[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.''
____________________