is the sense of Congress that access to
affordable health care coverage for all Americans is a
priority of the 106th Congress.
(b) Preserving Home Health Service For All Medicare
Beneficiaries.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(A) the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 reformed medicare home
health care spending by instructing the Health Care Financing
Administration to implement a prospective payment system and
instituted an interim payment system to achieve savings;
(B) the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999, reformed the interim payment system
to increase reimbursements to low-cost providers, added $900
million in funding, and delayed the automatic 15 percent
payment reduction for one year, to October 1, 2000; and
(C) patients whose care is more extensive and expensive
than the typical medicare patient do not receive supplemental
payments in the interim payment system but will receive
special protection in the home health care prospective
payment system.
(2) Sense of congress on access to home health care.--It is
the sense of Congress that--
(A) Congress recognizes the importance of home health care
for seniors and disabled citizens;
(B) Congress and the Administration should work together to
maintain quality care for patients whose care is more
extensive and expensive than the typical medicare patient,
including the sickest and frailest medicare beneficiaries,
while home health care agencies operate in the interim
payment system; and
(C) Congress and the Administration should work together to
avoid the implementation of the 15 percent reduction in the
interim payment system and ensure timely implementation of
the prospective payment system.
SEC. 14. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON MEDICARE PAYMENT.
(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) a goal of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was to expand
options for medicare beneficiaries under the new
Medicare+Choice program;
(2) Medicare+Choice was intended to make these choices
available to all medicare beneficiaries; and unfortunately,
during the first
[[Page H1747]]
two years of the Medicare+Choice program the blended payment
was not implemented, stifling health care options and
continuing regional disparity among many counties across the
United States; and
(3) the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 also established the
National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare to
develop legislative recommendations to address the long-term
funding challenges facing medicare.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
this resolution assumes that funding of the Medicare+Choice
program is a priority for the House Committee on the Budget
before financing new programs and benefits that may
potentially add to the imbalance of payments and benefits in
Fee-for-Service Medicare and Medicare+Choice.
SEC. 15. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON ASSESSMENT OF WELFARE-TO-WORK
PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--It is the sense of the House that,
recognizing the need to maximize the benefit of the Welfare-
to-Work Program, the Secretary of Labor should prepare a
report on Welfare-to-Work Programs pursuant to section
403(a)(5) of the Social Security Act. This report should
include information on the following--
(1) the extent to which the funds available under such
section have been used (including the number of States that
have not used any of such funds), the types of programs that
have received such funds, the number of and characteristics
of the recipients of assistance under such programs, the
goals of such programs, the duration of such programs, the
costs of such programs, any evidence of the effects of such
programs on such recipients, and accounting of the total
amount expended by the States from such funds, and the rate
at which the Secretary expects such funds to be expended for
each of the fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002;
(2) with regard to the unused funds allocated for Welfare-
to-Work for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999, identify
areas of the Nation that have unmet needs for Welfare-to-Work
initiatives; and
(3) identify possible Congressional action that may be
taken to reprogram Welfare-to-Work funds from States that
have not utilized previously allocated funds to places of
unmet need, including those States that have rejected or
otherwise not utilized prior funding.
(b) Report.--It is the sense of the House that, not later
than January 1, 2000, the Secretary of Labor should submit to
the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House and the Committee on Finance of the
Senate, in writing, the report described in subsection (a).
SEC. 16. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PROVIDING HONOR GUARD SERVICES
FOR VETERANS' FUNERALS.
It is the sense of Congress that all relevant congressional
committees should make every effort to provide sufficient
resources so that an Honor Guard, if requested, is available
for veterans' funerals.
SEC. 17. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CHILD NUTRITION.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) both Republicans and Democrats understand that an
adequate diet and proper nutrition are essential to a child's
general well-being;
(2) the lack of an adequate diet and proper nutrition may
adversely affect a child's ability to perform up to his or
her ability in school;
(3) the Government currently plays a role in funding school
nutrition programs; and
(4) there is a bipartisan commitment to helping children
learn.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the
Committee on Agriculture should examine our Nation's
nutrition programs to determine if they can be improved,
particularly with respect to services to low-income children.
The CHAIRMAN. No further amendment is in order except the amendments
printed in part 2 of that report. Each amendment may be offered only in
the order printed in the report, may be offered only by the Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
After conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for
amendment, there shall be 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.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part 2 of
House Report 106-77.
Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Coburn
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment No. 1 in the nature of a substitute printed in
part 2 of House Report 106-77 offered by Mr. Coburn:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2000.
The Congress declares that this is the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000 and that the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2001 through
2004 are hereby set forth.
SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.
The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2000 through 2004:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,406,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,445,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,507,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,562,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,631,800,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $11,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $10,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $10,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $10,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $9,500,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,549,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,588,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,648,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,717,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,798,500,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,535,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,564,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,634,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,702,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,780,600,000,000.
(4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $129,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $119,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $126,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $139,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $148,800,000,000.
(5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $5,778,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $5,999,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $6,242,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $6,497,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $6,764,500,000,000.
SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.
The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal
years 2000 through 2004 for each major functional category
are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $280,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $283,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $300,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $285,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $302,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $293,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $312,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $303,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $321,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $313,800,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $16,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $15,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $17,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $18,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,600,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $19,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $19,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $19,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $19,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $19,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,200,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $1,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $1,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $1,100,000,000.
[[Page H1748]]
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-200,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $24,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $24,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $23,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $24,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $24,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,000,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $13,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $11,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $11,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,000,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $11,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $11,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $15,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $15,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $15,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $54,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $545,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $55,600,000,000
(B) Outlays, $50,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $57,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $59,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $53,800,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $11,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $9,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $9,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $9,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $9,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,700,000,000.
(10) Elementary and Secondary Education, and Vocational
Education (501):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $20,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,800,000,000.
(11) Higher Education, Training, Employment, and Social
Services (500, except for 501):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $46,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $46,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $46,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $47,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $48,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,700,000,000.
(12) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $157,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $153,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $166,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $165,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $176,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $177,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $188,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $189,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $202,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $202,800,000,000.
(13) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $207,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $207,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $220,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $220,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $228,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $228,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $248,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $249,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $266,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $266,900,000,000.
(14) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $256,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $259,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $268,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $271,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $282,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $285,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $291,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $295,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $301,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $304,000,000,000.
(15) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $99,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $99,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $84,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $107,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $107,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $106,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $106,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $126,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $126,000,000,000.
(16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $43,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $44,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $45,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $45,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $45,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,300,000,000.
(17) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $26,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $27,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $27,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,000,000,000.
(18) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $13,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $14,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $14,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $14,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $14,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
(19) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $278,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $278,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $279,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $279,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $282,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $282,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $286,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $286,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $291,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $291,900,000,000.
(20) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $1,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $3,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $6,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
[[Page H1749]]
(B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.
(21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $-35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-35,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $-39,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-39,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $-43,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-43,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $-38,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-38,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $-38,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-38,500,000,000.
SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.
Not later than September 30, 1999, the House Committee on
Ways and Means shall report to the House a reconciliation
bill that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction
such that the total level of revenues for that committee is
not less than: $1,406,000,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year
2000 and $7,553,900,000,000 in revenues for fiscal years 2000
through 2004.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to raise a parliamentary point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, do the rules of the House require that an
offeror of the amendment be a supporter and proponent of the amendment
that he offers and proposes to the House?
The CHAIRMAN. House Resolution 131 explicitly makes it in order for
the gentleman from Oklahoma to offer this amendment. The Chair does not
assess the attitude of the gentleman from Oklahoma toward the
proposition.
Mr. SPRATT. Would it be in order to ask if the gentleman does indeed
support this, or if he is offering it for dilatory purposes?
The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Oklahoma rise?
Mr. COBURN. To speak in favor of my amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the reason I am offering this amendment is because
millions of dollars and nearly 1,000 people in the executive branch
spent time preparing this budget. The President spoke in his State of
the Union speech. He outlined the plans that he would submit.
The reason I am offering this budget is because it is fair to the
President to debate his issues. It is ironic that nobody from his party
would submit his budget.
There is no question I have great disagreements with many aspects of
the budget, but the American people deserve to hear his budget outlined
as scored by the CBO, as every other budget that will be presented on
this floor, and what it actually says, because it is my contention that
the budget that is presented does not go along with what the President
said in his State of the Union speech. I hope through this discussion
and with the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, that we
will find out where that is.
There is no intention to deceive anybody. It is an honest and sincere
desire to make sure that this budget is considered. But I think it is
also implicit on us to use the same scoring mechanisms, assuming all
the assumptions in his budget, that we would do that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is
recognized for 20 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Parliamentary Inquiry.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) state his
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. NUSSLE. Yes. Is the gentleman who has claimed the time in
opposition to this amendment opposed to the amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already established that he is in
opposition to the amendment. He is entitled to 20 minutes of debate.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is recognized.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I would first like to say that we have a letter from
Jacob J. Lew, director of the Office of Management and Budget, saying
that he is informed that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) will
be offering a substitute to the budget resolution 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 that is quite different
from those presented in the President's budget. Therefore, we
do not support the amendment.
While we are talking about the President's budget, though, and
drawing comparisons and contrasts, let me take just a minute to point
out a very significant difference between the Republican budget and the
President's budget.
The President sent up early this year a request to increase defense
by $84 billion over the next 6 years, $68 billion of which would fall
in the next 5 years. As Members can see, the President has proposed a
pretty robust defense budget starting this year and continuing through
the 10-year time frame of the budget to the point where it reaches
nearly $385 billion.
Let me point out two factors in the Republican budget which really
work against the claim, undercut the claim, that their budget is
supportive of national defense.
First of all, in the first 5 years of their budget they offer $29
billion more than the President, $29.6 billion in budget authority.
Members can only use budget authority, as the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks) earlier said, if it has outlays to back it up. Outlays are
money we can spend.
In giving spending authority to the Pentagon, their budget in the
first 5 years matches the $30 billion increase in defense spending
budget authority. With only $5.2 billion, only one-sixth of the money
they are putting up can actually be used in this period of time. So in
the first 5 years, while they sort of beat their breast and say, look
what we are doing for defense over and above the President, in truth,
they pull this punch by not providing the outlays to back it up.
In the second period of time this chart very graphically shows what
happens to their defense budget and where they put their preferences.
Because in the year 2004 their defense budget peaks, and thereafter it
is the black line on this chart, it is flat as a pancake. It never
increases in the next 5 years more than $1 billion.
What is wrong with that? That is the period when the procurement
holiday is over. That is the period when the F-22 and the V-22 and the
joint strike fighter and missile defense and everything else is going
to be procured. That is when we need the money more than ever.
What happens in the Republican budget? It bottoms out. Why does it
bottom out? Because when they were forced to choose between national
defense and tax cuts, they opted clearly for tax cuts, so much so that
they plotted an out year budget that is totally unrealistic.
I asked the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) on the floor the other
day, when he came to speak in support of missile defense, how in the
world was he going to pay for it? Because that is the time frame when
he would be deploying missile defense, putting the satellites in space,
the ground interceptors in place.
He said, I can say that our numbers are real. That is the thing that
worries me, this is a real number. Their tax cut will make impossible
any increase in defense in those years to do the things they say and
purport they want to do for national defense. Their budget is a
disaster for national defense compared to the President's budget.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, our staff was in contact with one Elizabeth Gore and
outlined our plans. She had no objections to the assumptions that we
made on that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we have this debate. As
the gentleman from Oklahoma mentioned, the
[[Page H1750]]
President and his team spent literally $1 million putting their budget
together. I think it deserves careful consideration by the Members of
this body.
{time} 1530
First of all, I want to point out a chart we have used all day, and I
think it is important because there are clear distinctions and
differences between our plan and the President's plan.
We believe that every penny of Social Security taxes should go only
for Social Security. There is a difference there between us and the
President. If my colleagues look at the difference in the plan, and
again these are not our numbers, these are from the Congressional
Budget Office, we secure $1.8 trillion for Medicare and Social Security
over the next 10 years. The President is somewhere in the neighborhood
of $1.65 trillion.
I want to give some credit to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt), the Democrats and the Blue Dog budget. In fact, in some
respects, we should feel honored because, in many respects, their
budget looks a lot more like our budget than it does the President's
budget.
But one of the biggest differences between the various budget plans
that are being offered here today is we believe that, once we have
saved Social Security, once we have said that every penny of Social
Security taxes will only go for Social Security, and then, secondly, we
say we are going to live by the spending caps that we and the White
House agreed to. I was there for the bill signing, and I think the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) was there as well. It was a
glorious day out on the White House lawn. We said we are going to live
by these spending caps, and we are going to keep our word even if the
President does not.
The President has in his budget exceeded the spending caps by about
$30 billion. Again, to the credit of the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt) and the Blue Dogs, I think they do a better job of living
by those spending caps.
But I think the biggest difference between our budget, the Blue Dog
budget, and more importantly the President's budget is the President
imposes about $45.8 billion, depending on whose scoring we use, but
over the next 5 years, we are looking somewhere in the neighborhood of
$46 billion in new taxes.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on Budget, for doing
a yeoman's job today.
Mr. Chairman, the Coburn alternative is a sham, and the Republican
budget is a failure. It fails our future retirees, it fails our
veterans, it fails our families, and it fails our children and their
education.
The Republican budget increases military spending, yet fails to
itemize veterans' pay and retirement benefits and at the same time cuts
funding for Head Start and after-school programs.
What is worse, now the Republicans are failing to use the projected
$2.8 trillion surplus to extend the solvency of Social Security by even
one day. Instead, the Republicans' plan gambles with the guarantee we
have made to our seniors, our women, and our families by proposing tax
cuts for the wealthiest in the Nation.
Do not forget, the Republican budget fails to use one red cent for
Medicare, which benefits mainly the middle income folks and retirees in
this Nation.
A responsible budget will save Social Security and Medicare, invest
in our children and their education, support our veterans and our
farmers, and give targeted tax relief to working Americans. The
Republican budget fails in all of these areas and must be defeated.
Vote against the Coburn amendment. Vote against the Republican
budget. Vote for the Democratic alternative.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just make mention of the fact that, in this
budget, there are no specific targeted tax cuts for anyone. To continue
to speak on this House floor about tax cuts for rich people, which is
not our intention in the first place, but to say that is erroneous.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hostettler).
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution was established to
provide for the common defense. However, at a time when the threat of
rogue nations with nuclear weapons remain strong and the administration
has ordered an unprecedented number of deployments, our troops and
military are not as well equipped or as well provided for as yesterday.
Consider: For the first time in decades, we are failing to meet
recruitment goals. For example, in 1998, the Navy missed its recruiting
goals by 12 percent. Additionally, there is a 13\1/2\ percent wage gap
between civilian and military pay. In fact, many military families need
the assistance of food stamps just to survive.
My colleagues may be pondering this weakened state of U.S. military
forces and feel alarmed about our current level of national security,
but there is hope. The same President who has overseen this tremendous
decline in our military has proposed a solution to undo the
devastation.
First, the President proposes defense spending over the next 6 years,
which is as much as $70 billion below the Defense Chiefs' requirements
to maintain our current level of national security.
Second, the President realizes that the U.S. House, which declared
that the U.S. should deploy a national missile defense system to
protect our Nation and troops, is mistaken. That must be why he would
rescind $230 million in funding for the development of a national
missile defense.
To improve the financial condition of our military families, the
President has slashed military construction funding, including money
for military family housing, by $3.1 billion.
For those of my colleagues who desire to improve national security by
inadequately funding our armed services, by stealing pledged funds from
our national missile defense program, and by severely reducing
construction for our military and its families, I urge their support
for the Clinton-Gore budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
for yielding me this time.
There has been a lot of complaints about the President's budget and
how it treats the National Institutes of Health. As members of the
committee know, I have been the author in the past of an amendment to
double the size of our commitment to medical research through the
National Institutes of Health. In fact, the committee defeated the
amendment last year. They defeated it this year. In fact, the
Republican controlled committee at one point, and the Republican House,
wanted to cut the NIH by 5 percent.
Let us talk about the Republican budget that is before us today. If
my colleagues look at what they have in the health function, they tell
us in the very little detail they give us about their budget that they
are going to double the size of the National Institutes of Health, but
they actually cut the level below the baseline in the health function,
which means that we are going to have to choose between community
health centers, between WIC, Women and Infant Children programs. We are
going to have to decide between nutrition programs and the NIH.
That is the problem with the Republican budget. They do not tell us
where the cuts come from. They lock in $1 trillion tax cut on surpluses
that we do not know whether they are going to come true or not. They
bust the caps because they know that $28 billion in nondefense
discretionary cuts they want to make just are not there. That is the
problem with the budget.
So we can engage in theatrics today of writing up a budget that is
not going to be given any real consideration because we do not want to
look at the truth behind the majority's budget.
At the end of the day, we all know sometime in August or September or
October we will get down to business and write a real budget. But a
two-page budget like that that was put before
[[Page H1751]]
the Committee on Budget with no detail, and the chairman, a good friend
of mine, saying my Members do not want to talk about where we are going
to make the cuts right now, is not a real budget.
The Republicans' budget is not a real budget. It does not increase
NIH. If we were to follow this budget, we would be cutting community
health centers, we would be cutting WIC, nutrition, all those programs
that a bipartisan majority of Members of this body have supported in
the past.
We can engage in theatrics, but at the end of the day, we are going
to have to write a real budget like the Democratic budget.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on
both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has 14 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 12
minutes remaining.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a note that, last year, NIH
was increased 14.5 percent in our budget. I would also like to make a
note that WIC is not in the category that the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bentsen) just referred to and is not at risk at all under this budget.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I find there is much to disagree with in
the Clinton budget, but I want to focus on two areas just in the 60
seconds that I have.
First of all, when the President's budget came before the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs of which I serve and I am chairman of the
Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the
ranking member, said it was a pack of cards, house of cards. He
recognized as well as all of the Republicans and Democrats that
basically it was underfunded.
The second point is that, not only was it underfunded, but the whole
budget process in terms of where they thought they would get the money
to pay for the items they were talking about was not really there.
Smoke and mirrors.
So the Republicans on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs supported
increasing the amount of money for veterans, and we proposed an almost
$2 billion increase. The Democrats on this side said they want to do $3
billion. We thought it out, and we decided that the compromise was $2
billion. We put forth that, and we passed it out of our committee. It
passed with bipartisan support. There were about four Democrats who
voted for the Republican position.
So I think the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) and others
were courageous in their attempt to increase the veterans budget, and I
am glad we did.
Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment my colleague from Ohio, Chairman
Kasich, for bringing his FY 2000 budget resolution to the floor today.
Thomas Jefferson stated:
The same prudence which in private life would forbid our
paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in
the dispensation of the public money.
These words still hold today.
I support the Kasich budget because it does what I believe needs to
be done. It establishes a ``safe deposit box'' so that Social Security
funds cannot be raided, it provides for debt reduction, controls
spending while increasing defense spending, and provides much-needed
tax relief. Furthermore, it increases funding for education and
provides an increase of more than 1 billion for veterans health care
over the President's budget.
I am troubled by the President's FY 2000 budget because it would
increase domestic spending by $200 billion, increase taxes by over $100
billion, it would create 120 new government programs, and it would
break the spending caps put in place in the Balanced Budget Act of
1997. Ironically, the President, who talks a good game when it comes to
education, has proposed cutting special education (title VI block
grants) by $375 million.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that passage of the President's budget would
erode all the hard work and effort it has taken to cut wasteful
spending and reduce the size of government.
While I find there is much to disagree with in the President's
budget, I want to focus on two areas in his proposal that I find
particularly intolerable.
As a veteran I find the administration's budget to be short of
support for our Nation's men and women who served their country in time
of need.
The President's budget is a mockery and I believe that he must be
held accountable for sending us such a woefully inadequate VA budget,
especially as it relates to VA medical care.
As chairman of the Veterans Subcommittee on Health, I know all too
well how difficult it is to meet the health care needs of our Nation's
veterans. In fact, when VA Secretary Togo West presented the
administration's budget, I suggested that he might want to resubmit a
new one because the one he was submitting seeks no funding increase for
VA medical care above the 1999 baseline level. That makes our job even
more difficult.
The President's budget doesn't address how the VA will find the money
to pay for fixed cost increases of $870 million for inflation and
salaries, at least $135 million in new costs for hepatitis, and
estimated $250 million to meet emergency care obligations, increased
medication and prosthetics of $150 million, and a shortfall of $100
million in medical collections. I have long believed that these third
party payer collections should be a supplement to and not instead of
guaranteed health care dollars.
The other area of concern I have is with how the President deals with
Social Security. During the last election we heard a lot about saving
Social Security. The President criticized Congress for not doing enough
to save the Social Security program. He pledged to and I quote, ``save
Social Security first'' and to dedicate 100 percent of the surplus for
that purpose.
However, as is so often the case, what he says and what he does are
sometimes at odds. The budget he presented to Congress uses not 100
percent of the surplus for Social Security. Not 90 percent, not 80
percent, not 70, but 60 percent of future surpluses would go to the
trust fund. Now, Mr. President, which is it all of the surplus, 60
percent of the surplus, or will you change your mind again at some
future date.
I don't think we should play politics with the budget, especially
when it comes to our Nation's veterans and seniors. They made our
country what it is today and I, for one believe we owe them a debt of
gratitude. Smoke and mirrors to pay for your new programs is one thing,
but breaking a pledge we made with these individuals is another.
I'm committed to making sure that our Nation's veterans and our
seniors are treated with the dignity they deserve.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to start off with a
simple question; and that is, how do WE get $778 billion worth of tax
cuts if we do not have someplace to look at in the budget?
So I am reminded, probably back in 1995, that we are back at the same
issue. We are hitting the very same people that lose every time; that
is the veterans, that is the elderly, the children, and the disabled.
The facts are there.
I just heard the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). We are putting
$3 billion in. They are adding $1 billion. But the fact of the matter
is ours keeps the money in there, and theirs would actually cut
veterans over the next 5 years.
I want to know what happened to the promise to our veterans. I simply
cannot believe, also, that we are looking at low income women and
children and the disabled. We are going to cut, and 1 million low-
income women, infants and children would lose nutrition assistance. In
Florida, we found that to be the most successful program to have
healthy children.
We do welfare reform. These people have to have places to take their
children. What happens? We are looking at the fact of cutting, and
50,000 low-income children will lose their child care assistance under
the Child Care and Development Block Grant.
But here is one that absolutely I do not get. I spend half of my time
in the district with people that come in to talk to me that are trying
to apply for SSI. They want to cut administrative expenses. Let me tell
my colleagues, it is taking 2, 3, 4 years for these folks already to
get their claims done. These people are losing their homes. Their
children cannot go to college. We ought not to be slashing
administrative expenses in this area. We ought to be bolstering this
area. Then on top of that, we are going to cut and reduce Meals On
Wheels, congregate dining sites.
[[Page H1752]]
Then I just hope that my colleagues can go home and talk to their
constituents about this budget.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak about a feature of the
budget being offered by the Blue Dog Coalition and the budget that is
being offered at this point by the majority.
The budget being offered by the majority, which is the President's
budget, is using the Social Security surplus twice and claiming that
this extends the life of the Social Security system to the year 2050. I
am surprised that the majority would offer that type of a budget. I
understand this is the President's budget. I must say that this is a
point at which the Blue Dog Coalition disagrees with the President.
We feel that, if we are going to reform the Social Security system,
it is incumbent upon us to do so on a forthright fashion, recognizing
we have some very difficult decisions to make, and not assuming that we
can extend the life of that system by simply giving it a pipeline into
the general funds.
For this reason, we would like to urge that there be bipartisan
support of the Blue Dog budget as opposed to the budget that is
currently being advocated.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for
yielding me this time, and I thank him for his outstanding leadership
as we debate the budget.
This has been a very good debate because I think it highlights the
differences between the two parties, and it gives the American people
an opportunity to make some very fundamental choices.
On the one hand, the Democrats are saying that there are some very
real and large problems in this country that need attention, problems
like Social Security and extending the solvency of the Social Security
program, problems like Medicare, extending solvency there, and problems
like education, which needs our serious national attention.
On the other hand, the Republicans offer us the panacea of tax cuts,
tax cuts that largely go to the wealthy. What happens in the Republican
budget is this, the poor and the middle class count their tax breaks in
terms of tens and hundreds. The wealthy count their tax breaks in terms
of 10,000s.
These tax breaks that they talk about do not add to the solvency of
Social Security by one day. They do not add to the solvency of Medicare
by one day, nor do they address any of the education problems we have
in this country. These tax cuts do not give us a single teacher. They
do not give us a single additional classroom.
{time} 1545
Point of Order
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Point of Order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman will state his
point of order.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I believe the speaker is off
the subject at this time, and I do not believe that is proper.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Will the gentleman repeat the point of
order?
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Sure. The gentleman is talking off subject.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) will
speak to the amendment pending.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I understand the objection. I
think it is more the gentleman does not like what I am saying as
opposed to the relevancy of what I am saying.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will remind all Members that they
will speak to the amendment pending.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair specify what is the objection
of the gentleman to the statement I am making?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman must maintain a nexus to the
budget amendment pending and the President's budget overall.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, the point I was making is that in the context
of debate on national policy, there must be areas of comparison and
contrast. I was attempting to establish a contrast between the
Democratic approach and the Republican approach.
They have now brought up a straw man and claimed this is what they
are advocating, when actually they wanted to use the President's budget
as a vehicle upon which to punch, a vehicle that we Democrats are not
talking about. We Democrats are talking about a specific vehicle which
I am in fact addressing, a vehicle that addresses Medicare, Social
Security and education.
Now, I do not see how that is not relevant, but I can see how it
might be disturbing to my Republican colleagues. The point is we have
an important opportunity today to make a choice: a Republican approach
that wants to hit a straw man and produce tax benefits for the very
wealthy; or a Democratic approach that is fundamentally sound and
addresses the key problems of America today.
I think we ought to opt for the Democratic approach.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
(Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the
gentleman who just spoke said we are not talking about the Clinton-
Gore, the President's, budget. Quite frankly, he candidly said we do
not want to talk about the Clinton-Gore budget. In reality, this is the
Clinton-Gore budget and it is, in fact, what we are offering at this
time on the floor.
Our position is this deserves to be discussed and to be debated.
Millions of dollars were spent to develop this budget. If the Democrats
do not want to offer it, we want to offer it and at least have some
discussion of what is in it. So I understand the gentleman's
embarrassment about not wanting to talk about the President's budget,
but the facts are the facts.
So let us talk about that budget. My colleague, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge), on the other side, pointed out that the
President's budget double counts the Social Security surplus and
actually spends that amount of money twice. Let us talk about what the
Republican budget versus the Clinton-Gore budget does with Social
Security.
We save, as my colleagues understand, I hope, by now, 100 percent of
that surplus. Beyond that, the President, by contrast, as scored by
CBO, spends $158 billion of that surplus. I do not know how anyone can
tell the American people they are saving it when they are spending $158
billion of it.
The second point I want to make is that one of my colleagues who just
spoke on the other side said, well, I think the Republicans are
ultimately going to bury the budget caps, after all, I do not think
they are really going to live within the budget that they proposed.
I simply want to make the point that he can speculate all he wants
about the Republican budget. In point of fact, this chart right here
shows quite clearly the Republican budget on the floor today does not
break the budget cap. We entered into negotiations in 1997, and we set
statutory spending caps. Our budget on the floor today does not break
those caps.
So my colleagues can speculate, but the fact is the President's
budget does break the caps by $31 billion.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, there is a good bit of
rhetoric being spoken here today. I think our Republican friends would
understandably like to do anything other than compare straightforwardly
the Democratic alternative and the Republican alternative that are
before us today.
The facts are that in at least five critical aspects the Democratic
product is vastly superior, and I do not think really anyone has
challenged that effectively today.
First, the Democratic alternative extends Social Security solvency
until 2050 and Medicare solvency to 2020. The Republican budget does
not extend that one day.
Point of Order
Mr. COBURN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
[[Page H1753]]
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. COBURN. I believe the discussion is to be focused on the
amendment at hand. The amendment at hand is the President's budget.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members that the
President's budget is pending, however the President's budget extends
to everything affecting the United States budget.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Absolutely. Every item that I am
addressing is touched on by all these budget promotions, again,
parliamentary maneuvers, anything to avoid a direct comparison of the
Democratic and Republican alternatives that are before us.
The second point of comparison: Over 10 years the Democratic budget
pays down $146 billion more in public debt than the Republican budget.
Third point of comparison, education. Over 5 years, $10 billion more
in the Democratic alternative for education, making it possible to
reduce class size, to bring on 100,000 new teachers; making it possible
to get our children out of trailers. And I speak as someone from a
district where thousands of children are going to school in hundreds of
trailers. In low-income areas, in high-growth areas, we simply must
give our children the modernized facilities, the good equipment they
deserve.
The fourth area of difference, tax cuts. The Democratic budget
provides for targeted tax cuts; long-term care tax credits, child care
tax credits, research and experimentation tax credits, and tax credits
to let local school authorities get ahead of the curve in issuing
school bonds.
Fifth, Veterans and veterans' health care. We discussed that earlier
today. The Republican budget makes a show of boosting veterans' health
care, does it in the first year only, and then actually cuts, cuts,
veterans' health care $400 million below the freeze level over the next
5 years.
We could go on and on. There is no question the Democratic budget is
fiscally responsible. There is no question it is targeted at areas of
urgent national needs. It is far superior to the majority proposal, and
I urge its adoption.
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will acknowledge that the
amendment pending is the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and in the future will refrain from
characterizing it as the President's amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Armey).
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear the Democrat Members of this body do not
want to talk about the President's budget proposal, because the
President's budget proposal is the proposal to increase taxes on the
American people.
Point of Order
Mr. SPRATT. Point of Order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. SPRATT. The Chair just stated it should be referred to as the
Coburn resolution rather than as the President's budget.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Members may debate the content of the
amendment.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder that the proposal that is
presented by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) that was
presented to Congress on behalf of the White House----
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) will
suspend for one moment, please.
The Chair will clarify his statement. The Chair will refrain from
referring to the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
as the President's budget, however, the Members have every right to do
so.
Mr. ARMEY. The President of the United States is proud to say that he
is trying to set money aside for Social Security and Medicare and, yes,
he does try, but he tries with some reservation because of his
commitment to increase taxes and spending.
The fact is the Republicans set more money aside for Social Security
and Medicare than the President does in his budget. After these funds
are set aside, we discover that the American people will still, over
the next decade, on average, pay over $5,000 in increased taxes beyond
that which is necessary. We in the Republican Party believe we ought to
give that money back to the people who earned it in the first place,
but the President and the Democrats do not want to do that.
In fact, in a recent speech in Buffalo, President Clinton told us
that we could, he says, ``We could give it all back to you and hope you
might spend it right, but,'' but he does not believe the American
people can do that. We, however, believe the President should
understand that we can spend our own money that we earn wisely and that
he should not take more than what is necessary. So, after we set aside
more money for Social Security and for Medicare than the President
does, we think we ought to have a tax reduction.
The President says let us raise taxes, 80 different taxes, for a net
of $52 billion over 5 years. And then, on top of everything else, the
President raises taxes on whom? As this chart shows, precisely on the
least income-earning Americans in the country. That is to say, the
President wants to build government so badly that he is willing to hold
back part of the payroll taxes of our young working Americans, who pay
for the retirement security of America's seniors, so the President can
instead use it for new government programs. And, in addition to that,
levy $52 billion worth of increased taxes on the poorest of these
working Americans.
I must say, I must say, given this inability to in fact save Social
Security taxes for Social Security, to in fact restrain the growth of
government, in the face of all the liberal demands of his constituency,
and to in fact cut taxes instead of raising them as he does, and indeed
raising them on the poorest of Americans, given the President's
inability to do something other than these compulsive things, it is no
wonder my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle do not want to
talk about the President's budget. I would not want to either.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I think my friend the majority leader is a little bit confused. The
President has identified some revenue adjustments. The difference is
the Republicans, through their Committee on the Budget Chair, admit
that the Republicans are going to have them but they are not laying out
what they are in terms of the offsets and the pre-increases.
I think, however, the more fundamental point is that they have it
precisely wrong in terms of, unlike the President's proposal, they do
not give tools to our communities to help them build more livable
communities. Their budget fails to give the tools that communities need
to help improve the quality of life, like the administration's budget
does when it offers increased choices for citizens in areas of
transportation, housing, regional planning, open space preservation,
education and crime control. The Democratic alternative recognizes the
importance of these initiatives.
The proposal from the Republicans would be a disaster, if there was
any chance that it would ever be implemented. It siphons off nearly $1
trillion in tax cuts and pays for them with unnecessary and painful
budget cuts, while ignoring key investments that are needed to make
communities more liveable.
The good news is that it will not be adopted in this form, because
even the Republicans have no intention of implementing it. The bad news
is it is simply a license to avoid responsible budgeting.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and, instead, strive to produce a
budget that promotes livable communities and fiscal stability.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time on each side?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
[[Page H1754]]
Coburn) has 8\1/4\ minutes, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, listening to my colleague talk about tools
to build livable communities, I would point out in the Clinton-Gore
budget some things they do for tools for livable communities.
The Clinton-Gore budget cuts State and local law enforcement
assistance by $758 million. It reduces funding for State prison grants
from $729 million to only $75 million.
{time} 1600
It eliminates local law enforcement block grants. And here is a great
one. On January 28, 1999, Vice President Al Gore announced the
Department of Justice would provide $28 million to help law enforcement
agencies hire more police officers, the Community Oriented Police
Services, COPS. Three days later, on February 3, President Clinton's
budget, the budget we are debating right now, cut funding for COPS by
$155 million. It does not seem to me that that is going to create more
livable communities.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Coburn amendment.
It is very often in these debates we have a great number of charts
and a great deal of interpretation on what we are going to call the
budget and how we are going to contour its label. But, in fact, there
are certain fundamental differences that I think all Americans are
starting to see in this debate.
One is that the President and those of us on the Democratic side of
the aisle believe that Medicare is an important Federal program that
aids many seniors and it should be shored up, it should be expanded,
and we should cover prescription drugs. That is what we believe. That
is not what the opponents believe.
We believe that schools are important, education is important,
teachers are important, new construction for overcrowded schools. That
is what we believe. This is what is in our value systems. That is what
we believe the other side will not speak about because it is not what
they believe.
We believe that it is important to pay down, to retire some of our
Federal debt because every dollar that we pay into interest are dollars
we cannot spend for all of the things that all of us here support,
whether it be tax cuts, whether it be defense, whether it be education
or anything else. These are fundamental dividing lines between us.
And they can hold up charts all they like, but we will never see the
sponsors of this amendment talk about those three fundamental issues.
It makes us wonder, do they not realize that these are the issues that
motivate Americans?
Right now seniors pay more out of their own pocket than when the
Medicare program was created in the 1960s, more today than at that time
we declared a health care emergency. That is a shame and we should
reverse that.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that the gentleman raised
the Medicare issue. Because, in fact, the statements of the President
in his State of the Union do not match the budget, and that is one of
the reasons his budget needs to be compared to.
As a physician who cares for Medicare patients, let me tell my
colleagues what the President's budget does for Medicare. It freezes
inpatient hospital payments. That is the first thing it does. So what
that is going to do is shift the cost for everybody that is not
Medicare, raise their cost for health care. So it is an indirect tax on
everybody else in the country.
The second thing it does is it reduces laboratory services payments.
They are all making a ton of money. It reduces prices paid for durable
medical equipment, which has already been reduced by about 50 percent
over the last 5 years. It imposes $194 million next year, $970 million
over 5 years, and $1.94 billion over 10 years in new user fees on
Medicare.
We cannot get doctors to care for a lot of our Medicare patients. Now
we are going to charge them something every year if they are going to
be a Medicare provider. We now are having trouble getting HMO firms to
give care under the Medicare Plus Choice Plan. He has a charge, a tax
on everybody that is a provider in a Medicare Plus Choice Plan.
So as we go through the things that the President said he wants to
help save Medicare, in fact it is very, very different from that.
There is a total cut of $3.3 billion in Medicare, according to the
CBO, over the next 10 years. This next year $1 billion is cut from
Medicare by President Clinton through these and other things. That is
not to mention the reduction in drug payments. The whole Medicare
Commission failed over the fight over prescription drug benefits. And
yet in his budget that he submits, which I am submitting so we can
debate it, he cuts the Medicare prescription benefit that is out there.
He cuts the drug payment for cancer drugs to keep people alive that are
on Medicare.
So it is important that we talk about what is really in the
President's budget. I understand why it was not offered, but it is
still very important that we discuss what is in the budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me simply make clear that that is not in our budget, not in the
Spratt substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I wonder why there is such a desire to
discuss the President's budget when it is not before us. I know there
is no merit. I gather there is great delight in discussing irrelevant
things. I cannot imagine why we would do that.
Let me tell my colleagues why I support the Democrat alternative. The
Democrat alternative stands up for families, stands up for children,
stands up for seniors, stands up for rural communities. It indeed cuts
taxes. But it does not do what the Republican budget does. Now that is
before us. The Republican budget is before us, and it cuts taxes using
the greatest amount of resources to give the least amount of benefit to
taxes.
We target our tax cut to make sure that we respect child care needs,
we respect long-term care in terms of needing health care for our
seniors. All of those are part of our targeted tax reduction. What we
do in our spending and what we do in our tax laws says a lot about who
we are. Our priorities for spending, our tax policy says to the world
what things are important.
I submit to my colleagues that the Republican budget says it does not
care for children, it does not care for schoolchildren in the way that
it should, it does not care for seniors in the way it proposes to do,
it does not care for rural families in the way that they claim they do.
Indeed, my colleagues should support the Democrat alternative, which
does what it says, and not discuss the President's budget, which is not
relevant in this discussion.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, what is amazing to me is that despite the
record high taxes on the American people and unprecedented surpluses,
what does the President's budget propose? More taxes, over $100 billion
in new taxes and fees. And what does he propose to do with these new
taxes? More big government programs and more spending.
Now, usually I try to illustrate my points with legible charts. But I
am afraid that the only way I could fit all of the President's new
taxes and fees and all of his new spending programs was to do it on
these charts. I ask my colleagues to do the best they can to read them.
But the point is, how does the President pay for all of this new
spending? He spends over $100 billion of the Social Security surplus
during the next 5 years, eliminates or underfunds programs like special
education and NIH research, reduces Medicare payments, and again
proposes over $100 billion in new taxes and fees.
In conclusion, I just want to urge my colleagues to vote against the
President's budget, vote against the new spending and new programs made
possible by raiding Social Security and raising taxes.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) who
[[Page H1755]]
wishes to rise and speak in support of the President's budget, who was
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget when the Deficit Reduction
Act of 1993 was passed which has brought us to this point.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Sabo) is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
the time.
First let me say that I think the most irresponsible budget that I
have ever seen on this House floor by a majority is what we have before
us today.
Secondly, I am going to vote for this misinterpretation of the
President's budget for one fundamental reason. I have differences with
it and many things. He is over-optimistic about what we can do in the
year 2000. The budgets that we have are unrealistic for dealing with
any legitimate need. But the President did put forward before us a
realistic proposal to deal with the funding of Social Security and
Medicare.
His program adds significantly to the reserves of the Social Security
trust fund. Yes, he does. He adds significantly to the reserves for
Medicare. It does not solve the problems in total, but it is an
important beginning step to deal with them.
The Republican proposal adds penny zero to the Social Security trust
fund, adds penny zero to the Medicare trust fund.
The President is on the right track. And as a symbolic vote for the
real leadership that he has provided, I will vote for this
misinterpretation of his budget.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just add that the GAO reports the President's
proposal to strengthen the hospital insurance program is more perceived
than real. In realty, nothing about the program has changed.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. DeMint).
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, as a new Member of Congress, it is
refreshing today to hear some honesty. I have heard the Members of the
President's own party call his budget a straw dog that we are
embarrassed to even talk about.
It is embarrassing when the President talks about saving Social
Security yet continues to spend the Social Security Trust Fund. It is
embarrassing when he talks about saving Medicare when he cuts the
Medicare budget. It is embarrassing when he raises taxes and makes
promises he cannot keep.
Now, I know this does not represent the values of my colleagues. It
does not represent our values. We need to call this budget what it is.
Vote it down and move on to some honest debate with their budget and
ours on the table.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining. The time of the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has expired.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is easy to understand why
most of my colleagues do not want to vote for this President's budget.
As a veteran, I have looked at it. And the President flat-lines
benefits for veterans. The Republican budget actually increases it by
$1 billion.
Let me just tell my colleagues a few things. The President's budget
busts the spending caps by $30 billion. We hold them. The President's
budget raids Social Security money for more and more spending. Our
budget protects Social Security and Medicare. The President's budget
cuts $11 billion in Medicare, cuts the Republican budget. The
Republican budget protects Medicare. The President's budget raises
taxes by $172 billion.
To quote President Reagan, ``There they go again, spending more
money.'' In fact, the President has said Congress should not even
consider providing tax relief for 15 years. Let us not let that happen.
Vote this budget down.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for
yielding me this time.
We have a very hard time in agriculture today, and the fix that we
need is some type of revenue insurance, some way of farmers insuring
their risk. The Secretary of Agriculture came before our Subcommittee
on Appropriations and said, ``We cannot do it on the cheap to fix this
problem.''
Well, let us look at the President's budget. What does he have for
crop insurance to fix the problem? A big fat goose egg. What does the
Republican budget have in it? $6 billion to help our farmers. And also,
in the President's budget, the livestock producers are going to have
their taxes increased by $504 million right out of their hides.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, it is important that the President's
proposals be put forward. It is important to contrast what was stated
in the State of the Union with the actual numbers coming through in his
budget. It is important for us to give his budget a comparison to the
other budgets on this floor. It is important for us all to remember
that, while he is saying he is saving Medicare, he cuts it $1 billion
this year, $11 billion over the next 5 years. While it is important
that he says he is saving Social Security, he spends all but 58 percent
of it this next year and all but 62 percent of it the next 4 years.
Vice President Gore, in the Clinton-Gore budget, one of the things
that he said in his book, and I quote from Earth and Balance, ``Look at
the budget where we are borrowing a billion dollars every 24 hours and
in the process endangering the future of our children. Yet nobody is
doing anything about it.''
Well, I would propose to my colleagues that the Clinton-Gore budget
does nothing about that, that in fact it increases the debt on our
children $1.5 trillion between now and the year 2005.
{time} 1615
It runs a budget deficit of $663 billion over the next 5 years. The
budget of the majority runs a surplus.
If this vision for America is appealing to my colleagues, higher
taxes, more debt for our grandchildren, stealing money from Social
Security, cuts in Medicare, then I would encourage them to support my
resolution which is the Clinton-Gore budget and vote for it. But if
they want to begin easing the debt burden on our grandchildren, save
100 percent of the Social Security trust fund surplus and actually
increase spending for Medicare, then I encourage them to oppose my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 2, noes
426, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 74]
AYES--2
Rush
Sabo
NOES--426
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
[[Page H1756]]
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Filner
NOT VOTING--4
Burton
Owens
Pelosi
Stupak
{time} 1635
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, and Messrs. METCALF, CLYBURN, COOKSEY and Mrs.
NORTHUP changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained for
rollcall No. 74. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in part 2 of House Report 106-77.
Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered By Mr. Minge
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute printed in
part 2 of House Report 106-77 offered by Mr. Minge:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2000.
The Congress declares that this is the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000 and that the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2001 through
2004 are hereby set forth.
SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.
The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2000 through 2004:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,405,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,441,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,496,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,551,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,613,600,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: -$0.
Fiscal year 2001: -$3,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: -$11,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: -$11,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: -$14,300,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,418,785,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,316,307,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,493,021,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,546,516,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,608,848,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,405,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,436,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,468,250,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,527,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,583,300,000,000.
(4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: -$900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: -$5,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: -$28,250,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: -$23,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: -$30,300,000,000.
(5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $5,620,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $5,704,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $5,763,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $5,802,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $5,828,600,000,000.
SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.
The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal
years 2000 through 2004 for each major functional category
are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $281,773,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $274,595,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $305,158,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $285,949,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $308,046,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $297,646,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $314,507,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $306,937,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $316,033,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $316,593,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $10,746,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,052,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $10,651,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,111,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $9,765,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,381,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $11,550,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,623,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $13,483,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,323,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $17,977,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,257,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $17,968,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,865,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $17,934,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,865,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $17,934,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,743,000,000.
[[Page H1757]]
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $18,208,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,682,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $33,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$618,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$141,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,937,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$152,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,178,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$76,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,282,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$315,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,419,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $22,809,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,669,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $22,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,057,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $22,463,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,391,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $22,484,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,555,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $23,470,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,483,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $16,340,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,251,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $14,294,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,884,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $12,764,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,893,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $13,233,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,304,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $13,501,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,851,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $9,848,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,103,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $10,573,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,711,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $14,410,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,166,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $14,540,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,872,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $13,874,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,438,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $51,744,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,846,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $50,992,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,718,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $50,807,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,278,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $52,248,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,806,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $52,278,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,298,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $7,407,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,642,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $5,355,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,111,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $4,288,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,081,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $5,650,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,067,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $5,620,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,475,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $65,302,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,557,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $67,338,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,496,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $68,386,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,107,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $71,053,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,375,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $73,543,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $70,833,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $156,176,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $152,988,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $165,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $163,179,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $174,521,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $174,884,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $186,343,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $186,830,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $201,010,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $201,317,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $208,663,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $208,707,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $222,115,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $222,269,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $230,604,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $230,239,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $250,754,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $250,888,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $268,569,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $268,755,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $246,479,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $248,070,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $248,192,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $257,020,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $264,339,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $266,555,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $276,831,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $276,147,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $285,569,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $285,429,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $14,455,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,556,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $14,134,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,034,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $16,249,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,149,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $16,335,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,235,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $17,123,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,023,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $45,536,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,693,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $46,289,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,632,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $47,236,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,517,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $47,987,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,447,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $48,363,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,939,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $23,385,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,335,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $24,622,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,114,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $25,128,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,292,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $25,548,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,301,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $27,709,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,463,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $11,940,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,148,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $11,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,639,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $12,079,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,328,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $12,093,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,159,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,147,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $270,815,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $270,815,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $266,827,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $266,827,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $262,680,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $262,680,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $258,806,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $258,806,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $262,799,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $262,799,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, -$8,350,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$8,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$10,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$14,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$4,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$15,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$14,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$12,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$7,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$9,600,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2000:
[[Page H1758]]
(A) New budget authority, -$34,260,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$34,260,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$36,876,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$36,876,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$43,626,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$43,626,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$37,004,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$37,004,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$37,089,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$37,089,000,000.
SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.
(a) Reconciliation.--Not later than September 30, 1999, the
House Committee on Ways and Means shall report to the House a
reconciliation bill that consists of changes in laws within
its jurisdiction such that the total level of revenues for
that committee is not less than: $0 in revenues for fiscal
year 2000 and $41,600,000,000 in revenues for fiscal years
2000 through 2004.
(b) Tax Cut Contingent on Saving Social Security.--It shall
not be in order in the House to consider a reconciliation
bill reported pursuant to subsection (a) unless the chairman
of the House Committee on the Budget has received a
certification from the Board of Trustees of the social
security trust funds that the funds are in actuarial balance
for the 75-year period used in the most recent annual report
of that Board pursuant to section 201(c)(2) of the Social
Security Act.
SEC. 5. SAVING THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the social
security trust funds are required to be off-budget for the
purposes of the President's budget submission and the
concurrent resolution on the budget;
(2) the social security trust funds have been running
surpluses for 17 years;
(3) these surpluses have been used implicitly to finance
the general operations of the Government;
(4) in fiscal year 2000, the social security surplus will
exceed $137,000,000,000;
(5) for the first time in 24 years, a concurrent resolution
on the budget balances the Federal budget without counting
social security surpluses; and
(6) the only way to ensure social security surpluses are
not diverted for other purposes is to balance the budget
exclusive of such surpluses.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the social security surplus should not be used to fund
other operations within the Government;
(2) the budget of the Government should balance without
relying on social security trust funds to hide a deficit or
inflate a surplus; and
(3) surpluses in the social security trust funds should be
reserved, to be used exclusively by the social security
system.
(c) Point of Order.--(1) It shall not be in order in the
House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any
concurrent resolution on the budget, or any amendment thereto
or conference report thereon, that sets forth a deficit for
any fiscal year. For purposes of this subsection, a deficit
shall be the level (if any) set forth in the most recently
agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for that fiscal
year pursuant to section 301(a)(3) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974. In setting forth the deficit level
pursuant to such section, that level shall not include any
adjustments in aggregates that would be made pursuant to any
reserve fund that provides for adjustments in allocations and
aggregates for legislation that enhances retirement security
or extends the solvency of the medicare trust funds or makes
such changes in the medicare payment or benefit structure as
are necessary.
(2) Paragraph (1) may be waived in the Senate only by the
affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members voting.
SEC. 6. REMOVAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY FROM BUDGET
PRONOUNCEMENTS.
It is the sense of Congress that any official statement
issued by the Office of Management and Budget, the
Congressional Budget Office, or any other agency or
instrumentality of the Federal Government of surplus or
deficit totals of the budget of the United States Government
as submitted by the President or of the surplus or deficit
totals of the congressional budget, and any description of,
or reference to, such totals in any official publication or
material issued by either of such Offices or any other such
agency or instrumentality, shall exclude the outlays and
receipts of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
program under title II of the Social Security Act (including
the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and
the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund) and the related
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ALLOCATION OF ON-BUDGET
SURPLUSES.
As reflected in this resolution, it is the sense of
Congress that all on-budget surpluses should be distributed
as follows:
(1) 50 percent to debt reduction.--It is the determination
of Congress that the national debt is too high. In a time of
peace and prosperity, debt reduction is a top national
priority. This reduction of debt will better position the
Government to finance anticipated depletions of the social
security and medicare trust funds. However, the Congress
determines that such a reduction in debt shall not be
construed as a substitute for needed substantive reforms of
those programs to assure their long term financial integrity.
(2) 25 percent to tax reduction.--Congress determines that
4 types of tax reduction should be accommodated within this
budget:
(A) Extensions of current temporary provision of the tax
code.
(B) Targeted tax reduction in settings in which changes are
needed for fairness and sound economic planning.
(C) Tax reform and simplification to eliminate complicated
features of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(D) Consideration of across-the-board tax cuts.
(3) 25 percent to investment in priority areas.--Congress
recognizes that the budget caps have imposed severe
constraints on Government operations for fiscal year 2000,
and without relief, programs may be difficult to administer
in the ensuing fiscal years. As a result, investments in many
priorities will be deferred or not made. The 25 percent of
surplus allocated to priority programs is designed to offer
opportunity to strengthen these programs in the years ahead.
Congress finds that priorities include agriculture, defense,
education, and veterans' programs, and others that may be
from time-to-time determined.
SEC. 8. SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE.
It is the sense of the Congress that the Social Security
and Medicare programs are vital to our nation's health and
the retirement security of our citizens. Enactment of reforms
to strengthen and preserve these programs must be an urgent
priority.
(1) Social Security.--After the Congress enacts legislation
to reform and extend the solvency of the social security
program, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may
adjust allocations for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 to
allow for general revenue transfers to the social security
trust fund, subject to the following limitations: Fiscal year
2001, adjustments not greater than $8,500,000,000; fiscal
year 2002, $16,500,000,000; fiscal year 2003,
$25,500,000,000; and fiscal year 2004, $34,000,000,000.
(2) Medicare.--After the Congress enacts legislation to
reform and extend the solvency of the medicare program, the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget may adjust
allocations for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 to allow for
general revenue transfers to the medicare trust fund, subject
to the following limitations: Fiscal year 2001,
$2,800,000,000; fiscal year 2002, $5,500,000,000; fiscal year
2003, $8,500,000,000; and fiscal year 2004, $11,000,000,000.
SEC. 9. UPDATING BASELINE PROJECTIONS AND PRIORITIES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
(a) Up-to-Date Estimates of On-Budget Surpluses.--Upon the
request of the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget,
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall make an
up-to-date estimate of the projected on-budget surplus for
the applicable fiscal year.
(b) Adjustments.--Upon receipt of an up-to-date estimate of
an on-budget surplus made pursuant to subsection (a), the
chairman of the House Committee on the Budget shall adjust
the aggregates of new budget authority, outlays, revenues,
and the public debt as follows:
(1) Reduce the aggregates for public debt for each of
fiscal years 2000 through 2001 by an amount equal to \1/2\ of
the increase (if any) in on-budget surplus projections above
the amounts provided in this resolution.
(2) Increase the aggregates of new budget authority and
outlays for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004 by an
amount equal to \1/4\ of the increase (if any) in on-budget
surplus projections above the amounts provided in this
resolution.
(3) Reduce the revenue aggregates for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2004 by an amount equal to \1/4\ of the increase
(if any) in on-budget surplus projections above the amounts
provided in this resolution.
SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ENFORCEMENT.
It is the sense of Congress that before October 1, 2000,
Congress should enact legislation to modify and extend the
pay-as-you-go requirement through 2009, increase the
discretionary spending limits set forth under section 251(c)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and extend those limits
to include fiscal years 2003 and 2004, to reflect the new
budget authority and outlays as set forth in this resolution.
SEC. 11. INTENT OF THE COMMITTEE REGARDING CROP INSURANCE.
It is the intent of the Committee on the Budget of the
House that function 350 for agriculture allow for the
implementation of a new, comprehensive, affordable, and
permanent crop and revenue insurance program. The cost of the
program is assumed to be $____ billion in this resolution;
but the program design has not been developed. When the
program is developed such committee will take all steps
necessary to work the crop and revenue insurance initiative
into the budget resolution and budget process.
SEC. 12. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING THE MEDICARE+CHOICE
PROGRAM.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the geographic disparity in payment rates for the
medicare managed care program is inherently unfair;
(2) unfairness disproportionately effects rural areas and
efficient health care markets;
(3) seniors in areas with higher reimbursement can receive
additional benefits that are
[[Page H1759]]
unavailable to seniors in other areas of the country.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Medicare+Choice payment rate must be addressed to correct
the current inequality, and any expansion of the medicare
program can be made only after this disparity is addressed.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Minge) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) each will control 20
minutes.
The Chair recognize the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we have spent most of today debating what budget is
best for the people of the United States of America. We have had
conflicting budgets presented. The President's budget, or at least how
it has been perceived by the other side, has just been voted upon, the
majority budget will be voted on later in the day, I expect, and the
democratic substitute will be voted on.
The Blue Dog Coalition, a group of moderate to conservative
Democrats, has developed a substitute budget proposal. That substitute
budget proposal is summarized on the easel that is in the well, and I
would like to ask that my colleagues direct their attention to this
substitute summary because it is important to understand both what the
differences are and what the similarities are to the other budgets that
are receiving consideration today.
Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog budget recognizes that
we have a responsibility to the American people, a responsibility to
ensure that the Social Security program is no longer treated like a
regular part of the budget and used as a cash cow to finance other
activities, whether they be new programs, expanded programs or tax
reductions. We put that Social Security program off budget, and the
money that is accumulated as a surplus is used to pay down on the debt
and position this country to better handle the obligations that we will
owe in future years in the Social Security program.
Secondly, we recognize that we are blessed in this country with the
prospect of a budget surplus without using Social Security.
We recognize that we must be terribly responsible or we will be
making terrible mistakes with respect to this anticipated surplus. We
have a time of virtually unparalleled prosperity. We feel our first
order of business ought to be to use at least half of this surplus to
reduce the Federal debt. When the sun is shining, we ought to repair
the roof. We have had leaks in the roof, we have been running deficits,
we have built up an enormous debt; it is time to make those repairs.
We also urge that we spend 25 percent on investment priorities and
the other 25 percent returned to the American taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. John) to discuss our 5-year plan.
Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me. I also appreciate the Committee on Rules for making the Blue Dog
budget in order.
The title of my remarks are: Honest Projections and No Phony Bones,
and that may seem a little humorous to my colleagues, but I think it is
very important that we go through this exercise.
Mr. Chairman, I support wholeheartedly the Blue Dog budget for a
myriad of reasons, and my remarks today are going to focus on what I
think is one of the more important reasons to support the Blue Dog
budget, and the issue concerns economic projections. I am referring to
the fact that the Blue Dog budget is a 5-year budget with projections
over 5 years, and the Republican budget is a 15-year budget.
As a new Member of the 105th Congress, I came in during the balanced
budget agreement, and the debate was about tackling the deficit before
we tackle the debt. We have enjoyed a very strong economy since that
point in time, even though back then the projection said that we would
not reach the surplus that we have until the year 2002.
While I am optimistic that the economy today will continue, we must
prepare now for a downturn in our economy because it is realistically
going to happen.
{time} 1645
That is why I believe, the Blue Dogs believe, that it is
irresponsible to rely on 15-year projections that no one really
honestly believes will come to fruition.
To give an example, in 1993, before I was even a Member of this body,
the CBO projected that this year, 1999, that we would have a $404
billion deficit. I think that it is very, very important to look at
these projections. It is irresponsible to go out and look at the
numbers over a 15-year period.
The Blue Dog budget is about real numbers. It is no phony numbers,
and I urge support for this budget because it is the fiscally
responsible budget that we can deal with today.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), a member of the Committee on Armed
Services.
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, the President and the Republican
leadership both face issues of what to do about the Social Security and
Medicare programs, defense, education and the surplus, but the
differences between our proposals are stark.
Last year, the Republican proposal to set aside 90 percent of the
surplus for Social Security was not good enough for the President. So
this year we are locking away 100 percent of the Social Security
surplus for retirement security and Medicare.
The President was not able to live up to his own demands. His budget
sets aside only 77 percent. We are proud to have locked away more money
for Social Security and Medicare than the President does.
The Congress and the President agreed to certain spending caps in
1997. It is a simple concept but difficult to accomplish. Our
resolution keeps our promise on caps. The President's budget creates
new programs and busts the caps by some $30 billion.
His budget raises taxes by $172 billion over the next decade, while
our budget provides nearly $800 billion in tax relief over the next 10
years.
Mr. Chairman, right now our pilots are in Kosovo carrying out a
dangerous mission. I support them and pray for their safe return. We
must provide adequate resources for them and to all our men and women
in uniform.
It is unfortunate that the President is using questionable numbers
for his defense budget. His budget boasts an increase of $12.6 billion
in budget authority but the real increase is only $4.1 billion. The
rest is primarily from funds that were already budgeted for the
Department of Defense and just reshuffled around.
The Republican budget provides an honest increase of, when it is
passed, it will be $11.3 billion over fiscal year 1999. That is frankly
less than what is truly needed and what the Joint Chiefs have testified
they need, but it is a start and I am proud that we have taken an
honest step towards reducing the undue burden on our military.
Mr. Chairman, the differences in these budgets are clear. I ask my
colleagues for their support of our budget resolution.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains for each side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) has 15\3/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has 17\3/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, the budget we have constructed for fiscal
year 2000 will be the first budget of the millennium, and under the
leadership of my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), we
are building a better budget than the one we received last month from
the President. We are locking more than the President, locking it away
for Social Security and Medicare.
For the first time ever, we are locking away Social Security money
for Social Security and ending Washington's practice of raiding Social
Security for other spending.
We are also maintaining the spending discipline that brought us the
balanced budget.
Point of Order
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
[[Page H1760]]
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, the debate at this point is on the budget
resolution, the amendment in the nature of a substitute that is on the
floor, and the debate is being addressed to matters which are not
currently under consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will accord Members latitude to discuss
matters related to the budget.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, our budget sticks to the spending caps
signed into law by President Clinton in the Balanced Budget Act of
1997; while the President's budget exceeds those caps, as does the
budget we are considering on the floor, the proposal, by our Blue Dog
friends.
That is the critical difference, Mr. Chairman, is that this
distinguishes our budget from the President's and our budget from the
one that is under consideration by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Minge).
The spending caps are the heart of the balanced budget both parties
have worked hard to achieve in recent years, but they are also the
heart of our pledge to strengthen Social Security and Medicare.
Our budget sticks to those caps and locks away 100 percent of the
Social Security surplus for Social Security, off limits for new
Washington spending. After locking away funds for Social Security and
Medicare, and only after that, we return the rest of the surplus to the
American people in the form of tax relief.
Unfortunately, it seems our colleagues on the other side are not
prepared to make that kind of a commitment.
Now, do not get me wrong, Mr. Chairman. Our colleagues have every
right to seek higher spending, but understand that for every dime that
they spend beyond the caps is a dime that they could have locked away
for Social Security and Medicare. By saying yes to higher spending,
they are saying no to Social Security and Medicare.
When we get right down to it, budgets are about choices. The choice
here is not between Social Security and tax cuts. The choice is between
Social Security and new Washington spending.
We Republicans, we have already made our choice. We have said no to
new Washington spending and we are locking away 100 percent of the
Social Security surplus. We are locking away $100 billion more for
Social Security and Medicare than the President, who cuts Medicare by
$11.9 billion and spends a chunk of the Social Security surplus on new
Washington spending.
Mr. Chairman, given a choice between Social Security and new
Washington spending, Republicans have chosen to support Social Security
and Medicare. Now it is up to our colleagues which one they will decide
to choose.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, returning the debate to the Blue Dog budget,
I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, this country owes, based on past
consumption, over $5 trillion and nobody is talking about paying that
back. This Blue Dog budget is the budget that if my colleagues believe,
as I do, that when one borrows money as we have from our children and
grandchildren, that the responsible, honorable thing to do is to try to
pay it back, then my colleagues will vote for the Blue Dog budget.
There are $3.8 trillion of debt that we pay interest on every year.
Last year we paid almost $250 billion in interest. Now where I come
from, if someone owes somebody some money and they come into money, and
remember all of this surplus is projected, not here yet, and they come
into some money and they go buy an airplane or new car and do not pay
the man that they owe, that is considered very poor form.
I think, as the Blue Dogs do, that if we save all of the Social
Security surplus and pay down the debt, we save half of the real
surplus, if it materializes, and pay it down on the debt, this country
will be stronger, not weaker.
There are events over which we have no control. As long as we are
paying down debt, whatever happens there, this country, our children
and our grandchildren, will be in a better financial position to deal
with those unknowns when they occur.
If my colleagues believe, as I do, that we ought to pay back some of
this past consumption, then my colleagues will help us pass this Blue
Dog budget today.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to
address this matter. I want to speak just briefly about the budget in
general and then talk some about Medicare and what we face and what the
differences are that we have in looking at the budgets that have been
presented.
First of all, over the last several years, as I have gone around the
district and talked to my constituents, one of the things I
consistently heard was that we want to put away 100 percent of the
Social Security surplus. We even heard the President say that last
year.
This year he came and said, no, I only want to put 62 percent of that
surplus for this next coming year into Social Security. We are going to
do the 100 percent that he wanted that time, and I think we are going
to, for the first time, put away everything; instead of just putting 62
percent we are going to put 100 percent away to save Social Security
and Medicare; the first time in 40 years that we have not spent the
surplus on wasteful Washington spending or larger and more government.
I think this is really a change.
We have another budget here presented. It seems to be a little bit
more of a me-too budget, but it still has that same philosophy of
growing government. When we talk to the people across this country,
they are tired of wasteful Washington spending. They want to see the
end of the era of big government. They want to make sure that we
provide the kind of support and security that we need, but that we also
secure the future of our children; that we return as much as we can to
our families so they can invest it in the best way to ensure the future
of their children and grandchildren.
It may be saving for college. It may be providing other things that
their children need. It may be providing or donating to community
activities, but it is very important that we return as much as we can
to the American people because that is what they want. It is the right
thing to do.
I think the budget that we have is very good, as opposed to the
President's budget and the Blue Dog budget, that we are being more
conservative in spending, that we are stopping wasteful Washington
spending and we are going to return as much as we can to the people
back home.
Secondly, I would like to look at some of the President's cuts on
Medicare. It is an issue I am very concerned about. We see possibly a
quarter of the home health agencies looking at problems of possibly
going out of business. In my district there are 10 counties where one
home health agency provides the primary care there. That home health
agency is having problems. They may go out of business here in the next
few months and that will reduce the care that we can give to those
individuals in that area.
Rural hospitals are having problems. The President has talked about
prescription drugs and increasing there, but let us look at the cuts
that he has proposed in Medicare. He has proposed cutting the
prescription drug payment by $2.3 billion. Many of these cuts are to
the sickest patients. They are to those cancer treatment patients that
might mean the difference between life and death.
He talks about prescription drugs but he cuts at the very heart of
our sickest patients, and I am glad that we are not going to do that;
that we are taking 100 percent of that budget and putting it to shore
up Medicare.
Secondly, we see other things. When we look at some of the things
that he is decreasing, the total decrease is $11.9 billion. He is
talking about extending these cuts in payments beyond the years that
were agreed with in the balanced budget amendment.
What will that do to our rural hospitals? I have a hospital in
Garrard County, Kentucky, right now. We worked with them to combine two
hospitals so they could be more efficient and more effective.
[[Page H1761]]
{time} 1700
That is not going to occur, though, for the next 6 to 12 months. In
the interim, they are having to shut down the emergency room right now
because they do not have the margins. We need to make sure that we have
the kind of support we need, and we cannot afford to cut it $11.9
billion.
I am glad that we have a budget that is fiscally conservative, that
provides tax relief, and provides for our senior citizens.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are pleased with the presentation. We know there is
a problem. We want to cut taxes. At the same time we want to promote
programs. That is what the Blue Dog budget does, it is a mix.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Cramer)
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Minnesota, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, let us return to the budget under debate here, the Blue
Dog budget, no more phony debate about this other budget. If Members
are serious about balancing the budget, if they are serious about debt
reduction, if they are serious about focused tax cuts, if they want to
support our veterans, if they want to give a commitment to the defense
of this country, then this is the budget for all of us.
We have been calling for a true balanced budget excluding the social
security trust fund for years. There is no phony baloney here, this is
the real thing. Members should wake up. They can take all day, and we
have for years, but this is the budget for us.
Finally, I want to compliment the leadership here. We have had a fair
debate here today. We have had an opportunity to present this budget. I
want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) for giving
us this opportunity.
The Blue Dog's have been calling for a true balanced budget excluding
the Social Security trust fund for several years. We are glad to see
that we have finally reached a point where everyone is agreeing with us
that we should balance the budget without counting the Social Security
trust fund.
The Blue Dog budget sets out a responsible budgetary policy that
achieves and maintains a true balanced budget without counting the
Social Security trust fund.
Because the Republican budget uses virtually all of the non-Social
Security surplus for tax cuts, we could have a return of deficits in
the non-Social Security budget if future budget conditions are not
quite as positive as currently projected.
Even if the current projections are correct, the tax cuts in the
Republican budget would cause a deficit after 2010, because the
exploding tax cuts would continue to grow, while the non-Social
Security surpluses will be smaller.
responsible use of the projected on-budget surplus
Republicans want to commit all of the projected surpluses for
exploding tax cuts, whether or not the surpluses actually materialize.
The Spratt budget is a little more prudent than the Republican budget
by saving some of the on-budget surplus, but is uses most of the
projected on-budget surpluses for new spending and some tax cuts.
The Blue Dog budget takes the position that the conservative thing to
do with projected on-budget is to be conservative. The Blue Dog budget
makes paying off the national debt the first priority for any projected
budget surplus, dedicating approximately half of the on-budget surplus
for debt reduction.
The Blue Dog budget divides the remaining half of the on-budget
surplus between tax reduction and shoring up the nation's commitment to
priorities such as agriculture, defense, education, health care and
veterans' programs.
If CBO increases surplus projections, there will be additional funds
for tax cuts and spending priorities. The Blue Dog budget provides that
any increase in surplus projections be divided with the same allocation
of one-half for debt reduction, one-quarter for tax cuts and one-
quarter for spending priorities.
paying off the debt held by the public
By saving the entire Social Security surplus and using half of on-
budget surpluses for debt reduction, the Blue Dog budget will pay off
nearly one-fourth ($857 billion) of the $3.6 trillion debt held by the
public over the next five years.
Saving non-Social Security surpluses for debt reduction will help
make up for the years in which Social Security surpluses were borrowed
for operating expenses instead of saving them for Social Security.
The Blue Dog budget reduces the debt held by the public by $87
billion more than the Republican budget over the next five years.
strengthening Social Security and Medicare
The Blue Dog budget calls on Congress to enact reforms of Social
Security and Medicare to strengthen these programs and reserves
additional funds that could be used to help finance the short term
costs of Medicare and Social Security reform.
The Blue Dog budget reserves the savings from the lower interest
payments that will occur as a result of reducing the debt to be used
for Social Security and Medicare reform.
Congress would have $85 billion over the next five years that could
be used as part of Social Security reform and an additional $28 million
over the next five years that could be used as part of Medicare reform.
The combination of saving the Social Security surpluses for Social
Security and reserving the debt reduction dividend for Social Security
and Medicare, the Blue Dog budget saves a total of $937 billion for
Social Security and Medicare--more than 90% of total projected unified
budget surpluses over the next five years.
The Blue Dog budget does not contain the cuts in Medicare payments to
hospitals that were included in the President's budget.
fiscally responsible tax cuts
The Blue Dog budget allocates approximately 25% of on-budget surplus
for tax relief providing room for a net tax cut of $41.7 billion over
the next five years.
Limiting tax cuts to 25% of the projected surplus is a prudent step
to ensure that the tax cuts do not cause deficits in the non-Social
Security budget if actual budget conditions are not as good as current
projections.
The tax cuts in the Republican budget will consume nearly 100% of the
projected budget non-Social Security surplus over the next five years.
If the current projections are too optimistic, the tax cuts in the
Republican budget will result in on-budget deficits and a return to the
practice of borrowing from the Social Security trust fund to meet
operating expenses.
The tax cuts in the Republican budget will continue to grow after
2009, while the projected surpluses will be smaller. By 2013 or 2014,
the tax cuts in the Republican budget will cause deficits.
a genuine increase in funding for national defense
The Blue Dog budget equips our military commanders with the tools and
resources necessary to continue to field the world's preeminent
fighting force for years to come. It maintains a general funding mix
ensuring our immediate military readiness and long-term defense
procurement needs are not neglected.
The Republican budget makes hollow promises for defense, but does not
give the Department of Defense the real resources to follow through on
these commitments.
The Blue Dog budget includes $13 billion more in defense funding than
Republicans. The Republican budget is $21 billion short in outlays
(real expenditures) needed to support their budget authority (the
amount which may be committed or obligated).
The Blue Dog budget provides for a much-needed pay raise for our
troops and addresses the current retention problems by adequately
funding vital personnel and quality of life programs. The Republican
budget does not accommodate the pay raise, and could force the
Department of Defense to shift resources away from personnel and
quality of life programs.
meeting critical needs in american agriculture
The Blue Dog budget contains $3 billion more mandatory funding for
crop insurance than the Republican budget resolution. The increased
funding for crop insurance in the Blue Dog budget is permanent, as
opposed to the Republican budget which eliminates the increased funding
for crop insurance after 2004.
The Blue Dog budget provides $3.4 billion more budget authority for
discretionary agricultural programs than the Republican budget.
The Republican budget contains 10% cut in discretionary agriculture
programs in fiscal year 2000, which could force a 1500 person reduction
in Farm Service Agency funding, further slowing down the delivery of
vital farm programs. The Blue Dog budget does not force cuts in
discretionary agriculture programs in fiscal year 2000.
meeting our promises to veterans
The Blue Dog budget provides a total of $10 billion more budget
authority and $5.1 billion more outlays than the Republican budget for
discretionary veterans programs.
The Blue Dog budget increases funding for veterans health care and GI
bill benefits by $1.9 billion 2000, and continues this increased
funding level with modest growth after 2000.
The Republican budget provides a one-time $950 million increase in
veterans programs in fiscal year 2000, but eliminates this increase
after 2000 and cuts veterans programs below 1999 levels.
increased funding for priority education and health care programs
The Blue Dog budget provides $10 billion more total funding for
education and $8.6 billion more for health care programs than the
[[Page H1762]]
Republican budget does over the next five years.
These higher funding levels will allow for increased funding for
rural health care programs, health research, elementary and secondary
education and other priority education and health care programs without
making deep cuts in other programs within these functions.
The Republican budget claims to provide increased funding for the
National Institutes of Health and for some education programs, but cuts
total discretionary spending for the health care and education
functions below a freeze. Any promised increases for specific education
or health care programs under the Republican budget would require
deeper cuts in all other health care and education programs.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) remains the
great gentleman that he is.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me. I appreciate the opportunity to share a few
thoughts that I have on the budget proposals that are before us today.
Mr. Chairman, I am thankful that we are not going to have to deal and
live with the President's budget, because if we did, and he promised us
that he was going to secure Medicare, but with the left hand he cut it.
I am pleased that we have an alternative budget where we are saving 100
percent of the social security surplus for social security and for
Medicare.
Our seniors have been misled by the President; double-speak at its
best, when one talks about securing social security and Medicare when
on the other hand one is actually cutting it. Prescription drug
payments, hospital payment freezes.
I represent a lot of smaller rural hospitals who are struggling with
red ink today. With the proposed cuts that are coming, they are
possibly going to go out of business without the President's budget
cuts. There is a complete lack of sensitivity to rural health care in
America by this President and by this administration, when the facts
are in.
It is obviously clear that rural health care in America is already in
trouble because of the lower payment they receive from HCFA, from the
urban and suburban centers, and we are going to cut them some more if
we would follow the President.
I think it is vital, when we pass a budget later today, that it is a
budget that really secures social security and Medicare and is not a
phony budget, as has been presented by this administration, that says
one thing on the right hand but on the left hand is actually cutting to
the very heart of real health care in America, and would deprive rural
Americans of the quality care they depend on.
I am pleased that we do not have to pass the President's budget.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog substitute I support today is
a triumph of common sense over ideology. It reduces the budget debt
more than any other plan, and therefore does more to shore up social
security and Medicare. By design, it protects the Nation's priority
needs, which common sense dictates that we cannot abandon.
For farmers, we provide $3 billion more for crop insurance without
additional reductions in county offices and employees. For the
military, we provide $13 billion more to ensure that morale and
readiness problems are addressed. For veterans, we provide $1.9 billion
more so this Nation will not renege on its promise to those who
sacrificed to keep our country great.
For our children, we provide $10 billion more for critical education
programs like school construction and repair, Internet access, and
smaller class size. For health care in rural areas, we provide more.
Finally, the Blue Dog budget cuts taxes by $41.7 billion over the next
10 years, and provides for tax relief to increase as the surplus grows.
Vote for the budget that will do more for America. Vote for the Blue
Dog budget.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Fossella).
(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding time to me. I also want to compliment the Committee on the
Budget, and notably the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
The way I look at it, it is very simple. The Republican budget
resolution has set forth a very simple and straightforward concept. I
think what the American people really want from Washington is straight
talk. For the first time ever, we have 100 percent of social security
going for social security. I know over the years it has been seen as a
slush fund, but once and for all the American people are getting
straight talk and honesty.
With respect to the budget caps, a couple of years ago everybody sat
around here in Washington, and the President, and they smoked their
peace pipe and they agreed to the budget caps. Some people think that
was a game. The Republicans say it is for real. That is what the
American people expect and deserve.
What are the principles we set forth? A strong defense. Taking care
of Medicare. We saw what the President's budget did to Medicare. Taking
care of our veterans. Needed tax relief.
That is the critical distinction here between the amendment before us
and what the Republican budget resolution calls for, because every year
since 1995 the President submitted his budget and the Republicans have
done the responsible and appropriate thing and said, let us put the
brakes on. Let us spend money appropriately and be responsible, but not
have a party at taxpayers' expense.
Once and for all, we are going to get that. The American people
deserve that. I urge the rejection of this amendment and support for
the Republican budget resolution.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Lucas).
Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, we, the Blue Dogs, are here
today to blow the whistle on partisan wrangling and to act as a budget
referee.
Neither the Republican nor the Democratic alternatives have achieved
a fiscally responsible approach to this budget. The Democratic budget
uses most of the projected on-budget surplus for new spending and some
tax cuts. On the other hand, the Republican budget will consume nearly
100 percent of the projected budget non-social security surplus over
the next 5 years.
In an economic downturn, the Republican budget would result in
deficits, a return to the practice of raiding the social security trust
fund. That is just not right.
Our backlog budget allocates 25 percent of the on-budget surplus for
tax relief, a net cut of $41.7 billion over the next 5 years. It is
time to do the right thing.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let me just compliment my friends in the
Blue Dog Coalition. They have, I think, moved this process in a very
constructive way, but nevertheless, I am forced to have to reluctantly
and softly oppose the Blue Dog budget for three basic reasons.
One is, in the year 2001 they break the discipline of the 1997 budget
agreement. We believe it is essential to not break the discipline of
the 1997 budget agreement. We just made that agreement. We ought to
stay within that agreement. Unfortunately, in the Blue Dog budget, that
agreement is not adhered to in 2001.
Secondly, there is $7 billion less in budget authority than the GOP
plans in the fiscal year 2000, and $2 billion less in outlays. We do
believe, as I know many of the Blue Dogs believe, that we do need to
add more in the area of defense. In fact, our budget has a
significantly greater amount of money in defense than the Blue Dog
budget.
Finally, while I can admire the Blue Dogs' position on the issue of
paying down debt, they only have $41 billion in tax cuts over the next
5 years. I want to compliment them for that. However, the Republican
budget has approximately $150 billion in tax cuts.
I would very much like to think that we could allow money to sit
around in
[[Page H1763]]
Washington to be used to pay down a debt. We in fact are going to pay
down the largest amount of the publicly-held debt out of the money we
are reserving for social security. But when this on-budget surplus
comes, as sure as God made little green apples, if there is money
sitting around on the table in this town, I believe it will be used to
create bigger government and more spending. The single biggest way to
resolve that is to put ourselves in a position of being able to cut
taxes and get that on-budget surplus out of town.
I want to personally thank the Blue Dogs, and particularly the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) for his efforts to drive the
debate on taking all of the social security and Medicare trust funds
off-budget. He was a pioneer in that.
I want to compliment them on their $41 billion in tax cuts, but it
falls short in the area of breaking the spending caps, breaking the
budget agreement in 1997, spending too little on defense, and not
providing the tax relief that Americans really need and deserve to
prevent the growth of big government, to empower people, and to run
America from the bottom up.
So for that reason, I must reluctantly oppose the Blue Dog
substitute.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we had high hopes that the chairman of the Committee on
the Budget would be supporting our budget until that last statement. We
obviously need to talk to them a little more.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me. I, too, am sorry that my good friend, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) cannot support our budget, but I am
here today to support a budget that I believe in and I think the
American people believe in.
This budget does what needs to be done. It gets the social security
trust fund off-budget. It starts paying down the debt. It funds the
priorities that we need funded in this country.
I come from a district that has a lot of problems in agriculture.
This budget puts extra money into mandatory spending and into
discretionary programs that we need if we are going to have any chance
of pulling this agriculture economy out.
The thing I want to talk about, I serve on the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs. Some know we have had a real commotion going on down there
over the budget. All of the veterans groups came in and asked for $3.3
billion extra to make things work. Some of us tried to get that
accomplished. In this budget we have an additional $1.9 billion for
veterans, and then we extend that through the whole period.
The Republicans only have $900 million for the next year. Then they
go back to the same level as the President. We cannot meet our
commitments to veterans. We cannot keep our contract with veterans with
that kind of a budget. Support the Blue Dog budget.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, both the President's budget plan and the
Republican budget plan are disastrous for our Nation's veterans. The
Blue Dog budget plan is the only budget proposal that meets the needs
of our Nation's deserving veterans.
We are in critical need of more health care dollars for our veterans.
We need to expand our health care to veterans suffering from Hepatitis
C-related illnesses and who are needing emergency care and long-term
care. We need to expand care for homeless veterans. We need to provide
more outpatient centers.
Although the President acknowledges these needs, he has not provided
for any new dollars in his initiatives. In fact, the VA budget freezes
funded levels to what they were last year.
Meanwhile, Republicans, on the other hand, are using doubletalk.
Republicans claim their budget increases funding for veterans, but
anyone who looks at the budget sees that they get a $900 million
increase in 2000, but then it decreases back to the original budget of
1999 levels. What is worse, the next 5 years, they cut it $2.4 billion.
The Blue Dog budget provides over $10 billion over this period of time
in outlays of more than $5.1 billion.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), our defense expert.
(Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Blue Dog budget. I want to take time to
explain why on defense.
Last Monday, this past Monday, I was in Norfolk, Virginia, at the
Norfolk Naval Station. The Admiral of the Atlantic Fleet remarked at
how good they are doing now, that the Theodore Roosevelt carrier was to
leave Norfolk on Friday at a 92 percent compliment. The last carrier
that left there had 86 percent.
{time} 1715
We have problems in defense. There is no doubt that the Republican
budget is not going to solve it. Why is it not going to solve it? It
all has to do with outlays versus authorization.
The Blue Dog budget is $11 billion more than the Republican budget.
It was $13 billion, and now it is $11 billion, and of course $18
billion more than the President. It is evenhanded. It is mostly on
outlays. That is what is important. I would ask this body, please
support the thing.
I have a memo here, and we can put that in. ``Conservatives should
not accept this phony increase and should insist on a new program.''
This came from the New American Century, Bill Crystal's group.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for
yielding me this time.
First of all, I want to thank Speaker Hastert and the gentleman from
Ohio (Chairman Kasich) and the gentleman from California (Chairman
Dreier) for allowing us to have this open debate. We did not get that
last year.
Most of the speakers that are opponents of the Blue Dog bill, the
budget, have spent their time addressing a budget which received two
votes about an hour and a half ago. The reason they do not talk about
this budget is because they cannot. They cannot in good conscience
compare it to their own.
There are three good reasons. Number one is that this budget,
contrary to what the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) said, spends
$11 billion more in defense over the next 5 years. Secondly, it spends
$6 billion more in agricultural outlays over the next 5 years. Thirdly,
it spends $10 billion more in veterans spending over the next 5 years.
I would implore my colleagues to take a good, close look at the
tricks and the smoke and the mirrors and vote for the Blue Dog budget.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Minnesota for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the work he has
done on this budget.
I rise today in support of the Blue Dog budget. It is an honest and
fair budget. The Republicans say they want to help America's farmers.
Who are we kidding? The Republican bill slashes the funding to farmers
by 10 percent at the time when they need it most.
The Republican bill does nothing to pay down the national debt. It
spends and spends and spends. Every last drop of the surplus it spends,
driving our country further into debt, rising interest rates,
bankrupting our farmers and their children.
The Blue Dog budget contains $7 billion more for agriculture and
recommends a sensible tax cut that will help our farmers. The Blue Dog
budget devotes 50 percent of the surplus to deficit reduction,
strengthening our economy, and saving for the future.
I challenge any Republican who votes for their leadership's budget
resolution to go home, look their farmers in the eye and tell them, ``I
support agriculture.'' Do not be surprised if they do not believe you.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
[[Page H1764]]
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) has 6 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).
(Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, health care is a front burner issue this
year, and it does not matter what one's race or age or sex or where one
is from or even what one's party affiliation is. If we do not have good
health care, we cannot do any of the other things that people have been
up here talking about.
In the Blue Dog budget, we provide $8.6 billion more than the
Republican budget over the next 5-year period. Our budget preserves
funding for discretionary programs through the year 2002 and then
allows for increases after 2002, whereas the Republican budget makes
deeper cuts in discretionary spending for health care. The health and
well-being of our Nation cannot stand for that.
The Blue Dog budget would allow increases for research, for funding,
for NIH, and make sure that our rural health care areas of concern are
not left on the back burner. These higher increases are made within the
context of a balanced budget and do not cut other health programs like
the Republican budget does. Let us not overlook or undercut the very
health and well-being of our country. Without good health, we cannot do
anything else.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am pleased to note that we agree with the gentleman on the other
side about the importance of taking care of health care services in
this country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, first I would like it start by
complimenting the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) on the budget
proposal that he has put forth and the rest of the Blue Dog Coalition.
There are two budgets that will be up for consideration today that I
would have to suggest to my colleagues are not phony. The Republican
budget and the Blue Dog budget are very similar.
There are a couple of things where we differ. As I think the Blue
Dogs will readily admit, they bust the caps in fiscal year 2001. That
is where they are coming up with all of these, whether it is for health
care, and out of respect, I suggest they are correct, their budget does
spend a little bit more for health care, a little bit more for
veterans. But they do it by busting the caps.
So we want to suggest that, do they want to do that? It is a choice.
Do they want to bust the caps which got us to fiscal discipline, got us
to balance in the first place, or do they not? That is the first issue.
But I commend them. They are exactly right. That is what they are
doing.
The other budget, the Clinton budget, is totally phony when it double
counts Social Security; and the same is exactly true for the Spratt
budget. But at least we have got two budgets to consider.
The second big issue that we have got to consider today is what to do
with the surplus. The surplus, I would suggest to my colleagues, it
comes to us in two different ways. One is the Social Security surplus.
The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) and the Republicans, the Blue
Dogs and the Republicans, say set it all aside. Amen. Finally we have
gotten to that point. The gentleman and I have worked on that for many
years. Both budgets do that.
The real issue, though, is what do we do with the rest? What do we do
with the rest? There we have a choice. It is an honest choice. Choice
number one, the Blue Dogs say spend a little bit of it, and tax relief
a little bit of it, and debt reduction a little bit of it. That is
fine. I respect that. That is a good choice that people can decide on.
What the Republicans say is this is not our money. We always talk
about Federal dollars as if they are in our pockets out here and they
are like our money. They are not. People work hard every single day of
the week in order to send us that money. What they know is that they
have sent enough, if not too much.
What they are hoping for is that once we have done the responsible
thing, once we have met the priorities of the government, once we have
set aside Social Security, then and only then, which is what our budget
does, only when we have set aside Social Security this year, this year
do we look out and do we say the surplus ought to go back to the people
that sent it here in the first place.
That is why I reluctantly oppose the budget of the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge), because of that choice.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Phelps).
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Minnesota for the opportunity to speak today.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise to support the Blue Dog budget because it
represents responsible budget policy while still providing critical
funding for education and health care programs.
This budget provides $10 billion more for education and $8.6 billion
more for health care than the Republican budget.
In my district, let me tell my colleagues, these funds are critical,
not only to close the disparity gap for those disadvantaged children,
but also just making the tools available for those who try to make it
in the real world.
In my district, home health and rural health centers are the only
point of access to health care for many people. Funding of these
programs, which are included in the Blue Dog alternative, literally can
mean life or death for these programs and the patients they serve.
In 1997, with the balanced budget amendment, we asked our citizens to
accept cuts to put us on a fiscally secure future. Now we are fiscally
responsible and we have a surplus. It is our duty to also use the
surplus responsibly by investing in kids' education and providing
access to necessary health care to our citizens. The Blue Dog
alternative best meets these goals.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher) to discuss our continuing commitment to
education.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, America's working families, farmers, and
businesses know that we must approach the Nation's budget the same way
they approach their own, with a balanced view.
Our Blue Dog budget alternative is balanced. It protects Social
Security, offers targeted tax cuts, reduces the national debt, and most
importantly recommits our Nation to educating our children.
If America hopes to maintain our status as the world's economic
superpower, we cannot continue to send off our kids to schools with
inadequate adequate facilities and outdated technology.
Our Blue Dog budget provides $10 billion more for education and
training than the Republican budget. It allows for an increase in
elementary and secondary education without forcing cuts in other
education programs. It allows for spending on discretionary and
training programs to grow by an average of 3.6 percent a year through
2004.
This balanced, fiscally responsible approach to the budget is the
same formula for success that American families want. I urge my
colleagues to support our Blue Dog budget alternative.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Minnesota for yielding me this time.
Back in the 1980s, back home in Indiana, I saw Congress make a
mistake, and that mistake was embracing the idea of supply side
economics and offering a huge tax cut in this country.
Some would say that it fueled the economy but at a great expense.
Back in the 1980s, the budget deficit or budget debt was $1 billion. It
grew to over $4 trillion.
Now as a Member of this Congress, I see the Congress about ready to
make another mistake and offer huge tax cuts to the people of Indiana
or to the people of this country. I think this is a serious mistake in
light of the fact that we have a tremendous debt to pay off.
[[Page H1765]]
Our priority ought to be paying off the debt first. That is what we
should do as well as saving Social Security. If we do this, we will be
doing the responsible thing for the people of this country, the
responsible thing for our kids and our grandchildren.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) has 2 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), who has been an outstanding leader in the Blue
Dog Coalition and worked effectively with us on budget and tax policy.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, let me sum up the Blue Dog budget this
way: First, let me say that for the 21st consecutive year I have been
allowed to oppose and vote against a President's budget because it
spends too much, nine times with Democrats, 12 times with Republican
presidents.
The Blue Dog budget before us cuts taxes over the next 5 years by
$41.2 billion. Anyone that suggests anything else is not being factual.
The Blue Dog budget maintains the spending caps until we balance the
budget without counting the Social Security surplus.
To those who choose to criticize us because we spend too much on
defense in 2001 and 2002, be prepared to live with those numbers within
my colleagues' own caucus because they will find it is going to be very
difficult to do it.
Also with agriculture, be prepared to live with those numbers my
colleagues advocate in criticizing our budget. If my colleagues are,
they are honest, and I respect that. Be prepared to live with the
veterans numbers and stay with them all the way through, if my
colleagues criticize our budget for recognizing those priorities.
Now, let us talk about our main priority, debt reduction. Our budget,
at the end of 5 years, produces $85 billion less debt than the
Republican budget. If we take it for 10 years, it is $450 billion. I
submit to my colleagues, the Blue Dog budget is better for our country
by reducing debt than the Republican budget.
Finally, in summation, let me say the Blue Dogs give first priority
to reducing the $5 trillion plus national debt. As a result, the Blue
Dog budget is not able to provide as much spending as some would like
to see on both sides of the aisle.
So I ask my colleagues to join in thanking the leadership for
allowing us to have this vote today. I appreciate the kind remarks that
have been made by the other side recognizing the credibility. I believe
what I have stated is factual and should warrant some overwhelming
support from both sides of the aisle.
{time} 1730
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time;
and as did the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), chairman of the
Committee on the Budget, I too want to add my thanks and my
appreciation to the Blue Dogs for coming forward with this budget.
As I look across the aisle there and individually see the ones coming
forward to speak in support of this, most of those Members are my close
friends on that side of the aisle, and they are also the same
individuals that talk like I do, who, with the exception of the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), come from my part of the country.
And I have a great appreciation for that fact also.
But, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a couple of things in closing here.
While the Blue Dog budget takes huge steps in the right direction, I
think it is flawed in a couple of areas. The two primary areas that I
have concerns about are:
Number one, defense. We do spend more in both budget authority as
well as budget outlay in defense. With our manager's amendment, it
increases the defense spending from our original numbers. And,
obviously, that is what we are talking about, the final numbers.
Secondly, the thing that really concerned me when I ran for Congress
in 1994, and the thing that concerns me today, and the thing that my
good friends on the other side who are supporting this budget have
continually said is, we have to pay down that debt.
And what has caused that debt? What has caused that debt is too much
Federal spending. The Blue Dog budget calls for 25 percent of the
surplus to go to spending. I have a problem with that.
My friend, the gentleman from Arkansas, was very critical of the Ag
portion of the Republican budget. I have in my hands letters from eight
national farming organizations, from the American Farm Bureau
Federation, to the National Cotton Council, the Farm Credit Council,
the American Soybean Association, the National Peanut Council, the
Southern Peanut Farmers Federation, and several others, endorsing the
Republican budget.
All of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are Blue
Dogs, particularly those on the Committee on the Budget, know that when
the President came out with zero dollars for crop insurance reform,
Republicans led the fight to put money in the budget. I am appreciative
that they followed suit with that, but for those reasons, I
respectfully say that we are going to have to vote against this budget.
But I do thank them, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 134,
noes 295, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 75]
AYES--134
Abercrombie
Andrews
Baird
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boyd
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chenoweth
Clayton
Clement
Coburn
Condit
Cramer
Crowley
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Ford
Frost
Ganske
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Green (TX)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kind (WI)
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Larson
LaTourette
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McIntyre
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Minge
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Neal
Oberstar
Ortiz
Ose
Pallone
Pascrell
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickering
Pomeroy
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roemer
Roukema
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scarborough
Scott
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stabenow
Stenholm
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thune
Thurman
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Wexler
Wise
Wynn
NOES--295
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capuano
Carson
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
[[Page H1766]]
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
Lantos
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--4
Burton
Pelosi
Stupak
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1752
Messrs. FOSSELLA, BECERRA, BLAGOJEVICH, HULSHOF, TOWNS, ROTHMAN, Ms.
MILLENDER-McDONALD, and Ms. McKINNEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. WISE, DEUTSCH, SHERMAN, NEAL of Massachusetts, and Mrs.
CLAYTON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained for
rollcall No. 75. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Camp). It is now in order to consider amendment No.
3 printed in Part 2 of House Report 106-77.
Amendment No. 3 in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. Spratt
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute made in order under the rule.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment No. 3 in the Nature of a Substitute printed in
Part 2 of House Report 106-77 Offered by Mr. Spratt:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2000.
The Congress declares that this is the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000 and that the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2001 through
2014 are hereby set forth.
SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.
(a) Special Rule.--In this resolution, all references to
years are fiscal years and all amounts are expressed in
billions.
(b) On-Budget Levels (Excluding Social Security and Other
Off-Budget Agencies.--The following budgetary levels are
appropriate for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2014:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,408.5.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,439.2.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,497.3.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,552.0.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,622.2.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,697.5.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,775.9.
Fiscal year 2007: $1,855.9.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,940.0.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,029.3.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,115.9.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,207.4.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,300.8.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,396.6.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,494.4.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $0.0.
Fiscal year 2001: -$5.9.
Fiscal year 2002: -$11.0.
Fiscal year 2003: -$11.3.
Fiscal year 2004: -$11.9.
Fiscal year 2005: -$13.4.
Fiscal year 2006: -$14.8.
Fiscal year 2007: -$15.5.
Fiscal year 2008: -$16.2.
Fiscal year 2009: -$16.4.
Fiscal year 2010: -$17.8.
Fiscal year 2011: -$17.8.
Fiscal year 2012: -$17.8.
Fiscal year 2013: -$17.8.
Fiscal year 2014: -$17.8.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,425.8.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,481.9.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,507.9.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,573.5.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,630.3.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,708.3.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,754.5.
Fiscal year 2007: $1,825.0.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,902.2.
Fiscal year 2009: $1,979.8.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,054.8.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,135.6.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,218.1.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,321.2.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,420.5.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,408.0.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,432.3.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,495.8.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,551.6.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,621.7.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,684.8.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,735.3.
Fiscal year 2007: $1,803.9.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,882.9.
Fiscal year 2009: $1,958.2.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,045.1.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,134.8.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,226.3.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,338.4.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,442.0.
(4) Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $0.5.
Fiscal year 2001: $6.9.
Fiscal year 2002: $1.5.
Fiscal year 2003: $0.2.
Fiscal year 2004: $0.5.
Fiscal year 2005: $12.9.
Fiscal year 2006: $40.7.
Fiscal year 2007: $52.1.
Fiscal year 2008: $57.0.
Fiscal year 2009: $71.0.
Fiscal year 2010: $70.8.
Fiscal year 2011: $72.6.
Fiscal year 2012: $74.6.
Fiscal year 2013: $58.2.
Fiscal year 2014: $52.4.
(c) Unified Budget Levels (Including All Federal
Programs).--The following budgetary levels are appropriate
for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2014:
(1) Federal revenues.--(A) The recommended levels of
Federal revenues are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,876.5.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,927.0.
Fiscal year 2002: $2,003.6.
Fiscal year 2003: $2,079.4.
Fiscal year 2004: $2,172.1.
Fiscal year 2005: $2,274.3.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,377.7.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,484.2.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,594.4.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,710.6.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,826.5.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,948.5.
Fiscal year 2012: $3,073.2.
Fiscal year 2013: $3,201.0.
Fiscal year 2014: $3,331.6.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $0.0.
Fiscal year 2001: -$5.9.
Fiscal year 2002: -$11.0.
Fiscal year 2003: -$11.3.
Fiscal year 2004: -$11.9.
Fiscal year 2005: -$13.4.
Fiscal year 2006: -$14.8.
Fiscal year 2007: -$15.5.
Fiscal year 2008: -$16.2.
Fiscal year 2009: -$16.4.
Fiscal year 2010: -$17.8.
Fiscal year 2011: -$17.8.
Fiscal year 2012: -$17.8.
Fiscal year 2013: -$17.8.
Fiscal year 2014: -$17.8.
(2) New budget authority.--The appropriate levels of total
new budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,752.9.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,821.4.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,857.6.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,935.8.
Fiscal year 2004: $2,005.7.
Fiscal year 2005: $2,097.8.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,159.2.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,245.6.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,340.5.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,439.3.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,540.2.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,648.4.
[[Page H1767]]
Fiscal year 2012: $2,762.9.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,903.0.
Fiscal year 2014: $3,044.0.
(3) Budget outlays.--The appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,735.1.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,771.9.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,845.4.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,914.0.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,997.2.
Fiscal year 2005: $2,074.5.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,140.1.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,224.7.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,321.2.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,417.9.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,530.5.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,647.5.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,771.2.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,920.2.
Fiscal year 2014: $3,065.5.
(4) Surpluses.--The amounts of the surpluses are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $141.4.
Fiscal year 2001: $155.1.
Fiscal year 2002: $158.1.
Fiscal year 2003: $165.3.
Fiscal year 2004: $174.9.
Fiscal year 2005: $199.9.
Fiscal year 2006: $237.7.
Fiscal year 2007: $259.5.
Fiscal year 2008: $273.2.
Fiscal year 2009: $292.7.
Fiscal year 2010: $296.0.
Fiscal year 2011: $301.0.
Fiscal year 2012: $302.0.
Fiscal year 2013: $280.8.
Fiscal year 2014: $266.1.
(d) Debt Held by the Public.--The appropriate levels of the
public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $3,500.4.
Fiscal year 2001: $3,361.3.
Fiscal year 2002: $3,219.2.
Fiscal year 2003: $3,070.3.
Fiscal year 2004: $2,910.7.
Fiscal year 2005: $2,725.0.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,500.6.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,253.4.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,991.7.
Fiscal year 2009: $1,710.2.
Fiscal year 2010: $1,426.2.
Fiscal year 2011: $1,137.3.
Fiscal year 2012: $847.2.
Fiscal year 2013: $577.5.
Fiscal year 2014: $322.4.
(e) Transfers From the General Fund to the HI and OASI
Trust Funds.--
(1) Amounts transferred to hi trust fund.--The amounts to
be transferred from the General Fund to the HI Trust Fund are
as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $26.2.
Fiscal year 2001: $28.2.
Fiscal year 2002: $29.9.
Fiscal year 2003: $31.5.
Fiscal year 2004: $33.3.
Fiscal year 2005: $37.8.
Fiscal year 2006: $44.2.
Fiscal year 2007: $47.8.
Fiscal year 2008: $50.2.
Fiscal year 2009: $53.1.
Fiscal year 2010: $54.3.
Fiscal year 2011: $54.9.
Fiscal year 2012: $54.9.
Fiscal year 2013: $51.6.
Fiscal year 2014: $49.3.
(2) Amounts transferred to oasi trust fund.--The amounts to
be transferred from the General Fund to the OASI Trust Fund
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $108.5.
Fiscal year 2001: $116.7.
Fiscal year 2002: $123.5.
Fiscal year 2003: $130.1.
Fiscal year 2004: $137.7.
Fiscal year 2005: $156.2.
Fiscal year 2006: $182.8.
Fiscal year 2007: $197.7.
Fiscal year 2008: $207.4.
Fiscal year 2009: $219.6.
Fiscal year 2010: $224.3.
Fiscal year 2011: $226.8.
Fiscal year 2012: $226.9.
Fiscal year 2013: $213.2.
Fiscal year 2014: $203.7.
(3) Resulting on-budget deficits.--The on-budget deficits
resulting from this resolution including the transfers under
paragraphs (1) and (2) are the following:
Fiscal year 2000: -$110.3.
Fiscal year 2001: -$118.0.
Fiscal year 2002: -$136.7.
Fiscal year 2003: -$151.8.
Fiscal year 2004: -$167.0.
Fiscal year 2005: -$182.1.
Fiscal year 2006: -$191.5.
Fiscal year 2007: -$207.1.
Fiscal year 2008: -$225.4.
Fiscal year 2009: -$238.1.
Fiscal year 2010: -$258.9.
Fiscal year 2011: -$276.3.
Fiscal year 2012: -$292.1.
Fiscal year 2013: -$313.1.
Fiscal year 2014: -$327.9.
(4) Resulting off-budget surpluses.--The off-budget
surpluses resulting from this resolution including the
transfers under paragraphs (1) and (2) are the following:
Fiscal year 2000: $251.8.
Fiscal year 2001: $273.0.
Fiscal year 2002: $294.8.
Fiscal year 2003: $316.9.
Fiscal year 2004: $341.9.
Fiscal year 2005: $382.1.
Fiscal year 2006: $429.2.
Fiscal year 2007: $466.7.
Fiscal year 2008: $498.5.
Fiscal year 2009: $530.8.
Fiscal year 2010: $554.9.
Fiscal year 2011: $577.3.
Fiscal year 2012: $594.1.
Fiscal year 2013: $593.8.
Fiscal year 2014: $594.0.
SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.
The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal
years 2000 through 2009 for each major functional category
are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $280.4.
(B) Outlays, $273.6.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $300.2.
(B) Outlays, $281.6.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $302.1.
(B) Outlays, $291.7.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $312.5.
(B) Outlays, $303.6.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $321.4.
(B) Outlays, $313.5.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $326.0.
(B) Outlays, $318.0.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $330.7.
(B) Outlays, $322.5.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $335.4.
(B) Outlays, $327.1.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $340.2.
(B) Outlays, $331.8.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $345.0.
(B) Outlays, $336.5
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $12.5.
(B) Outlays, $14.8.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $12.8.
(B) Outlays, $15.4.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $12.0.
(B) Outlays, $14.8.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $13.6.
(B) Outlays, $14.4.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $15.0.
(B) Outlays, $14.5.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $16.3.
(B) Outlays, $15.1.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $17.2.
(B) Outlays, $15.5.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $17.8.
(B) Outlays, $15.8.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $18.6.
(B) Outlays, $16.3.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $19.3.
(B) Outlays, $16.4.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $18.0.
(B) Outlays, $18.2.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $18.7.
(B) Outlays, $18.4.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $18.8.
(B) Outlays, $18.7.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $18.9.
(B) Outlays, $18.8.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $19.2.
(B) Outlays, $19.1.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $21.7.
(B) Outlays, $21.1.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $22.4.
(B) Outlays, $22.1.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $23.3.
(B) Outlays, $23.0.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $25.5.
(B) Outlays, $24.2.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $27.7.
(B) Outlays, $25.8.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $0.0.
(B) Outlays, -$0.7.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$0.0.
(B) Outlays, -$1.8.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$0.2.
(B) Outlays, -$1.2.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$0.1.
(B) Outlays, -$1.2.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$0.0.
(B) Outlays, -$1.2.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $0.1.
(B) Outlays, -$1.0.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $0.5.
(B) Outlays, -$0.6.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $0.7.
(B) Outlays, -$0.3.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $1.1.
(B) Outlays, $0.0.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $1.2.
[[Page H1768]]
(B) Outlays, $0.1.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $24.5.
(B) Outlays, $23.6.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $24.4.
(B) Outlays, $24.0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $24.4.
(B) Outlays, $23.9.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $24.5.
(B) Outlays, $24.1.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $25.4.
(B) Outlays, $25.0.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $27.6.
(B) Outlays, $26.5.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $28.6.
(B) Outlays, $27.8.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $28.9.
(B) Outlays, $28.2.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $30.4.
(B) Outlays, $29.7.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $32.3.
(B) Outlays, $30.6.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $14.7.
(B) Outlays, $13.3.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $14.1.
(B) Outlays, $12.2.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $12.4.
(B) Outlays, $10.6.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $12.7.
(B) Outlays, $11.0.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $13.4.
(B) Outlays, $11.8.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $14.2.
(B) Outlays, $12.5.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $15.2.
(B) Outlays, $13.4.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $16.0.
(B) Outlays, $14.2.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $16.9.
(B) Outlays, $14.9.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $17.3.
(B) Outlays, $15.1.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $98.
(B) Outlays, $4.5.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $12.0.
(B) Outlays, $7.1.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $16.3.
(B) Outlays, $11.9.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $16.3.
(B) Outlays, $12.6.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $16.2.
(B) Outlays, $12.8.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $14.7.
(B) Outlays, $11.4.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $14.6.
(B) Outlays, $11.1.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $14.7.
(B) Outlays, $10.9.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $14.6.
(B) Outlays, $10.5.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $14.4.
(B) Outlays, $9.9.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $50.6.
(B) Outlays, $45.8.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $52.2.
(B) Outlays, $47.7.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $52.6
(B) Outlays, $47.2.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $54.2.
(B) Outlays, $48.5.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $54.2.
(B) Outlays, $48.7.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $54.2.
(B) Outlays, $50.6.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $54.6.
(B) Outlays, $53.9.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $54.8.
(B) Outlays, $55.1.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $55.3.
(B) Outlays, $56.4.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $55.5.
(B) Outlays, $56.7.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $8.6.
(B) Outlays, $10.6.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $7.8.
(B) Outlays, $9.3.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $8.8.
(B) Outlays, $8.8.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $8.9.
(B) Outlays, $9.2.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $9.1.
(B) Outlays, $9.3.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $10.8.
(B) Outlays, $10.0.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $11.8.
(B) Outlays, $10.7.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $12.8.
(B) Outlays, $11.6.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $13.8.
(B) Outlays, $12.8.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $14.8.
(B) Outlays, $13.8.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services:
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $68.6.
(B) Outlays, $64.3.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $67.3.
(B) Outlays, $66.1.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $67.5.
(B) Outlays, $66.7.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $69.9.
(B) Outlays, $68.5.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $71.8.
(B) Outlays, $70.7.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $74.1.
(B) Outlays, $72.5.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $76.3.
(B) Outlays, $75.3.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $80.2.
(B) Outlays, $78.4.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $83.5.
(B) Outlays, $82.5.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $87.5.
(B) Outlays, $86.1.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $157.1.
(B) Outlays, $153.4.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $167.3.
(B) Outlays, $163.9.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $177.2.
(B) Outlays, $177.1.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $188.9.
(B) Outlays, $189.0.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $203.5.
(B) Outlays, $204.2.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $220.8.
(B) Outlays, $220.0.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $238.7.
(B) Outlays, $238.7.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $259.3.
(B) Outlays, $258.7.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $280.1.
(B) Outlays, $279.2.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $303.2.
(B) Outlays, $302.2.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $208.8.
(B) Outlays, $208.8.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $222.2.
(B) Outlays, $222.3.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $231.0.
(B) Outlays, $230.7.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $251.2.
(B) Outlays, $251.4.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $269.1.
(B) Outlays, $269.3.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $269.3.
(B) Outlays, $295.9.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $307.6.
(B) Outlays, $307.8.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $338.5.
(B) Outlays, $338.7.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $366.7.
(B) Outlays, $366.3.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $395.3.
(B) Outlays, $395.5.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $245.7.
(B) Outlays, $248.4.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $257.2.
(B) Outlays, $258.5.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $267.3.
(B) Outlays, $268.3.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $276.8.
[[Page H1769]]
(B) Outlays, $277.8.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $286.1.
(B) Outlays, $287.8.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $300.6.
(B) Outlays, $301.6.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $307.3.
(B) Outlays, $309.0.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $313.8.
(B) Outlays, $316.1.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $327.7.
(B) Outlays, $330.7.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $338.4.
(B) Outlays, $341.8.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $14.2.
(B) Outlays, $14.3.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $13.8.
(B) Outlays, $13.8.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $15.6.
(B) Outlays, $15.6.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $16.3.
(B) Outlays, $16.3.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $17.1.
(B) Outlays, $17.1.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $18.0.
(B) Outlays, $18.0.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $19.1.
(B) Outlays, $19.0.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $20.2.
(B) Outlays, $20.1.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $21.4.
(B) Outlays, $21.4.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $22.7.
(B) Outlays, $22.6.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $45.6.
(B) Outlays, $45.5.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $46.3.
(B) Outlays, $46.4.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $46.8.
(B) Outlays, $46.7.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $48.1.
(B) Outlays, $48.3.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $48.4.
(B) Outlays, $48.8.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $53.5.
(B) Outlays, $53.9.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $52.1.
(B) Outlays, $52.5.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $53.5.
(B) Outlays, $51.9.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $54.7.
(B) Outlays, $55.2.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $57.0.
(B) Outlays, $57.4.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $23.4.
(B) Outlays, $25.3.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $24.7.
(B) Outlays, $24.9.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $24.7.
(B) Outlays, $24.9.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $25.9.
(B) Outlays, $25.7.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $27.7.
(B) Outlays, $27.6.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $29.9.
(B) Outlays, $29.3.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $31.2.
(B) Outlays, $30.2.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $32.9.
(B) Outlays, $32.5.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $34.5.
(B) Outlays, $34.0.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $35.5.
(B) Outlays, $35.2.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $12.3.
(B) Outlays, $13.5.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $12.1.
(B) Outlays, $12.6.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $12.1.
(B) Outlays, $12.3.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $12.1.
(B) Outlays, $12.2.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $12.4.
(B) Outlays, $12.4.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $13.2.
(B) Outlays, $12.8.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $14.0.
(B) Outlays, $13.7.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $.
(B) Outlays, $.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $.
(B) Outlays, $.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $.
(B) Outlays, $.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $.
(B) Outlays, $.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $.
(B) Outlays, $.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $.
(B) Outlays, $.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $265.2.
(B) Outlays, $265.2.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $263.3.
(B) Outlays, $263.3.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $260.6.
(B) Outlays, $260.6.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $257.7.
(B) Outlays, $257.7.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $254.8.
(B) Outlays, $254.8.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $250.7.
(B) Outlays, $250.7.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $246.7.
(B) Outlays, $246.7.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, -$9.3.
(B) Outlays, -$9.5.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$4.5.
(B) Outlays, -$4.4.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$4.3.
(B) Outlays, -$5.7.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$4.1.
(B) Outlays, -$4.3.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$4.4.
(B) Outlays, -$4.4.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$4.5.
(B) Outlays, -$4.4.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, -$4.3.
(B) Outlays, -$4.3.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$4.3.
(B) Outlays, -$4.3.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$4.4.
(B) Outlays, -$4.3.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$4.2.
(B) Outlays, -$4.2.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, -$35.1.
(B) Outlays, -$35.1.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$37.9.
(B) Outlays, -$37.9.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$44.9.
(B) Outlays, -$44.9.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$38.3.
(B) Outlays, -$38.3.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$38.6.
(B) Outlays, -$38.6.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$39.8.
(B) Outlays, -$39.8.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, -$40.8.
(B) Outlays, -$40.8.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$42.5.
(B) Outlays, -$42.5.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$43.6.
(B) Outlays, -$43.6.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$44.8.
(B) Outlays, -$44.8.
(21) Multipurpose (970):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $0.0.
(B) Outlays, $0.0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $0.0.
(B) Outlays, -$19.0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $0.0.
(B) Outlays, $10.0.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $0.0.
(B) Outlays, -$1.0.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $0.0.
(B) Outlays, $10.0.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $0.0.
(B) Outlays, $0.0.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $0.0.
(B) Outlays, $0.0.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $0.0.
(B) Outlays, $0.0.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $0.0.
(B) Outlays, $0.0
[[Page H1770]]
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $0.0
(B) Outlays, $0.0.
SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.
(a) First Reconciliation Bill.--Not later than July 1,
1999, the House Committee on Ways and Means shall report to
the House a reconciliation bill that consists of changes in
laws within its jurisdiction necessary--
(1) to ensure (A) that the surplus of all trust fund
receipts over outlays of the social security trust funds is
invested in special purpose bonds backed by the full faith
and credit of the United States, and (B) that such funds are
applied by the Treasury solely to pay off the outstanding
debt of the United States held by the public; and
(2) to ensure further that the Treasury shall issue bonds
backed by the full faith and credit of the United States
Government to the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age,
Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds and to the
Board of Trustees of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust
Fund in an amount specified in this resolution which equals
the public debt retired through fiscal year 2014. 81 \1/2\
percent of such bonds shall be issued to the social security
trust funds and 19 \1/2\ percent to the Medicare Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund.
(b) Second Reconciliation Bill.--If the reconciliation bill
referred to in subsection (a) is enacted, then, not later
than the 20th calendar day beginning after the date of such
enactment, the House Committee on Ways and Means shall submit
its recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the
House. After receiving those recommendations, the Committee
on the Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill
carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive
revision.
(1) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report
changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce
revenues as follows: -$40.1 in the period of fiscal years
2000 through 2004 and -$116.5 in the period of fiscal years
2000 through 2009.
(2) The policy of this concurrent resolution is that the
bill reported under section 4(b)(1) accommodate high priority
tax relief of approximately $62 billion over five years, $166
billion over ten years, and $295 billion over fifteen years
upon enactment of legislation that extends solvency of the
Social Security trust funds until 2050 and solvency of the
Medicare Trust Fund until at least 2020. Of these amounts,
$22 billion over five years, $50 billion over ten years, and
$90 billion over fifteen years would fully offset revenues
lost by closing or restricting unwarranted tax benefits. Such
tax relief should--
(1) expand tax credits to alleviate the costs of child care
for working families;
(2) reduce financing costs for primary and secondary public
school modernization;
(3) mitigate ``marriage penalties'' in the tax code;
(4) ensure that working families eligible for child tax
credits are unaffected by the Alternative Minimum Tax;
(5) create tax incentives for working families to establish
savings accounts for retirement;
(6) extend long-supported and previously renewed tax
benefits that soon will expire, such as the Work Opportunity
and Research and Experimentation credits;
(7) accommodate the revenue effects of enacting the Dingell
bill (H.R. 358), legislation improving rights for medical
patients and providers in managed care health plans;
(8) provide tax relief to assist working families with
long-term care needs; and
(9) provide tax credits to purchasers of Better American
Bonds which will support State and local environmental
protection initiatives.
SEC. 5. EXTENDING THE SOLVENCY OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND
MEDICARE.
Until enactment of the legislation required by this
section, none of any budget surplus shall be obligated or
expended. Upon enactment of this legislation, the on-budget
surplus may be used to increase programs or to offset tax
reduction, subject to the discretionary spending caps and the
pay-as-you-go rules as enacted by H. Con. Res. 67 (105th
Congress) or as subsequently amended. It is the objective of
this resolution to extend the solvency of Social Security at
least until 2050 and the solvency of Medicare at least until
2020, and to prohibit obligation or expenditure of any budget
surplus until these objectives are met. The Balanced Budget
Agreement of 1997 set discretionary caps for fiscal years
1998 through 2002 based upon explicit funding levels for
national defense (Function 050) for fiscal years 1998 through
2002. The President's budget for fiscal year 2000 requests a
baseline increase in Function 050 amounting to $84 billion in
budget authority for each of the next 5 years. The purpose of
the increase is to address problems of readiness and
retention and to meet requirements for modernization of
forces, which were not anticipated in the Balanced Budget
Agreement of 1997. This request changes fundamentally the
assumptions on which the agreement was made; therefore,
baseline spending should be increased in order to provide
sufficient funds for nondefense discretionary spending needs
while meeting the President's request for additional defense
spending. Therefore, upon enactment of legislation making
Social Security and Medicare solvent, as required by section
4(a), the discretionary spending caps applicable to fiscal
years 2001 and 2002 should be adjusted upward to reflect the
additional defense spending request from the President's
budget.
SEC. 6. UPDATED CBO PROJECTIONS.
Each calendar quarter the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office shall make an up-to-date estimate of receipts,
outlays and surplus (on-budget and off-budget) for the
current fiscal year.
SEC. 7. RELINQUISHING THE FEDERAL SHARE OF MEDICAID FUNDS
RECOUPED AS A RESULT OF TOBACCO SETTLEMENTS
BETWEEN THE STATES AND TOBACCO COMPANIES.
The resolution assumes the Federal share of Medicaid funds
recouped as a result of tobacco settlements between the
States and tobacco companies will be relinquised to the
States. The resolution assumes that the release of the
Federal Government's claim to these funds in favor of the
States will be made by law, and will be subject to certain
conditions and activities prescribed by law including, but
not limited to, programs which improve public health,
programs designed to prevent youth smoking, other health
activities or education, and compensation for tobacco
farmers.
SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) persecution of individuals on the sole ground of their
religious beliefs and practices occurs in countries around
the world and affects millions of lives;
(2) such persecution violates international norms of human
rights, including those established in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, the Helsinki Accords, and the
Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance
and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief;
(3) such persecution is abhorrent to all Americans, and our
very Nation was founded on the principle of the freedom to
worship according to the dictates of our conscience; and
(4) in 1998 Congress unanimously passed, and President
Clinton signed into law, the International Religious Freedom
Act of 1998, which established the United States Commission
on International Religious Freedom to monitor facts and
circumstances of violations of religious freedom and
authorized $3,000,000 to carry out the functions of the
Commission for each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) this resolution assumes that $3,000,000 will be
appropriated within function 150 for fiscal year 2000 for the
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom
to carry out its duties; and
(2) the House Committee on Appropriations is strongly urged
to appropriate such amount for the Commission.
SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ASSET-BUILDING FOR THE WORKING
POOR.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) 33 percent of all American households have no or
negative financial assets and 60 percent of African-American
households have no or negative financial assets;
(2) 46.9 percent of all children in America live in
households with no financial assets, including 40 percent of
caucasian children and 75 percent of African-American
children;
(3) in order to provide low-income families with more tools
for empowerment, incentives which encourage asset-building
should be established;
(4) across the Nation numerous small public, private, and
public-private asset-building initiatives (including
individual development account programs) are demonstrating
success at empowering low-income workers;
(5) the Government currently provides middle and upper
income Americans with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax
incentives for building assets; and
(6) the Government should utilize tax laws or other
measures to provide low-income Americans with incentives to
work and build assets in order to escape poverty permanently.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
any changes in tax law should include provisions which
encourage low-income workers and their families to save for
buying their first home, starting a business, obtaining an
education, or taking other measures to prepare for the
future.
SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ACCESS TO HEALTH INSURANCE AND
PRESERVING HOME HEALTH SERVICES FOR ALL
MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.
(a) Access to Health Insurance.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(A) 43.4 million Americans are currently without health
insurance, and that this number is expected to rise to nearly
60 million people in the next 10 years;
(B) the cost of health insurance continues to rise, a key
factor in increasing the number of uninsured; and
(C) there is a consensus that working Americans and their
families and children will suffer from reduced access to
health insurance.
(2) Sense of congress on improving access to health care
insurance.--It is the sense of Congress that access to
affordable health care coverage for all Americans is a
priority of the 106th Congress.
(b) Preserving Home Health Service For All Medicare
Beneficiaries.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(A) the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 reformed medicare home
health care spending by instructing the Health Care Financing
Administration to implement a prospective payment system and
instituted an interim payment system to achieve savings;
(B) the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act,
[[Page H1771]]
1999, reformed the interim payment system to increase
reimbursements to low-cost providers, added $900 million in
funding, and delayed the automatic 15 percent payment
reduction for one year, to October 1, 2000; and
(C) patients whose care is more extensive and expensive
than the typical medicare patient do not receive supplemental
payments in the interim payment system but will receive
special protection in the home health care prospective
payment system.
(2) Sense of congress on access to home health care.--It is
the sense of Congress that--
(A) Congress recognizes the importance of home health care
for seniors and disabled citizens;
(B) Congress and the Administration should work together to
maintain quality care for patients whose care is more
extensive and expensive than the typical medicare patient,
including the sickest and frailest medicare beneficiaries,
while home health care agencies operate in the interim
payment system; and
(C) Congress and the Administration should work together to
avoid the implementation of the 15 percent reduction in the
interim payment system and ensure timely implementation of
the prospective payment system.
SEC. 11. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON MEDICARE PAYMENT.
(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) a goal of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was to expand
options for Medicare beneficiaries under the new
Medicare+Choice program;
(2) Medicare+Choice was intended to make these choices
available to all Medicare beneficiaries; and unfortunately,
during the first two years of the Medicare+Choice program the
blended payment was not implemented, stifling health care
options and continuing regional disparity among many counties
across the United States; and
(3) the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 also established the
National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare to
develop legislative recommendations to address the long-term
funding challenges facing medicare.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
this resolution assumes that funding of the Medicare+Choice
program is a priority for the House Committee on the Budget
before financing new programs and benefits that may
potentially add to the imbalance of payments and benefits in
Fee-for-Service Medicare and Medicare+Choice.
SEC. 12. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON ASSESSMENT OF WELFARE-TO-WORK
PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--It is the sense of the House that,
recognizing the need to maximize the benefit of the Welfare-
to-Work Program, the Secretary of Labor should prepare a
report on Welfare-to-Work Programs pursuant to section
403(a)(5) of the Social Security Act. This report should
include information on the following--
(1) the extent to which the funds available under such
section have been used (including the number of States that
have not used any of such funds), the types of programs that
have received such funds, the number of and characteristics
of the recipients of assistance under such programs, the
goals of such programs, the duration of such programs, the
costs of such programs, any evidence of the effects of such
programs on such recipients, and accounting of the total
amount expended by the States from such funds, and the rate
at which the Secretary expects such funds to be expended for
each of the fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002;
(2) with regard to the unused funds allocated for Welfare-
to-Work for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999, identify
areas of the Nation that have unmet needs for Welfare-to-Work
initiatives; and
(3) identify possible Congressional action that may be
taken to reprogram Welfare-to-Work funds from States that
have not utilized previously allocated funds to places of
unmet need, including those States that have rejected or
otherwise not utilized prior funding.
(b) Report.--It is the sense of the House that, not later
than January 1, 2000, the Secretary of Labor should submit to
the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House and the Committee on Finance of the
Senate, in writing, the report described in subsection (a).
SEC. 13. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PROVIDING HONOR GUARD SERVICES
FOR VETERANS' FUNERALS.
It is the sense of Congress that all relevant congressional
committees should make every effort to provide sufficient
resources so that an Honor Guard, if requested, is available
for veterans' funerals.
SEC. 14. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE PRESIDENT'S
LIVABILITY AGENDA AND LANDS LEGACY INITIATIVE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) States and localities across the country are taking
steps to address the problems of traffic congestion, urban
sprawl, the deterioration of recreational areas, and the
disappearance of wildlife habitat and open space;
(2) the Government should be a strong partner with States
and localities as they strive to address these problems and
build livable communities for the 21st century;
(3) the Government can and should also take independent
actions to protect critical lands across the country and to
preserve America's natural treasures; and
(4) the President's Lands Legacy Initiative and Livability
Agenda represent two comprehensive proposals that advance
these goals.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the President's Land Legacy Initiative and Livability Agenda
should be considered high priorities by the Appropriations
Committees as they make spending decisions for fiscal year
2000 and beyond.
SEC. 15. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CHILD NUTRITION.
It is the sense of Congress that both Democrats and
Republicans understand that an adequate diet and proper
nutrition are essential to a child's general well-being.
Furthermore, the lack of an adequate diet and proper
nutrition may adversely affect a child's ability to perform
up to his or her ability in school. Because of this fact, as
well as the current Federal role in school nutrition programs
and the commitment on behalf of both Republicans and
Democrats to helping children learn, it is the sense of
Congress that the Committee on Education and the Workforce
and the Committee on Agriculture of the House should examine
our Nation's nutrition programs to determine if they can be
improved, particularly with respect to services to low-income
children.
SEC. 16. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING STATES' FLEXIBILITY TO
HELP LOW-INCOME SENIORS MEET MEDICARE'S COST
SHARING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) Congress and the States through Medicaid have
established two vital programs to help senior citizens pay
medicare premiums, deductibles, and copayments through the
Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) and the Specified Low-
Income Medicare Beneficiary (SLMB) programs;
(2) a recent Families, USA study found that between three
and four million low-income seniors are not getting the help
to which they are legally entitled, which is nearly 40
percent of those eligible for these programs; and
(3) for many senior citizens with limited means, these
medicare premiums, deductibles, and copayments can be a
significant burden on their monthly budgets.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
these low-income seniors be enrolled in Medicaid by allowing
the Social Security Administration to automatically assume
that these seniors are eligible for Medicaid, while States
make final determinations.
SEC. 17. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON EQUITABLE REIMBURSEMENT FOR
FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTERS.
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 contained a provision to
phase out Medicaid cost-based reimbursements from States to
FQHC's beginning in August of 1999 and phasing out completely
by 2002. It is anticipated that the phase-out of these
reimbursements will put a tremendous strain on the ability of
FQHC's to meet the healthcare needs of Medicaid beneficiaries
and the uninsured, particularly in rural areas of the United
States. It is the sense of Congress that a fair and equitable
Medicaid reimbursement policy should be developed for FQHC's
in recognition of their unique patient and service mix.
SEC. 18. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING STATE'S FLEXIBILITY TO
PROVIDE CHILDREN WITH HEALTH INSURANCE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) according to the 1997 current population survey data
from the United States Census Bureau, 11.3 million children
are uninsured and 4.4 million of them are eligible for
Medicaid;
(2) under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, States have a
new option under Medicaid to grant ``presumptive
eligibility'' to children through pediatricians, community
health centers, other health providers, Head Start centers,
WIC agencies, and State or local child care agencies that
determine eligibility for child care subsidies; and
(3) it is more cost effective to enroll these children in
Medicaid and ensure that they are receiving preventive care
through a family doctor, rather than through an emergency
room where children are sicker and taxpayers will end up
paying more through higher Medicaid expenditures, local
taxes, or insurance premiums.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
these low-income children be enrolled in Medicaid by allowing
schools, child care resource and referral centers, child
support agencies, workers determining eligibility for
homeless programs, and workers determining eligibility for
the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to
automatically assume that these children are eligible for
Medicaid, while States make final determinations.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) each will control
20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) the ranking Democrat on the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if we were voting on final passage on the
Spratt amendment, I would vote against it, because it and all other
budgets before us today pretend that both parties will
[[Page H1772]]
make deep cuts in health, environment, education, international
responsibilities, and defense that in the end neither party, in my
view, will accept.
But this vote is not to pass the Spratt amendment. It is to
substitute the Spratt amendment for the Republican budget, and I will
vote to do that. Because, with all of its false premises, it is far
less reckless, far more balanced and responsible than the Republican
alternative that it amends.
Now, why do I say that? It is because I was here in 1981 and I
remember the Republicans and a lot of conservative Democrats ramming
the disastrous Reagan budgets through this House, which promised that
we could double defense spending, provide huge tax cuts aimed at the
wealthy, and still balance the budget.
Instead, those budgets tripled the deficits and tripled the national
debt. And it took us some 19 years to dig out of that hole to the point
where a President could finally present a balanced budget to the
Congress.
I vowed never again will I cooperate in that kind of outrageous
activity. But now the Republicans in their approach bring us the same
patent medicine snake oil that they gave us in 1981.
The Spratt amendment does not. The Spratt amendment extends the
solvency of Social Security and Medicare. It is better for veterans. It
is better for education. It is better for health care. And in the
future, it makes some of the investments that we will need to create
greater opportunity for all of our American families.
{time} 1800
But I caution all of my colleagues. After the budget resolution
passes today, they will then face the appropriations process. In that
process, I predict that neither party will be willing to vote for the
cuts in education, in health care, in agriculture, in veterans, in
environmental cleanup, in defense that all of these resolutions promise
today.
I really believe that Members fundamentally misunderstand what is
happening in the budget process, and I would ask this question: Does
anybody on this floor really believe that in the end in the
appropriations process they will cut 10 percent below current services
this year, or 20 to 25 percent below current services in the coming 5
years in some of the program areas I have just described? The answer is
very simple. They simply will not do it.
The budget process in my view has become fundamentally flawed and
phony. It politically rewards phonies. It allows Congress to pretend
that it is making cuts at the macro level, which it will never deliver
at the micro program level. And we desperately need to change it if we
want to bring reality back to the process and integrity back to the
debate about budgeting. Unless we do that, the public will not
understand a single thing we do here on budgets, and in a democracy,
that is unacceptable.
And so I would simply say in closing, while I would not support the
Spratt amendment if it were final passage because I believe all of
these budgets before us today are fundamentally phony, this is by far
the most balanced, the most equitable, the most thoughtful in terms of
providing the long-term investments that we will eventually need in
this country, and I would urge its adoption as a substitute to the
Republican vehicle now before us.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to say, and I hope all my colleagues
share this view, the gentleman from Wisconsin, who is the ranking
member of the Committee on Appropriations and has to deal most
pointedly with the reality as opposed to the rhetoric, invariably in my
opinion speaks the truth not only to us but to the American public. I
voted for the Blue Dog and I am going to vote for the Spratt budget,
but those of us who serve on the Committee on Appropriations know that,
in the final analysis, Members are not going to pass bills within their
constraints that we now have on the floor, and that is what the
gentleman from Wisconsin is talking about. I want to congratulate him
for his leadership, for his honesty and for his service in this
institution. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the gentleman for the
time.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
(Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in opposition to the Spratt amendment.
I rise in opposition to the Spratt amendment and in support of the
Republican resolution which secures Social Security and Medicare, and
increases education. The Republican resolution is the only budget that
takes the first steps necessary toward improving benefits for veterans
and restoring the health of national defense.
As I stand here today, our dedicated service men and women who are
deployed throughout the world, are unselfishly putting their lives at
risk in support of our national security interests--in Kosovo, Iraq and
North Korea to name a few.
The Subcommittee on Military Personnel, which I chair, has had very
good hearings concerning pay, retirement, retention and health care.
The concerns that are affecting our soldiers, sailors, airmen and
marines are real!
During these investigations I received a letter, which I would like
submitted for the Record, from a young officer in the Navy. He, like
the rest of the outstanding military personnel loves what he does and
takes great pride in supporting and protecting our country. He only
asks that we provide him with qualified people, tools and training to
complete their mission and to pay them an honest day's wage for an
honest day's work. These men and women and their families deserve
better than this--there is no excuse that they do not have the proper
tools and equipment, work and live in substandard facilities and are
paid so poorly they have to work two jobs to support their families.
Our force is undermanned and overworked. The operation tempo is so high
that many of these men and women have spent the last two Thanksgivings
and Christmases away from their families. This is insulting to them and
to this country which they so unselfishly support.
I heard one of my colleagues from across the aisle say ``We have a
moral obligation to support defense and that he would support the
proposal that provides the most for defense.'' We do have a moral
obligation to support defense and the Republican budget resolution with
the manager's amendment takes the first steps necessary toward
providing for defense. It will provide more dollars in fiscal year
2000, (3 billion more than the Spratt amendment or the President's)
than any other proposal.
In addition, the Republican budget provides over $1 billion for the
veterans who have also sacrificed so much for this country.
Unlike the Spratt amendment the Republican budget resolution will
fulfill our promise to veterans and work toward maintaining a strong
national defense.
I strongly oppose the Spratt amendment and support the Republican
budget and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:
To whom it may concern:
For the last 17 years I have served my country as a sailor
in the United States Navy. I have seen what I believe to be
the decline in discipline reach an all time low in the last 2
years. I believe that boot camp has become too lax and fails
to produce sailors that could go immediately into combat and
survive. We also take those same sailors and send them to
Pensacola for follow on training where they live better than
most senior fleet sailors. They are cuddled the whole time
they are in school. They arrive in the fleet with little or
no concept of discipline. After they complete training they
show up at various stations around the world in live in what
is little more than a slum. We always say, ``if you take care
of your sailors, then they will take care of you.'' Taking
care of them may be in the form of a good ass chewing to get
them back on track. If we cuddle them as airman then what is
there to look forward to?
It takes a special breed of person to stay in the Navy.
Sailors that stay in the Navy are, for the most part, not in
it for fame or fortune. They stay in the Navy because they
love what they do, pride in the hardest job in the world,
well done. There is no greater satisfaction then watching the
fruits of your labor launch off the pointy end of an aircraft
carrier loaded with all the ordnance it can possibly carry
and go take a piece of American policy to those who need it
most. They stay because of camaraderie. They stay because of
honor, courage and commitment.
Honor, courage and commitment are words that are often used
in just. What they should say is honor the sailor and respect
the job and sacrifice that he endures. Have the courage to
give those who risk their life everyday in the defense of our
country and democracy the proper equipment to do their job.
Make the commitment to the basic human needs
[[Page H1773]]
that every human being, even sailors; need for themselves and
their families.
Most sailors are held to an even higher standard then the
people who send them to their deaths in battle. Many have a
hard time living with the double standard that they are held
to. If our Commander-in-Chief can admittedly lie to congress
about his improprieties, then why must an active duty
military person have their lives ruined and be forced from
the service of his country, because he went to a convention
that honors all of those who have ever landed an aircraft on
the pitching deck of an aircraft carrier.
We need to provide the fleet with all the tools to maintain
all our assets. Just in time manning and ramping up for
deployment is ludicrous, people and assets need to be in
position and onboard to benefit from the rigors of the
training cycle. Sailors need to be properly trained. They
need to have the proper support equipment to test the
systems, be it on a ship or aircraft. They need publications
that are up-to-date. They need the various hand and automated
tools to actually perform the maintenance and maintain the
equipment. They need adequate space to perform their
maintenance and stow their gear. Recently it took us 2 days
to complete what should have been a 2-hour procedure for all
of these reasons: We could not get a hydraulic test stand
that worked correctly. The support equipment people could not
fix the hydraulic test stand because they did not have the
correct publications. The publications had not been updated
to reflect the new tool requirements. Nobody knew how to
operate the new test equipment. If we do not have the people
or tools to fix the aircraft then the aircraft can not fly.
Aircrews need to fly to stay proficient. Aircrews love to
fly and that is their job.
We must fulfill the basic human needs of every sailor in
order for them to continue to be happy at their job. Pay them
an honest days wage for an honest days work. A sailor that
works on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, the most
dangerous work place in the world, gets $3 a day (before
taxes), provided the ship or squadron has enough billets to
pay him. Pay them for the sacrifices that they make by
providing adequate housing (when ashore), quality health care
for them and their families. We need to provide affordable
(pay grade based) 24 hour a day 7 days a week daycare.
Manning is probably one thing that gets pinged on the most,
but just throwing a body at a problem will not fix it, if it
is not the right body. It does not matter if I have 10
mechanics if I have an electrical problem. Of the 200 people
assigned to the maintenance department, 25 are temporarily
assigned duties out side the command. 140 people are actually
assigned to production work centers. The 140 people include 7
in corrosion, 17 ordies, 5 tarpies, 3 PR's, and 28 line rats.
This leaves 80 people to perform 97% of the scheduled and
unscheduled, documented, direct maintenance on the aircraft.
However, on any given day we lose approximately 15 of the 75
people from these work centers due to leave, school, watch,
SIQ, LIMDU, appointments, etc. This all means that on an
average day we have 65 maintainers performing maintenance on
our aircraft. Currently the average direct maintenance man-
hour per flight hour, for the F-14 is 60.5. Based on an
eight-hour day, five days a week we would perform 11,960 hour
of on aircraft maintenance per month. This would equate to
198 flight hours per month or 99 sorties, which would break
down to approximately 16 flight hours, or 8 sorties per month
for each pilot. This is not enough to stay proficient. This
also does not account for any of the other ``collateral''
duties, administrative requirements or additional tasking
these sailors have. What do you think is not gonna be done?
I don't know what the fix is and I don't know all the
answers but I will tell you I have never seen the Navy in
such a sad state of affairs. I love this business and have
always believed that there was honor in my chosen profession.
Where else in the world can a high school drop out become an
Officer and a key person in a maintenance department with
$500 million of assets. We have created most of the problems
ourselves through inflated decrees of readiness and
continually providing more with less, but at what cost?
Sailors are ingenious and will find ways to put ``hot steel
on target'' no matter what it takes, because that is our job.
When we have to work harder to get the job done then some
other program is not getting the attention it needs. In many
cases those are the paper programs that the bureaucracy has
created in order for someone to ``cover their ass'' or have a
``claim to fame.'' So every cut back has a cost. In this case
I think we cut too deep. Unfortunately we elected those
bureaucrats that created those paper programs. We are
WARRIORS and our job is to be prepared to fight wars.
Rocky A. Riley, LTJG, USN.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I must confess a certain degree of
confusion. Last month, the author of this amendment, this alternative
budget, praised the President's budget with a glowing review. Today he
proposes a budget that is diametrically opposed to and completely
incompatible with the President's budget, so I am confused. I do not
know in which direction my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
really want to go. I suppose we will find out soon. But in the
meantime, I want to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support the obvious alternative, the best budget, the Republican budget
proposal.
I came to Congress just 3 months ago as a small businessman,
accustomed to the discipline that the free market imposes on business
budgets and frustrated by the irresponsible lack of discipline we have
often seen in many government budgets. Perhaps the most egregious
example of this irresponsibility has been the raid on the Social
Security trust funds. I am proud to be a member of the Republican
Committee on the Budget that is bringing an end to that irresponsible
practice.
The Republican budgets saves 100 percent of Social Security funds,
every penny of payroll taxes, every penny of interest owed to the
Social Security trust fund. That is $1.8 trillion over the next 10
years, considerably more than the President's budget. In addition, the
Republican budget spends more on elementary and secondary education,
more on defense, more on Medicare, and then after those priorities are
addressed, the Republican budget, unlike any of the Democratic
alternatives, provides meaningful tax relief for overtaxed working
Americans, all of this accomplished within the context of the 1997
budget agreement.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for senior citizens, to stand up for
our students, to stand up for our soldiers and for our taxpayers.
Reject the Spratt alternative and vote ``yes'' on the Republican
budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt
amendment and in opposition to the Kasich bill. Our amendment provides
for the next generation rather than just the next election.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Mr. Spratt for crafting a substitute
that wills save all of the surplus until we ensure the solvency of
Social Security and Medicare. Congress must exercise fiscal discipline
and save Social Security first.
I also want to thank committee Democrats for adding my bill, the
Etheridge School Construction Act, to the Spratt Substitute. This
legislation will provide critically needed help for local schools like
those in my District that are bursting at the seams. As the former
Superintendent of my state's schools, I call on this Congress to make
the education of our children our top priority.
Despire the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle, the Kasich
budget does nothing for school construction and abandons the 100,000
new teachers initiative. The Kasich budget cuts higher education by
$36.3 billion over ten years. As the first member of my family to
graduate from college, I know firsthand that affordable access to a
quality education is the key to the American Dream, and Congress must
not cut financial aid.
This is a question of our values and our priorities. A budget should
be about the next generation not just the next election. Vote for the
future and the Spratt Substitute.
House Budget Committee Democratic Caucus
The Democratic alternative requires the enactment of
legislation extending the solvency of the Social Security
Trust Fund to 2050 and the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI)
Trust Fund for 12 additional years prior to the enactment of
net new tax cuts or net new spending initiatives. If the
solvency of the Social Security and Medicare HI Trust Funds
is extended, the Democratic alternative provides for
education, training, and social services initiatives.
republicans devastate education funding
Despite Republican rhetoric about supporting education, the
House Republican budget resolution drastically cuts funding
for education, employment and training, and social service
programs.
Republicans Cut Education by $1.2 Billion in 2000--The
House Republican budget cuts education funding for 2000 by
$1.2 billion below a freeze at the 1999 level.
Republicans Cut Purchasing Power by 18.1 Percent by 2009--
These cuts in education funding translate into a 6.9 percent
decrease in purchasing power by 2004, and an astounding 18.1
percent decrease in purchasing power by 2009.
higher education, employment and training, and social services
The Republicans deeply cut funding that provides higher
education assistance, college preparation, social services
(such as Head
[[Page H1774]]
Start), and job training in order to increase spending for
elementary and secondary education. (The Republicans do not
say which education programs they eliminate.)
Republicans Cut Higher Education and Social Services by
$16.7 Billion over Five Years--The Republican budget cuts
funding for higher education, training, and social services--
programs such as Pell Grants and Head Start--by $1.7 billion
for 2000, by $16.7 billion over five years, and by $36.3
billion over ten years compared with the 1999 freeze level.
Republicans Cut Education by 5.7 Percent for 2000, 16.2
Percent for 2009--The magnitude of cuts in the Republican
budget requires an across-the-board cut of 5.7 percent for
2000 in programs other than those for elementary and
secondary education. By 2009, the Republican budget cuts
these programs by 16.2 percent compared with the 1999 freeze
level.
democrats boost education funding
The Democratic budget rejects the Republicans' damaging
cuts in education programs. It provides $2.6 billion more for
education for 2000 than the Republican budget. Over time, the
difference between the Democratic and Republican budgets gets
even greater; the Democratic budget provides $10.2 billion
more than the Republicans over five years (2000-2004), and
$51.4 billion more over ten years (2000-2009).
Protect Higher Education, Employment and Training, and
Social Services--Unlike the Republican budget, the Democratic
alternative does not cut higher education, training, and
social services to increase elementary and secondary
education programs. The Democratic alternative increases the
overall education budget.
Hire 100,000 Teachers--The Democratic budget increases
spending by enough to continue the President's initiative to
hire 100,000 new teachers over seven years in order to reduce
the average class size in first through third grade. Congress
funded 30,000 new teachers last year, and the Democratic
alternative supports those teachers and allows the hiring of
8,000 more.
Modernize Schools--The Democratic budget includes new tax
credits starting in 2000 to pay the interest on almost $25
billion in bonds to build and modernize up to 6,000 public
schools. It also continues welfare-to-work and employer-
provided post secondary education tax credits.
Increase Special Education--Because the Democratic budget
provides $2.6 billion more for 2000 than the Republican
budget, Democrats have more room to increase funding for
special education. The Republicans increase elementary and
secondary education funding by only $500 million above a
freeze. Unless they cut other elementary and secondary
education programs, they can only increase funding for
special education by the same amount.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt
amendment. I voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1997
because I knew it was unrealistic. I knew that when we got to this
backloaded end of this process, we would be facing absolute
impossibilities in meeting the needs of this country. We are there.
The gentleman from South Carolina has written a budget within the
rules. Those rules are caps on spending that Members are going to find
impossible to appropriate within between now and the end of this
session. I know everybody on the other side is waiting for the June
estimates from CBO, hoping that God will come with billions more
dollars to spend and that suddenly we will have some relief. But the
fact is that what is happening in this House, and the American people
have to understand it, is that those people who want to reduce the size
of government are using a very interesting technique. The technique is,
erode the tax base so that there is no money and then put social
programs and defense head to head. We are headed for some very serious
problems.
Now, my belief was that all the mistakes that the gentleman from
Wisconsin talked about were very real back in the 1980s, but now we
have $5 trillion worth of debt. The gentleman from South Carolina says,
``Let's deal with Social Security, let's deal with Medicare, let's pay
down the debt.'' The Republican alternative is, ``Let's figure out some
way to shuffle it around on a two-page document, smoke and mirrors, and
come to the Committee on Ways and Means and give away billions of
dollars in taxes again.''
Now, if you will not pay your credit card debt, you deserve to lose
your credit card. What is happening in this budgeting process is you
have all this credit card debt that you have built up all those years,
you now have a surplus, and you say, ``Let's go on another spending
spree.'' This budget that the gentleman from South Carolina has says,
``We're going to take care of the essentials.'' What people worry about
is their security when they are old, their Social Security, their
Medicare. Yes, when the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) gets old,
he will worry about his Medicare, too, and so will his mother and so
will everybody else's mother and uncle and aunt if we do not deal with
those issues.
The Republican alternative has not one single penny of additional
money in the budget for dealing with the problems of Medicare. It
should fail. The Spratt amendment should pass.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spence) the very distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, when it comes to national security, there is no debate
about which plan under consideration best provides for our men and
women in uniform. Over the President's objection and under threat of
veto, the Republican budgets in fiscal years 1996 through 1998
increased defense spending by more than $20 billion over the
President's budget in an effort to address some of our military's most
critical unfunded quality of life, readiness and modernization
shortfalls. The funds were desperately needed, but it was not enough.
Last fall, the Nation's military leadership indicated that the
President's defense budget was short by at least $150 billion in
critical areas, like pay, housing, modernization, spare parts,
maintenance funding and on and on and on. What was the President's
response? His budget provides for only about 50 percent of what the
Joint Chiefs said was needed. And even that 50 percent is explicitly
held hostage to the President's domestic political agenda, while also
assuming that the spending caps are broken.
The military's needs are real. The President's defense budget, which
itself falls short of meeting the military's minimum requirements, is
not. Under the leadership of the Speaker and with the support of our
chairman of the Committee on the Budget the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich), the Republican budget goes a long way towards addressing the
Joint Chiefs' unmet requirements. Under the leadership of the Speaker
and with the support of the gentleman from Ohio, the Republican budget
adds $30 billion to the defense budget, including more than $8 billion
next year. And contrary to earlier accusations made by our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle, the Republican budget will provide $3
billion in additional outlays just next year alone. These extra funds
will provide for everything from a 4.8 percent pay raise to better
family housing, to more robustly modernized and dramatically improved
readiness.
So contrary to concerns expressed by some of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, again the Republican budget will take care of
the troops, will take care of their families, will take care of
readiness and will take care of modernization shortfalls far more
effectively than the President's budget will. There is no contest.
Support the troops. Support the Republican budget.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate
myself with the gentleman's remarks and express my appreciation for his
leadership dealing with our national defense.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Spratt
alternative and in opposition to the Republican budget resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt Alternative and in
opposition to the budget resolution before us because I call it the
Fable of three evils.
This budget will continue and even accelerate trends away from a
progressive tax system. We rely more and more on payroll and property
taxes and are less dependent on a progressive income tax. This budget
offers tax
[[Page H1775]]
relief for the rich and uncertainty for everyone else.
Secondly, only as this process moves into appropriation reality will
the American people understand the basic unfairness, the cold-
heartedness which lie at the base of these numbers presented here
today.
This budget calls for $200 billion dollars in discretionary cuts in
future years. Imagine what this could mean for veterans, senior
citizens, children, schools and hospitals.
Thirdly, this budget is built on forecasts which may or may not
become real. The Congressional Budget office warns that if economic
conditions change, the budget deficit or surplus projections could be
off by more than $85 billion dollars and become a political football.
This budget does not reflect the needs of my district where the
median income is $25,250. This budget cuts the heart out of senior
citizens with the $9 billion Medicare cuts and puts healthcare at risk
for millions with the $1.2 billion cut in Medicaid.
I fully support a pay raise for our soldiers in the military;
solvency for the social security trust fund; food stamps for elderly
immigrants, medicaid for children, pregnant women and legal immigrants
with disabilities. Therefore, I support the Spratt Alternative and urge
its passage.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, many American children go to school each
morning in crumbling schools with poor heating in winter, leaky pipes
and paint peeling off the ceiling. Our children deserve better than
this.
Many American children are in classrooms with one teacher for 30, 35
or 40 students. Our children deserve better than this.
Our future is only as bright as the education we provide for our
children today. I know people are used to Members of Congress talking
about the importance of educating our children, but actions speak
louder than words. The Democratic budget provides for 100,000 new
teachers so that our children get more individualized attention in the
classroom. The Democratic budget has an initiative to modernize our
aging public schools. The Democratic budget invests in higher education
so that everyone who earns a place in college can go to college. We
Democrats believe that education needs to be a top priority.
Republicans have a different set of priorities. They cut $16.7
billion over 5 years for higher ed and social services. They cut
education by 16 percent by the year 2009. They would rather give a big
tax break to someone earning $200,000 a year or more than provide a
good school for a child to realize their God-given capabilities. They
would rather spend $775 billion on a tax cut than use that money to
make sure our schools provide for a world-class education. Of course it
is tough to know exactly how they will fund their tax cuts for the
wealthy because they do not tell us. Will it come from Head Start? From
college student loans and aid? Or maybe they will do what they first
tried to do when they became the majority and eliminate the entire
Department of Education.
Their budget is like playing Russian roulette with our children's
future. That clearly is the difference between Republicans and
Democrats, having a different vision of the future. The one that we
need is the Spratt Democratic substitute. It provides for the type of
vision that educates our children in the next century.
{time} 1815
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Armey).
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, let me just get to the point of matter. This is really
very simple.
Every young Member, every young working man and woman in this
country, young couple with their own children, their own family, their
own hopes for their own life, is paying a very heavy payroll tax, many
times on both incomes. Doing what they can to support their family but
paying that heavy payroll tax; for what? For what they believe is the
Social Security, retirement security, Medicare, health security of
their grandma and their grandpa, and bless their hearts. These little
guys, these young men and women, they make that payment. They make that
payment because they believe this government is being honest. They
think this government is taking that money for grandma and grandpa's
retirement, and now they found out that has not been the case.
As late as 1994, the last year the Democrats were in the majority,
$100 billion of their hard-earned tax dollars did not go to grandma and
grandpa's retirement security or to their health security but to other
welfare programs, for all kinds of things. That is not only a betrayal
of grandma and grandpa, but that is a betrayal of each and everyone of
those young working men and women, these young parents that are working
so hard and making such a sacrifice.
How do we change that? The first thing we did was get rid of the
deficit. We reformed welfare, we saved Medicare from insolvency, we
reformed five major entitlement spending programs, and today for the
first time in their life we have an opportunity to tell every young
working man and woman in this country that every dime that they pay in
payroll taxes will go for the purpose that they pay it, to support
grandma and grandpa's and then, yes, some day their own retirement
security through Social Security and Medicare. The Democrats are
pretending to that, but they compromise it. They cut it off. They cut
back because they cannot give up their big spending programs.
But what makes this budget different that the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kasich) and this Republican committee has brought to the floor is
right here: $200 billion more. To Mr. Young Working America: ``Those
payroll taxes that are such a burden in your family are in fact being
saved for your retirement security through Social Security than what is
done by the President. Two hundred billion dollars more of that money
that you pay for that purpose that you are promised by this government
will be used for that purpose.''
It is time, Mr. Chairman, that this government get honest with the
working people of this country and pay the respect to their grandmother
and grandfather that they paid when they pay those payroll taxes. The
one fundamental thing we must know about this, every dime of those
payroll taxes goes to Social Security and Medicare. We set more of
their hard-earned tax dollars aside for Social Security and Medicare
than the President, and for the first time we are being honest with
both the grandma and the grandpa and the young 20 and 30 year-old young
parent that is struggling for their children.
This is our chance to do the one thing we never thought would get
done in our lifetime. Let us do it tonight. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman for having yielded the time to me.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Dunn).
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the House budget
resolution sponsored by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). This
budget is a solid step forward in the idea of limited government, of
fiscal discipline and protecting Social Security and tax relief. By
setting aside 1.8 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, the entire
Social Security surplus plus interest, the Republican budget provides
more money for the protection of Social Security and Medicare than does
the President's budget. In addition, it locks this money away so it can
only be used for reforming these important programs or for paying down
the national debt. This is a great signal of our commitment to
preserving the quality of life and income security of our Nation's
seniors that they so richly deserve.
Mr. Chairman, retirement should be a time to enjoy things, the
company of friends and family. It should not be spent worrying about
where our money is going to come from to retire, about access to health
care, about paying the rent.
The Republican budget also provides $800 billion worth of tax relief
over the next 10 years.
The Congressional Research Service recently reported that the average
American family will end up paying $5,307 more in taxes over the next
10 years than is necessary to operate government, and this is over and
above the Social Security surplus. This represents a direct overpayment
in taxes on the part of hard-working Americans. Incredibly the
President's budget
[[Page H1776]]
actually increases taxes on working Americans. According to the Tax
Foundation 38. 5 percent of his budget, the President's tax increase,
will be born by individuals who earn less than $25,000 a year. Mr.
President, how much is enough?
Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of a better way to begin the new
millennium than by reestablishing trust with the taxpayers whom we
represent by letting them keep more of their hard-earned dollars. I
urge my colleagues to reject this alternative and accept our commitment
to taxpayers, to the seniors, and support the Republican budget. It is
their money; let us give it back.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding this time to
me.
Our folks in the Armed Services need more ammunition, they need spare
parts for readiness, they need better equipment, and they need better
pay. They have told us what we need and what they need, and we should
give it to them. There is not a budget here that gives them everything
that they have requested for this year. Nobody's budget does that. But
the Republican budget comes closer than anybody else. It gives 8
billion more in spending authority for the troops, and it gives 3
billion more in outlays.
Mr. Chairman, that means if my colleagues vote for the Republican
budget, we are going to have better pay for our troops, we are going to
have more spare parts, we are going to have a better chance of them
coming home alive.
My colleagues should vote for the Republican budget if they care
about defense.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our Minority Leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Democratic
alternative and against the Republican budget, and I want to say
tonight that I think we have to look at this issue from the viewpoint
of people sitting around their kitchen table at home tonight looking at
the issues that are involved in this budget.
It is not about charts, it is not about graphs, it is not about
statistics, it is not about numbers. It is about ideas that make sense
to ordinary Americans, working families who are sitting around the
breakfast table or the dinner table talking about the problems that
they face. What would they like to see happen in this budget?
First of all, they want Medicare and Social Security stabilized and
extended, probably the two most important programs in peoples' lives.
They are popular programs, important programs on an everyday basis. The
Democratic budget extends the life of Medicare by 12 years and the life
of Social Security by 18 years.
We have a letter from the actuaries that say that our budget does
that. They are not Republican actuaries or Democratic actuaries. They
are actuaries, and their job is to give us information about ideas, and
the Democratic idea they say extends the life of those two programs; in
the one case, by 12; in the other case, by 18 years.
The Republican budget does not have that letter from the actuaries,
so if our colleagues are worried about Medicare and Social Security,
then they ought to vote for the Democratic budget.
The second thing people, I think, would like to do is pay down debt,
pay down back debt so that we pass along less back debt to our children
and grandchildren and we have less carrying cost or interest cost in
future budgets. The Democratic budget is much better on that score.
The third thing they would like is targeted tax cuts, tax cuts that
go to their problems. What are their problems? Long term care for their
parents; that is a problem. We can have a targeted tax cut under the
Democratic budget for that. They want tax cuts that have to do with
U.S.A. accounts. I think the idea of being able to put more savings
behind their Social Security so that they can have additional moneys to
live on in their retirement is a very attractive idea that is in our
budget.
The fourth thing that I think they are interested in is being able to
have more funds available for education, for smaller class size, for
more teachers, for health care, for housing, for the needs that people
have on an everyday basis.
To me this whole issue is very simple. If we look at it through the
eyes of ordinary American families who are out there tonight sitting
around a table, if we are looking at the things that they care about,
what I call kitchen table, everyday problems, this Democratic budget is
far superior to the Republican budget on those issues, on those
grounds.
This is a simple choice that Members have to make tonight.
I urge Members to vote for the Democratic alternative. If we get the
votes to pass it tonight, it will be the budget of the United States,
and I think it should be the budget of the United States because it is
the budget of working families in this country.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Minority Leader summed it up very nicely. Every
time that the majority has wanted a budget to target, to tackle, today,
they have pulled out the President's budget and dragged it like a red
herring across the path of this debate. Well, this is not the
President's budget. It is like it in some respects, but different in
other respects. This is a different piece of work.
But there is a key aspect to it, the crowning aspect to it, that is
like the President's budget. We Democrats created Social Security, and
for the last 65 years we have been its guardians, and now that it faces
the strain and stress it will face the next 25 years, we are not going
to fail it.
So, if our colleagues look at our budget, by golly, we extend the
life of Social Security until the year 2050, and we have a letter from
a chief actuary of the Social Security Administration to prove it.
Secondly, next in pride and importance to us is one of our creations,
Medicare. In 1968 we created it, and we have sustained it and protected
it. The actuaries at the Health Care Finance Administration tell us it
will run dry in the year 2008. The Republican budget leaves it in the
lurch. Notwithstanding this warning from the actuaries, they do not put
one thin dime. Out of all the billions that we see on the rise in the
way of surpluses, not a nickel for Medicare. We, on the other hand, put
several billions of dollars into this trust fund to sustain and extend
its life until the year 2020.
That is what we do first. We do not rush into tax cuts until we have
first protected Social Security and Medicare.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues something else we do. Now
that we are in the position to do it, we treat the trust funds
generated, the surpluses generated by Social Security with sanctity. We
do not touch them, we do not use any of the money, and we provide in
our resolution reconciliation instructions that call for a real
lockbox; no, a strong box; not something that rests on a thin reed of a
point of order, the kind that gets overridden around here every week,
they are honored in the breach. No, we have got statutory instruction
to the Treasury that will ensure that this money is used only for the
security and benefit of the Social Security Administration.
{time} 1830
The proof of all of this is on the bottom line. There is the bottom
line. If Members vote for the Republican resolution, the Social
Security trust fund will have a balance of $1.8 trillion 10 years from
now. Now, that is not chump change.
Look what happens if Members vote for the Democratic resolution. Ten
years from now, the trust fund will have a balance of $3.4 trillion and
it will keep growing through the year 2014.
What about Medicare? Vote for the Republican resolution and in 10
years it will be scraping bottom, $14 billion, barely enough to operate
on in the trust fund.
We will have a $400 billion balance still left to ensure its solvency
into the year 2020. Those are the differences between our budget and
their budget. These are significant differences.
[[Page H1777]]
We have got a letter from the Health Care Financing Administration
also certifying we extend the life of this program until the year 2020.
Furthermore, we spent some money doing this, but we pay down the debt
more than my Republican colleagues do. Over 10 years, we pay down the
debt $146 billion more; over 15 years, by our calculation, $474 billion
more.
What does that mean? That these two programs which will depend upon a
treasury not burdened with debt, not overwhelmed with debt service,
will be in better condition than ever. Even though we save more, we
also spend more. We understand what my colleagues on the Republican
side are saying about tax cuts. We do some in our own budget and, in
time, if these surpluses materialize, I think we will come back and do
more tax reduction.
In this particular budget, we say we believe in people to the extent
of wanting to invest in people because we think the investment in human
resources and education and housing, in the environment and health is
absolutely critical. If we are going to save Social Security and
Medicare, when we have 2.13 people working for every person retired,
then they have got to be productive citizens, and we invest in the
productive citizenry.
What do my friends on the other side do? At every turn, they opt for
a tax cut. Now, there is nothing wrong with tax cuts but this budget is
fixated on them, and a lot of the problems that we have been able to
poke holes in today arise from the fact that my Republican colleagues
are so totally committed to that and nothing else. In the area of
health care, they brag about plussing up NIH but in truth they diminish
the function for health.
In the case of the veterans, their own chairman said they needed $1.9
billion. The committee spurned him, gave him $900 million one year and
nothing, $500 million less than the freeze for the next 5 years. In the
case of agriculture, they set up a crop insurance program. So do we. $6
billion a year. In the year 2004, they quit funding it. About the time
it gets established they pull the pumps out. We put $9 billion more in.
Why do my Republican colleagues do that? Why do the cuts get so big
in the outyears? Because they have to make room for this enormous tax
cut that keeps growing and growing and growing.
Let me say what the consequences are. This tax cut is $779 billion
over 5 years. By our extrapolation, if we extend it forward at the rate
of growth in the economy, it will be $1.11 trillion in the period 2009
to 2014.
Now, why is that period significant? That is the very time when the
Social Security trust fund will start taking in less payroll taxes than
it pays out in benefits, and at that point in time the budget of my
Republican colleagues, their tax cut, takes its heaviest toll on the
treasury, placing the treasury in jeopardy of securing these two
programs.
No, my friends on the other side do not cut them. They do not cut
Medicare and they do not cut Social Security but they cut taxes in a
way that could very well jeopardize their future because of that huge,
mounting, swelling tax cut in those outyears when the money is needed
most.
Are there differences between these two budgets? We better believe
there are differences. This is a better budget. We save more. We spend
more. We spend it more responsibly, and we can go down our checklist to
see.
We would like to put more teachers in the classrooms in the
elementary years. Talking about investing in people, that is when it
really pays off. I believe in that. We provide for it. We would like to
build better schools, better structures, and we want to help those
districts that are poor districts and cannot do it. So we put in the
Tax Code some tax credits to help them float school bonds.
We think working mothers deserve better child care credit. We expand
them. On down the list, this is a better budget. It is better for
Democrats, better for Republicans, better for the country. I suggest
everybody vote for it.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all compliment the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). He is a great gentleman. He is also a very
smart man and an incredible father of children who are, frankly,
accomplishing more than he has accomplished here. They are doing great.
They are all doctors.
Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman for his compliment.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the gentleman for about four
or five reasons. Number one, it spends $515 billion more over the next
10 years than the Republican budget. Secondly, it provides almost $30
billion less for defense than the Republican budget over the next 5
years. It provides only $115 billion of net tax relief over 10 years,
less than a penny on the dollar, and it also breaks the caps, the
spending authority, the proposal we passed in 1997 to balance the
budget, by $23 billion in budget authority and $16 billion in outlays.
It increases our national debt to about $8.5 trillion by 2009.
So I would ask the Members of the House to oppose the Spratt budget.
It spends too much. There is too little for defense, too little in tax
relief for Americans. It unfortunately breaks down the discipline of
the 1997 budget agreement and adds to our national debt. For those
reasons, while I have great respect for the gentleman from South
Carolina I would ask the Members to reject the Spratt amendment, and
then we will move on to final passage in a short period of time.
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic
Budget Alternative.
Given the great amount of time we have paid over the past several
years to the critical issues of paying down the national debt, ensuring
the solvency of Medicare and Social Security, and targeting tax cuts in
a fiscally responsible manner, I am pleased that the Democratic
Alternative embodies these important priorities.
In my view, a comparison of the Democratic and Republican budget
proposals clearly indicates who has been listening to the American
people and who has not. The annual budget is meant to serve as a
barometer of what our country needs to thrive and be successful now and
in the future. While the Democratic Alternative provides thoughtful
guidelines to keep our country on course, the Majority's proposal can
be likened to an uncontrollable storm that threatens to decimate the
significant amount of progress that has been made in getting our
nation's financial house in order.
Let's take a quick look at some of the differences.
The Democratic Alternative provides $40 billion in targeted tax cuts
for those in need of dependent-care credits, long-term care credit, and
school bond credits.
The Republican Proposal has $143 billion in tax cuts in the next four
years--and $636 billion in tax cuts in the four years after that. In
total, a whopping $1 trillion dollars in tax cuts in ten years. These
figures are so staggering that by FY 2009, these ill-advised tax cuts
would become so large that they would exceed the entire non-Social
Security surplus projected for those years.
The Democratic Alternative extends the solvency of Social Security to
2050 and the solvency of Medicare to 2020.
The Republican Proposal does not add one day of extended solvency to
either of these critical programs.
And the Democratic Alternative pays down $146 billion more debt than
the Republican Proposal.
I also want to express my serious concerns about adequate funding for
our nations veterans. I am troubled that those of us who sit on the
Veterans Affairs Committee were prevented from even speaking about our
alternative which included $3.2 billion more for critical veterans
programs than the Administration's funding levels. Representative
Clement's efforts on behalf of veterans were treated equally as poorly
by Republicans on the Budget Committee and Rules Committee. It is
absolutely disingenuous what Republicans today have said about their
concern for veterans, and quite frankly is a slap in the face of all
veterans and a blatant slam to their intelligence.
Again, putting rhetoric aside and looking at the cold facts that the
numbers illustrate--The Democratic Alternative provides an increase of
$2 billion in FY 2000 discretionary spending for veterans and $106
billion in budget authority over 5 years. The Republican Proposal on
the other hand offers our veterans the paltry crumbs of a $900 million
increase in FY 2000--which doesn't even cover the costs of inflation
and pay for hard working VA employees. And then they turn around and
slash funding for veterans by $1.1 billion in FY 2001.
Mr. Chairman, the numbers speak for themselves. The Democratic
Alternative reflects the priorities and needs of the American people. I
urge my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H1778]]
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 250, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 76]
AYES--173
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--250
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Costello
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Spence
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Barcia
Brown (CA)
Burton
Cooksey
Dingell
Hostettler
Metcalf
Pelosi
Smith (TX)
Stupak
{time} 1853
Messrs. PHELPS, EHLERS, and CAMPBELL changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for
rollcall No. 76. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
The CHAIRMAN. The final period of general debate is now in order.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I will need to take the 5
minutes allotted me. Before Members make the decision to vote for this
resolution and put the country potentially on this fiscal path for a
number of years to come, I want to suggest that Members think twice. I
want to point out the consequences of it.
I am not opposed to tax cuts. Members will find in our budget
resolution $62 billion in the first 5 years, $164 billion in the second
5 years.
{time} 1900
As I said in the debate, when we find whether or not these surpluses
are for real, whether these billions of dollars are actually going to
materialize out in time, then we can revisit tax reduction and do it on
a sensible basis and not bet on the come, bet as if everything
projected on paper is going to take place, and we can do a $779 billion
tax cut with no consequences to the budget.
These are the tax cuts that we plotted here: $143 billion in the
first 5 years, $436 billion in the next 5 years. Then, if we
extrapolate those tax cuts at the rate of growth of the economy, in the
third 5-year period, between 2009 and 2014, they will grow, by our
calculation, to a loss of revenues of $1.11 trillion.
What does that mean? It means, first of all, that in the years we are
talking about, 2009 to 2014, when the Social Security program may need
assistance because the administrator of the Social Security
Administration will be taking in less in payroll taxes than he is
paying out in benefits, my colleagues' tax cut will take maximum toll
on the Treasury.
Indeed, if these surpluses do not materialize, my colleagues may
indeed be cutting into the Social Security surpluses to bite their
protestations that they will not touch them. This tax cut may lead
inevitably to that. That is somewhat speculative, but I think it is a
real risk. This is not a risk.
The reciprocal of these tax cuts is a matching decline in
discretionary spending. So while my colleagues have talked about doing
more for education, if they look at their budget, when they get to the
out years, starting in 2005, they do $50 billion less than we provided.
If my colleagues go through the budget, there are all kinds of
anomalies in the budget. These are the reasons for it. When my
colleagues get to NIH, both in the Senate and in the House, the
Republicans touted the National Institutes of Health, said we were
going to do more. We looked to see how they did it, only to find that
the health function was shrinking.
NIH is 52 percent of the health function in this budget. How in the
world are my colleagues going to enlarge NIH while they shrinking the
function is a
[[Page H1779]]
mystery to me. It certainly comes out of the hide of other important
public health programs.
Look at veterans programs. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump),
the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, wrote the
committee, the Committee on Budget, after a vote taken by his Committee
on Veterans' Affairs and said, I need a minimum of $1.9 billion to keep
the promises we have made to our veterans every year.
What my colleagues did in their budget was give him $900 million, not
$1.9 billion, but $900 million. Then, in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, it
disappeared. It did not recur. As a consequence, over that 5-year
period of time, instead of giving veterans more to meet the benefits of
the World War II population, which is getting older and older, they
gave them less, $500 million less than a 1999 freeze.
Why did my colleagues do it? They are trying to accommodate this tax
cut. This budget is fixated on a tax cut. There is nothing wrong with
going with tax reduction, particularly when we see these surpluses, but
that is all they have got in this budget.
Let me take the case of agriculture. My colleagues' committee put $6
billion in the budget for the creation of a crop insurance program.
That is a centerpiece of what agriculture wants this year. Six billion
dollars over a 5-year period of time. We matched it.
But guess what happens in 2005, about the time my colleagues are
getting this crop insurance program up and running and well
established? The funding disappears. My colleagues tell the Committee
on Agriculture, go find mandatory sources to offset the cost, which
will be $9.1 billion. We were able to squeeze it in our budget. My
colleagues were not because of their fixation on doing the biggest tax
cut since Kemp-Roth. Throughout the budget, that holds true.
Let me tell my colleagues where it really holds true: national
defense. My colleagues went to the trouble of putting $29.6 billion in
this budget for national defense. They did not fund the out years. They
are lower than the President. They have got a flat budget. In the near
term, the $30 billion that they put up is not matched by outlays. All
of it because this is an unbalanced budget. It is not a balanced budget
is not a balance. It ought to be rejected.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this majority took control in 1995. The first budget
that we saw in our majority was from the President that showed deficits
as far as the eye could see. We fought very hard. We took some real
political hits because we wanted to deal with programs that had never
been dealt with before.
In the process of dealing with Medicare, something that we paid a
high political price for, not only did we deal with the problems of
Medicare, but we extended the life of the program for 13 years. We are
very proud of that.
In addition to that, we got to 1997, and we stayed on our path
towards a balanced budget. Because of our persistence and because of
some of the bipartisan support from people on the other side of the
aisle, we joined together, and we worked with the President, and we
created a historic agreement in 1997.
Now we take a look at the situation in regard to the future and now,
rather than having deficits as far as the eye could see, we have
surpluses as far as the eye can see.
We want to use those surpluses to do several things, things that we
never thought were possible in 1995 when we won the majority. For the
first time, we are going to keep our mitts off the money that we
collect from Social Security and Medicare. Politicians have only been
talking about it.
Frankly, there were some on the other side of the aisle that said
that we ought to move it off budget, and I pay tribute to them. But do
my colleagues know what? We have been able to be intellectually honest
to take the money from Social Security, the payroll taxes, and lock it
up and keep our fingers off of it.
In the meantime, we are going to pay down some of the national debt.
Many of my colleagues who have served here for 25 years, did they ever
think, did they ever think, not only would we have a balanced budget,
but we begin to reduce the publicly held debt last year by $50 billion.
We all should take credit for that. Then this year, under our proposal,
we will reduce the publicly held national debt by an additional $125
billion. Unthinkable in the past.
We intend to save the $1.8 trillion. Do my colleagues know what we
really want to do with it? We not only, all of us, not only want to
protect the programs for our mothers and fathers, but we want to use
the surplus as a leverage to transform Social Security and Medicare so
that it will use this surplus to, not just save the programs for our
parents, the elderly who does not want the rug pulled from under them,
but do my colleagues know what else we can do with this surplus? We can
use the power of the American system, the American economy, to set
ourselves free so that, not only mom and dad are going to get the
benefits, but there will be hope for the baby boomers and their
children.
We must not squander this opportunity to transform these programs, to
make them more personal, and to make sure, not only mom and dad, but
all of us and our children will have the same kind of retirement
security that we all hope and dream for.
At the same time, we have decided not to walk away from the 1997
budget agreement. We want to live within the spending caps. But within
those caps, we want to emphasize defense. We want to say that our
troops need more, that we need better readiness, we need better
training, that we can buy the needed equipment.
Over these next 5 years, we are going to struggle to do it, and we
were going to work with the Committee on Armed Services to make sure
that our military is second to none.
At the same time, we are going to prioritize education. Maybe at some
point we will actually be able to look at the special education
programs that we have mandated on local schools and say that we will
keep our promise to those school districts.
Does that mean some tough choices have to be made? Let me tell my
colleagues, with my friends on the Committee on Appropriations, they
are not walking around the floor winking at one another. I know they
are ready to start the job to make some choices.
I do not think we want to abandon the 1997 agreement. It is too
important to all of us. We all have a stake in it. If we can stay with
it, we will not get in the way of this economic growth.
Then, finally, Mr. Chairman, as it relates to tax relief, look, we
are going to have on budget surplus aside from Social Security and
Medicare. I would love to tell my colleagues that we could just leave
it here and use it to pay down more debt. But we have all been here
long enough to know that the temptations of spending that money to
create bigger government are inevitable.
So what we really want to do, if we want to return power to people,
if we really want to emphasize the dignity and power of the individual
in the next century, we want people to have more power, more control
over their lives; and tax cuts are the best manifestation of it. Do my
colleagues know why? Because the more one has in one's pocket, the more
one's children has in their pockets, the more one's parents has in
their pockets, the more they can pursue their destiny and the American
dream.
Every day, we ought to work to meet the challenges that the
government must meet, but at the same time empower people.
What this resolution does is historic. It begins to transform the
programs that provide retirement security while maintaining fiscal
discipline while returning a big chunk of the revenue of the Federal
Government back in the pockets of the taxpayers. Approve the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent resolution (H.
Con. Res. 68) establishing the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2000 and setting forth appropriate
budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2009, pursuant
to House Resolution 131, he reported the concurrent resolution, as
amended by
[[Page H1780]]
the adoption of that resolution, back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the concurrent resolution, as amended.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 208, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 77]
YEAS--221
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
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
Emerson
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)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
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)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
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
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--208
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
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
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
Lowey
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)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
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
Stenholm
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--5
Burton
Paul
Pelosi
Smith (TX)
Stupak
{time} 1924
So the concurrent resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for
rollcall No. 77. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the
vote for final passage of H. Con. Res. 68.
____________________