[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 51 (Wednesday, April 14, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1981-H1996]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CONFERENCE REPORT ON HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 68, CONCURRENT 
             RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 137 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 137

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider a conference report to accompany 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. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 137 is a conventional rule providing 
for consideration of the conference report for H. Con. Res. 68, the 
budget resolution for fiscal year 2000.
  H. Res. 137 waives all points of order against the conference report 
to accompany H. Con. Res. 68 and against its consideration. The rule 
provides that the conference report is considered as read. The rule 
further provides for 1 hour of general debate on the conference report, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the deadline for passing the budget is this week, and I 
am pleased the House will pass the budget resolution on time. In fact, 
when the budget resolution is adopted by the House and Senate by 
Thursday, it will be only the second time in 25 years that the U.S. 
Congress has met the statutory deadline. As we promised, this Congress 
has quietly been a workhorse, going about its legislative work in a 
businesslike manner that we planned at the beginning of the new year.
  I am not only pleased we have completed this budget resolution in a 
timely manner, but I am delighted this budget reaffirms our support for 
less government and more freedom for the American people. Like the 
first debate on the budget, I expect today's debate will also center 
upon the differences between the parties and the role of the Federal 
Government, and I welcome that debate.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report is very similar to the budget 
passed by the House in March. Our budget saves Social Security by 
ensuring that 100 percent of the money from payroll taxes destined for 
the Social Security Trust Fund remains in the trust fund. That is $1.8 
trillion over the next decade for retirement security. Our budget 
strengthens Social Security and ensures that big spenders can no longer 
raid the fund to pay for their big government spending programs.
  Mr. Speaker, after saving Social Security and Medicare, the real 
question is what do we do with the remainder of the surplus. The 
Congress says give it back. When previous Congresses could not figure 
out how to run the government, they turned to the American people for 
more taxes. Now that we have a surplus, the big spenders do not want to 
give the people a refund. They want to spend it on new, wasteful, 
bureaucratic programs.
  A few months ago, we received a preview of this debate when the 
President stated, ``We could give it all back to you and hope you spend 
it right.'' But the President then preceded to explain that he really 
should not give back the surplus because Federal Government bureaucrats 
could make wiser choices with the American people's paychecks than they 
could.
  That is the ideological choice we will deal with today. Our budget is 
designed to provide more freedom and power to the American people. The 
President's budget was designed to keep the taxpayers' money controlled 
in this town.
  We simply believe that individuals make much better choices about 
their lives than bureaucrats do. The President's budget suggests that 
the government can make wiser choices with the paychecks of the 
American workers. Today in America, Federal tax revenues comprise a 
record percentage of gross domestic product. The President responded to 
the growing tax burden by saying, ``Fifteen years from now, if the 
Congress wants to give more tax relief, let them do it.''
  I have talked to many of my constituents and most of them were not 
enthusiastic about waiting until the year 2014 to get a tax refund. 
Therefore, this budget reaffirms our belief that the people know best 
how to spend their own money and, therefore, we provide the American 
people with serious tax relief now.
  It should be noted that despite the President's rhetoric, his budget 
would have cut Medicare $11.9 billion over 5 years. The Republican 
budget rejects the President's Medicare cuts. Even the President's own 
Comptroller General, David Walker, has criticized the Clinton Medicare 
proposal for essentially doing nothing to alter the imbalance between 
the program's receipts and benefits payments.
  The President's cut in Medicare and his fiscal shell games would have 
endangered the quality of our seniors' health care. Conversely, our 
budget locks away all of the Social Security Trust Fund surpluses for 
the Nation's elderly to save, strengthen and preserve Social Security 
and Medicare.
  This budget continues our determined effort to provide more security, 
more freedom and less government to the American people. The House 
budget is a common sense plan to provide security for the American 
people by preserving every penny of the Social Security surplus, return 
overtaxed paychecks to those who earned it, pay down the national debt, 
rebuild the national defense, and improve our public schools.
  Mr. Speaker, for too long this Nation put too much trust in 
government rules and decision-making. Ronald Reagan argued that we 
should trust the people because, ``Whenever they are allowed to create 
and build, whenever they are given a personal stake in deciding 
economic policies and benefiting from their success, then societies 
become more dynamic, prosperous, progressive, and free.'' This budget 
resolution is written in such a way to provide that freedom to the 
American families and communities by returning power, money and control 
back to them.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may 
complete consideration of this historic budget resolution.

[[Page H1982]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution was presented to 
the Committee on Rules past the stroke of midnight last night and can 
only be fully considered by my colleagues who have a graduate degree 
from the Evelyn Woods School of Speed Reading.
  It makes some pretty important decisions, which one would think would 
keep my friends from acting like a teenager who broke curfew by 
sneaking into the House through the basement door. But here it is, so I 
rise to speak on the rule and to encourage opposition to this budget 
resolution offered by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
  Thanks to many tough choices and some very difficult votes, some of 
them bipartisan but too often only from this side of the aisle, we are 
no longer running budget deficits and are in a position to secure the 
future for seniors, children and working Americans across our economy.
  The budget surpluses which are now projected give us new 
opportunities to make more, smarter, and tougher fiscal decisions. But 
this budget resolution resolves to do less with more.
  The conference report does nothing to make sure Social Security will 
be solvent for the next generation. It will not extend the solvency of 
Social Security by even a single day. In fact, to borrow a phrase, 
instead of making sure that Social Security is solvent, this budget 
resolution makes sure it goes broke on schedule.
  The motion to instruct conferees to deal with Social Security first 
was ignored and the reconciliation instructions put tax cuts at the 
head of the line.
  The budget resolution fails to protect Medicare from insolvency, even 
though Medicare is in danger of running short of funds in less than 10 
years. This resolution calls for Medicare reforms but makes no 
recommendations and commits no resources for the solvency of Medicare.
  This budget resolution is unrealistic in calling for new spending 
without saying how those bills will be paid or what programs will be 
cut to make room for the new spending. Its authors want us to believe 
that there is more for education, but, in fact, discretionary spending 
for education, training, employment and social services is cut by $200 
million below the 1999 level. In fact, it would require deep cuts in 
employment and training and Head Start and the higher education 
programs such as Pell Grants and Work Study.
  It claims to put more in health but it cuts funding for discretionary 
health programs by $402 million in fiscal year 2000. It claims to 
provide more for veterans, but in fact cuts discretionary funding for 
veterans by $2.3 billion over 10 years as compared to the 1999 level. 
And it provides less budget authority for defense over 10 years than 
the President has requested.
  Mr. Speaker, we have finally freed ourselves from the budget deficits 
of the 1980s and the 1990s that threatened to strangle our economy. We 
are in a position to address long-term challenges to Social Security 
and to Medicare. But the budget resolution before us today squanders 
this opportunity and ignores our responsibilities.
  This budget resolution proposes tax cuts which will exhaust the on-
budget surplus. After 5 years, these tax cuts begin to exceed the 
projected on-budget surpluses, and then they will cause the greatest 
harm in the years between 2010 and 2014.
  Before we even count the first non-Social Security surplus, this 
budget resolution proposes to spend it. I fear that my friends have 
already forgotten the lessons taught by the bad habits of the 1980s and 
the big debts of the 1990s.
  We should strike while the surplus iron is hot and make good on our 
promises that we would save Social Security and Medicare, which are 
more than words and represent more than entries on a balance sheet to 
the people who depend on them for the quality of their life.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, 
and I compliment him on his management and filing of this rule, which 
took place just a few hours ago, in fact, in the middle of the night, 
so that we can move ahead with this very important measure.
  We are making history here. I strongly support both the rule and this 
conference report. For the first time ever we are locking away Social 
Security money in a safe deposit box which will finally end 
Washington's pattern of raiding the Social Security fund. It is very 
important for us to recognize that that is something that is being done 
in this package with this budget that the other side is not doing.
  Compare this to President Clinton's budget, which actually spends 
$341 billion of the Social Security surplus over the next decade.
  Our budget that we are going to be voting on here devotes $100 
billion more than the President's budget to save, strengthen and 
preserve both Social Security and Medicare, while the President's 
budget actually cuts $11.9 billion in Medicare.
  We maintain the spending discipline that brought us the balanced 
budget back in 1997, while, unfortunately, the President's budget 
exceeds the caps by $30 billion.
  After locking away funds for Social Security and Medicare, we return 
the rest of the surplus to working Americans in tax relief. The 
President's budget raises taxes by $172 billion. In fact, the President 
has said that Congress should not even consider providing any kind of 
tax relief to working families for a decade and a half, 15 years.
  Our budget pays down $450 billion more in public debt than the 
administration's budget does.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. Speaker, by practicing fiscal responsibility we guarantee that 
the priorities of the American people are protected, good schools, 
relief from overtaxation, a solid Social Security system, and something 
that is of great importance today, and that is a strong, rebuilt 
national defense capability.
  The difference in the parties' visions reminds me of the old adage 
``the more things change, the more they stay the same.'' The bottom 
line is that, like the American people, Republicans are paying 
attention to the bottom line. We have chosen to stay within budget 
spending limits. And unfortunately, on the other hand, the President 
wants to return to the policies of tax and spend.
  I think it is a very clear picture that is here, and I hope that my 
colleagues will join in strong support of not only this rule but of 
this very important conference report so that, as we for the second 
time since the 1974 Budget Act has been put into place, so that we can 
in fact get our work done, which has been a priority of this 106th 
Congress.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
rule and vote against this resolution.
  A little history needs to be reviewed here. During the Reagan years, 
we drove the budget deficit to $5 trillion. Now we have a little 
surplus, and those same neo-Reaganites who were saying that Mr. Reagan 
was so wonderful in creating that deficit do not want to pay it off. 
Now, they say they have a lockbox.
  Let me talk about that particular issue. They say they are going to 
save Social Security and they are going to save Medicare by putting the 
money in a lockbox, and that sounds like a good thing. We think of a 
big, strong box and very tough that we could not get the money out of 
it.
  What they have done in this resolution that had exactly 3 hours of 
consideration before the House committee, and we on the Committee on 
the Budget never saw it, we had a meeting last

[[Page H1983]]

night and the chairman from the other body said all this does is 
deliver sacks of money to the appropriators to split up. But we will 
hear people say, oh, there is a lockbox. We put all this money in there 
to save Social Security.
  What the lockbox has is a great big trapdoor that says exactly this: 
If the Republicans pass a Pinochet-like privatization of Social 
Security, then they have reformed Social Security and they can then use 
the money in the lockbox for whatever they want; namely, a tax cut. The 
money does not have to go into the Social Security plan. It says, if 
they reform it, they can use the money for something else.
  The same way is true for Medicare. If they reform it; that is, give 
every senior citizen a voucher, take away their guaranteed benefits in 
Medicare, if they pass that reform out of here, then they can use the 
money for the tax cut. So this lockbox is about as phony a proposal as 
I have seen in 30 years.
  I know this year the Republicans are committed to passing this 
resolution, because last year they did not do anything. They did not 
even have a conference committee meeting. So this year they said, by 
God, we are getting something out of here by the 15th of April even if 
we do not have a single thing.
  What they passed out was blank pieces of paper and sent to us, this 
is the budget. This is how we are going to spend $1.8 trillion of their 
money. We will not give them one single specific. We will promise them 
that we are going to increase the National Institutes of Health budget. 
We will promise them we are going to increase this. We will promise 
them that. But no specifics, no public hearings, no opportunity for 
anybody to come before the Committee on the Budget and say what this 
budget did or did not do or promises. They simply wrote it in a back 
room yesterday.
  I mean, I have never been to anything quite as ridiculous as this 
conference committee that I was at yesterday, where we sat looking at 
nothing and saying they are going to pass it in the middle of the 
night, which is what they did.
  Vote ``no.''
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I will put the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott) down as ``undecided,'' and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The Chair will announce that 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) has 23 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, last year the Republicans failed to pass a budget 
resolution for the first time since modern day budgets have been 
enacted. But that legacy should not be reversed by now stuffing a 
conference agreement down the throats of the American people. That 
legacy should not be reversed by hurting those who need our help.
  The conference agreement before us fails to protect Social Security. 
It does not extend the Social Security Trust Fund by one day. The 
conference agreement does nothing to protect Medicare. The agreement 
contains large tax breaks that could cost close to $2 trillion over 15 
years and would primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans. And, under 
the agreement, non-defense discretionary spending declines drastically.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not repeat the failures of the last Congress. 
We should pass a budget resolution for fiscal year 2000 but we should 
pass one that has been carefully studied and deliberated as well as 
considered by both sides of the House.
  The agreement before us has been hastily put together. I doubt that 
any Member, Republican or Democrat, knows what is in it. The agreement 
before us hurts ordinary American citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this patched together, last 
minute desperate attempt to put something on the floor, hastily put 
together with no consideration of due process or the American people. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella).
  (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding.
  I think what this day really reflects is what the American people 
expect and deserve, and that is straight talk from the folks here in 
Washington. I think what the people back home in Staten Island and 
Brooklyn appreciate is when we are honest with them. For too many 
years, the people in Washington have not been honest with the people I 
represent, and that is true across the country.
  Now, to me, the most important things in their minds these days are 
the state of Social Security and Medicare, among others, education, tax 
cuts. When we talk about Social Security and Medicare, look what the 
Republican Congress has delivered: Straight talk and fiscal 
responsibility, locking away the entire Social Security surplus for the 
Nation's elderly, almost $1.8 trillion over 10 years to save, to 
strengthen, and to preserve Social Security and Medicare, money that 
should go for these essential programs and not on what others around 
here would like to do, spend on their favorite wasteful Government 
programs or, in other words, a little slush fund.
  The other thing we talk about and I think is right for the country, 
right for economic growth, is needed tax relief. Go back home wherever 
we are across this country and talk straight with the people we 
represent. Ask them if they do not think they are paying enough in 
taxes. Ask them if they think they are paying too much in taxes.
  Tomorrow is tax day. There are a lot of people right now scrambling 
to fill out their tax forms. A lot of them have to write a check and 
pay Uncle Sam. They are working hard every single day, and at the end 
of the year they are writing a check to Uncle Sam.
  If we believe fundamentally in the notions of freedom and liberty and 
creating opportunity for the American people to spend and to save and 
to produce and to create and to innovate, then we should give more of 
their money back. And that is what this budget resolution seeks to do.
  Aside from that, we are maintaining the fiscal caps as this Congress 
voted just a couple of years ago to do; and that is to maintain fiscal 
responsibility, discipline. Every responsible family in this country 
has to do this every week, put aside some money for the education, put 
aside money for the car, pay the mortgage, and establishing priorities. 
That is what this resolution does as well, establishes priorities, 
Social Security, Medicare, education, veterans' benefits, tax cuts, and 
so many others, but at the same time saying, in Congress we are not 
going to have a party at the taxpayers' expense.
  Send the money back home where it belongs. Protect our Nation's 
elderly. Invest in our children. Invest in our future and do the right 
thing. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. For purposes of clarification, does the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) ask to control the time of the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter)?
  Mr. FROST. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost) will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of the rule 
today, and really for two reasons; and there are probably tons of other 
reasons, but two reasons.
  First of all, this was done in the middle of the night, this 
conference report. Nobody has had a chance to really look at this, and 
to vote on an issue of this importance without having a chance to know 
what is in it I think is a wrong way to do this. If we want to meet our 
deadline, we can still meet that deadline tomorrow, but we have today 
to look at this.
  I called this earlier a bait-and-switch budget because that is what I 
think it is. For example, the other reason that my colleagues should 
oppose this rule is there are claims that Social Security and Medicare 
are saved, and yet

[[Page H1984]]

this is riddled with provisions that we could drive a Mack truck 
through. There are all kinds of sunset provisions. There are exceptions 
to these protections. It does not do anything to add one day to the 
life of Social Security or Medicare. Not one single day does it extend 
that solvency.
  I think we have to stop these railroaded through tactics. Let us have 
time to look at it, make sure we know what it says. And then if we are 
going to be serious about saving Social Security and Medicare, let us 
make sure we do that and we add days to the solvency.
  Please oppose this rule, give us a chance to look at it. I do not 
think we could continue to irresponsibly move legislation through the 
House of Representatives in this manner.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask the time remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 
19\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) also 
has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not just a railroad. This is a high-speed train. 
This is one of those bullet trains. In France they call it the TGV.
  Yesterday, at 6 o'clock, we had our first conference meeting, if we 
want to call it that. It was really a photo-op session, cameo session. 
We were handed a document with two columns, Democratic position, 
Republican position, points and places where these two resolutions 
differ.
  There was no third column, the resolution by the conferees, just the 
House position and the Senate position. There was no debate, no 
discussion, no motions, no amendments, nothing. They handed us this 
document. Not even the conference report itself. Not even the latest 
draft of it. Though I am sure everyone knows the procedure here. It was 
in the word processor. Not even the latest rough draft of the 
conference report, even though only a few issues remained in contention 
between the Senate Republicans and the House Republicans at that point.
  At 1:30 last night, I stayed here until about 10:30 or 11:00, at 1:30 
the House Committee on Rules reported this resolution under the cloak 
of darkness. When I came to the floor this morning for this debate and 
asked for a copy of the conference report, it was not to be had. Our 
staff have been able to get a copy, and they are working on it right 
now trying to get a bullet analysis of it so that we can hand it out to 
our Members.
  We are talking about $1.8 trillion. We are talking about the document 
that frames our priorities this year and, to some extent, for the next 
5 or 10 years.
  Now, yesterday at our conference report and today on the House floor 
we will hear the Republican Members congratulate themselves because for 
the first time in a long time the budget resolution is being adopted on 
time, April 15; last year we did not have one at all; this year we are 
doing it right, we are doing it on time. But I beg to disagree.
  This looks like we are making the trains run on time but, in truth, 
down the track a train wreck awaits us.

                              {time}  1130

  This budget resolution is totally unrealistic. It is not a document 
for the budget for FY 2000. It is a political statement.
  Let me give my colleagues a classic example of sort of just stiff-
arming not just the Democratic side of the House but the whole House. 
Just a day ago, we had the appointment of the conferees, the impaneling 
of the conference, and we offered a motion to instruct the conferees, 
that they get their priorities straight, that we do first Social 
Security, next Medicare and then tax cuts, in that sequence, because 
that is the right sequence of priorities. First save Social Security, 
then shore up Medicare, then with what is left before we drain the 
budget dry of resources, then we can do tax cuts. Three hundred eighty 
Members voted for it. The chairman of this committee, the House Budget 
Committee, came over here on the floor and said he would accept the 
amendment.
  What happened the next day? The next day we changed the date for the 
reconciliation bill to include the tax cuts to be July 12. The only 
reason it is July 12 is, we all know, this budget resolution is a 
placeholder. We are simply waiting and hoping the CBO will have a July 
surprise for us, a plus-up in revenues so we can come out here and redo 
what we have tried to do here. I do not think this budget leads us 
anywhere. This is not an occasion to celebrate the budget process, 
unfortunately, even though it marks on this occasion its 25th 
anniversary. This is just a tread water maneuver. It would take us 
backward on our efforts to balance the budget if we passed it. This 
rule and this budget both should be voted down.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
this rule, which determines how we will debate the conference report on 
H. Con. Res. 68, the Budget Resolution for FY 2000.
  This rule, which was reported very late last night, is an overly 
restrictive closed rule that allows only one hour of debate on this 
report. It is preposterous to give each side here, fighting for the 
budget of the United States, only one-half hour to debate. This is 
perhaps the most important debate that we will have this year.
  Having said that, I am urging my colleagues to reject this conference 
report, and to come back to the table and work together, in a 
bipartisan manner, to pass a budget that works for America--a budget 
that is responsible to our constituents, and our posterity.
  We should be passing a budget that protects the Social Security and 
Medicare Trust funds by putting money back into those accounts. It 
should be a budget that will maintain our current Social Security and 
Medicare benefits, and extend their lives until decades from now, so 
that all Americans will be able to take advantage of them. This is 
especially true for women, because due to their longer life expectancy, 
they must rely on Social Security and Medicare longer than must most 
men.
  The conference report that we approve this morning should contain the 
proper resources to modernize, and some would say revitalize, our 
public schools. This report does just the opposite; in fact, it reduces 
our domestic spending on programs that protect the interest of our 
children. This budget jeopardizes the well being of successful programs 
by taking 425 million dollars from WIC, and 501 million dollars from 
Head Start. Nevertheless, in this budget most of that money--800 
million dollars of it--goes instead to tax cuts for the wealthy.
  We should send this conference report back, until it contains within 
it a budget that will protect America's families. It should be a budget 
that fully funds the Summer Youth Employment Program, which is cut in 
this report by over 90 million dollars. It could be a budget that saves 
the Community Development Block Grant Program the indignity of a 50 
million-dollar cut.
  We want to approve a budget report that will address the needs of our 
veterans. We could have and should have passed the Spratt amendment, 
which would have added an additional nine billion dollars for veterans 
programs. We should be voting to pass a budget that fully funds LIHEAP, 
which provides for necessary heating and cooling for low-income 
families in times of extreme weather. LIHEAP literally saved lives in 
my district last summer, and I intend to do what I can to ensure that 
it is fully funded every year that I serve in Congress.
  I had hoped that during conference, that we would have seen drastic 
improvements in this resolution, improvements that could have been done 
in a bipartisan and responsible manner. I had hoped that my colleagues 
across the aisle could be more persuaded by the dedication of 
Congressmen Spratt and McDermott. I desperately wanted to take home to 
my district a budget that respected our children, our families, our 
veterans, and our elderly--and I still hope to do so. And yet we stand 
here today, with this report to show for it, and with only one half 
hour of debate to make our case for the American people. It is a shame.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, and to 
require, at the very least, extended time to debate this conference 
report. With that extended time, I hope that we can work towards a 
fiscally responsible budget for the American people.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the 
budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the

[[Page H1985]]

balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 205, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 84]

                               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
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--205

     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
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     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
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     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)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Davis (IL)
     Dunn
     Hastings (FL)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Pickett
     Scarborough

                              {time}  1152

  Mr. NADLER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 137, I call up 
the conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 68) 
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government 
for fiscal year 2000 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2009.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 137, the conference report is considered as having been 
read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Tuesday, April 13, 1999, at page H1936.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) will be 
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we offer the first budget of the next century and 
a new agenda, beginning of a new agenda, for the new millennium. We are 
going to offer a conference report here today; we have offered it. We 
are going to vote on a conference report here today that represents a 
work product that we have not seen before on this House floor in my 
lifetime. It has been our experience to operate in a period where we 
were rolling up the red ink, adding to the national debt, but more 
important, continuing to suck power and money and influence from 
everyday Americans and taking that power, money and influence and 
vesting it in the central government here in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, we are on the verge of being able to pass into law a 
tremendous transfer of money, power and influence from this city back 
into the hands of everyday Americans so that we can run America from 
the bottom up, from our families and communities to the top, and 
included in this proposal is the notion that we would take every single 
penny from the payroll taxes that this Federal Government collects from 
the American people and to lock up $1.8 trillion, all the money that is 
collected by the Federal Government out of payroll taxes, and to put it 
in a safe place, into a locked box where we can ultimately use that 
money as part of a transition program to transform the retirement 
programs for our senior citizens and at the same time to also guarantee 
that baby boomers and their children will also have access to the same 
security that our parents have. In fact, the $1.8 trillion that we lock 
up gives us a leverage to be used to transform both Social Security and 
Medicare so that three generations of Americans can be protected.

                              {time}  1200

  We know ultimately that in order to protect and save the programs of 
Social Security and Medicare for the baby boomers and their children, 
it will mean, in my judgment it will mean, that we will all have 
greater

[[Page H1986]]

control as individuals in terms of being able to invest some of our 
payroll taxes in the American economy that will allow us, just like 
Federal employees, to earn a higher rate of return on our money than we 
are currently getting, which will allow the baby boomers to earn enough 
money to have something when they retire and at the same time 
ultimately greater additional choice in health care for our senior 
citizens based on the model of Federal employees.
  Frankly, the $1.8 trillion will be reserved, it will not be spent, 
until that great day comes when we can reach agreement between the 
legislative and executive branches of the government so that, in fact, 
we can transform these programs. Before that great day comes, that $1.8 
trillion will be used to pay down some of the national debt, something 
that many Americans want to see happen.
  In fact, last year we paid down about $50 billion of the national 
publicly held debt. This year we would anticipate somewhere in the 
neighborhood of $125 billion of the publicly held debt being reduced; 
holding those dollars either to pay down debt or to be used to 
transform these retirement programs for three generations of Americans.
  At the same time, we anticipate additional surpluses to the tune of 
over $800 billion. We intend to take about $780 billion of that surplus 
and rather than using that money to create more Federal programs we 
intend to use that money to return that overcharge to the American 
taxpayers. So over the course of the next 10 years, we can enact the 
largest tax cut in modern American history.
  We think that is positive for one simple reason. When government has 
less and people have more, people are empowered. When people have more 
and government has less, that is really the quotient, the formula, that 
our Founding Fathers created when they established this great country; 
the power should flow from the people to the government and that the 
people ultimately have the right to have the power vested in them.
  To be able to transfer $780 billion in revenues from the Federal 
Government back to the people is, frankly, all about restoring power to 
the people so that we can run this great country of ours from the 
bottom up.
  At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we also intend to maintain the budget 
agreement, the bipartisan budget agreement, that was concluded in 1997 
and to maintain the discipline of that agreement, which has contributed 
to this strong economy.
  So we have not just a twofer here today but a threefer: One, maintain 
the fiscal responsibility that we created in 1997; secondly, reserve 
the surpluses from the payroll taxes in this country to be used 
ultimately to transform Social Security and Medicare for three 
generations of Americans, in the meantime use it to pay down some of 
the national public debt; finally, to restore a great amount of power 
to the American people in the neighborhood of $780 billion.
  I think it is a great package. I think it is something we all ought 
to embrace, whether we are Republicans or Democrats, and we ought to 
march into the next century, into the next millennium, with our heads 
held high and with an optimism that tells us that we can meet some of 
the great challenges that the baby boomers are going to experience in 
their retirement years and, in fact, we can guarantee not only security 
for our parents but that the baby boomers and their children will have 
the same opportunity at the American dream.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this year we mark the 25th anniversary of the 
congressional budget process and there is a lot to be proud of here 
because the budget process has helped us get to where we are, to the 
best fiscal position we have been in in 25 to 50 years, but this is not 
a very auspicious way to market because the budget before us is not 
realistic. It has been hastily prepared, hastily presented.
  We have been able to cobble together what it meant in the last couple 
of hours when we received a copy of it this morning, but let me say 
what it means. First of all, take discretionary spending because we 
will be dealing with that shortly as the appropriations come. It has 
been capped for the last 10 years. We have to adjust a cap of $6.5 
billion reduction this year and then over the next 10 years, between 
now and 2009, this budget would lower discretionary spending by $16 
billion.
  Last year we spent $299 billion. In 2009, if we follow the pattern of 
this budget, we will spend $284 billion, a $16 billion reduction. Once 
we take the total of inflation off that amount of money, that means we 
will have one-third less to spend for discretionary programs.
  While this budget is not very specific, it uses big numbers and very 
few details, there are some harsh realities in it. Veterans, for 
example, we have the swell in the World War II population pressing 
greater demands than ever on the Veterans Administration. They plus it 
up next year and reduce it in every year thereafter.
  We create a crop insurance program, badly needed, only to unfund it 5 
years from now because the money is not there. It has to make way for a 
tax cut.
  The Republicans touted the fact that they were going to plus up NIH 
because we are on the cusp of major breakthroughs in biomedical 
research. What do they do with the health function, function 550, in 
this budget? They slice it by $25 billion over the next 10 years. NIH 
takes up 52 percent of that function. Anybody who thinks that NIH is 
going to be plussed up if we pass this budget really does need medical 
help.
  Science and space research, $9 billion reduction, below a hard 
freeze. I am not talking about current services; $9 billion below a 
hard freeze. Law enforcement, when we are making gains in crime, cut 
$14.5 billion below a hard freeze.
  The harsh message comes as to Social Security. Two days ago, 480 
Members of this body said let us do Social Security first, then 
Medicare, then we will take up tax cuts.
  We are not opposed to tax cuts. They are in our budget, but we said 
there is a proper priority, a proper sequence here. Let us do tax cuts 
after we have saved Social Security. Let us not drain the budget of 
resources that we might need for these two critical programs.
  What do they do? In this resolution, they take the date on which the 
tax cut bill is to come to the floor of the House, which originally was 
no later than September the 30th, and move it up. They do not even 
follow the sequence, the priorities, that we set by an overwhelming 
vote just 2 days ago on the House floor.
  This is not a good budget. This is another riverboat gamble with the 
budget and that is no way to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the 
budget process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will now control the time of the 
majority.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this budget resolution is what I would 
call a magician's budget. It has a lockbox in it. We always think of a 
lockbox, when one sees a magician he puts the box on the table and then 
the pretty lady climbs inside and then he saws her in half and somehow 
nothing ever happens to the lady, and you say to yourself those 
magicians, they are amazing. Know why? Because it has a false bottom in 
it; it has a trick in the bottom.
  This budget, I challenge anybody to find a copy of this thing. One 
can go out there in the Speaker's hall and there are not even printed 
copies of this thing. So 425 Members are going to vote on this thing 
and they have never even looked at it, believing there is a lockbox.
  Now that lockbox works for one year, and the language in it says that 
we can open the lockbox if there has been any legislation passed that 
enhances retirement security. If that has happened, then we can take 
the money out of the box and give it away for tax breaks.
  Now, what does ``enhances retirement security'' mean? Well, the only 
bills that I have heard discussed around here come out of Chile. That 
is, give everybody a little book and let

[[Page H1987]]

them have their own Social Security. Wipe out Social Security and give 
everybody their own account.
  Now, if we call that saving Social Security, well, I guess it fits 
the definition of enhances retirement security. Everybody will have 
their little book and they can be out there in the Dow and if the Dow 
is at 10000 when they retire, great; if it is at 4000, well, that is 
just the breaks.
  My colleagues are writing in here the capacity to pass any 
legislation that the budget chairman describes as enhancing retirement 
security. If that happens, we open the bottom of the box, all the money 
comes out and here comes the tax break. Exactly the same language is 
used with Medicare, anything that strengthens the Medicare program.
  Now, there is another fraud in here. People are going to talk as 
though there is a tax break. All the people are out there finishing out 
their reports for their tax today. In 2000, there is no tax reduction 
in this budget. All the tax reduction explodes beginning in 2001 and 
going out to 2015. It is an absolute fraud to tell people there is a 
tax break for next year, but if one listens they would think it was 
there. It is all going to come from this phony lockbox.
  There is another part of this, and that is that we are going to 
increase the National Institutes of Health. My colleague from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) already alluded to that. That is also phony. One 
cannot make those numbers add up.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to my 
colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, we set aside $1.8 trillion to save and preserve Social 
Security. We do not spend it and we do not provide a tax cut with it. 
We preserve it for Social Security. If anything happens, it literally 
pays down debt.
  I would also point out that copies were made for both the majority 
and minority last night and we reproduced copies for our side. I hope 
they did the same for theirs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss).
  (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider the 
conference report to the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution. I would 
first like to acknowledge the hard work by my colleagues on the House 
Committee on the Budget and their Senate counterparts in not only 
meeting the April 15 budget deadline but in crafting a budget that will 
boldly carry America into the 21st century.
  This budget, the first for the new millennium, safeguards Social 
Security, addresses priorities such as education, defense and 
agriculture, and, yes, does provide historic tax relief.
  I am proud to see this conference report meet the challenges of the 
21st century head on by adhering to several bedrock principles, as it, 
first of all, locks away every single penny of the Social Security 
surplus to provide for the retirement security of the Nation's seniors, 
and I emphasize that. Every single penny of the Social Security surplus 
is locked away to provide for the security of our seniors.
  Secondly, we maintain the spending discipline from the 1997 Balanced 
Budget Act.
  Thirdly, we ensure sizable payments are made to reduce the national 
debt, a very critical issue.
  Fourth, we make national defense a top priority by providing 
additional resources to properly train, equip and retain our men and 
women in uniform.
  Next, we offer security for rural Americans by providing the 
financial resources to make real crop insurance reform possible.
  Finally, we enact historic tax relief to return the surplus to its 
rightful owners, the American taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report on the budget is consistent with 
the common sense principles of encouraging our communities and 
individuals to grow from the bottom up, not from Washington down. This 
is a budget all Americans can be proud of and I strongly urge the 
adoption by my colleagues.
  I would like to close by saying to my friend, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), I commend him and have enjoyed working 
with him through this process. He has been a strong advocate for his 
position. When we have disagreed, he has been a gentleman but he has 
been right there working, and his staff also, in a very professional 
manner.
  To my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), our leader who 
has led us through this process, he has provided the energy, the 
innovative ideas and the wherewithal to carry us through in this 
balanced budget and I commend him.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his compliments. When he said 
I have been right there, I thought he was about to say I have been 
right.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel).
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, a great American once said that extremism in 
defense of liberty is no vice, and that moderation in pursuit of 
justice is no virtue.
  Our budget chairman said something a little similar in saying that he 
was trying to ignore the inflammatory language of being irresponsible. 
He said that an irresponsible tax cut, there is no such thing as an 
irresponsible tax cut.
  I think that separates the parties, but I really think that we have 
enough differences in our approaches to legislation that should not 
allow older people and young people as well to believe that we are 
concerned more about tax cuts than we are about the security of the 
social security fund and the security of Medicare.
  I know there are some who believe that we as Democrats raise this 
thing every election year to frighten the older people, but would it 
not be great if we could avoid a train wreck by making certain that 
instead of talking about a lockbox that has a secret escape hatch, that 
we just commit ourselves that we are going to do the right thing by 
social security, do the right thing by Medicare, and not talk about 
locking a box, but talking about then doing the right thing by a tax 
cut?
  We have begged, we have asked, we want to work with the other side on 
the question of a tax bill. We have passed the resolution to say delay 
the tax bill and give us a chance to work in a bipartisan way to have a 
piece of legislation on social security and Medicare that we can go 
back home as Republicans, Democrats, and Members of Congress, and say 
we are proud of what we have done.
  Instead of that, they come right back and accelerate the date of the 
tax cut. They make that the priority, and then they say that we are 
trying to make it an issue. I think there is a difference between a tax 
cut and a lockbox with an escape hatch.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Let me just point out this chart, because I would like to drive this 
home as best we can. What we are suggesting in this budget is that we 
set 100 percent of the social security surplus aside, and lockboxes are 
hard, and we are hoping it does not have any false bottom, but we set 
it aside.
  Compare that with what the President is suggesting, to set only 62 
percent aside. The President and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) and his group have suggested that we add another giant IOU to 
the social security trust fund.
  I think that is good to give that kind of commitment, but let me 
suggest what it really does. It says, we are demanding a future tax 
increase sometime after there is less money coming in from social 
security than is required to pay out benefits, around 2012, 2013, or if 
somehow we come up with the money on what we owe the trust fund, the 
$700 plus billion, it means we have a tax increase in 2032 when no 
longer is there any surplus or anything else left. So adding this giant 
IOU in effect mandates that we have a tax increase.
  On the topic of tax increases, the President says, let us have $100 
billion of tax increases. I think we have to be

[[Page H1988]]

very careful. Both sides have to guard against spending this surplus 
money.
  I would quit there, only to suggest to the Democrats that we have 
come a long way. It is an historic budget. For the first time in 40 
years we are not spending the social security surplus for other 
government programs.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds 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 to my dear friends on the other 
side that this is, in my opinion, not a serious budget, this is a 
placeholder budget. In their haste to try and get something done by 
April 15, having failed miserably last year, they have thrown together 
this budget. About the only serious thing is the language from the 
other body chastising the South Koreans on beef and pork sales that is 
in this budget.
  The fact is, and with respect to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith), I offered an amendment in the committee that would have 
extended the 1997 caps going forward, would have used all the on-budget 
and off-budget surplus to pay down the national debt, just like they 
quote Mr. Greenspan in here as saying it is a good thing to do. The 
committee rejected that. All the Republicans rejected that.
  The other problem with this is this is a budget that is betting on 
the come, because they know they cannot write the appropriations bills 
with the numbers in here. On page 22 they state that the CBO will 
report an update to them in July. Normally they do it in August, but we 
are going to pummel the CBO to report an update, so then we can go 
back, bust the caps, and try and use some of the on-budget surplus, and 
instead of paying down debt, to use it for a tax cut.
  Finally, in my opinion what is wrong with this budget is it is going 
to lead to more deficits and more debts in the future, because you have 
a $1.7 trillion tax cut over 15 years based upon 15-year pro forma 
projections which may or may not come true. If they do not come true, 
we will have already locked in the tax cuts, and we will end up with 
more deficit spending and adding to the national debt, not reducing it. 
That is worse for social security.
  Finally, the only thing they save is what is owed to social security. 
They have unrealistic cuts that they know are not going to be made. 
This is a sham budget. Again, when their side is ready to get serious, 
we are ready to work with them.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rick Hill).
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is instructive, I think, to compare this budget to 
the President's budget. After all, Congress is going to be negotiating 
at the conclusion of this process with the President. Budgets are about 
more than numbers, they are about priorities.
  This budget sets aside, as everyone has said, 100 percent of social 
security for social security. The President proposes to spend $341 
billion of social security on other programs.
  This budget proposes to maintain the discipline, the discipline that 
got us a balanced budget in the first place. The President's budget 
proposes to walk away from that by breaking the spending caps.
  This budget lives up to our commitment to veterans health care. The 
President's budget flatlined veterans health care between $1.5 billion 
and $2 billion below what is necessary to live up to our commitment to 
veterans. Remember, Mr. Speaker, the men and women who are fighting in 
Kosovo today are going to be our veterans tomorrow. It is our 
obligation to stand up for them.
  The President in his State of the Union said he wanted to help rule 
America by reforming crop insurance. Then he put nothing in his budget 
to do it. This Republican budget sets aside an additional $1.5 billion 
to reform crop insurance and help rural America.
  The Republican budget proposes to reduce the taxes on the American 
people. It is their money. The President proposes another $172 billion 
tax increase.
  Lastly, the Republicans reject the President's proposal to cut 
Medicare further. The President proposed to cut Medicare an additional 
$11.9 billion. The President's budget is the wrong priorities. The 
Republican budget is the right priorities. I hope our colleagues will 
vote for it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, this resolution before us not only is a 
sham, but the gentleman is right, it is the wrong priorities.
  The wrong priorities means we do not put safeguards for social 
security, safeguards for Medicare, and certainly the wrong priority is 
that we give a huge tax cut before we even attempt to safeguard or 
reform social security and Medicare. To do that, they must cut 
discretionary funds, those funds that make for the common quality of 
life in our communities.
  Veterans they cut by $2.3 million, agriculture they cut. Yes, they 
have the crop insurance, but what do they do immediately after, they 
cut the whole program, including that, by $4.9 billion. The environment 
is cut by $10 million. Health and research is cut by $25.3 million.
  The priority is what? To give the tax cut first, to make sure that 
the wealthiest of Americans are taken care of first. Surely we want a 
tax cut, but it should be reasonable. Surely we want a reasonable 
budget.
  This is not a reasonable budget, this is a sham. It does not protect 
children, it does not protect agriculture, and it certainly does not 
protect our seniors in terms of their retirement or their health care.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Pete Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a very good budget proposal. What 
this budget enables us to do is to build on the success that we have 
created over the last number of years.
  What does this budget do? Number one, it locks away the entire social 
security trust fund surpluses. That is almost $1.8 trillion over the 
next 10 years to save, strengthen, and preserve social security, and as 
necessary, to do the same things for Medicare. It locks away the entire 
social security trust fund. This budget saves social security receipts 
in excess of benefit payments so that we can strengthen and save both 
social security and Medicare.
  Secondly, it forces us to maintain the spending discipline of the 
1997 Balanced Budget Act by holding to the discretionary spending caps 
that we agreed to with the President in 1997. It pays down about $1.8 
trillion in debt that is held by the public.
  In regard to what the President's budget does, this budget pays down 
over $450 billion more than what the President pays down in public 
debt. It ensures that we properly fund our need for defense by spending 
$290 billion in fiscal year 2000.
  In addition, we provide for $66 billion for education, training, 
employment, and social services. This is $3 billion more than what was 
in the House resolution, so we continue our commitment to education.
  What we are going to do in the area of education is reform the 
program so not only do we spend more money on education, but we ensure 
that more money is spent at the local level under local control, where 
decisions are made by parents, local teachers, and local administrators 
to make sure that we get maximum flexibility and impact for those 
dollars.
  This is a good budget. I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and to 
the leaders on both sides, John Maynard Keynes, that noted economist, 
once said that the difficulty lies not in generating new ideas, but 
escaping from the old ones. We cannot seem to get away from, in this 
Congress, wanting to do all things for all people.
  All the language and all the rhetoric that has been used today, all 
of it sounds great, $800 billion in tax cuts over 10 years, $1.7 
trillion over 15 years,

[[Page H1989]]

a lockbox for social security funding. The only problem, Mr. Speaker, 
is that it does not all add up. We want to do all of these wonderful 
and great things, but the party that touted fiscal responsibility for 
so many years has now assumed the role that they accuse liberal 
Democrats of assuming for the last 15 to 20 years.
  I know they have good people on their side that can add, subtract, 
multiply, and divide. It is only my hope and certainly that of my 
colleagues on this side that those folks who cannot add and subtract 
come to the forefront, add this budget up, realize that it does not add 
up, and do what is right.
  Let us save social security and Medicare first and then bring about 
those tax cuts. If we win the lottery, we should not spend all our 
money at the casinos, we should take care of the debts and obligations 
first, and then take care of the things we want to do. We ought to do 
the same thing in this Congress. The people expect no less.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I listen to the inflammatory rhetoric we are hearing on 
the House Floor today, and I think that we are looking at two different 
budgets. It is very important to note that when you are budgeting, what 
you are doing is outlining priorities. What was our first priority in 
putting this budget together?
  When I travel around the First District of Wisconsin, talking to our 
Nation's seniors who are currently on social security, talking to 
workers who are about to go on social security, talking to the baby 
boom generation who are about to enjoy social security within the next 
15 years, they want to know that it is going to be there, that the rug 
will not be pulled out from underneath them. That is our historic 
commitment that we are pledging in this budget.
  Our first, preeminent decision is this: We are going to stop the raid 
on social security.

                              {time}  1230

  For the first time in over 30 years, we are not going to take a dime 
out of Social Security taxes to spend on other government programs. 
That is our driving reform in this budget, which drives other reforms.
  If my colleagues take a look at this chart beside me, they will 
notice that our budget sets aside 100 percent of the Social Security 
surplus. All the money coming from Social Security taxes will be 
dedicated towards Social Security.
  However, the President is only setting aside 62 percent of the Social 
Security surplus for Social Security. The other 38 percent is going to 
other spending.
  We want a lockbox provision that will work. We want a lockbox 
provision that will set aside all Social Security surpluses now and 
into the future. The problem is the President does not want this 
legislation because he is raiding Social Security by $341 billion over 
the next 10 years. If he is truly interested in saving Social Security, 
he will say ``no'' to future raids on Social Security.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let me say there was an alternative budget on the floor, the House 
Democrats' budget. We would have put up $502.5 billion more for 
nondefense and defense discretionary programs, $165 billion in targeted 
tax cuts, high surpluses, and therefore lower debt than the Republicans 
in every year. In fact, we would have had $151 billion more in national 
debt reduction than they have.
  There was an alternative, and 100 percent of our Social Security 
money went back to Social Security. So they keep raising a red herring, 
a straw man. There was an alternative that was rejected, and it was a 
better bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this budget represents a serious failure 
for American families. It fails to extend the solvency of the Medicare 
Trust Fund by even one day. It fails to strengthen Social Security so 
it will be there for the next generation.
  There is in fact less money for education in this budget. Over the 
next 3 years, that education budget falls below the 1999 level. So let 
us be truthful about education. It fails to do anything to expand child 
care for our Nation's poorest families.
  Right now, of the 10 million children and working families with 
incomes below 200 percent of the poverty line, only 10 percent of 
eligible families have access to child care programs. The average 
family spends about 7 percent of its income on child care. But child 
care consumes about one-quarter of the income of low-income working 
families who pay for their care. These are the families who can afford 
it the least.
  The waiting lists are growing. In my own State of Connecticut, we 
have tremendous waiting lists. People are unable to get the assistance 
that they need in order to afford child care.
  The Senate budget resolution attempted to close that trap. They 
provided $10 billion for Child Care Development Block Grant. But the 
Republican leadership stripped that provision from the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, America's working families cannot wait for some other 
time to deal with child care. They need the help now. Parents who are 
trying to get to work, to build a better life for their families, 
particularly those who are attempting to move off of the welfare rolls, 
they find the lack of affordable child care is often an insurmountable 
barrier.
  No parent can concentrate on their job if they are worried about who 
is taking care of their child. We owe it to working people, people who 
want to work, to make sure that they have a safe and affordable place 
so that their children can have care.
  Putting this off to deal with it at another time is unacceptable. 
American families and American children deserve better. Let us defeat 
this conference report.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time remaining on 
each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 14\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ 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. Speaker, the budget resolution is about priorities. 
It is a broad blueprint of our spending priorities for the next year 
and the next 5 years. In fact, this particular resolution sets the tone 
for the next century. It will be the first budget blueprint for the 
next millennium.
  Our priorities are clear. First and foremost, we set aside all of the 
Social Security surplus for Social Security, the first time in our 
country's history that we will do that, making good on the commitment 
to take Social Security off budget.
  Second, we keep to the spending commitments of the 1997 Balanced 
Budget Act, a bipartisan agreement, to control the size and scope of 
the Federal Government, keeping to our commitments not just to our 
constituents, but to the entire country.
  Finally, we state that, for those surpluses above the Social Security 
surplus, we ought to give that money back to American workers that are 
working harder, longer, earning more, being more productive. That is 
the biggest reason we have such a high level of revenues right now. The 
product of that hard work ought to go back to working Americans.
  Those are the right priorities for this country: strengthening Social 
Security, keeping to our spending commitments, and lowering taxes.
  The President's budget, instead, would spend 38 percent of the Social 
Security surplus. It breaks the budget caps. It raises taxes $100 
billion. That is the wrong direction, as made so clear when we voted on 
this floor on the President's budget. He received only 2 votes for his 
spending priorities.
  These are the right priorities. It sets aside more for Social 
Security, pays down more debt, and does more to strengthen this 
country's economy.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, we all understand in Washington that 
sometimes you are the beaver and sometimes you are the cherry tree. 
Even so,

[[Page H1990]]

it is outrageous that the Republican majority has chosen to treat 
Medicare as a cherry tree, to be cut down while the Republican beaver 
gets fatter on tax cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no other issue other than the war in Kosovo of 
greater public policy concern than extending the solvency of Social 
Security and addressing our senior health crisis while preserving 
Medicare.
  This budget flinches in the face of those challenges. Instead, it 
takes resources that we desperately need to devote to those problems 
and commits them instead to an exploding tax cut that threatens the 
return of a structural deficit.
  It is an insult to the seniors of this country that the Republicans 
are talking about tax cuts while at the same time they are not setting 
aside one penny to extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund or 
the solvency of Social Security.
  There is a health care hurricane on the horizon in our country, Mr. 
Speaker. The highest growing part of our population is over 85. The 
Republicans do nothing about the Medicare crisis about to hit. Vote 
``no'' on the Republican budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out that 
the President cut $11.5 billion from Medicare. He cut it. I would also 
point out to my colleague that we reserve $1.8 trillion for Social 
Security. We do not spend it, and we do not provide it in tax cuts. It 
is reserved for Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to 
note that, when we are looking at this, this inflammatory language on 
Medicare, we are actually keeping the Medicare Trust Fund growing. The 
President proposed a budget that actually cut Medicare. We are 
dedicating $1.8 trillion, all from taxes dedicated to Medicare and 
Social Security, for Medicare and Social Security.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, when one offers with one hand and 
takes away with the other hand, that is called bait and switch. If one 
were an advertiser in the public sector, one would be fined for what is 
going on in Congress today.
  This Congress is trying to tell the American public that all is well 
with the veterans. Yet, the Republican budget cuts veterans over 10 
years by $2.3 billion. They are trying to tell us that crop insurance 
is okay at a time when farmers are out there in deep trouble. They are 
saying it is okay, we are going to take care of you. Yet, there are 
cuts of $4.9 billion. Health care, medical research, oh, yeah, we are 
increasing the budget. But guess what, it is being cut by $25 billion. 
Bait and switch.
  Worst of all to me, this Congress is telling Americans that because 
we add money to one part of the education budget, that we are 
increasing the education budget. The problem is they are taking it away 
from another part of the budget. Again, bait and switch.
  We are hearing the argument that Social Security and Medicare are 
first in the budget, Mr. Speaker. Bait and switch. Tax cuts are first 
here, nothing else.
  I support a tax cut that we can afford. But first we must extend the 
life of Social Security and Medicare. This budget has loopholes the 
size of the Capitol dome. To protect Social Security, we should make 
sure that we extend the life of Social Security. Do not deceive the 
American people with bait and switch sound bites when my colleagues do 
not have the information to back it up.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary Miller), one of many from California, and a very 
fine Member.
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 
of the conference report on the budget. When we compare this to where 
we started with the President's budget, we have come leagues from where 
we started.
  I have listened to some of the rhetoric, and obviously many have been 
beamed up who really look at the facts and figures. We do protect 
Social Security. The President wanted to spend Social Security money on 
his programs. We provide for Medicare in this budget. The President did 
nothing for Medicare. In fact, he stifled reforms.
  We provide for tax relief. The President wanted to raise taxes. We 
are keeping the budget caps. The President wants to break budget caps 
to spend more money.
  In the past year, all we have heard is the rhetoric from the other 
side of the aisle about saving Social Security, yet they have done 
nothing to do that. Where is the rhetoric now? Where is the reform? Or 
was it just politics as partisans present it.
  This side of the aisle and the budget we have before us saves 100 
percent of Social Security money, $137 billion this year alone aside 
for Social Security over 10 years. It sets aside $1.8 trillion. The 
President's budget saves 62 percent, spent $58 billion this year alone, 
and over 10 years only set $1.3 trillion aside.
  Medicare has been provided for in this budget. My colleagues talk 
about chopping the cherry tree down. The President chopped down $11.9 
billion over 5 years out of Medicare.
  We cut through this process $778 billion in taxes on the American 
people over 10 years. The President wanted to raise taxes by $172 
billion over 10 years.
  This is what the Congressional Research Service has to say about the 
Senate and House budget resolution before us. I will quote them, ``The 
committee report calls for maintaining the discretionary spending caps, 
cutting taxes, increasing spending for defense and education.'' I will 
quote again, ``increasing spending for defense and education, and 
restricting the uses of Social Security surpluses.''
  We have come a long way from where we started, and I wish this could 
be a bipartisan support. I encourage an ``aye'' vote. 038
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  On defense, I would remind the gentleman that their budget over 10 
years is $198 billion below the President's budget. We came to the 
House floor and said, my colleagues did not provide for the military 
pay increase. Despite the fact they were on notice, this budget does 
not provide for the selected pay grade increase of 5.5 percent. This 
budget does not provide for the repeal of redux. It zaps it.
  They were put on notice. They still ignored it. They also did not 
give anything for the veterans except for 1 year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner) because he is a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement on the Republican 
resolution is a slap in the face to our Nation's veterans, those who 
have given us our country's freedom. It slashes health care funding 
every year after the year 2000.
  We do have a 1-year increase of $1.6 billion, but that is it, only 50 
percent of what the veterans' organizations in this country said was 
absolutely minimal, for what was necessary for the veterans' health 
care system. They recommended a $3 billion increase for every year. My 
colleagues gave them $1.6 billion for the first year and then started 
cutting them every year after that. Over 10 years, the conference 
agreement cuts veterans funding by $2.3 billion below a 1999 level.
  We will see hospitals in danger of closing. We will see veterans with 
hepatitis C not receive treatment. We will see long-term care 
decreased. Research will be severely underfunded. Buildings will 
deteriorate. The chairman of our committee, a Republican chairman, said 
that if we have a straight line budget, we will compromise access to 
quality of care. Vote ``no'' on the slap in the face of the Veterans 
Administration.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I would call to the gentleman's attention 
the fact that the President's budget called for an increase in 
veterans' benefits of $26 million. In the House-passed budget we 
provided for $1.1 billion of increase for veterans' health care 
benefits alone. The conference report increased that amount by an 
additional $700 billion directly applied to veterans' health care 
benefits.

[[Page H1991]]

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is talking about the 
President's budget. That was a suggestion that is long past. This is 
the Republicans' budget now. Stop talking about the President's budget. 
The Republican budget has underfunded over 10 years veterans' health 
care by almost $2.5 billion.
  The Republicans increase it the first year, I will give them that, 
but they have put it on a freeze for the next decade. They are harming 
the health of our Nation's veterans.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I might also say that 
the veterans are funded on average at $19.4 million, which is $100 
million over and above this year for the next 5 years. The Republicans 
fund the increase for 1 year but it falls off after that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just quickly address two 
points in connection with the budget that is under consideration this 
morning.
  The first is agriculture. I am very concerned. We have had hearings, 
we have had a great deal of criticism of the Clinton administration for 
reducing the Farm Service Agency personnel in the field offices, 750 
people cut. This is really unacceptable, but I am very concerned that 
the Republican budget has yet a further cut in discretionary 
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture. It will be very 
difficult to not only restore these 750 people with this type of a cut 
but I fear it will lead to even greater cuts which, on a bipartisan 
basis, we recognize is really unacceptable.
  So I rise to urge the Republicans to change the budget, to allow for 
at least constant funding for agriculture so we do not face further 
unacceptable cuts in the Farm Service Agency.
  Finally, I would like to just briefly call attention to the fact that 
the expected surplus on the on-budget is not going to be used to pay 
down on the debt. None of it. I feel it is absolutely imperative that 
in these good times we agree on a bipartisan basis that at least half 
of the on-budget surplus be devoted to reducing the Nation's debt. We 
owe this to our children. When we have good times, it is time to fix 
the roof. When it is raining, it will be much more difficult to reduce 
the debt.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that, as he well 
knows, in our budget resolution that we are going to vote on today 
there is no reduction in employees in the Farm Service Agency.
  We are not going to micromanage what the Agriculture Department does 
in their budget. The House Committee on Agriculture, of which the 
gentleman is a member, along with myself, and he and I work very 
closely on these very issues, is going to make that decision on how we 
manage the budget that is handed to us with the Department of 
Agriculture.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge) for a response.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I know that all of us have worked with the 
USDA, and we know that it has scores of programs. And we have heard 
from our constituents that they want increases in all of these 
programs.
  I do not understand how we can both maintain the staffing level at 
the Farm Service Agency and still honor the request that we have for 
all of the other programs. I fear by making an across-the-board cut at 
USDA, that the Farm Service Agency, just like everything else, will be 
the victim of this cut. And I do not see how we can expect the 
administration to do any better by FSA with this type of limitation.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I want to address one other issue with 
respect to agriculture, because this is critical.
  The President talked a lot, when he came here in this very House in 
his State of the Union address, about crop insurance reform, something 
that is so desperately needed by our farmers. Yet in his budget he 
provided zero dollars for crop insurance reform.
  In our budget that we are going to vote on today we are providing $6 
billion for crop insurance reform, in addition to what we currently 
have, to be used over the next 5 years to truly come up with a 
meaningful, sustainable crop insurance reform program that is going to 
be of benefit to every single farmer all across this great country.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 8\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, returning to the crop insurance subject, I 
certainly am pleased that the Republican budget does allow $6 billion 
for the first 5 years of the budget cycle, but I would point out that 
it is a 10-year budget and there is nothing for crop insurance in the 
second 5 years that we have been able to identify. And if we contrast 
this with the budgets that were proposed by the Democrats and by the 
Blue Dogs there was, indeed, more adequate and consistent funding for 
crop insurance.
  I feel that if we have a 10-year budget here we have to judge it not 
just on the basis of the first 5 years, but the commitment to crop 
insurance for the second 5 years. If there is not money there for crop 
insurance for the second 5 years, we are in a very bad position.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I am going to focus my attention on the veterans.
  We are going to have a major increase in the defense budget this year 
but not for the veterans. Why? Those are the ones who have served us so 
well and ably over the years and yet we are going to cut them.
  The Republican budget ignores the recommendations of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, it ignores the pleas by nearly every veterans' group 
and it ignores the recommendations of the United States Senate. I might 
share with my colleagues that it has a $2.3 billion below the 1999 
freeze level over a 10-year period.
  After a one-time increase, our veterans will be back to facing 
hospital closures, cutting of medical services, reductions in 
employees, and new initiatives without new funding to pay for them. 
Veterans are only growing older and sicker each year. They cannot 
survive on a flat-lined budget that has been proposed, and they 
certainly cannot survive on a budget that actually cuts their funding.
  This situation is outrageous. Our veterans have served this country 
in the noblest of manners. It is now our obligation and duty to take 
care of them. It is simply unconscionable to deny our veterans the 
funding that they so desperately need now and in the years to come.
  I tell my colleagues where our veterans are going to get hurt: 
screening for hepatitis C, rising pharmaceutical costs, and we could go 
on and on. This is not fair. This is not right. Vote ``no''.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to what 
was just said.
  I would just point out that in the budget next year, the budget that 
we actually spend, we add $1.1 billion more than the President, and 
then when we added what the Senate did, we added another $700 million.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I ask the 
gentleman from Connecticut why does the Republican budget, in Function 
950, not provide for the pay table reform, the 5.5 percent increase for 
our senior NCOs and selected junior officers? And why does it not 
provide for a reform of REDUC, so that those service members who have 
served 20 years will get 50 percent of their base pay in retirement as 
opposed to 40 percent?
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to explain to my colleague, 
but

[[Page H1992]]

we are going to have a disagreement because we think we have provided 
the money in 950, the gentleman does not, and time will tell.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond that the numbers do not bear the gentleman's statement out.
  And I would just like to go down the list again, looking at this 
budget, of the things that are literally cut. We are not talking about 
reductions in current services, we are not talking about reducing the 
rate of increase. Over 10 years, we have just heard the veterans' 
function, Function 700 in this budget, is cut by $2.3 billion. That is 
below a hard freeze, below 1999 levels, even though, as we have been 
told, the World War II veterans are reaching the peak demand for 
services on the Veterans Administration.
  Agriculture, Function 350, over 10 years is cut by $4.9 billion. In 
that second 5-year period of time, to sustain the crop insurance 
program, we will need $9.4 billion. We put together a budget that 
provided that $9.4 billion, still provided for tax cuts, still provided 
for more debt reduction, and sustained the crop insurance program for 
the full 10-year period.
  Health, research and public health, two vitally important programs, 
Function 550 of the budget, they are cut by a whopping $25.3 billion 
below a hard freeze, below 1999 levels in this budget.
  The same goes on for other programs. If we take all State, local and 
regional government programs, which is Function 450, there is a cut of 
46.4 percent.
  But there is another cut in this budget, a huge cut. In fact, this 
budget sets a record, Mr. Speaker. Many of these cuts that are destined 
to happen because of this budget are not identified. They are just 
aggregate cuts in the authorized amount of spending.
  In order to avoid specific criticism, there is an account called 
allowances, Function 920 of the budget. In that account, over 10 years, 
this budget contains $81.4 billion. In other words, that is $81.4 
billion in cuts they have not even identified to any of the 20 
functions in the budget. $81.4 billion is a record high for an addition 
to a budget. That means we have not done the work. Somebody else is 
going to have to do it.
  But there is bad news in store for all of these other programs which 
are already cut below a hard freeze, below 1999 levels. Veterans, 
agriculture, environment and natural resources, health research, 
biomedical research, all of these portions of the budget are still 
subject to a whopping $81.4 billion reduction which has not yet been 
identified or allocated over the next 10 years, Mr. Speaker.
  There is a different way to do it. The Republicans, whenever they 
want to criticize the budget, bring up the President's budget. They do 
not acknowledge that we had an alternative budget here on the floor. We 
had a Democratic alternative. We took all of the Social Security money 
and recommitted it to Social Security with a lock box that was built 
into law, not some point of order.
  We are stretching everybody's credulity by calling a lock box a 
simple point of order, which the Committee on Rules can mow right over, 
and does every day of the week.
  Even though we fully provided for Social Security, and the actuaries 
said we had extended its life until past 2050, we also provided $502.5 
billion more for defense and nondefense discretionary programs than the 
Republicans provided. We targeted tax cuts, gross tax cuts of $165 
billion, over the next 10 years. We generated higher surpluses and, 
therefore, we paid off more debt than the Republicans. Not over 10 
years, but every year over 10 years; every year over the next 10 years, 
totaling $151 billion more in debt reduction.
  We had that alternative. We could have at least put our alternative 
on the table in a conference and said, where can we meet in the middle, 
because we have got here a better product, we think. We did not have 
that kind of conference.

                              {time}  1300

  We did not have that kind of comparison and compromise, and what we 
have got here is a budget that is deficient in the process by which it 
has been developed and deficient in substance, as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I think what we are seeing here 
today is two visions, two visions for our country that we are 
presenting to the American people, the President's vision as he 
articulated in the well of the House of Representatives during the 
State of the Union address and the vision we have embodied in this 
budget here before us, and I would like to recap what that vision is.
  First, we lock away the entire Social Security Trust Fund to save, 
strengthen and preserve Social Security as necessary and Medicare, as 
well. The other side's budget adds more IOUs in the Trust Fund and that 
is their answer to Social Security solvency.
  We could save Social Security to the year 3000 if we just wanted to 
add more IOUs in the Trust Fund, and that is essentially what they are 
doing. We need real reform, not IOUs.
  Second, we set aside more money than the President does for Social 
Security and Medicare by $100 billion. We create a safety deposit box 
to make sure that future raids on Social Security do not occur. We pay 
down more debt with our budget than the President does. By $450 
billion, we start paying down our national debt. We maintain the 
spending discipline of the 1997 budget agreement. We provide additional 
resources to properly train, equip, and retain the men and women in our 
uniform, and we enact the historic tax relief for working Americans.
  What we achieve is this: We stop the raid on Social Security. All 
Social Security dollars go to Social Security. We pay down our national 
debt. The President increases it. And if after we accomplish that they 
still overpay their income tax, we let them have their money back.
  What this is coming down to is a difference in philosophy. The 
President embodied the philosophy as he put in his budget very well in 
Buffalo, New York, 2 months ago when talking about the these surpluses, 
where he said we could give this money back to them but we would not be 
sure that they would spend it right.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, therein lies the difference. How they spend their 
money is the right way to spend their money as long as they spend their 
money. But what we have to achieve and the historic reforms we are 
achieving in this budget is for the first time in a generation we are 
going to stop Congress and the President from raiding Social Security, 
we are going to start to pay off our bills by paying down our debt. And 
then after that, if they still overpay their taxes, they ought to have 
their money back.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Vote for this budget and we will vote to reverse the priorities we 
set on this floor just 2 days ago. We said that we should save Social 
Security first, we should shore up Medicare for some years to come, we 
should do this first before we address tax cuts. We did not rule out 
tax cuts. We said these things came first.
  Two days ago, 380 Members of the House voted for that. Today if we 
vote for this resolution we vote to reverse it. We will vote to put 
those programs at risk because the tax cuts that are proposed in this 
resolution will drain the budget dry of anything that can be used to 
fix Social Security and fix Medicare.
  Even worse, if these surpluses that we see now, which are no more 
than economist constructs, do not obtain, if they do not materialize, 
then we will be spending Social Security payroll taxes because there 
will not be enough income taxes to fund the budget we have got right 
here.
  So this is a reversal. This is a retreat. This goes down the path 
that we took years ago and have tried to reverse and correct for the 
last 10 years. It would be a sham and a shame if we passed a budget of 
this kind. And, in fact, we will not. We will pass it, of course, but 
this budget is not going to be the operative document that determines 
the budget for this year, fortunately, because it is simply not a 
workable instrument of policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, to close this debate, I yield such time as he

[[Page H1993]]

may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of 
the committee, who in 1989 started saying we need to get our country's 
financial house in order and end these deficits, and that is what he 
has done.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich) is recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that it is one of my 
staff people just kind of whispered at me that this is the last budget 
of the century and this represents the blueprint for what we want to do 
as we head into the next century and a whole new millennium.
  We have struggled here on Capitol Hill for some short period of time 
in how to deal with the issue of the surplus. And somebody yesterday 
argued that, well, it is amazing that when we had deficits it seemed as 
though we could get along better than when we had surpluses, there 
seems to be more debate and discussion and argument. And somebody said, 
well, that is not surprising because whenever somebody passes away and 
there are debts, nobody shows up to try to figure out how to deal with 
those; but when there is a lot of extra money to be passed on, 
everybody shows up and starts to fight for it. And I think it is really 
true.
  But we should not look at surplus politics as anything other than the 
greatest news, because instead of having to keep working to dig 
ourselves out of a hole, we now have the opportunity to be able to use 
all of that hard work and the benefits that came with it, which is an 
expanding economy and big surpluses, to be able to really outline a 
path for where we need to go in the early stages of the next century.
  First and foremost, we know that in the next century we do not want 
to pursue policies that allow government to get bigger and to have more 
power. I think that is the greatest bottom line statement that we make 
as we leave this century, and it is clearly a reflection of what 
everyday people across this country are saying. Because I think what 
people are saying in America today is they would like to have more 
power and more control over the future and they do not want to 
consistently be frustrated by those in a faraway place who seem to be 
able to write the rules and the regulations that frustrate them every 
day.
  I think what Americans are saying is, let me have the bat in my hand, 
let me get up to the plate, let me begin to solve some of the problems 
that I have that I am going to face during the course of my lifetime.
  So the one clear guiding star in this process is not to expand the 
power of people who live in a faraway place but, rather, to struggle to 
take power from those folks and put it back into the hands of everyday 
people.
  I am a little mystified at the criticism of that product. I guess it 
is just the nature sometimes of partisan politics. We did come together 
in 1997 and come up with a budget agreement and I would salute my 
colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his work in reaching a 
bipartisan agreement. But what we are doing here now is something that 
we have all laid out as a goal and a target for ourselves.
  Number one, that we would stop raiding the payroll taxes of this 
country, that we would stop spending the money that we collect to be 
used for our retirement programs to be spent on the operation of 
Government. And, in fact, this budget does that. It locks up $1.8 
trillion in payroll taxes over the next 10 years and makes that money 
available for a revamped, for a transformed retirement system, both for 
Social Security and Medicare. And it will essentially mean that every 
American is going to have a little bit more control in terms of 
planning for their retirement rather than turning that control over to 
people who live in a place where they do not even know what area code 
it is that we live in or what time zone we live in.
  We are going to set the stage for significant transfer of power from 
people who do not understand us, do not know us, who are strangers, who 
are the least concerned about our retirement, into our own hands so we 
can plan for our own families who are the most concerned about our 
retirement years and, at the same time, we are also going to transfer 
this huge overpayment that the taxpayers have made to the Federal 
Government.

  Income tax day is tomorrow. Whenever people look at paying their 
income taxes, there are two, three things I think drive them crazy. One 
is they cannot figure out how to pay their tax. The system is too 
complicated. They have got to spend money to hire somebody to figure it 
out. We know that this system clearly needs to be made more simple and 
will be when we have a president that is committed to it.
  But secondly, people are not only confused and angry about the 
current tax system, but then they are paying too much of what they earn 
to the Government. We have families now who are being hit by the 
alternative minimum tax, couples out there working trying to get ahead 
educating their children. They get hit by the alternative minimum tax.
  Some Americans at all levels of government are paying half of what 
they earn to the Government. It should not be that way, 50 percent of 
what they earn to government. Because on top of all of that, none of us 
have the confidence that the Government is treating our money as 
preciously as we treat our own. They are convinced, and they are right, 
that the Government at the State level, the local government, and 
Federal Government are full of duplication, it is full of waste.
  And we really do not treat people's money like it is our own. 
Frankly, human nature does not allow us to do it. Does it? But when we 
take the combination of a confusing tax system, too high taxes, and 
taxes we pay going for things that are wasteful, people are very 
uptight about that.
  We are giving them an opportunity to get the biggest tax cut back 
while maintaining the fiscal discipline we laid in place in 1997, save 
Social Security, return power to people through a huge tax cut, and 
maintain fiscal discipline. It is a recipe for success in the next 
century.
  Support the resolution.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. 
Res. 68, the Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 2000 Budget 
Resolution. This resolution should be defeated because of the policies 
it sets forth and the procedure under which it was brought to the floor 
today.
  Last year, for the first time since Congressional budget procedures 
were established in 1974, this body failed to adopt a conference report 
on the budget resolution. This year, the conference report was 
completed almost before the conferees were even appointed and the first 
opportunity the minority had to read the conference report was 12:30 
this morning.
  The budget resolution is a blueprint for our national priorities. It 
defines what we as a Congress believe is important and establishes the 
basis for the rest of our work this session. Questions of how much we 
are willing to spend to educate our children, to fight crime, to 
protect our environment, to reduce the massive national debt--these are 
the hard questions we should be deciding and we owe it to our 
constituents to have an open and rigorous debate on these issues. 
Instead, today we are poised to rubber-stamp a conference agreement 
that no one has had adequate opportunity to study and whose broad 
objectives set us on a dangerous path of fiscal irresponsibility.
  Today, our Nation's economy is the envy of the world. We have 
historically low unemployment and inflation coupled with sustained 
moderate economic growth. The stock market is at record levels and even 
our economic experts are at a lost to explain how this expansion has 
continued for eight years with no signs of weakness. The question we 
face today is whether we will take advantage of this unprecedented 
growth to pay off past obligations and prepare for the future or simply 
squander this opportunity by putting tax cuts first, ahead of paying 
down the debt and ensuring the solvency of Social Security and 
Medicare.
  My view, echoed in testimony by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 
Greenspan, is that we should dedicate the lion's share of the budget 
surpluses to reducing the publicly held debt. This is the surest way to 
continue the cycle of economic growth and continuing surpluses. 
Furthermore, as we pay down the debt, interest rates will continue to 
decline. Consider what a two percent reduction in interest rates would 
mean for the average homeowner in my home town: By reducing the 30-year 
fixed rate mortgage from 8% to 6% on a $115,000 house in Hillsborough 
County, Florida, a homeowner's monthly mortgage would drop from $844 to 
$689. This translates into savings of $155 each month or $1,860 each 
year. That is more substantial and more fiscally responsible than the 
tax cuts proposed by this conference report. Unfortunately, the 
Democratic Alternative which would have locked in

[[Page H1994]]

greater debt reduction than this plan was rejected in Committee and on 
the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, the question today is not simply whether we are for or 
against tax cuts. The question is what priority we should place on 
cutting taxes compared with paying down the debt and preserving Social 
Security and Medicare. Personally, I support targeted tax cuts; 
however, I believe we must maintain fiscal discipline and prepare for 
the coming demographic changes of the baby boomers' retirement. Once we 
have address these critical issues, then we should consider tax cuts, 
or even more importantly, overall tax reform. Instead, today, this 
House is poised to squander a golden opportunity and embrace a plan 
which puts its greatest emphasis on tax cuts. This is not the legacy we 
should leave for future generations and I therefore urge my colleagues 
to reject this conference report.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 68, 
the FY 2000 Budget Conference Report.
  For the first time in over a generation this country is operating 
with a budget surplus. The fact is, this surplus is nothing more than 
an overpayment to the government by the American taxpayers. I am 
convinced that government can do more for Americans than raise their 
taxes and feed the federal bureaucracy. The FY 2000 budget will offer 
$15 billion for tax relief in the year 2000 and over $800 billion over 
the next 10 years. Families can spend their money better than 
Washington can. This money belongs to the American people and we should 
give it back to them.
  Mr. Speaker, our budget goes well beyond extending tax relief to 
American families. In fact it protects and strengthens Social Security 
for the next century. While the President talks about saving Social 
Security, the truth is 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, that's $1.8 trillion 
worth of retirement security for Americans. We have all paid into the 
Social Security trust fund with the promise that it will be there for 
us when we retire. Today, we have an historic opportunity to keep that 
promise and protect Social Security.
  This FY 2000 Budget also increases spending for our military by over 
$288 billion. Our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line 
to protect our freedoms. We must provide them with the tools and 
training necessary to remain the greatest fighting force in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, the American public has waited long enough for relief 
from big government spending. Let's pass this historic budget for the 
new millennium and keep our promises to the citizens of this country.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, the Budget Resolution is an opportunity 
for our nation to finally put the Social Security surplus in a lock box 
solely for seniors on Social Security and Medicare. The budget 
resolution also reflects our commitment to education, a strong national 
defense and much-needed tax relief.
  Congress promised to balance the budget, reduce the size of 
government, and reduce the federal debt. This budget resolution, H. 
Con. Res. 68, sticks to that promise by restraining government spending 
and paying down the debt.
  Every penny in the Social Security trust fund, 100% of it, is being 
set aside for retiring Americans. The President's budget, on the other 
hand only sets aside 62% of the surplus for seniors. Only by committing 
100% of the surplus can we truly strengthen Social Security for future 
generations.
  The budget will also give our children's schools the resources to 
ensure them a better education and bright future. We increase spending 
to improve public schools.
  It will also provide billions to strengthen our national defense, 
equipping and training our troops for combat while honoring our 
veterans' sacrifices with a boost in health care funding.
  Finally, this budget gives the record-setting money coming into 
Washington back to those who earned it--the taxpayers. For the first 
time in decades, we have surpluses as far as the eye can see. Every 
hard-working American created the current surplus and the budget gives 
it back to them over the next ten years.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Budget 
Resolution for FY 2000. There are many reasons why we should oppose 
this Resolution, and one of the major reasons is what it does to our 
nation's veterans. The budget figures for veterans are completely 
unacceptable especially in the area of health care.
  Under the Budget Resolution, the Republicans who have been 
criticizing for weeks the President's budget, have done no better--the 
VA health care system is drastically underfunded and in danger of 
actual collapse. This is a drastic problem which demands serious, 
substantial solutions.
  What I think is worst about the Budget Resolution, as it affects 
veterans, is the disingenuous manner in which it is crafted. In FY2000, 
the budget outlay increases for the discretionary budget where VA 
health care is funded, from $19.2 to $20.9 billion--a seemingly 
significant increase. But if you look beyond 2000, it immediately drops 
to $19.1 billion, then to $19 billion, then to $18.9 billion. How can 
we maintain health care for our increasingly older veteran population 
with shrinking numbers?
  We need more funds, not less, to reverse the trend of decimating 
psychiatric, substance abuse and other mental health problems. We need 
to increase long-term care to increase the options for our growing 
population of elderly veterans. We need to eliminate the practice of 
discharging veterans who are Alzheimer's patients. New health care 
initiatives for veterans suffering from Hepatitis C-related illnesses 
have been proposed, with no new dollars to pay for them. We will be 
unable to absorb the additional Persian Gulf War veterans who will be 
eligible for health care under a new law.
  I have carefully studied the Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2000, 
a comprehensive policy document created by veterans for veterans and 
endorsed by over 50 veterans' service organizations. In this budget, I 
sense an urgency and frustration that I've not heard before. America's 
veterans are telling us that they have done more than their fair 
share--and now they expect us to be their advocates. They are reminding 
us that America is safe and free only because of the generations of men 
and women who willingly endured the hardships and sacrifices required 
to preserve our liberty.
  For many, many years, America's veterans have been good soldiers. 
They have done their duty and been conscientious, responsible citizens. 
Every time the Veteran's Affairs Committee was handed a reconciliation 
target, it met that target. Billions of veterans' dollars have been 
handed over in order to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit. 
Time and time again, America's veterans answered their nation's call. 
The country needed their support, and America's veterans gave all that 
they could give.
  Well, the budget deficit has been eliminated. That battle has been 
won. I believe that this year, it is time for America's veterans to 
come first. We, as a nation, owe them that.
  It is the duty of Congress to pass a responsible budget and to do so, 
we must lift the VA budget cap in order to provide a budget that is 
worthy of our veterans.
  The United States and the freedom our country represents around the 
world have persisted and flourished because of the sacrifices of our 
veterans. We must remember the men and women who made those sacrifices 
as we vote on the budget for veterans.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the validation of this conference report, which includes in it the 
details of the Budget Resolution passed just a few weeks ago by the 
Republicans.
  At that time I spoke vigorously against the Budget Resolution because 
I felt it shortchanged the American people. Also at that time, I spoke 
in favor of the Democratic Budget, offered by Ranking Member Spratt 
because it was a responsible budget done right. Thereafter, when this 
resolution once again came before us as it was sent to conference, I 
supported Ranking Member Spratt's motion to instruct the conferees to 
hold off on their submission of the report until we had passed 
legislation addressing the concerns of our party, and of most 
Americans--in this case, preserving and extending the life of Social 
Security and Medicare. I go over this litany of details not to open old 
wounds, but rather to demonstrate and testify to the American people 
that the Republicans have had multiple opportunities to save Social 
Security and Medicare--and each time they turned away.
  As I vote to strike down this report, I do so only with the well-
being of our constituents in mind. I know that we should be approving a 
budget that protects the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds by 
putting money back into those accounts. It should be a budget that will 
maintain our current Social Security and Medicare benefits, and extend 
their lives until decades from now, so that Americans will be able to 
take advantage of them. This is especially true for women, because due 
to their longer life expectancy, they must rely on Social Security and 
Medicare longer than most men.
  I know that we should be appropriating the proper resources to 
modernize, and some would say revitalize, our public schools. This 
budget does the opposite; in fact, it reduces our domestic spending on 
programs that protect the interest of our children. This budget 
jeopardizes the well being of successful programs by taking 425 million 
dollars from WIC, and 501 million dollars from Head Start. 
Nevertheless, in this budget most of that money--800 million dollars of 
it--goes instead to tax cuts for the wealthy.
  I know that what we should be doing at this time is authorizing a 
budget that will protect America's families. It should be a budget that

[[Page H1995]]

fully funds the Summer Youth Employment Program, which is cut by over 
90 million dollars. It could be a budget that saves the Community 
Development Block Grant Program the indignity of a 50-million-dollar 
cut.
  This budget could be more, it could address the needs of our 
veterans. We could have and should have passed the Spratt Amendment, 
which would have added an additional nine billion dollars for veterans 
programs. We should be voting to pass a budget that fully funds LIHEAP, 
which provides for necessary heating and cooling for low-income 
families in times of extreme weather. LIHEAP literally saved lives in 
my district last summer, and I intend to do what I can to ensure that 
it is fully funded every year that I serve in Congress.
  I had hoped that during Conference, that we would have seen drastic 
improvements in this resolution. Improvements that could have been done 
in a bipartisan and responsible manner. I had hoped that my colleagues 
across the aisle could be more persuaded by the dedication of 
Congressmen Spratt and McDermott. I desperately wanted to take home to 
my district a budget that respected our children, our families, our 
veterans, and our elderly--and I still hope to do so.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference 
report, and instead work with us to forge a new budget that will grow 
America into the 21st century.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report and to express my appreciation for all the consideration given 
to veterans' health care funding by the conferees.
  The conference report provides the entire amount recommended by the 
majority of the VA Committee for veterans health care--a $1.7 billion 
increase over the amount recommended by the President in his budget.
  This funding level is supported by many veterans organizations and 
military associations, including: The American Legion, The Jewish War 
Veterans, Gold Star Wives, Non Commissioned Officers Association, and 
The Retired Officers Association.
  Some Members advocated even higher funding levels.
  But in an arena that is traditionally as partisan as the Budget 
Committee, it was the realistic recommendations of the VA Committee 
that ultimately became the standard for both Democratic and Republican 
budget proposals in the House.
  I know that there is already some criticism of the conference report 
because the outyear spending levels for veterans don't match the levels 
for next year.
  But I want to assure my colleagues that there is little doubt that we 
will provide even higher funding levels next year.
  I also want to assure VA health care administrators that they can 
count on us to provide the necessary funding to sustain the health care 
services which an increasing number of veterans are seeking from the 
VA.
  The chairman of the House Budget Committee, the gentleman from Ohio, 
Mr. Kasich, has given me his word that we'll take a fresh look at the 
funding needs next year.
  Now it is time for Members to realize how difficult it will be for 
the Appropriations Committee to achieve this spending level for VA 
health care.
  I hope we can all work together to protect this budget for veterans 
from competing spending interests favored by the Clinton-Gore 
Administration.
  If VA continues to provide health care effectively and with greater 
efficiency, I have no doubt that the funding level contained in this 
resolution for fiscal year 2000 will be continued.
  Again, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senate 
Chairman, Senator Domenici, and all the Members of the Budget Committee 
who have worked so hard to address veterans' needs this year.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference 
agreement on House Concurrent Resolution 68, the budget resolution for 
next fiscal year. This conference agreement, like the budget passed 
earlier by this house, fails to provide adequate resources needed to 
maintain and improve programs established by this Congress to serve our 
nation's veterans, their dependents and survivors.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle pronounced the 
administration's proposed budget next year for veterans to be 
underfunded by at least $2 billion and possibly more. The chairman of 
our committee, the gentleman from Arizona, who strongly opposes 
unwarranted spending, recommended an increase of $1.9 billion over the 
Administration's proposed funding level. The Chairman's recommendation 
is a clear and unmistakable signal of the funding crisis in veterans' 
programs and benefits.
  While this conference agreement appears at first glance to begin to 
address the funding crisis in veterans' programs and benefits, this 
budget resolution is really nothing more than a wolf in sheep's 
clothing. Unbelievable to our nation's veterans, this budget resolution 
cuts discretionary spending, which primarily provides veterans' health 
care, by $1.4 billion dollars in fiscal year 2001 compared to next 
fiscal year. Veterans across America will wonder what is put in the 
water in Washington. This budget resolution is a blueprint for 
destroying veterans' benefits and programs. This budget resolution must 
be rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 208, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 85]

                               YEAS--220

     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
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     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
     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)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     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
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     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)
     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
     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

[[Page H1996]]


     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     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
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     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--6

     Davis (IL)
     Hastings (FL)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Shows
     Thomas

                              {time}  1332

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. WYNN and Mr. COYNE changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 85, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 85 on the conference 
report on H. Con. Res. 68, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________