[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 49 (Monday, April 12, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1823-H1831]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 68, CONCURRENT 
               RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 2000

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 68) 
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government 
for fiscal year 2000 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2009, with a Senate amendment 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.


           Motion to Instruct Conferees Offered by Mr. Spratt

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Spratt moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the concurrent resolution H. Con. 
     Res. 68 be instructed, within the scope of the conference, to 
     insist that the huge and fiscally irresponsible tax cuts set 
     forth in the reconciliation directives in the concurrent 
     resolution be reported at the latest possible date within the 
     scope of the conference, and to require that the 
     reconciliation legislation implementing those tax cuts not be 
     reported any earlier, to provide the Congress with sufficient 
     time to first enact legislation extending the solvency of the 
     social security and medicare trust funds consistent with the 
     sense of the Congress language in section 315(b)(4) and (5) 
     of the Senate amendment and findings in 322(a)(1)-(3) of the 
     Senate amendment and provisions in sections 5 and 6 of the 
     House concurrent resolution because of the preeminent 
     importance of so enhancing retirement security without 
     reducing benefits and because projected budget surpluses 
     should first be reserved for the use of those trust funds 
     consistent with section 315(a)(4) and (5) of the Senate 
     amendment and sections 5 and 6 of the House concurrent 
     resolution rather than dissipated through the resolution's 
     tax cuts which jeopardize the future of both social security 
     and medicare.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My motion to instruct conferees demands that Congress deal with the 
solvency of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds before we 
enact huge tax cuts that could drain the budget of the very funds that 
are needed to save, protect and make solvent for the long run Social 
Security and Medicare.
  By our calculation, in the first 5 years this proposed tax cut will 
take $143 billion out of the resources of the Federal Government. The 
next 5 years it will be $788 billion. And in the third 5-year period of 
time, occurring around the year 2009, just when Social Security and 
Medicare need it most, in that 5-year period of time alone by our 
calculation, this conference report, if enacted and reconciled, would 
drain the Treasury of $1.066 trillion and leave Social Security and 
Medicare high and dry.
  The motion we make is similar to a motion I made in committee and it 
is similar to an amendment that we brought to the House floor. It 
simply says, let us deal first with Social Security, then with 
Medicare; let us establish them as priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, we have come farther than anyone would have expected 
since 1993 in eradicating the so-called budget deficit, the year-to-
year deficit. We now face the next big challenge. If we can step up to 
it, we can turn the corner into the next century in better fiscal 
condition than this country has been in in a long, long time. But we 
cannot lay claim to that until we have dealt with Social Security and 
Medicare. We cannot deal with Social Security and Medicare and make 
them solvent for the long run, assuredly solvent, 50 to 75 years, 
unless we deal with them first.
  If we first pass a tax cut of the magnitude proposed by this budget, 
we will leave Social Security and Medicare unattended, neglected, and 
we will leave the budget without the resources necessary to do anything 
about those programs in the future.
  In the well of the House just a couple of weeks ago when this budget 
resolution passed, I pointed out the fact that I am not opposed to tax 
reduction. We have got it in our own budget resolution. I think in due 
course it is very much in order, given the surpluses that we see 
projected. I think they should materialize before we commit ourselves 
to a big tax reduction, but their budget, the resolution before us, is 
fixated on tax reduction to the extent that when it comes to dealing 
with national defense, they flatten the President's budget out in the 
last 5-year cycle. In dealing with veterans, they actually cut the 
allocations for veterans' programs at a time when our World War II 
veterans are swelling to the point that they need it most. They deal 
with crop insurance for 5 years and then cut the money off in order to 
provide for more tax cuts. They say that they are for funding more for 
the NIH, but they take the function for health in the budget and 
actually give it less, all in the name of maximizing the tax cut.
  What we are saying is, as to these other programs, the time and day 
will come when we can sort through those priorities, but as to Social 
Security and Medicare, there is no question that they have primacy, 
they should come first, they should come before tax reduction. That is 
the gist of this motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have just been handed essentially this motion to instruct. In a 
spirit of just being back from the break that we have been on, I am 
trying to ignore a lot of the kind of inflammatory language that is 
contained in this motion to instruct, like the word ``irresponsible'' 
tax cut. That, to me, is an oxymoron, an irresponsible tax cut. There 
is no such thing as an irresponsible tax cut. But, I mean, if the 
gentleman from South Carolina wants to call this fiscally 
irresponsible, I do not know that I want to get into a big fight with 
him about that.
  Essentially, the way I read this motion to instruct, it is basically 
saying that we should take the latest possible date within the scope of 
the conference and require that the reconciliation legislation 
implementing those tax cuts not to be reported any earlier. It does not 
seem as though it has got any real force to it.

                              {time}  1800

  The gentleman is just saying, ``Can you put off the reconciliation as 
long as possible?'' That is the way I read this. The gentleman from 
South Carolina, is there something more than that that he is trying to 
say?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. I am trying to say a lot more than that, Mr. Speaker, but 
to stay within the scope of what is permissible, I have to say do not 
do it except as the last act. But I am saying to the gentleman the 
responsible thing, the responsible thing is not to drain

[[Page H1824]]

the budget dry so that the resources there are not there to deal with 
Social Security and Medicare. The responsible thing is to deal with 
Social Security, deal with Medicare, and then address tax reduction.
  Mr. KASICH. All right. I understand.
  There is a reason to be thankful for small things like scope is what 
I can tell the gentleman because what this means is that basically the 
gentleman is saying that we have got to make sure that we take care and 
set aside money for Social Security and Medicare and do tax cuts in a 
way that it does not impact on that, is essentially what the gentleman 
is saying, and let me just say to the gentleman from South Carolina 
that it has been fully our intention, of course, to preserve for the 
first time in, I think, my lifetime, to be able to preserve all the 
money that gets collected from the payroll taxes for retirement 
security, and, as my colleagues know, we are going to save at least 
$1.8 trillion, which is well over a hundred billion dollars more than 
the President for purposes of being able to transform Social Security 
and Medicare and not just so that our seniors will get it, but so that 
the baby boomers and their children will have a retirement program as 
well, and at the same time I think we made the argument a couple weeks 
ago for the other part of the surplus that gets produced by the income 
taxes and all the other taxes that flow into the Federal Government. We 
have an overcharge right now, and we believe that overcharge will be to 
the tune of almost $800 billion.
  So we have a twofold program, one to save $1.8 trillion for Social 
Security and Medicare and an additional $780 billion for tax cuts, and 
if what the gentleman is arguing for is that we ought to make sure our 
tax cuts do not impinge on Social Security, the fact is our resolution 
does that.
  So, I will preliminarily say that I do not have any objection to the 
motion to instruct, and some of my colleagues have come to the floor, 
and I want them to take a look at it, but my initial reading is that I 
do not really have any objection outside of the inflammatory language 
that is contained in the resolution with words such as the fiscally 
irresponsible tax cuts, and I thought there was at least another one of 
those inflammatory words somewhere, but that is not such a big deal.
  Another thing is the huge and fiscally irresponsible tax cuts. I mean 
any time we can make the government have a little less in its pockets 
and people have a little bit more, I think that is very good, and at 
the same time preserving for the first time since I have been in the 
Congress all the money we collect from Social Security I think is a 
huge step forward.
  So I will reserve the balance of my time at this point and would 
preliminarily, unless some of my colleagues here object, would accept 
the motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor really to thank the 
gentleman from Ohio. The closer we get to the presidential election, 
the more common sense really reaches this body.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Be careful, I may have his words taken down.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, there was a time when people used to run 
around asking for $800 billion tax cuts, and some got closer to a 
trillion, there was whispering of people meeting in the middle of the 
night in Michigan asking for 10 percent across the board, and knowing 
the gentleman from Ohio and his concern about the common folk, and 
those that drive those milk trucks, and those that are Post Office 
employees, and just those that make our country so great, I know that 
when he does come up with a tax cut, and America sure deserves one, 
that it is going to be equitable, it is going to be fair.
  I, of course, have to work more closely with the chairman of my 
committee, and we may not be able to participate with these formula 
cuts because we have dedicated ourselves to pull the coat up by the 
roots, and of course that is a little more complex than just setting 
aside a trillion dollars. But as we decide how we are going to do it 
with the gentleman's help, I hope that I heard him say that before we 
go to the American people to thank them for their productivity, to 
thank them for the excesses they have had to pay in taxes, especially 
the payroll tax, that we, as Democrats and Republicans and the House 
and the Senate, will present to them a secure Social Security system 
for their children and for their children's children. And even though I 
know that in the past Medicare has not been a word that the other side 
likes to talk about much, I am assuming that the same deep-seeded 
commitment that we have to meet our obligations in the future for 
Social Security benefits will also repair the Medicare system so that 
that system will be there too.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is going to happen in our various 
conventions, but I know one thing. If I do not hear my side talking as 
straight talk as the gentleman from Ohio is, if I do not hear that 
commitment from my side, that we are going to fix the Social Security 
system for the American people, we are going to fix the Medicare 
system, and then we are coming back with fair and equitable reduction 
in people's taxes; that is not a Republican talking, that is a good 
American.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I love when a speaker can drip with irony and cynicism about the 
intentions of what we are doing with our fiscal program, but I would 
choose not to think that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) would 
be at all cynical about our intentions because I think the gentleman 
would have to admit, would have to recognize, the fact that for 
virtually all of the time of my lifetime we have stolen from the Social 
Security Trust Fund, and we have spent it on other programs, and for 
the first time we intend to lock up the $1.8 trillion and keep it in 
reserve, and it will be kept in reserve for purposes of being able to 
transform the Social Security and the Medicare program, retirement 
security programs. That is why we have actually saved over a hundred 
billion dollars in revenues.
  I also want to compliment the gentleman for saying that he likes the 
idea of a tax cut. I wonder if the gentleman may be running for mayor 
of New York, that he might be giving consideration to that considering 
the fact that he has made the comment that he likes the idea of tax 
cuts. I want to compliment the gentleman from New York for coming in 
our direction.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think there will be more political 
opportunities for me in the House, but having said that, the gentleman 
from Ohio did not say that he was just going to reserve the money for 
Social Security and Medicare. He said that he was going to fix these 
programs, and then we get on working together for a tax cut. I thought 
I heard the gentleman correctly when I came over here.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman that we 
stand ready, willing and able to be able to move forward on a program 
that would be able to transform Social Security not just for our 
parents, but for the baby boomers and their children, and of course we 
had this opportunity with the Medicare Commission that the President 
rejected. But I certainly believe that we need to look at creative 
programs like letting individuals keep 2 percent of the payroll taxes 
to invest in the American economy, just like Federal employees do, and 
I think we need to breathe new life into Medicare. I am pleased about 
the fact that the Republican Congress was able to be significantly 
involved in terms of extending the life of Medicare.
  But let me say to the gentleman what we intend to do is to save all 
the money that we collect from the payroll taxes and use it at the 
current time to pay down debt, but we stand willing and able to work 
with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the President of the 
United States to be able to transform those programs and at the same 
time be able to also give people some of their overcharges back in a 
tax cut.

[[Page H1825]]

  So, what the gentleman should anticipate in our budget resolution and 
what he should anticipate later in the year is saving $1.8 trillion 
from the payroll taxes to provide the retirement security that our 
seniors want, and the gentleman should also anticipate a tax cut moving 
through the United States Congress this year, and that is what I think 
the game plan is.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, it is one thing to 
say they are going to put it in the reserve and reduce the Federal 
debt, and that is good. But I think what we are trying to do here is to 
get some type of commitment in saying that if we can delay how we are 
going to handle taxes until after we come together on Social Security 
and Medicare, that we will be working more closely together. The 
gentleman may want 100 percent of it to go in investments, private 
investments, but at least come up with something that we can say that 
we tried to do Social Security, we tried to do Medicare, and I think 
that would be better than just saying that we are putting it in 
reserve.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to this discussion, I think 
maybe we should pass a resolution against dumping irony on this floor. 
When I hear the chairman of the Committee on the Budget say he does not 
know what an irresponsible tax cut is, that drips, Mr. Speaker, that 
drips.
  There was a time when we had a President named Ronald Reagan who 
talked about, as my colleagues know, balancing the budget and all that 
fiscal stuff and then proceeded to drive the deficit higher than it has 
ever been in the history of this country by giving tax cuts and 
spending out of the Social Security money. Now it is for that reason we 
have this motion on the floor. There are some of us who think it is 
time now to pay down our credit card debt, and the credit card debt is 
not only in Social Security, but it is in Medicare.
  Now I sat on the Medicare Commission for a year and watched people 
try and push the idea of privatizing Medicare, and that was the only 
solution they could come up with. Meanwhile, the President had a 
proposal laying on the table to put 15 percent of the deficit into 
strengthening Medicare, and it was not even considered by the 
Commission.
  Now I have been waiting. I sit on the Subcommittee on Health of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and I am waiting for the chairman to call 
a meeting and make a proposal by which he can make any way in saving 
Medicare. Nothing has happened in this Congress. We are at the 15th of 
April almost, and everybody is real pleased this year that we have a 
budget resolution. But nothing is happening on the two biggest issues, 
and that is why we are concerned, that is why the motion is here, and I 
think that the gentleman from Ohio has also been very, very careful 
about the so-called lockbox that he says that he is putting the money 
into in the Committee on the Budget. That lockbox has a trap door in it 
that has a key that is possessed by the majority, and they are going to 
drop that door, and drop the money out and want to give a tax break, 
and that is the reason we want to make sure that Medicare and Social 
Security get dealt with before we go and give another tax break like 
1986.
  I have been in my district, and I have not had a single soul come up 
to me and say, ``When are we going to have a tax break? How big is the 
tax break?'' They all ask about what is happening to Social Security 
and what is happening to Medicare, and I think this Congress will make 
a serious error if we do not deal with those things first before we 
even have a discussion in the Committee on Ways and Means around the 
discussion of tax breaks.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct, and I 
would hope that the chairman of the committee would be listening to 
this discussion because the major point of this resolution is to make 
sure that we do preserve and protect Social Security before we have a 
tax cut that literally explodes in the year 2010 to 2015.
  The estimates of the budgets that we are now discussing in the 
conference between the House and the Senate position, if the tax cuts 
as currently being discussed go into place, it will mean that there 
will be a drain on the Treasury in 2010 to 2015 of some $1.7 trillion 
at exactly the same time that Social Security will be running out of 
money. That is a point that is being overlooked in this exuberance for 
a tax cut, and I would sincerely ask the majority to take another look.
  We all agree with preserving and protecting by taking the Social 
Security trust funds and applying them to the debt. That is great 
policy and everyone agrees to that. But when we have a tax cut that 
starts small and expands to $1.7 trillion by 2015, exactly the same 
time that the monies paid into Social Security will no longer be 
adequate to pay out to the beneficiaries at that time, that is the 
point of this amendment.
  I would much rather, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) has said, have had a more straightforward motion, but this is 
an excellent motion to set in the general principle that we will fix 
Social Security before we do anything else to spend any more of the 
Social Security trust funds than what we have already done.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is correct when he says we have 
been doing this for the last umpteen years. What some of us would like 
to see now, and I know the Speaker agrees with this point, what some of 
us would like to do is change that, would change that right now. That 
is the point of this motion to instruct, and I hope that Members will 
pay particular attention to it because if we really and truly want to 
preserve and protect Social Security, this motion must be not only 
passed but accomplished in the conference and voted through the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). Without objection, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will control the time of the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas).
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be back and listening to the 
political rhetoric.
  I came to the floor because the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) indicated that as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health I 
had not held a single meeting talking about making changes in the 
Medicare program.
  We have been holding hearings taking a look at current Medicare and 
trying to deal with the current issues. Just as at the end of the last 
Congress we made adjustments in home health, we are looking at current 
areas. Although I find it ironic, because I also was for a year on the 
Medicare Commission, and for want of a single vote, we had a plan which 
in fact took the government entitlement to standard benefit and blended 
it with the savings in the marketplace.
  It was a plan that was going to save a percent, a percent and a half 
in the outyears. It was a meaningful change. The President announced 
that none of his appointees were going to go ahead and support the 
plan, and he said he was going to offer a proposal.
  So it seemed to me, based upon his State of the Union message and 
based upon his going out the day the Medicare Commission voted on a 
very responsible plan, saying he was going to come up with his own 
plan, that I thought I would say, let us see it, Mr. President. Because 
what we did was guarantee Medicare, guarantee prescription drugs 
integrated into a program in a responsible way and expanding 100 
percent coverage to the low and near low income up to 135 percent of 
poverty.
  The President has not laid a plan in front of us that shows us that. 
The

[[Page H1826]]

President told his appointees not to agree with that bipartisan, broad-
based position. Ten of the seventeen members agreed. The gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott) did not agree on the changes in 1997. He did 
not agree on the commission. I actually am looking forward to trying to 
find something that he agrees on. He does a great job of coming down 
and giving speeches in which he is able to point and criticize, but I 
would love to see a solution which captures a majority; not a single 
vote, as he was on the 1997 changes, 34 to 1, or in the minority on the 
Medicare commission. I reach out. Let us try to do something in a real 
bipartisan way.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, let me say first of all that I hope the 
chairman, the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kasich), who is not on the floor, does accept this motion to instruct 
because if one reads the last part of it, it states that we would 
reserve the surplus rather than have it dissipated throughout the 
resolution's tax cuts which jeopardize the future of both Social 
Security and Medicare. That is what this is all about.
  We would love to have a bipartisan budget resolution. Having a budget 
resolution would be a start, compared to last year when we had no 
budget resolution.
  The fact is that the Republican budget really does not do anything 
for Social Security and Medicare. Sure, it saves the surplus that 
belongs to Social Security, but it does nothing more, and in fact it 
does not make up for the incurred liability from the years when the 
surplus in Social Security was spent. It creates a huge liability of 
nearly $1.8 trillion over 15 years by locking in tax cuts which are 
based upon projected surpluses over 15 years, and I think that is a 
pretty weak basis on which to lock in those tax cuts.
  What is going to happen is, when those 15-year projections do not 
turn out, we will go back to more deficit spending and we will add to 
the national debt and that will be to the detriment of Social Security, 
to the detriment of Medicare and to the detriment of the general 
economy as well.
  Finally, this budget uses the old smoke and mirrors. It blows through 
the pay-go rules, it robs nondefense discretionary spending to pay for 
defense spending, and it relies on a mythical July CBO update that 
hopefully will allow us to write the appropriations bills. So it is not 
a real budget; it is a political document.
  Maybe it is better to get one done than getting nothing done like 
last year, but the fact is, it does nothing for Social Security, and 
that is what the American people sent us here to do. It does nothing 
for Medicare. It does not pay down the national debt to the extent that 
we ought to do. We offered a proposal to do that. It was rejected by 
the majority. We are eager, when my colleagues want to get serious, to 
sit down and do that.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the vice chairman of the committee.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat encouraged by what I hear 
from my friends on the other side because I think we have a real 
opportunity here to work together in a bipartisan fashion to, in fact, 
save Social Security.
  Our budget does exactly that. We do dedicate $1.8 trillion over the 
next 10 years to Social Security. That will go to pay down debt. That 
does not mean the program itself is reformed.
  The real way that we have got to work together to save Social 
Security is to come up with true and meaningful reforms. I think we all 
agree to that.
  I am encouraged by what I hear over here. My good friend, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) who works with me on so many other 
issues of mutual interest made some good points. My friend, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), that I work with on the 
Committee on the Budget made some excellent points, and I think it is 
time that we came together on this issue of the budget, came together 
on the issue of Social Security, came together on the issue of 
Medicare, and let us work for meaningful reform. Let us take the 
numbers that both of us know we are dealing with.
  Irrespective of what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) just 
said, we know what we are dealing with in the short term, and we have 
some idea of what we are dealing with in the long term. We can take 
those numbers and we can make it work, if we will work together. I look 
forward to working in a bipartisan fashion to truly save Social 
Security and truly save Medicare, and we thank the Members for wishing 
to join our team on that.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I stand in favor of this 
motion to instruct conferees to address the solvency of the Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds before enacting huge and fiscally 
irresponsible tax cuts that would drain the budget surplus. Virtually 
all economists, including the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan 
Greenspan, have argued that addressing the fiscal challenges posed by 
the impending retirement of the baby boom generation should take 
precedence over tax cuts.
  Of course, the challenge is not just one facing Social Security but 
most especially Medicare as well. The Medicare hospital insurance trust 
fund in fact is projected to become insolvent long before the Social 
Security trust fund. So a broad consensus has developed that we should 
address the long-term future of both of these programs, that that 
really is of the utmost priority on our national agenda.
  Nonetheless, here we are about a fourth of the way through this first 
session of the 106th Congress and we have made no discernible progress 
on these two issues, which arguably are the most important domestic 
issues that face us.
  Both the Senate and the House versions of the budget resolution would 
take us down a road that provides no help on extending the solvency of 
Medicare and Social Security. They do contain across the board as 
opposed to targeted tax cuts that would certainly grow in the future, 
in a way that jeopardizes the progress we have made in eliminating the 
budget deficit.
  We did offer an alternative in committee and on the floor, we on the 
Democratic side of the aisle, an alternative that would buy down more 
debt and would transfer assets into these trust funds to extend their 
life. Unfortunately, that alternative was rejected.
  At the very least, we should instruct our conferees now to include in 
the budget resolution provisions to put on hold attempts to enact a 
large tax cut that will consume the budget surpluses and more into the 
future.
  We should at least put tax cuts off limits until the end of the 
fiscal year to give us time to seriously address the Social Security 
and Medicare challenges that face us. So I welcome the prospect of 
bipartisan cooperation on this and urge passage of the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to respond to 
the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution basically is asking us to do what we 
intend to do and that is save Social Security first and then deal with 
tax cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Gary Miller).
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting 
listening to the debate on this side of the aisle. Some have said we 
need to continue our course and others say we need to have a bipartisan 
agreement on the budget resolution, and I wish that were possible.
  However, this side of the aisle balanced the budget. The President 
wants to increase taxes, wants to spend more money. We fought in the 
past to continue the concept of welfare reform. The President vetoed 
welfare reform twice before finally deciding to follow our lead.
  We are keeping the budget caps. The President wants to break the 
budget caps. For the last year, all I have heard from this side of the 
aisle is, we need to save Social Security.
  Where is all the rhetoric now? Obviously one of the Members from the 
other side got his wish and some of my colleagues were beamed up.

[[Page H1827]]

  All we have talked about is talk. This side of the aisle wants to set 
100 percent aside for Social Security this year alone, $137 billion, 
and over 10 years $1.8 trillion.
  The President wants to save 62 percent and spend this year alone $58 
billion on his programs, and over 10 years wants to set only $1.3 
trillion aside, compared to our $1.8 trillion.
  We provide for Medicare in our budget. The President cuts $11.9 
billion over 5 years out of Medicare. This side of the aisle believes 
working men and women should have a tax cut. The President proposed 
raising taxes $172 billion over 10 years.
  We provided $22 billion for elementary, secondary and vocational 
education. That is $1.2 billion more than the President proposes.
  I wish we could come to a bipartisan agreement.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I just came back from conducting town 
meetings all across the State of North Dakota.
  When the people I represent consider the priority in which this body 
and this Congress ought to move forward in response to the budget 
surplus, they uniformly come down, in town meeting after town meeting, 
with a strong consensus to do something about preserving and extending 
the solvency of the social security trust fund, to do something about 
extending the solvency of the Medicare trust fund.
  The preceding speaker gave an awful lot of statistics, but the bottom 
line reality is this: The Republican budget resolution passed before 
the Easter recess by this House does not extend by one day the solvency 
of the Medicare trust fund, the solvency of the social security trust 
fund. That is what has led us to this motion to instruct we are 
offering this afternoon.
  Just like the folks I represent think, I bet the folks throughout the 
country think that we need to take care of the existing 
responsibilities before we fritter away this surplus. That means doing 
something to extend trust fund solvency. That means that before tax 
cuts, we commit the resources to make sure that social security is 
prolonged and strengthened, that Medicare is prolonged and 
strengthened.
  That is what is before us, Mr. Speaker, two alternatives: the budget 
resolution, which does not extend by a day the solvency targets for the 
trust funds, and would instead move the tax cuts forward; or the motion 
to instruct, which would make it very clear that this Congress, in a 
bipartisan way, hopefully, believes first things first: First we 
address the solvencies, then we look at what we can do with tax cuts.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I think my colleague on the other side of the aisle voted against the 
President's proposal. I know few people on the other side of the aisle 
who voted for it.
  We in our budget resolution save social security, and with the 
surplus that goes above and beyond that, we are able to provide a tax 
cut instead of spending more, which my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle seem to want to do, is to spend more. We do not.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Mark Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, like so many others here today, 
I am fresh off a two-week district work period. During that two-week 
time, I had about a half-a-dozen town hall meetings, all of them on the 
budget. I had town hall meetings in Green Bay, Sturgeon Bay, Marinette, 
Appleton.
  During that time I outlined what is in the budget resolution that we 
passed in this body last week. The reaction that I got was universal. 
The reaction was simply, well, it is about time. It is about time that 
we set aside the social security surplus for social security.
  I have to pause here for a moment. My friend, my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas, said, well, this does not do much for social 
security. It simply sets aside the surplus belonging to social 
security. I would agree with him philosophically, but it is something 
that this institution has failed to do for 30 years, so it is something 
important. It is something historic.
  My constituents believe that these principles are long overdue. They 
believe in setting aside the social security surplus. They believe in 
paying down the debt. They believe in putting dollars into the programs 
that this president promised but failed to fund, like valuable money 
for crop insurance; like important, long overdue money for veterans' 
health programs. My constituents throughout northeastern Wisconsin want 
to see these principles implemented as soon as possible.
  Today we are establishing a conference committee, and there are good 
arguments we have heard on both sides, arguments presumably we will 
hear within the conference committee, but today is not the day to let 
this deteriorate into partisan bickering. Today is not the day to try 
to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
  Today is the day for us to move forward so these principles will be 
implemented as soon as possible, and on a bipartisan basis, because 
this is what we have been telling the American people we will do and 
this is clearly what they want.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, boy, this discussion has been 
heartening, because what I hear on the other side of the aisle is that 
they agree with the thrust of the Democratic budget resolution, which 
is that no net tax cuts or additional spending should be passed until 
we extend the solvency of social security and Medicare. That is really 
the only major issue on which we have disagreed.
  Now I hear from the other side of the aisle that we really do not 
disagree on that. That is what this resolution said, and simply, no tax 
cuts until we extend the solvency.
  Now, we are told by independent, objective actuaries, ones that the 
other side uses as well as we do, that the Republican budget resolution 
does not extend the solvency of social security or Medicare for even 
one day. That means that we will go back to the drawing board together 
and come up with a proposal that we both agree on that will extend the 
solvency.
  This is an intergenerational responsibility. Our parents met that 
responsibility. Not only did they win a war and ensure freedom for us, 
but they gave us the foundation of prosperity, which was fiscal 
responsibility. That is all we are suggesting we should do for the next 
generation.
  Let us not use up all the trust funds for our own purposes. Let us 
not give ourselves tax cuts that we do not necessarily need, as much as 
we would like them, until we make sure that the next generation is 
going to experience as high a standard of living as we are 
experiencing. That is the least we owe them.
  That is all our resolution does is to say, let us do our homework 
first before we give ourselves a big additional allowance. It is an 
intergenerational responsibility. It is what America ought to be all 
about. I am glad that the Republicans agree, no additional tax cuts 
until we extend the solvency of Medicare and social security. Now we 
can agree, we can move forward and do the people's business.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to save social security, not spend it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Paul Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to 
go back to the basics and point out what we are actually accomplishing 
in this budget. For the first time in over 30 years, for the first time 
in my lifetime, we are proposing to stop the raid on social security. 
We are proposing to stop taking our FICA taxes, our social security 
payroll taxes, and spending it on other government programs.
  We are saying that for every dollar in social security taxes we pay, 
that will go to social security. For every dollar of Medicare taxes we 
pay, that will go to those programs. No longer will this become a slush 
fund for politicians. This money that we pay in our payroll taxes will 
go to those programs. That is a sea change.
  On the contrary, the President has proposed to raid social security 
by the

[[Page H1828]]

tune of $341 billion over the next 10 years. We hear this talk about 
social security surpluses, non-social security surpluses. What our 
budget plan is doing is doing this: One hundred percent of social 
security revenues go to social security.
  If we do begin to overpay our income taxes, off of our income taxes, 
non-social security surpluses, rather than spending that money in 
Washington, we should get that money back. That is the difference we 
are talking about here.
  The President, in his State of the Union address, did say he was 
going to extend the life of social security, but what he actually 
achieved was putting more IOUs in the social security trust fund. We 
need real reform of social security, not more IOUs. We have to start 
reforming social security by putting real money in the trust fund, by 
making sure that our payroll taxes do in fact go to social security, 
not to fund other government programs.
  That is what this is about, honesty in accounting, honesty to the 
American people, and making sure that our payroll taxes go to the very 
programs they were designed to go to.
  If we begin overpaying our taxes after we have set social security 
aside, after we have got our debt going down on a downward glide path, 
we ought to get our money back. Rather than sending more of our income 
tax dollars here to Washington and letting people sit around and 
finding different ways to spend it for us, we ought to get our money 
back.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I thank him for bringing this resolution out onto the floor, 
because it makes quite clear in its language, and I read, that huge and 
fiscally irresponsible tax cuts set forth in the reconciliation 
directives in the concurrent resolution are in fact jeopardizing our 
ability to be able to deal with the social security and Medicare crisis 
in our country.
  Now, if the majority, if the Republicans, want to vote for our 
resolution, then they are essentially now taking that oxymoronic 
position of being carnivorous vegetarians. They are trying to be both 
at the same time, which is fine, I guess, for this evening and trying 
to have it both ways, but the reality is that the Republican budget 
does not extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by one day. 
Instead, the Republican resolution ignores the dark clouds on the 
health care horizon and offers an $800 billion tax cut proposal.
  This hurricane that will hit the health care system is something that 
we all know to be real. We have the baby boom generation that is about 
to hit the retirement system, to start to have all of the health care 
problems that come with aging.
  The Republicans insist on attacking the President's budget. We are 
not, on the Democratic side, defending the President's budget. We have 
a different budget on our side, one that does ensure that Medicare and 
social security is made solvent, that these programs are not cut in any 
way, and that we ensure that the tax cut of the Republicans does not 
dip their straws into this revenue and make it impossible for us to 
take care of ordinary families.
  I hope that everyone in the House sincerely supports this Democratic 
motion. I am afraid that too many are going to pay tribute to it only 
by the hypocrisy which will be evident by, I am afraid, supporting 
something that at the end of the day they will never in fact support 
when the real votes come on the House floor.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to my 
colleague from Massachusetts.
  I would just point out that we set aside more money to save social 
security than the President does. We do it because we have set aside 
all the surplus of social security for the next 10 years. We box it in 
and do not spend it and do not use it as tax cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is easy to hoodwink people who might be listening 
when we are sort of listening superficially, but I think it should be 
very clear that the Democrat proposal does not do anything more to save 
social security than the Republican proposal.
  Members can say, well, here is scoring, and here is that. The fact is 
that we are going to have to come up with the same money to save social 
security with the Democrat proposal by saying, look, we are either 
going to cut other spending or we are going to increase taxes 
someplace. In fact, the Democrats' proposal implies that we are going 
to have to increase more taxes to save social security.
  Look, this is historic. Both sides of the aisle should be supporting 
this budget, because for the first time in history, for the first time 
in at least recent history, in the last 40 years, we do not spend any 
of the social security trust fund money for other government programs.
  Let me say it again, none of the social security surplus money is 
being spent for any other government spending. That is what this 
Chamber has been doing for the last 40 years. That is what has added to 
the predicament of social security and Medicare. No tax cuts from 
social security surpluses next year. That is historic, also.
  We have problems, where we go in military spending. Maybe that 
military spending and supporting what is happening in Kosovo is going 
to reach into the social security surplus funds before we finish out 
the end of this year. This is a good start on a budget. Our next step 
to save social security and Medicare has to be to step up to the plate, 
for people like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Charlie Stenholm), people 
like the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Jim Kolbe).
  Like I and so many others have said, let us face up to what really 
needs to be done to save social security by making some of those 
changes, by getting a better return on investment.
  I would suggest that the Democrats and Republicans have come a long 
way in the last several years doing what needs to be done, and that 
means stop spending the social security surplus money.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way, but we are still a long way 
apart. Number one, there is a major difference between our position and 
theirs in the two opposing budget resolutions brought to the Floor of 
the House 2 weeks ago.
  First of all, we have a lockbox that works. Theirs has a loose lid 
and a trap door. We have one that works. It sees that the social 
security surpluses are used solely for social security.
  Secondly, over 15 years, we pay down debt by $474 billion. That in 
itself reinforces the solvency of social security.
  Thirdly, we came to the Floor with a letter from the chief actuary of 
the Social Security Administration and made it part of the record of 
that debate, certifying that our proposal would extend the life, the 
solvency, of social security until 2052. They have no such plan. They 
have not added one day to the solvency of social security.

                              {time}  1845

  And, finally, this is our concern in this resolution. This is our 
concern that in acting, locking in these huge tax cuts that get bigger 
and bigger such that in the 5-year period from 2009 until 2014, we will 
have $1.66 trillion in tax reduction at a time when Social Security 
will be in duress. What happens if these surpluses do not materialize? 
What happens to Social Security under the Republican budget? What 
happens if the surpluses do not materialize and the tax cuts do?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the problem, as the honorable 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget, knows, is where do we come up with the money 
when there is not enough money coming in from Social Security to pay 
those benefits required? And the gentleman is just saying, let us add 
another giant IOU.
  But still the problem comes down to coming up with that money to pay 
those benefits. That is what needs to be dealt with.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, do not take it from me;

[[Page H1829]]

take it from the chief actuary. Our plan extends the life of Social 
Security to 2052; the Republican plan does not extend it 1 day.
  Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, listening to the debate that 
my colleagues just had brings me to where we are today and why we need 
to move on this motion to instruct conferees. It is a simple request 
that will have an enormous impact.
  Interesting, my good friend on the other side of the aisle never 
really answered the question, where will those monies come from? That 
is why Democrats are simply asking that we put on hold, put on hold the 
large tax cut that is being proposed by Republicans so that it will not 
consume the surplus that we are trying to focus on, a very crucial 
issue--saving Social Security and Medicare.
  In fact, if we would listen to people like Federal Reserve Chairman 
Greenspan, who has no ax to grind, he has argued that addressing the 
fiscal challenges posed by the impending retirement of those in the 
baby boomer generation should take priority over any tax cut. So in 
actuality, any suggestion of a tax cut without reasonably responding to 
how we best support and save Social Security does not make any sense.
  Social Security and Medicare are too important to neglect. And 
without Social Security we will find that the elderly poverty rate 
would be 48 percent instead of the 11 percent that it is now. Without 
action to address Social Security, the trust fund will exhaust itself 
by 2034 and Medicare will exhaust itself by 2015.
  The real key to what baby boomers understand and what working 
Americans understand is that if we do the Democratic plan, we will be 
able to reduce the debt and thereby interest rates because we will have 
the monies focused on the trust fund. And at the same time our budget 
resolution reduces the debt. We understand in black and white what it 
means to pay this higher interest rate without the reduction of the 
debt, which results in a lower interest rate on the mortgage payments 
so many working families have to pay if we do reduce the debt.
  This is what Americans clearly understand efforts that will save them 
from high interest mortgage rates. It simply does not make sense that 
Republicans will not put a hold on their urgent desire for tax cuts 
which, in actuality, the 10 percent the preferred tax cut supported by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) of the Committee on the 
Budget goes mostly to those making over $200,000 a year. Forty-eight 
million households in the United States will not even see the tax cuts.
  So why are the Republicans trying to represent that now we are coming 
with a bundle of goodies--tax cuts. It is not a bundle of goodies, but 
a bundle of misconceptions. I urge the House to support this motion to 
instruct and let us make sure that we deal with the question of saving 
Social Security, saving Medicare. And further when Americans get the 
real results in their monthly mortgage payment because the debt is 
reduced they will see the real difference when they pay less interest 
on their mortgage payment. That will be the policy upon which we can 
stand and be united on--saving Social Security and Medicare while 
reducing the nation's debt.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the motion offered by 
Ranking Member Spratt, which instructs the conferees to hold off on 
filing a report until this body passes legislation that will extend the 
life of Social Security and Medicare.
  When the House version of the Republican Budget was passed just a few 
short weeks ago, it was heralded by the Majority as the move which 
saved Social Security. However, that assessment is incomplete, just as 
was the budget resolution. This is because, unlike the Democratic 
substitute that was offered at the time, it failed to place our surplus 
back into the Social Security Trust Fund. While Republicans continued 
to champion their budget, because it purportedly offered to take 100% 
of the surplus and put it aside for Social Security, they failed to 
advise the taxpayers that those funds, while set aside, could still be 
used for other purposes--like tax cuts for the wealthy.
  Furthermore, the Republican Budget fails to do anything to extend the 
life of Medicare, which is just as important a program for our seniors. 
The Democratic resolution, on the other hand, would have extended the 
life of this poverty and life-saving program for another eighteen 
years. By failing to instruct the conferees to handle this pressing 
issue today, you are postponing for another year our opportunity to 
address this issue. By voting for this motion offered by Ranking Member 
Spratt, we can send a signal to the American people that we are ready 
and willing to renew Medicare, and to provide a ready safety net should 
they suffer catastrophic illness.
  We Democrats are not foreign to tax cuts. In fact, we have supported 
them in our budget resolutions. The difference is that our cuts are 
focused and disciplined. They benefit families by making childcare more 
affordable. They do not jeopardize our future for short-term gains, and 
they preserve our economy, which is enjoying its longest period of 
sustained growth since World War II.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt motion, and to support our 
efforts to preserve both Social Security and Medicare for our future 
generations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays) has 9\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 4\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution that is debated on the 
floor of the House and in the other body, as well, represents a 
blueprint, a broad outline of our vision and priorities for the future. 
And as this is the first budget resolution of the 21st century, it 
ought to reflect our economic priorities as we move into the next 
century as well.
  Putting together that blueprint at the Committee on the Budget level, 
we asked some basic questions. First, what do we do about Social 
Security, one of the most important issues we will face this year? And 
as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has clearly described, we 
said, let us end the raid on the trust fund; let us set aside the 
entire Social Security surplus, 100 percent, exclusively to strengthen 
Social Security and Medicare. In contrast to the President's budget 
that only set aside 62 percent of that surplus, and he spent the other 
38 percent.
  Then we asked the question: What do we do about spending and the 
growth of the Federal Government? And the answer to that question was: 
Let us respect the 1997 budget agreement, a bipartisan agreement that 
controls the rate of growth of government spending. It was put together 
through lengthy negotiations in 1997 and sets a limit on how large and 
broad the scope of the Federal Government should be.
  Third, we said: Well, what about taxes? And this is an important 
question, because today taxes are at an all-time high; 20.5 percent of 
our Nation's economy is being consumed by taxes at the Federal level. 
And we said once we have set aside every penny of the Social Security 
surplus, if we have revenues higher than that we ought to give those 
back to the American people, because there are more of them working 
today than ever before. They are more productive, they are earning 
more, and they are paying more in taxes than they ever have before.
  Mr. Speaker, we set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus, 
not 62 percent, as the President suggested. We adhere to the 1997 
budget agreement instead of breaking it, as the President's budget 
does; and we provide for tax relief once we set aside the Social 
Security surplus, instead of raising taxes by $100 billion.
  It has been stated very clearly from the other side of the aisle when 
we make these comparisons between our budget resolution and the 
President's budget resolution: But we are not defending the President's 
budget. Do not force us to defend the President's budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States is the leader of his 
party, the leader of the strongest Nation on Earth, and we cannot find 
a single Member from the other side to defend his budget blueprint, the 
blueprint that should set the economic priorities for the future of 
this country, that should set the economic priorities for the first 
year of the next century, and we cannot find anyone that is willing to 
defend that budget.

[[Page H1830]]

  We should support the principles that gave us the first balanced 
budget in 30 years, that strengthened Medicare, extended its solvency 
for another 10 years, and that gave the first tax relief in 16 years. 
Support the Republican principles that are embodied in this budget. 
Support this rule and let us move forward to economic prosperity.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the 
Members on the other side talk about how they are planning to save 
Medicare. Never has salvation looked so unattractive.
  Medicare is today hurting. The people in the State I represent, 
Massachusetts, used to have prescription drugs through their HMOs. Then 
the Republicans passed the Medicare bill in 1997 and they lost it. 
There was a reasonable home health care program in Massachusetts and 
elsewhere, and then the Republicans ``saved Medicare'' in 1997 and 
wrecked home health care along the way.
  Hospitals are hurting, hospitals that are teaching hospitals and 
hospitals that deal with poor people. In 1997, the Republicans gave a 
capital gains tax cut and paid for it by cutting Medicare. So their 
notion of saving Medicare comes after they already, in 1997, made 
serious restrictions.
  People listening ought to understand, if they think Medicare is 
perfect now they can thank Republicans for saving it in that fashion. I 
find it to be a serious problem.
  And then the gentleman from California said, ``We are going to fix 
it.'' How are they going to fix it in their plan which, fortunately, 
did not get enough votes? Well, for one thing they were going to raise 
the age from 65 to 67, so that people who are now working and do not 
have medical care could wait another 2 years. Some fix. They fix the 
system by breaking the people.
  Then we said, well, prescription drugs. We will provide prescription 
drugs for people up to 135 percent of poverty, because if they are in 
poverty they probably can be on Medicaid. Well, what is 135 percent of 
poverty? For an elderly couple whose income is about $20,000 a year, 
they get no help with prescription drugs.
  So what we have here is a Republican plan to continue the damage with 
Medicare. And that is one of the most central differences now between 
the parties. The Republican plan of 1997 already weakened Medicare's 
ability to provide adequate service. I know very few people in my part 
of the country who are in the business of either providing or consuming 
health services who think Medicare is tenable the way it now is. And 
what they will do is, of course, leave all that damage that they did 
undone.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes just to point out to 
my colleague that the President came in with an $11 billion cut in 
Medicare. And when he did, my colleagues on other side of the aisle 
said the President had a great budget. They liked his new tax 
increases. They liked his new spending. They did not seem to complain 
then about the $11 billion worth of cuts that the President had in his 
budget.
  Now they do not like the President's budget. But what I know is that 
in 1994 when Republicans got elected, we set out to get our country's 
financial house in order and balance this financial budget and save 
Medicare and Social Security, and that is what we are doing. And to 
move from this welfare state into a society of opportunity. That is 
what we are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is we have set aside $1.8 trillion for 
Social Security and Medicare. It is $1 billion more than the President 
set aside. We do not spend it and we do not provide tax cuts. We 
reserve it, and in our budget resolution we do not allow the national 
debt to go up; and the President said he would veto it because he 
wanted to raise the debt ceiling. We are not going to raise the debt 
ceiling. It is the best way to make sure that we do keep our country's 
financial house in order and do not make this government larger.
  When this President got elected, 17.5 percent of all revenues funded 
the Federal Government. Now it is 20.5. It has gone up and we are not 
looking to have it go up any higher.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich), chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is 
recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, let me, in summation, say that the language 
in this resolution, while at times bordering, well, not bordering but 
frankly inflammatory, the orders directed therein are not anything 
different than what we were planning to do. Boy, that sure sounds like 
Washington double-talk. We do not think this resolution is a big deal, 
so I am urging my Members to go ahead and accept it.
  Let me just for a second talk about the budget so that Members of 
this body will clearly understand what we are doing. And it should give 
us cause for celebration, because at one point we were struggling to 
try to figure out how to balance the budget. Now we are to the point 
where we are actually able to go beyond balancing the budget to the 
point where we are running huge surpluses. And we think the surpluses 
are a great opportunity to leverage good news into even better news.
  The good news on the side of Social Security, and I want to 
compliment the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), my friend. He has 
joined with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) in what I think is a 
creative opportunity to try to preserve Social Security, not just for 
the seniors. We know the seniors are going to get their Social 
Security. But the challenge is what do we do for the baby boomers and 
their kids? So if mom and dad are listening, mom and dad are going to 
get their money because there are so many baby boomers. But the 
arithmetic runs us into trouble because when the baby boomers retire, 
there are not a lot of workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the bipartisan team here in the 
House for their efforts to try to work together, have some guts. I am 
very interested in what they are doing. They ultimately get to where 
they are. I believe that we ought to put 2 percent aside into a private 
account for people to be able to participate in the economy like 
Federal workers. But the point is that we are not going to spend that 
money coming in from Social Security now on other government programs; 
we are going to lock it up. And we are either going to use it in the 
transition program to transform Social Security and Medicare or we are 
going to use it to pay down some debt.
  The time will come when we are going to have some people with some 
guts in all branches of the government who are going to be willing to 
fix these retirement programs. So, I do want to compliment my friend 
and colleague from the State of Texas for his efforts.

                              {time}  1900

  At the same time, there is going to be somewhere around a $780 
billion overcharge in the rest of the taxes we levy on the American 
people. My fear is that we take that money and we use it to expand the 
size of government, just the opposite of why we balanced the budget. We 
balanced the budget to make government less important and people more 
important, and we ought to proceed on that path.
  So what we are going to do is take some of those overcharges we have 
put on the American people, overtaxes, and we are going to give them a 
refund. We are going to let them have more money in their pockets. With 
more money comes more power.
  That is why I say, when I hear people say irresponsible tax cuts, I 
cannot think of a situation where my colleagues want to give people 
more power and government less where that can be argued in a negative 
way. I mean, the reverse of that argument is that people ought to be 
less important and government ought to be more important. I respect my 
colleagues if they think that way, but I do not agree with them.
  I have got to tell my colleagues, when the people understand it that 
way, they want their money back. They do not want the government to be 
more important. They want to be more important. Do my colleagues know 
why? Because when they are more important, they can control their own 
future, their own destiny. They can go out and do more to support their 
family and their community. The Speaker here today can go out and buy 
those

[[Page H1831]]

Michigan tickets to go to the ball game a little easier.
  The fact is that when people have more in their pocket, it is the 
nature of power; and power is a zero-sum game. When government has 
more, people have less. When people have more, government has less. 
That is where I think we ought to be. That is why we are going to have 
a tax cut. At the same time, we are going to preserve the spending 
discipline that we put in when we passed the 1997 budget deal.
  I have just got to suggest to everybody in this Chamber, this is a 
budget that everybody ought to be voting for, because we have been able 
to accomplish things that have not been accomplished before. We do not 
want to blow the opportunity to return power to people and 
fundamentally reform our retirement programs for the baby boomers and 
reform it in such a way that, again, people are handed some more power 
to be able to do better planning themselves for their future, 
particularly when they get to be seniors and it becomes some of the 
most important time in their life.
  So I would like to say to my colleagues, they can vote for this, and 
I would anticipate before the 15th of this month, we will have a budget 
resolution conference agreement on this floor that will accomplish what 
I have outlined. I will look forward to broad bipartisan support.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/4\ minutes, the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are about to send to conference does 
not protect Social Security, and it does not protect Medicare. It does 
not extend the life of either program or assure the solvency of either 
by 1 day. It does not rise to the challenge.
  Worse still, the enormous tax cuts that it calls for could undercut 
Social Security and Medicare, especially, Mr. Speaker, if the surpluses 
projected do not materialize. The tax cuts are locked in: $143 billion 
the first 5 years, $788 billion the second 5 years, $1.66 trillion the 
third 5 years. They are a certainty. They are locked in.
  The surpluses are economists' constructs. They may happen. I hope 
they do, but they may not. If they do not, what happens? What happens? 
How do we run the government when we do not have enough income tax and 
other tax revenues? We spend the payroll tax revenues.
  The problem with that is that the demand upon the Treasury that this 
bill will make are greatest at the time when Social Security is in 
greatest need, between 2009 and 2014 when the war babies begin to 
retire and baby boomers begin to retire.
  So this resolution says fix this budget resolution in conference. 
Save Social Security first, save Medicare as well, and then do tax 
cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, given what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has 
said, I would say that everyone who votes with this motion to instruct 
conferees is making a pledge to follow these priorities, making a 
pledge to follow these procedures, and specifically making a pledge not 
to bring a tax bill to the floor of the House for consideration until 
Social Security is assuredly solvent, until Medicare is assuredly 
solvent, until both of those things are accomplished and enacted.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed until after the votes on 
the two suspension motions postponed earlier today.

                          ____________________