[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 28, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8896-H8908]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 305 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 305

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68) 
     making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, 
     and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from South Boston, Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley), my very good and hard working and overworked friend; 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time that I will be yielding 
will, as usual, be for debate purposes only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.J. 
Res. 68, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2000. The 
rule waives all points of order against consideration of the resolution 
and provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. The rule provides for one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, for 5 years, Republicans in Congress have repeatedly 
made the tough decisions necessary to get our Nation's fiscal house in 
order. The hard work of American taxpayers, combined with our 
commitment to spend their money wisely, has resulted in the first 2-
year budget surplus since the 1950s.
  I am very proud to say that our victory over irresponsible spending 
has been so overwhelming that maintaining a balanced budget is now a 
priority, not only for Republicans, but for the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) and other Members on the other side of the aisle who join with 
us in our quest for maintaining balanced budgets.
  Now it is time for us to take the next step and live up to the 
contract that we have made with America's voters. People will say it 
cannot be done. People will claim that we are threatening our important 
national needs. I happen to disagree with that assertion.

                              {time}  1230

  We cannot lose sight of the fact that the $1.7 trillion budget for 
fiscal year 2000 is the largest amount of Federal spending that we have 
ever had.
  I do not believe that the unexpected tax revenue coming from 
hardworking Americans is a windfall given to the President and those of 
us in Congress to spend on nice-sounding, poll-tested programs.
  First and foremost, our budget decisions should be made after we set 
aside the Social Security surplus, and we just had that debate on this 
resolution, which is obviously key to providing long-term retirement 
security to millions of Americans. Just like with balancing the budget, 
this will require hard work and fiscal discipline.
  So far, under the very able leadership of the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), who is sitting here to my right, the House and the other 
body have each passed 12 out of the 13 appropriations bills. One bill, 
as we know, has already been signed into law, and we hope to have eight 
more ready for the President's signature before the fiscal year ends on 
Thursday. I guess we already do have three that are over on the 
President's desk right now we are hoping that he will sign, although I 
guess we have heard he is scheduled to veto one of them today.
  The bottom line is that we are committed to getting the 
appropriations work done right here in the Congress. And I think, 
again, that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has done a superb 
job in this effort. This continuing resolution will allow the Federal 
Government to continue its normal operations while we meet that goal 
that we are pursuing.
  Now, it should go without saying that continuing resolutions like the 
one we are going to be considering here, as soon as we report out this 
rule, are a normal part of the annual budget process. As my friend, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), knows very well, when they 
were in the majority, it was routine for many appropriations agreements 
to get hammered out with the President during the month of October.
  While we work in a bipartisan effort to wrap up the appropriations 
bills just as soon as possible, we on this side of the aisle remain 
focused on our Nation's top priorities: Saving Social Security and 
Medicare, which, again, was discussed in the last resolution we just 
had with us; restoring our Nation's defense posture; improving public 
education; and providing tax relief for working Americans.
  We are making real progress on these fronts, passing the Social 
Security lockbox, the National Ballistic Missile Defense Act, the 
Education Flexibility Act, and the Teacher Empowerment Act. Although 
the President chose to veto the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act, we 
remain committed to providing meaningful tax relief to the people who 
have, in fact, created this anticipated $3.4 trillion surplus.
  Completing the appropriations process is more than just an accounting 
procedure. Throughout this process, we need to keep our broader 
priorities in mind. I am very confident that H.J. Res. 68 will give us 
the time to get that job done within the next 3 weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague and dear friend, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Every single year as October 
approaches, my

[[Page H8897]]

Republican colleagues remember they were supposed to be passing 
appropriation bills in order to keep the government open for business. 
And every single year, we pass continuing resolutions to keep these 
things going until they can finish the one responsibility that they are 
given, and that is just passing the appropriation bills.
  Now, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has done an outstanding 
job, but there are just things that are beyond his control. This new 
fiscal year will start in only 3 days, and just like the past few 
years, the appropriation bills are not finished. In order to keep the 
Federal Government open for business, Congress must either pass nine 
more appropriation bills that the President can sign by October 1, or 
pass this continuing resolution.
  I would hope the bills would be finished on time. The gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker, said they would be finished at the 
end of the summer. Then, on CNN-Late Edition on September 19, he said 
they would be finished on time. Today, September 28, the fiscal year is 
3 days away and one appropriations bill has not even been reported out 
of committee. There still are nine unfinished appropriations bills, and 
getting them done even by the time this continuing resolution expires 
is going to be a very tall order.
  In addition to breaking the promise to finish the appropriations 
bills on time, my Republican colleagues have broken a promise not to 
raid the Social Security Trust Fund. According to the Congressional 
Budget Office, not according to me or the Democratic party, the 
Congressional Budget Office, the House has already spent the $14 
billion budget surplus plus an additional $16 billion of the Social 
Security surplus.
  And they are only getting started, Mr. Speaker. They have outlined 
plans to pass supplemental appropriations bills of over $10 billion. 
And where will that money come from? It will come from the Social 
Security surplus.
  Once upon a time, my Republican colleagues promised to keep 
congressional spending under budget caps. They promised to make 
whatever cuts they needed to stay within the spending outlines that 
they themselves had set. Now, 3 days before the end of the fiscal year, 
the promises of cuts have fallen by the wayside.
  They are pretending to stay within the caps by using gimmicks like 
emergency spending and forward funding; treating the census, which 
occurs every 10 years like clockwork, as emergency spending; treating 
low-income home energy heating as emergency spending. Hello, George 
Orwell, here we are.
  Still, Mr. Speaker, broken promises aside, we need to prevent another 
government shutdown. And the only way we can make sure this does not 
happen is we have to pass this resolution. Once we do that, I hope my 
colleagues will get serious about passing the remaining nine bills. And 
I hope that they will pass bills that respond to the American people, 
that the President can sign, rather than respond to special interests 
that the President is sure to veto.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to act responsibly. It is time to get this 
work done.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that I am happy to associate myself 
with many of the comments just made by my friend from South Boston. 
And, frankly, the one with which I am most proud to associate myself is 
his strong praise of the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time, and I want to compliment him and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for the drill that they experienced 
yesterday in the changing times on their schedule and the interruption 
during the hearing last night. But they have, as usual, done a very 
good job.
  I will not take any time other than to say there is no reason not to 
pass this rule. Everyone pretty much agrees on the resolution that we 
will be presenting here in just a few minutes.
  So, Mr. Speaker, again I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) for the outstanding job he does as chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, and just suggest that we move this rule and get 
on with the continuing resolution, because some of us have conference 
committees to attend today, and we need to get busy finalizing the last 
few bills that are out there.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman who chaired the Committee on 
Appropriations the only time it finished the appropriations bills on 
time in 40 years.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say there is nothing new about 
the Congress not finishing its appropriations bills on time. That has 
happened many times, and it will undoubtedly happen again in the 
future. My concern is not so much that all of the bills have not been 
finished, my concern is the mind-set which has led us to this 
situation. And that mind-set can be revealed by describing what 
happened to the appropriations bills over the last 8 months.
  First, this House spent 3 months trying to impeach the President of 
the United States. It then spent the next 8 months trying to pass a 
huge tax package, which would have prevented us from putting one 
additional dime into Social Security, into Medicare, and the like. It 
has, today, just debated a resolution which says we pledge not to spend 
one dime of the Social Security surplus at the very moment that papers 
are being circulated for the agriculture conference report which adds 
$700 million to the appropriations bill in the form of so-called 
emergency spending which will raise to well over $20 billion the amount 
of money that has already been spent by this House out of the Social 
Security surplus.
  Then we have one other complicating factor. Seven times the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young) and the Republican majority on the committee 
worked in cooperation with the Democratic minority to produce bills 
which were bipartisan and signable. And each time he was cut off at the 
pass by the militant elements of his own caucus which said, no way, 
Jose, we do not want that kind of coalition that can pass these bills 
with a coalition of the great middle, a majority of the people on both 
sides or in both parties. Instead, we want 13 bills which reflect only 
our vision of what this country ought to look like. And so they turned 
seven bipartisan bills into seven partisan war zones. And, as a 
consequence, we now sit here with only less than 5 percent of the total 
Federal budget completed by both Houses.
  I do not for one moment blame the Republican majority on the 
Committee on Appropriations for this situation. I do blame a mind-set 
which has allowed the appropriations process to be hijacked by a 
militant element within the majority party caucus which says our way or 
no way time and time and time again, and leaves us in a situation today 
where we are still, in my judgment, months away from having a real 
compromise between the White House and between both parties in this 
Congress.
  In the end, the right people will learn one essential fact; that 
appropriations bills cannot be passed solely on one side of the aisle. 
In the end, they will recognize what virtually every Member of Congress 
has learned before them; that in order to pass appropriations bills, we 
must have coalitions made up of Members of both parties. Because those 
bills are too complicated and deal with too many conflicting concerns 
and values to do otherwise.
  So that is the reality we face here today. We have a 3-week CR which 
will keep the government open for another 3 weeks. The question is 
whether in that time people will really get serious about passing 
bipartisan appropriations or whether they will continue the policy of 
confrontation and the other fictions attendant to the debate that took 
place in this House just a few minutes ago.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations or the Committee on the Budget, and seldom 
do I come to the floor to speak on appropriations or budget matters. 
And I would not be here this afternoon but

[[Page H8898]]

for the fact that I was sitting in my office watching the debate on the 
previous resolution that was passed. And that resolution was one where 
we are pledging to not spend any of the Social Security surplus in this 
year's appropriations process when I know full well that the 
appropriations bills that are on the table now have already done that.

                              {time}  1245

  And so one of the Members asked the question, Well, what harm does 
this resolution do? And I just could not sit there any longer and be 
quiet in the face of absolute dishonesty with the American people. If 
there is one thing we have an obligation to do, it seems to me, is to 
at least say to the American people the truth about what we are doing. 
Otherwise, this House and every Member of this House loses integrity.
  It seems to me that, while this may not be germane to the rule that 
we are debating now or to the appropriations bills that will be coming 
forward, certainly we should be honest with the American people and 
tell them the truth about what we are doing.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, every October, without fail, the end of the 
fiscal year arrives. Yet, ever since taking control of the House, the 
Republican leadership has failed to meet this October 1 inevitable 
dateline, this deadline. Every 12 months there is an October 1.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not have enough time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield time to the gentlewoman. 
I will just say that that just is not an accurate statement because we 
have in fact been able to meet the deadline.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this is my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the gentlewoman an 
additional minute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for an additional minute.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, so every year October 1 comes along, every 
12 months.
  So while my Republican colleagues are running around trying to take 
care of the fiscal logjam they have again created, I want to know and 
we have to ask ourselves, all of us, when we do this, who is taking 
care of our children? Where is today's rule for our children?
  Our children do not need political posturing. They do not need budget 
schemes on Capitol Hill. They need more funding for education. They 
need quality, accessible health care. And they need the surplus 
invested in Social Security and Medicare. And most of all, they need 
our national debt to be paid down so that we will protect their future, 
and they need it now.
  So again I ask my Republican colleagues, while they are playing games 
with their future, where is the rule that says our children come first?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), ranking member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I first heard of concurrent resolutions when I worked in 
the Pentagon years ago. I remember the assistant general counsel for 
fiscal matters at the Pentagon, Murray Lamin explaining it this way: 
this is a confession of failure on the part of Congress. Congress is 
saying, in effect, we did not get our job done, so keep spending money 
the way they spent it last year until we catch up with them and tell 
them otherwise.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on the Budget to say, this is no way to make a budget. I 
regret that we have been brought by the majority to this juncture, but 
I have to say it has been clear since last April that this is where we 
were headed.
  The resolution that we passed, the House budget resolution, was 
always unrealistic. We tried to make that point in earnest in the well 
of the House when we took it up last March. We did not succeed. We 
reiterated the same arguments when the tax bill came before us. And we 
said, to accomplish this tax bill, $792 billion, we will have to make 
cuts in discretionary spending that exceeds anything Congress has ever 
done before. It is not realistic. These cuts in the 10th year could 
reach as much as 30 percent across the board in nondefense 
discretionary spending, as much as 50 percent in discretionary spending 
nondefense in the items that could actually be cut. We have never done 
anything like that before.
  So what we have before us right now is a reality test, and it is well 
that it has come, because the reality is that this resolution simply 
will not work. We cannot get it passed. It cannot be implemented. It is 
well that we have this reality test before we locked it in place, 
particularly the tax bill we had before us last August. Because what is 
happening now just foreshadows the budget difficulties that we would 
have every year for the next 10 years, at least, had we passed that tax 
bill premised on deep, unrealistic cuts in discretionary spending.
  The majority keeps telling us, they have since last April, that they 
will not touch Social Security. We all have endeavored to try to 
minimize the amount of money we have taken out of Social Security, and 
each year we have done better and better. But the truth of the matter 
is, the majority all the time, they were repeating this as if it were 
their mantra, every one of their leadership has said it different ways, 
we are not going to take a dime out of Social Security, as they were 
repeating it, they were doing just that.
  As I said earlier on the floor, do not take my word for it. Dan 
Crippen, Director of CBO, confirmed it to me in a letter August 26. As 
of that point, they were already $16 billion in the Social Security 
surplus. Since then because of other spending they are at least $11 
billion more into the Social Security surplus.
  Now, to do what we just did, comply with the resolution we just took 
up and close this budget on those terms, they have got to take at least 
10 of the 13 appropriations bills back up and re-mark those bills. We 
cannot even close the budget as it is. Now we are going to send them 
back, is that what we are proposing to do, did and tell them to take 
$30 billion out of the mark already? It is not realistic.
  We will all vote for this concurrent resolution. Most of us will vote 
for this resolution. But I hope it is not an excuse for more delay and 
more denial. What we need is bipartisan cooperation to close this 
budget on grounds that are fiscally realistic.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the 
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, today we face, as too often we have, an emergency. That 
emergency is that we have not done our work; and, therefore, we must 
pass a continuing resolution to make sure that the Government stays in 
operation.
  This is not the first time that has happened. It has happened under 
the leadership of both Democrats and Republicans. However, we are in a 
unique situation. And the emergency of which I speak is not a concocted 
emergency, as some would call the national census. Nor do we face an 
``emergency,'' as some like in dealing with LIHEAP, the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program.
  One does not have to be a Member of Congress or a meteorologist to 
understand that, come winter, it is going to get cold outside and in 
some places it is hot and we need to fund LIHEAP.
  These are not, however, the real emergencies facing America today. 
They are the contrived kind of gimmicks designed to do nothing more 
than to try to help the majority make its budget add up. The real 
emergency

[[Page H8899]]

we are facing here today is this body's inability to get its work done 
on time.
  Under our Constitution, there is only one major legislative task 
required of Congress, and that is to pass the spending bills that fund 
the basic operations of Government. We will fail to accomplish that 
constitutional duty when the current fiscal year ends at midnight on 
Thursday and the new year begins at 12:01 on Friday.
  I, of course, am for this continuing resolution. I would hasten to 
add that, in my opinion, had the chairman of our committee, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), been leading this effort or, very 
frankly, the chairman of our subcommittees been leading this effort, 
particularly the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, we would not be 
in this position today.
  It is, however, the thoughts of a minority of this House that have 
put us in this position, who, as the ranking member of the Committee on 
the Budget have observed, have demanded that we do unrealistic things 
that the majority of this House will not do, which is why the Labor, 
Health markup was put off at least four times, and now has produced a 
bill which is unrealistic in terms of what the ranking member so 
eloquently pointed out. There is no excuse for that.
  Frankly, I think the 3-week continuing resolution we are considering 
today is too long, but it ought to be passed and the President ought to 
sign it.
  When the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) took the gavel on 
January 6, he said, ``We must get our job done. We have an obligation 
to pass all appropriations bills by this summer.'' We have not done 
that. Not because of the Committee on Appropriations was not able to do 
that, but because this House and the Senate were not able to pass the 
unrealistic demand of a minority of this House.
  Since then, the leaders of the majority party repeatedly have told us 
that their primary goal was to make the trains run on time. Well, we 
all know that that budget process is running about as efficiently as 
the Washington, D.C., area does sometimes during a snowstorm.
  Look at the numbers. To date, the President has signed into law only 
one, only one, of the 13 bills that we are supposed to pass. Two await 
his signature. And a third, the D.C. appropriations bill, clearly is 
going to be vetoed.
  Frankly, let me say on the D.C. bill, everybody knows that that bill 
is going to be vetoed. We went through an exercise to make a social 
point, not a budget point, to make a point on one or more issues and to 
try to embarrass one or more sides. Frankly, we are almost in as bad 
shape as we were in 1995, when the Federal Government shut down, not 
once on November 19, 1995, but twice over the holiday period of 
Christmas and New Year's.
  If my colleagues will remember, back on September 30, 1995, Congress 
had not passed a single spending bill. Over the next 7 months, it took 
15 different legislative measures, 15, to fund the Federal Government 
for fiscal year 1996. The last one, an omnibus appropriations bill, was 
not enacted until April 26, some 8 months, 7-plus months into the 
fiscal year. The fiscal year was almost half over.
  Now that, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, was a real emergency. What the 
American people and more than, frankly, one million Federal employees 
who were furloughed during the two Government shutdowns during 1995 
want to know is this: Is that where we are headed again today?
  Now, I say that in the context of the fact that some people on the 
majority party, not anybody on the Committee on Appropriations are 
saying, we are not going to talk to the President.
  Let me remind my colleagues of an extraordinary speech that Speaker 
Gingrich gave to what he called the perfectionist caucus of his party. 
That is the caucus who said, do it my way or no way, and that led to 
shutdown and no way.
  Speaker Gingrich pointed out, I would remind my friends, that the 
American public have selected Republicans, Democrats, Senators, and a 
President and they expected us to work together, and we cannot work 
together, I say to my friend on the majority side, if you will not talk 
to the coequal branch of Government, headed up by the President of the 
United States.
  Government is the art of compromise. I say ``art'' because it is 
necessary to accomplish the objectives the American public sent us here 
to do. It is necessary to do that to talk to one another.
  I see my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young). I want 
to tell the American public, if the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Young) were in charge, this would not happen. We would be finished with 
most of our work, maybe not all of it, but certainly most of it. And 
the chairman would have sat down with Chairman Stevens and President 
Clinton, maybe not directly, maybe through staff, maybe on the 
telephone, but they would have sat down and they would have said, how 
do we make this work, realizing that nobody is going to get 100 
percent.
  The tragedy, my friends, is that we ought not to be here today 
passing a CR but for the intransigence of some. A minority of this 
House, not the majority, a minority of this House, has tied up these 
bills with unrealistic expectations both from a policy standpoint and 
from a fiscal standpoint. What great news we have for the American 
public in the context of 2 years in a row a budget surplus, the first 
time in 50 years that that has happened, $115 billion surplus that we 
have, and yet we are mired in inability to do our work on time.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding 
me the time. I, obviously, will support this continuing resolution. But 
I will say to my friends in this House that I believe we ought not to 
pass a second resolution 3 weeks from now unless and only if meaningful 
progress and discussions have been made to reach agreement between 
those that the people of the United States have elected, the President, 
the House, and the Senate. We can do our business and we can do it in 
the next 21 days if that willful minority will let us proceed.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the 
comments of my good friend from Maryland, a very important member of 
the Committee on Appropriations. I agree with him that the branches of 
government should communicate with each other. In fact, just a few days 
ago on the conference meeting on the Energy and Water bill, the 
administration had a problem with part of the language, and we invited 
them in to talk about it, and we resolved it in a manner that was 
satisfactory to both branches of government.
  I want to say to my friend who has just left the floor that during 
the meetings that some of us had with the President during the bombing 
war over Kosovo, we met at the White House, and we all had a chance to 
discuss certain things with the President. This was back early in the 
year. On one occasion when the President recognized this Member to make 
whatever comment I wanted to make, I said directly to the President, 
``Mr. President, there are budgetary problems for fiscal year 2000 
because of the 1997 budget agreement that put caps on our spending at 
$17 billion less than it was the year before.'' And I said, ``Mr. 
President, I think it is important for you personally to be engaged in 
this dialogue.'' So I considered that an invitation for the President 
to be involved in the conversations about the budget and about these 
appropriations bills.
  We have made the opening. We made the offer. We made the request of 
the President to get engaged. It was his decision not to do so.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  During the first 7 months of this year in this Republican House, we 
met for a total of 87 days. In those 87 days, the House managed to pass 
a little less than five bills per month that actually have been enacted 
into law. This is significantly less than even the record-setting do-
nothing Republican Congress of the last two years. It is a truly awe-
inspiring record of the Republican

[[Page H8900]]

leadership working so very, very hard to accomplish so very, very 
little.
  There are so many issues out there that demand the attention of this 
Congress: public education quality; health care; the repeated requests 
from all over this country for this Congress to address the matter of 
the rights of those who are in managed health care organizations; the 
requests of our seniors from all over this country to provide a 
mechanism for getting prescription drugs at a reasonable price; the 
desire of so many Americans to see that their private health care 
records that contain confidential information that should be just 
between them and their health care provider, but they see this 
information spread out across the Internet and shared with others, 
those privacy rights, very, very great concern. Certainly the question 
with health care, even a more modest bill but vitally important to many 
American citizens who are currently disabled, to try to help them keep 
their health insurance so they can get back in the workforce. These are 
all measures that this Congress should be considering, should be acting 
on, but over the last year this Congress has failed to address any of 
these issues. Questions of environmental quality, of the amount of 
public lands that are available, whether we are protecting against the 
devastation of our natural resources and the spoiling of our air and 
our water. The question of tax equity and tax fairness. I have a bill 
myself concerning the way that some corporations are cheating and 
gaming the system and causing the rest of us to have to pay more than 
our fair share of taxes because they use tax loopholes and exploit 
their position and think that because they are big enough, they can get 
away with these corporate tax loopholes that are so abusive, a bill 
that we have been unable to even get a hearing on in this Congress.
  So on one issue after another, and I have named only a few of the 
issues that this Congress should be attending to, it has not been 
because this Republican Congress has been attending to other business, 
to the Nation's business, to the priorities of the American people that 
it has failed to address the appropriations process, because it has not 
done anything about any of these problems, either.
  And so we find ourselves coming now to the final month and the 11th 
hour of this Federal fiscal year. And what work has been done? Well, 
nine of the 13 appropriations bills necessary to prevent the government 
from having to shut down, nine of those appropriations bills have not 
even been sent to President Clinton to consider. We know that on some 
of them because of all the unrelated riders and attempt to change the 
social policy and overturn the environmental policy that this 
administration has pursued, that some of those bills will be vetoed and 
sent back for congressional consideration, but nine of the 13 have not 
even been sent over for the President to react to, and here we are 
literally hours before the end of this fiscal year.
  One of those 13 bills has not even had a first draft written. The 
Republican leadership has scheduled one of the largest appropriations 
bills for the last day, the 365th day of the Federal fiscal year, they 
finally decided to meet together as a committee and to try to come up 
with a first draft, not presenting it now to the President, not even 
presenting it now for a vote in this House but just to get together 
amongst themselves and work out that first draft of this important 
legislation.
  It just so happens that that final spending bill contains all the 
Federal funding for education. It contains the Federal funding for our 
research and investigation of health care at the National Institutes 
for Health. It contains much of the funding that is so important to our 
seniors, such as Meals on Wheels, a program that has been jeopardized 
by the whole Republican approach to budgeting.
  On all of these matters the Republicans have basically said, ``That's 
our last priority,'' because it is the bill they waited until the last 
day of the year to even consider.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman from Wisconsin would agree with 
the observation that this is a ``Congress that has a rendezvous with 
obscurity.''
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, my concern is also that this is a Congress 
which has a rendezvous with prevarication.
  We just heard a lot of debate on the previous bill where Members 
promised that they would not be dipping into the deficit and promised 
they would not be dipping into Social Security. We have had a lot of 
posing for pictures about resisting breaking the budget caps. I want 
Members to understand when they vote for this continuing resolution, 
Members who vote for the continuing resolution will be voting to break 
the caps, because if this continuing resolution were to be carried out 
on an annualized basis, which is the only prudent way you can score it, 
it would mean that we would be spending more than $30 billion above the 
amount allowed by the caps.
  So before people cast these silly, meaningless and in some case 
prevaricating votes, I would urge them to recognize what in fact they 
are doing when they support this continuing resolution. It is about 
time we face reality.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I would 
like to begin by praising my friend from Wisconsin, the former chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations, now ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. He is correct when he pointed to the fact 
that he was able to complete the 13 appropriations bills for fiscal 
year 1995 when he served as chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations. There is a big difference, though.
  Obviously we know that the work was done in 1989, completing those 13 
appropriations bills, and it was done under this majority in 1997. So 
basically three times in the last two decades it has been done. I again 
congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin for having accomplished that. 
But between 1994 when he completed his work and today, something has 
happened, and, that is, we are living within amazing constraints that 
did not exist when he was chairman of the committee. For starters, the 
United States Senate was in the hands of Democrats, the United States 
House of Representatives was in the hands of Democrats, and we had a 
Democrat in the White House, which was an important issue. And as the 
gentleman last night said, appropriately, he worked with the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations to deal with the 
302(b) allocations in a bipartisan way.
  But the real difference that has taken place is, as the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) very appropriately corrected his 
earlier statement, we did not have a balanced budget when we dealt with 
this in 1994. He did complete the 13 appropriations bills on time, but 
we did not have a balanced budget.
  So what we have done twixt 1994 and today is that we are living with 
the 1997 balanced budget agreement which was put into place and as we 
all know has in fact brought about this surplus that we are all arguing 
over.
  Now, a lot of finger-pointing has taken place from my friends on the 
other side of the aisle towards the Republicans. We are here today with 
a continuing resolution which the gentleman from Florida is going to be 
very ably handling in a bipartisan way in just a few minutes when we 
complete the debate on this rule, because we have been working with the 
President. We are in fact meeting our constitutional obligations. And 
while it does not appear terribly likely, even some on our side of the 
aisle would say it, we are still desperately trying to reach that 
midnight deadline, day after tomorrow, and have the 13 appropriations 
bills done.
  Now, the gentleman from Maryland was correct when he said that 
Speaker Hastert on his opening day said that we would complete our 
appropriations work, getting these bills out of the House, by the 
summer. Just before we adjourned in early August for that 5-week 
period, we had completed the work on 12 of the 13 bills. Unfortunately 
the day that we adjourned, we received the tragic news of the death of 
the father of our colleague the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan), the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD 
and

[[Page H8901]]

Independent Agencies. For that reason we were not able to complete that 
work just before we went into the recess. So we would have had 12 of 
the 13 bills accomplished.
  And so I think that with again the narrowest majority that we have 
had in nearly five decades, that Speaker Hastert was very, very close 
to being on target in what obviously is a very difficult situation. So 
we are trying to do our constitutional duty. I think we are doing 
pretty darn well in accomplishing that. We are here on this 3-week 
continuing resolution.
  I hope, as the gentleman from Wisconsin said and as the gentleman 
from Maryland said, that we will not have to have another continuing 
resolution. I hope that we are going to have an agreement which will 
allow us to move ahead and get this work done and let us adjourn by the 
October 29 deadline that the Speaker has said he wants us to meet.
  I encourage strong support of this rule and the continuing 
resolution. At this moment, I am going to go back upstairs to the 
Committee on Rules where we are reporting out the rule on yet another 
conference report, the Foreign Operations conference report, and we 
will have that tomorrow here on the floor. So we are on target and 
doing everything we can. I urge support of this rule and the bill 
itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 305, 
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68) making continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, and 
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 68 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 68

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of 
     applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, 
     for the several departments, agencies, corporations, and 
     other organizational units of Government for the fiscal year 
     2000, and for other purposes, namely:
       Sec. 101. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary under the 
     authority and conditions provided in the applicable 
     appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1999 for continuing 
     projects or activities including the costs of direct loans 
     and loan guarantees (not otherwise specifically provided for 
     in this joint resolution) which were conducted in the fiscal 
     year 1999 and for which appropriations, funds, or other 
     authority would be available in the following appropriations 
     Acts:
       (1) the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2000;
       (2) the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, 
     notwithstanding section 15 of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956, section 701 of the United States 
     Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, section 313 
     of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 
     and 1995 (Public Law 103-236), and section 53 of the Arms 
     Control and Disarmament Act;
       (3) the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000, 
     notwithstanding section 504(a)(1) of the National Security 
     Act of 1947;
       (4) the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000;
       (5) the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 
     2000;
       (6) the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 2000, notwithstanding section 10 
     of Public Law 91-672 and section 15 of the State Department 
     Basic Authorities Act of 1956;
       (7) the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2000;
       (8) the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, 
     the House or Senate reported version of which, if such 
     reported version exists, shall be deemed to have passed the 
     House or Senate respectively as of October 1, 1999, for the 
     purposes of this joint resolution, unless a reported version 
     is passed as of October 1, 1999, in which case the passed 
     version shall be used in place of the reported version for 
     purposes of this joint resolution;
       (9) the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2000;
       (10) the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2000;
       (11) the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
     Act, 2000; and
       (12) the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
     Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2000:

     Provided, That whenever the amount which would be made 
     available or the authority which would be granted in
     these Acts as passed by the House and Senate as of October 1, 
     1999, is different than that which would be available or 
     granted under current operations, the pertinent project or 
     activity shall be continued at a rate for operations not 
     exceeding the current rate: Provided further, That whenever 
     there is no amount made available under any of these 
     appropriations Acts as passed by the House and Senate as of 
     October 1, 1999, for a continuing project or activity which 
     was conducted in fiscal year 1999 and for which there is 
     fiscal year 2000 funding included in the budget request, the 
     pertinent project or activity shall be continued at the rate 
     for current operations under the authority and conditions 
     provided in the applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal 
     year 1999.
       (b) Whenever the amount which would be made available or 
     the authority which would be granted under an Act listed in 
     this section as passed by the House as of October 1, 1999, is 
     different from that which would be available or granted under 
     such Act as passed by the Senate as of October 1, 1999, the 
     pertinent project or activity shall be continued at a rate 
     for operations not exceeding the current rate under the 
     appropriation, fund, or authority granted by the applicable 
     appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2000 and under the 
     authority and conditions provided in the applicable 
     appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1999.
       (c) Whenever an Act listed in this section has
     been passed by only the House or only the Senate as of 
     October 1, 1999, the pertinent project or activity shall be 
     continued under the appropriation, fund, or authority granted 
     by the one House at a rate for operations not exceeding the 
     current rate and under the authority and conditions provided 
     in the applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal year 
     1999: Provided, That whenever there is no amount made 
     available under any of these appropriations Acts as passed by 
     the House or the Senate as of October 1, 1999, for a 
     continuing project or activity which was conducted in fiscal 
     year 1999 and for which there is fiscal year 2000 funding 
     included in the budget request, the pertinent project or 
     activity shall be continued at the rate for current 
     operations under the authority and conditions provided in the 
     applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1999.
       (d) If the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, 
     has not been reported in either the House or the Senate as of 
     October 1, 1999, continuing projects or activities that were 
     conducted in fiscal year 1999 shall be continued at the 
     current rate under the appropriation, fund or authority and 
     terms and conditions provided in the Departments of Labor, 
     Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999.
       Sec. 102. No appropriation or funds made available or 
     authority granted pursuant to section 101 for the Department 
     of Defense shall be used for new production of items not 
     funded for production in fiscal year 1999 or prior years, for 
     the increase in production rates above those sustained with 
     fiscal year 1999 funds, or to initiate, resume, or continue 
     any project, activity, operation, or organization which are 
     defined as any project, subproject, activity, budget 
     activity, program element, and subprogram within a program 
     element and for investment items are further defined as a P-1 
     line item in a budget activity within an appropriation 
     account and an R-1 line item which includes a program element 
     and subprogram element within an appropriation account, for 
     which appropriations, funds, or other authority were not 
     available during the fiscal year 1999: Provided, That no 
     appropriation or funds made available or authority granted 
     pursuant to section 101 for the Department of Defense shall 
     be used to initiate multi-year procurements utilizing advance 
     procurement funding for economic order quantity procurement 
     unless specifically appropriated later.
       Sec. 103. Appropriations made by section 101 shall be 
     available to the extent and in the manner which would be 
     provided by the pertinent appropriations Act.
       Sec. 104. No appropriation or funds made available or 
     authority granted pursuant to section 101 shall be used to 
     initiate or resume any project or activity for which 
     appropriations, funds, or other authority were not available 
     during the fiscal year 1999.
       Sec. 105. No provision which is included in an 
     appropriations Act enumerated in section 101 but which was 
     not included in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal 
     year 1999 and which by its terms is applicable to more than 
     one appropriation, fund, or authority shall be applicable to 
     any appropriation, fund, or authority provided in this joint 
     resolution.
       Sec. 106. Unless otherwise provided for in this joint 
     resolution or in the applicable appropriations Act, 
     appropriations and funds made available and authority granted 
     pursuant to this joint resolution shall be available until 
     (a) enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or 
     activity provided for in this joint resolution, or (b) the 
     enactment into law of the applicable appropriations Act by 
     both Houses without any provision for such project or 
     activity, or (c) October 21, 1999, whichever first occurs.
       Sec. 107. Appropriations made and authority granted 
     pursuant to this joint resolution

[[Page H8902]]

     shall cover all obligations or expenditures incurred for any 
     program, project, or activity during the period for which 
     funds or authority for such project or activity are available 
     under this joint resolution.
       Sec. 108. Expenditures made pursuant to this joint 
     resolution shall be charged to the applicable appropriation, 
     fund, or authorization whenever a bill in which such 
     applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization is contained 
     is enacted into law.
       Sec. 109. No provision in the appropriations Act for the 
     fiscal year 2000 referred to in section 101 of this Act that 
     makes the availability of any appropriation provided therein 
     dependent upon the enactment of additional authorizing or 
     other legislation shall be effective before the date set 
     forth in section 106(c) of this joint resolution.
       Sec. 110. Appropriations and funds made available by or 
     authority granted pursuant to this joint resolution may be 
     used without regard to the time limitations for submission 
     and approval of apportionments set forth in section 1513 of 
     title 31, United States Code, but nothing herein shall be 
     construed to waive any other provision of law governing the 
     apportionment of funds.
       Sec. 111. This joint resolution shall be implemented so 
     that only the most limited funding action of that permitted 
     in the joint resolution shall be taken in order to provide 
     for continuation of projects and activities.
       Sec. 112. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, for those programs that had 
     high initial rates of operation or complete distribution of 
     fiscal year 1999 appropriations at the beginning of that 
     fiscal year because of distributions of funding to States, 
     foreign countries, grantees or others, similar distributions 
     of funds for fiscal year 2000 shall not be made and no grants 
     shall be awarded for such programs funded by this resolution 
     that would impinge on final funding prerogatives.
       Sec. 113. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, the rate for operations for 
     projects and activities that would be funded under the 
     heading ``International Organizations and Conferences, 
     Contributions to International Organizations'' in the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, shall be the 
     amount provided by the provisions of section 101 multiplied 
     by the ratio of the number of days covered by this 
     resolution to 366.
       Sec. 114. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, the rate for operations for 
     the following activities funded with Federal Funds for the 
     District of Columbia, shall be at a rate for operations not 
     exceeding the current rate, multiplied by the ratio of the 
     number of days covered by this joint resolution to 366: 
     Corrections Trustee Operations, Public Defender Services, 
     Parole Revocation, Adult Probation, Offender Supervision, Sex 
     Offender Registration, Pretrial Services, District of 
     Columbia Courts, and Defender Services in District of 
     Columbia Courts.
       Sec. 115. Activities authorized by sections 1309(a)(2), as 
     amended by Public Law 104-208, and 1376(c) of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001 et 
     seq.), may continue through the date specified in section 
     106(c) of this joint resolution.
       Sec. 116. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, the rate for operations for 
     reimbursement of past losses for the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation Fund shall be $11,500,000,000.
       Sec. 117. Notwithstanding section 235(a)(2) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2195(a)(2)), the authority 
     of section 234(a) (b) and (c), of the same Act, shall remain 
     in effect during the period of this joint resolution.
       Sec. 118. Notwithstanding sections 101, 104, and 106 of 
     this joint resolution, funds may be used to initiate or 
     resume projects or activities at a rate in excess of the 
     current rate to the extent necessary, consistent with 
     existing agency plans, to achieve Year 2000 (Y2K) computer 
     compliance and for implementation of business continuity and 
     contingency plans.
       Sec. 119. Notwithstanding sections 101 and 104 of this 
     joint resolution, not to exceed $189,524,382 shall be 
     available for projects and activities for decennial census 
     programs for the period covered by this joint resolution.
       Sec. 120. Notwithstanding section 101 of this joint 
     resolution, the rate for operations for projects and 
     activities funded by accounts in the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 as passed by the House and Senate 
     affected by the foreign affairs reorganization shall be at 
     the current rate for the accounts funding such projects and 
     activities in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 1999, distributed into the accounts established in the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 as passed by 
     the House and Senate.
       Sec. 121. Notwithstanding section 309(g) of the United 
     States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 
     6208) and section 101 of this joint resolution, the rate for 
     operation for Radio Free Asia shall be at the current rate 
     for operations and under the terms provided for in the fiscal 
     year 1999 grant from the Broadcasting Board of Governors to 
     RFA, Inc.
       Sec. 122. Public Law 106-46 is amended by deleting 
     ``October 1, 1999'' and inserting ``November 1, 1999''.

                              {time}  1315

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to House resolution 
305, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).


                             General Leave

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the consideration of House Joint Resolution 68, and that I 
may include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there are several reasons why we bring this resolution 
today. One reason that has been aptly pointed out is that all the 
appropriation bills have not completed the process. Secondly, we 
anticipate that there will be several vetoes by the President which 
would require additional time to deal with the appropriation matters. 
We have asked for this resolution to be effective until the 21st of 
October. The President preferred the date of the 15th; the Speaker of 
the House preferred the date of the 29th; so we thought the 21st was a 
good compromise, and that date is in the resolution that we present 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a clean resolution. It does not include any 
Christmas tree ornaments or add-ons or any projects or anything of that 
nature. To the contrary, it says that there will be no new projects 
until such time as the regular appropriations bills have been 
completed.
  Now I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) who is the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, for 
the cooperation that he has given as we proceed with this continuing 
resolution. We provided him with copies early in the process, as well 
as the White House, as well as our colleagues in the Senate, and I 
think, except for whatever dialogue there might be of a political 
nature, we are pretty much in agreement on this resolution. So I want 
to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the cooperation 
that he has given through the process and last night in the Committee 
on Rules as we proceeded to seek the rule that has just been adopted by 
the house.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not a whole lot more to be said about the 
resolution itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 12 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I do not in any way blame the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) or his colleagues in the majority 
party on the Committee on Appropriations for the fact that we are here 
with only about 5 percent of the budget passed for this year because I 
think they genuinely tried to perform in the tradition of the Committee 
on Appropriations, which is to try to reach bipartisan agreement on all 
appropriation bills.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, indicated that when I was chairman 
of the committee that the committee had finished its work on time and 
no continuing resolution was required. That is true. He cited some 
reasons for that. I would suggest that there is a very different reason 
for that.
  The reason that we got our work done on time that year is because the 
first thing I did when I became chairman was to walk across the 
partisan aisle, sit down with my Republican counterpart, then 
Congressman McDade, and suggest that we in a bipartisan way determine 
how much could be spent by each of the subcommittees, and we did that. 
That was the only time in the history of the Budget Act that that was 
done in a bipartisan way, and because we worked out our differences 
ahead of time and agreed to compromise ahead of time, we were left only 
to argue about the details, and we were able to finish all of the 
budget on time.
  I am sure that if the gentleman from Florida (Mr.  Young) had been 
left to

[[Page H8903]]

his own devices, he would probably have done that again this year, but 
we are in a very different atmosphere.
  We do have in this House a good many Members elected in very recent 
years, many of whom have term limited themselves and who believe that, 
if things do not happen on their watch, they do not happen at all, and 
as a consequence, the majority party caucus has been split into three 
factions, and one of those factions has come to govern political 
strategy when it comes to budgets. That faction has decided that they 
will resist all attachment to reality and they will continue to pursue 
the idea that somehow, even though they control only one branch of 
government, that they can somehow force their will on all of the 
branches of government including the President.
  Mr. Speaker, it is that kind of mentality which led to the famous 
government shutdown of a number of years ago, and while I think some 
members of the majority caucus have been sobered by their sad 
experience with that chapter, I think a good many others still feel 
that they simply do not want to go through the hassle of resisting the 
militants within the Republican caucus, and so they continue to pretend 
that the Congress is living within the limits set by the budget 
agreement 3 years ago, and they continue to pretend that Congress has 
not already spent substantial amounts out of the Social Security 
surplus for the coming year.
  The fact is that while they may pretend that, I have yet to run into 
a single member of the press, I have yet to run into a single member of 
the general public, certainly not in my district, who believes that 
propaganda. I think objective observers recognize that what is going on 
here is that an adherence to mythology is requiring all kinds of 
gimmicks that further discredit the Congress in the eyes of the 
American people, and I would like to quote from a few editorials to 
demonstrate my point.
  Washington Post, in an editorial entitled ``Fake Debate,'' September 
23, 1999, said as follows about the Republican leadership in the House:

       What they are doing now is pretending otherwise, not by 
     cutting spending, but by shifting it around so that under 
     budget conventions it won't count against next year's fiscal 
     total. They have designated billions of dollars for the 
     census, agriculture and Defense's emergency spending, they 
     propose to move billions more into either the current fiscal 
     year by hurrying it up, at least on paper, or into the fiscal 
     year after next by delaying it even for a few days, but that 
     matter is only in the world of accounting. In the real world 
     the money still will be spent, and the more that is spent, 
     the less will be available for debt reduction. When they move 
     the money into the adjacent years, they merely eat into those 
     years' likely Social Security surpluses in order to keep up 
     the appearance that next year's will be left intact, but it 
     is merely show.

  Then they go on to say,
       The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that 
     Congress has already used about $11 billion in Social 
     Security funds. That's without the pending $8 billion plus in 
     emergency farm aid and without the $8 billion to $9 billion 
     that Congressional leaders themselves now acknowledge will be 
     required to complete the appropriation process.

  When we add up that 11 billion, that 8 billion, and that 9 billion, 
we come to the conclusion that they have already committed to spend $28 
billion out of that Social Security surplus.
  Then the editorial goes on to say,

       Missing also was the money, about 3 billion, that the 
     administration is expected to seek to cover peacekeeping 
     costs in Kosovo. Nor were allowances made by the Congress for 
     Hurricane Floyd, the earthquake in Turkey the stub of a tax 
     bill that is still likely to pass,

et cetera, et cetera.
  Then the editorial concludes:

       In that real world, they are already past 30 billion and 
     counting.

  Then it says:

       What does the harm is not the money they are about to 
     spend. It's the fake debate they continue to conduct,

 and I would fully subscribe to that.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert in my remarks the text of editorials from 
the Washington Post, an article from the New York Times and an 
editorial from USA Today, all of which make the similar points that I 
have just described.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we are all living in a fiction. I did not vote 
for the budget that passed 3 years ago, the great budget deal that was 
described as the so-called Balanced Budget Act of that year, because I 
knew it was a public lie, and I called it a public lie at the time. I 
still call it a public lie; and if it is not a public lie, it is the 
largest fib that I have seen in a good long time because it was 
premised on the idea that this Congress would in the future make 
spending cuts in education, in health care, in Medicare care, in all 
kinds of programs that we know neither side of the aisle really in the 
end would have the votes to carry out, and that is problem number one.
  Problem number two is that that has been compounded by the compulsion 
of the majority party to pursue a tax cut of immense proportions which, 
if it were passed, would prevent us from adding one dime to Social 
Security, one new dime to Medicare. It would prevent us from meeting 
our obligations in the area of health care and education, and it would 
in the end produce huge reductions in what is known as the people's 
bill, the Labor, Education and Health appropriation. If we had 
continued that fiction, that pursuit of that tax bill was, in fact, a 
rational policy goal. Education and health and worker protection 
programs would have had to have been cut by 32 percent in real terms, 
and I do not believe in the end that any responsible Congress would 
propose those kinds of reductions in those programs.
  So what I guess I would simply say is:
  We have seen the charades, the gimmicks, the advanced funding, the 
delayed funding; we have seen them call a 24-year-old program to help 
people, old folks, pay their heating bills in the wintertime, we 
suddenly see them declare that an emergency; we have seen them declare 
the census, which has to, by law, take place every 10 years in 
accordance with constitutional mandate, we have seen them claim that is 
$4 million in emergency spending; and whether it is emergency spending 
or not, Treasury still has to write the checks, and so that money will 
be spent no matter what they label it.
  So it seems to me that the sooner this House and the leadership of 
the other body sits down with the White House and works out its 
differences, the better off we will be and the better off the country 
will be.
  Now, I know that speaking to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) I 
am probably speaking to the choir because I am sure that he has made 
some of the same arguments, certainly not all of them because I am sure 
he disagrees with some, but I am certain he has made at least some of 
these same arguments within his own caucus. If members of his caucus 
had listened 8 months ago, we would not be in the fix we are in today; 
and I must say I am baffled by the fact that when I was at the White 
House picnic last week I had three different members of the Republican 
majority in this House come up to me and say:
  ``Now look. We understand we made a wrong detour when we followed the 
cats down this road, but you know we can still climb back on board and 
put things together.''
  Mr. Speaker, my only comment is I wish they would quit saying that to 
me privately if they do not do it publicly because until we get private 
and public rhetoric to match, we are not going to get out of this box, 
and we will be spending a lot of time on false motion.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would simply urge that Members recognize that we 
really have no choice but to extend this or to pass this continuing 
resolution extending authority for the government to remain open.

                              {time}  1330

  But I really hope that folks will come back to reality, because 
otherwise the additional 3 weeks will do no good, and we will be back 
here 3 weeks from now chewing the same cud, as they say in farm 
country; and I do not think that will do anybody any good.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with everything that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, but I do disagree with some, and he 
knows that. We have had these discussions many times before. A lot of 
these comments should have been, and, in fact, were made at the time we 
discussed the budget resolution, because the issues

[[Page H8904]]

that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is talking about really 
relate to the overall issue of the budget.
  Once the budget is approved by the Congress, then we, as 
appropriators, we deal with only our part of the budget that has to do 
with discretionary spending. So most of that debate that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just presented really belongs at the budget 
level.
  But we are talking today about a continuing resolution. What we are 
trying to do is to avoid what happened last year when we ended up in 
negotiation with the White House in an omnibus appropriations bill that 
we are still sorry we ever did. We are trying to avoid that by handling 
each bill separately. We are doing a pretty good job at that.
  This year we did two emergency supplementals requested by the 
President. They were signed into law. We did the Military Construction 
appropriations bill. It went through conference, was signed into law. 
The Legislative Branch conference report is awaiting the President's 
signature and has been there for a while. The Treasury-Postal 
conference report, again, as passed by the Congress, is on the 
President's desk waiting for his signature.
  The District of Columbia conference report is on the President's 
desk. We understand that will be vetoed, and that is one of the reasons 
we do need a CR, because the veto will take time to negotiate out with 
the President.
  The conference report on the Energy and Water appropriations bill was 
passed yesterday in the House and will be on its way to the President's 
desk very shortly. The Agriculture bill is in conference, and the 
conference signature sheets are being circulated to be signed and it 
will be ready to be filed shortly. The Foreign Operations conference 
report is completed and is in the Committee on Rules today.
  We have three other bills in conference. The Defense conference 
expects to wrap up their business tomorrow, Commerce-State-Justice is 
having some problems because of a lot of major differences between the 
House and the Senate, and the Transportation conference will meet 
tonight. So we are actually moving.
  On the other two, Interior and VA-HUD, we cannot go to conference 
until both bodies have passed the legislation. The Senate has just 
recently passed those last two, and we expect to be able to appoint the 
conferees sometime today. Of course, the real problem is the Labor-HHS 
bill, which we will mark up in the full committee on Thursday.
  So we do the continuing resolution to make sure that the Government 
does not falter in the meantime.
  Continuing resolutions are not new to the Congress. We all 
complemented the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the year that 
he chaired the committee, and he did have his bills done on time 
without any continuing resolution. But that year he had a lot more 
money than they had the year before. It is easier when you have a lot 
of money. This year we have $17 billion less than we had the year 
before. That makes it tough.
  But a little history. Let me take a few years while the party of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was still the majority party. In 
fiscal year 1994, we had three continuing resolutions for a total of 41 
days. In fiscal year 1993 we only had one, for a total of 5 days. In 
fiscal year 1992 we had three CRs for a total of 57 days. In fiscal 
year 1991 we had 5 CRs for a total of 36 days. In fiscal year 1990 we 
had three CRs for a total of 51 days.
  Then when the Budget Impoundment and Control Act was enacted by the 
Congress, under the Democratic majority, for some reason, I guess 
because they could not get the job done on time, they changed the 
fiscal year. Many Members were not here when that happened, but the 
fiscal year used to begin on the first of July, but the majority party 
then was not able to meet the deadline, so they just changed the fiscal 
year. Talk about fiction, they just changed the fiscal year.
  So, anyway, we do have a CR today to avoid an omnibus appropriations 
bill and to get these bills individually to the President's desk. 
Sometimes I wish that this were fiction, but it is not. It is the real 
world. Appropriations bills, of all the bills we consider, 
appropriations bills must be completed.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for 
the cooperation he has given us throughout the year. I know there have 
been major differences, and we have explored those differences, but 
still he has cooperated and helped us move the process, and I say to 
him thank you very much for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of affection and respect for the 
gentleman from Florida, but I do think that he should not be rewriting 
history, as he just did.
  He just indicated that in 1974, when the Congress was under 
Democratic control, it added 3 months to the fiscal year, implying that 
it did it simply for some fiscal gimmick reason. That is nonsense. He 
and I were both here at that time, and we ought to both remember what 
happened.
  We had a new budget act passed that year. What that Budget Act did 
was change the fiscal year. The fiscal year used to start on July 1; 
and because Congress could not get its work done since it only came in 
in January and had just a very few months to do its work, what they did 
was to change the fiscal year so that in the future, instead of running 
from July 1 to July 1, it would run from October 1 to October 1, 
recognizing the reality of the Congressional schedule.
  We did not do, as the majority party at least in the Senate suggested 
doing, we did not add a 13th month to the fiscal year in order to hide 
the spending of $20 billion, as is now being done on the Labor-Health-
Education bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I also will insert in the Record an article in USA Today 
dated September 28th which is entitled ``Congress Looks to Gimmicks to 
Bend Budget Rules.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to some of the thoughts that I 
was trying to complete a few minutes earlier. We have heard a great 
deal of debate today about whether or not Congress is going to be 
invading the Social Security surplus in the coming year or not.
  I want to lay out what the facts are. The Congressional Budget Office 
on July 1 indicated that we would have for the coming year a surplus of 
about $14 billion. That was based on the assumption that Congress would 
stick to outlay caps for appropriations bills which were in existing 
law. But the Congressional Budget Office, which is, after all, the 
fiscal referee and the chairman of which is appointed by the Republican 
majority, that Congressional Budget Office says that the House 
Committee on Appropriations has already allocated $17 billion above the 
caps for non-emergency spending.
  Then, on top of that, they are well down the road to allocating $14 
billion more to the various appropriations subcommittees, pretending 
that the $14 billion surplus which existed in July still exists. It 
does not, as CBO makes quite clear.
  Then if you add to that the $4 billion which they have set aside for 
the so-called emergency census, and if you add to that the funding 
which the majority party leadership has already indicated it supports 
for supplementals totaling about $10 billion in outlays, and if you add 
to that the tax extenders which they intend to pass and the Medicare 
give-back package which they intend to pass, you can see why virtually 
every major national newspaper already recognizes that this Congress is 
spending $35 billion or so out of that Social Security surplus.
  I am not criticizing the individual decisions made by the majority. I 
am simply suggesting that if those decisions are to be made, they ought 
not be masked behind a smoke screen of false rhetoric; and, in my view, 
that is what is happening on this issue.
  I would simply point out as a practical person that when we get rid 
of these artificial constructs, if we handle things right, we will 
still be in a position where next year we will pay down the deficit by 
about $10 billion. No matter what phony Social Security construct or 
what phony budget cap construct is put on it, in the end, when this 
Congress comes to its senses, recognizes it cannot gut the President's 
priorities and that it cannot fool the public into thinking that these 
gimmicks that they are engaging in do not spend money, what I am saying 
is, in the end, if we negotiate this outright, we will still bring down 
that public

[[Page H8905]]

debt this year by about $120 billion; and we will have done the same 
thing this year in a fairly similar amount.
  We all ought to be able to recognize that that is a reasonable 
achievement, and if we would just recognize that, rather than wasting 
immeasurable time building these phony constructs, I think, in the end, 
we would produce a better budget and we would have more time to focus 
on what works, rather than focusing on which accounting gimmick is the 
most sly, and, in the process, just by accident, we might even improve 
the public's ability to believe what we say.
  So I would say in closing, I think rather than listening to the false 
rhetoric that we heard on the floor earlier today on the Social 
Security proposition, I think the public, in judging what this 
Republican-controlled Congress is doing on the budget, ought to take 
the advice of that well-known defender of liberty, John Mitchell, the 
former Attorney General under Richard Nixon, who said once that to 
understand what the Republicans were doing, it was necessary to ``watch 
what we do, not what we say.''
  I think the press has been doing that; I think the public has been 
doing that. And that is why their false arguments are falling on fallow 
ground.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the articles referred to.

                            [From USA Today]

                GOP Leaders Fall Short on Fiscal Promise

       Republican congressional leaders have spent the past year 
     promising the public that they've reinforced their commitment 
     to fiscal discipline. They vowed they'd pass the required 
     budget bills on time, live within agreed-upon spending caps 
     and resist raiding the Social Security trust fund.
       But with three days left before 1999 funding for every 
     government agency runs out, the script has hit some snags. 
     The GOP majority hopelessly has blown the first two promises 
     and shows little of the self-discipline needed to keep even 
     its oft-repeated Social Security pledge.
       And instead of revealing the flaws behind their fiction, 
     Republicans still are scrambling to manipulate a happy 
     ending.
       Only four of the 13 annual spending bills for the new year 
     starting Friday have been sent to the president. House 
     Speaker Dennis Hastert finally acknowledged over the weekend 
     that a stopgap measure will be required to avoid another 
     government shutdown like the one that backfired on the GOP 
     four years ago.
       Further, the spending approved so far and in the 
     congressional pipeline will exceed the 2000 spending cap 
     agreed to in 1997 by roughly $30 billion, swallowing the much 
     heralded $14 billion surplus while leaving the government's 
     non-Social Security accounts $15 billion overdrawn.
       What happened? Despite talk about economy in government, 
     lawmakers have been unable to resist throwing more money at 
     weapons purchases, military salaries, home-town projects and 
     other favored causes.
       Paying for all that without cheating would require dipping 
     into surplus Social Security income, as Congress has done for 
     decades. So much for the promise of putting Social Security 
     surpluses into a ``lock box'' untouchable for other purposes.
       To avoid acknowledging reality, Congress has tried one 
     bookkeeping gimmick after another:
       Declaring fully predictable costs like the 2000 census and 
     a long-established program of winter-heating aid for the poor 
     ``emergencies,'' and thus outside spending limits.
       Trying to charge politically potent spending, like more 
     than $5 billion in new aid to farmers, against this year's 
     books even though it won't reach anyone until next year.
       Snatching back, at least for a year, $3 billion in federal 
     aid promised to the states as part of the 1996 welfare 
     reform.
       Disguising still-unknown billions in 2000 spending by 
     charging it against a hoped-for surplus in 2001, exploiting 
     an established loophole to create in effect a 13-month year.
       Republicans are not unique in their gamesmanship. Democrats 
     have been fully complicit in fudging budget caps in recent 
     years, and President Clinton's spending proposal for 2000 had 
     its own similarly surreal qualities.
       For example, Clinton's claim to a balanced budget was based 
     on increased tobacco taxes and other changes that were clear 
     non-starters.
       But the majority party in Congress controls the legislative 
     agenda and carries prime responsibility for enacting a 
     budget.
       So far, GOP leaders can't muster the discipline to keep 
     their promises, or the courage to explain why not. So they 
     shouldn't be surprised if voters who were promised a surplus 
     and a safe Social Security hold them responsible when they 
     discover neither exist.
                                  ____


               [From the New York Times, Sept. 24, 1999]

               House G.O.P. on Creative Accounting Spree

                            (By Tim Weiner)

       Washington, Sept. 23.--Creative accounting by Congress 
     reached new heights today as House Republican leaders, 
     desperately seeking money for their spending bills, used 
     budgetary devices to manufacture nearly $17 billion out of 
     thin air.
       First they ordered appropriators to tap $12.7 billion from 
     the budget for the year after next, the 2001 fiscal year. 
     Then they declared $1.1 billion for a long-established 
     program to help the poor pay their heating bills as an 
     unforeseen ``emergency,'' taking the money off the official 
     ledger.
       And then, apparently breaking a pledge made by the former 
     Speaker Newt Gingrich, they moved to rescind $3 billion in 
     welfare funds for state governments.
       The moves were part of a plan to help finance a bill for 
     labor, education, health and human services programs that 
     nonetheless cuts or eliminates so many health and education 
     programs that President Clinton vowed tonight to veto it.
       The leadership's effort to take back welfare money provoked 
     protests from the nation's governors, Republicans and 
     Democrats alike. They issued a statement calling it ``a 
     drastic departure'' from a deal between Congress and the 
     states.
       That deal, sealed by Mr. Gingrich in a letter on June 5, 
     1998, pledged that the Republican-led Congress would not 
     touch the welfare money, known as Temporary Assistance for 
     Needy Families.
       ``I gave you my word that T.A.N.F. funding will be 
     guaranteed for five years,'' he said. ``Rest assured that I 
     will stand by that commitment.''
       There had been talk in Congress last year of a similar plan 
     to tap into the states' welfare coffers, and Mr. Gingrich's 
     letter sought to quell the governors' suspicions.
       The chairman of the National Governors' Association, Gov. 
     Michael O. Leavitt of Utah, a Republican, said the current 
     Republican leadership in Congress had privately assured the 
     governors that Mr. Gingrich's word was still good. ``We took 
     them at their word and still hope they'll maintain the 
     integrity of their decision,'' Mr. Levitt said.
       The loss would be temporary, Republican leaders say. They 
     promised to replace the funds in the 2001 fiscal year. ``It's 
     just a temporary relocation,'' said John P. Feehery, a 
     spokesman for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert. ``They'll get the 
     money back.''
       Congress has completed work on only four of its 13 spending 
     bills. It appears certain to fail to complete them, with one 
     week left until the new fiscal year begins on Oct. 1.
       But Congress is on track to drain a projected $14 billion 
     surplus for the 2000 fiscal year and to break the spending 
     caps it imposed on itself. It looks increasingly likely to 
     tap into surplus Social Security payments to finance its 
     spending bills, something the Republican leadership has said 
     repeatedly that it will not do.
       The Republicans' deepening dilemma was apparent in the 
     moves to borrow heavily from the 2001 Budget, to declare a 
     24-year-old home-heating program an unforeseeable emergency, 
     and to try to take back the welfare money.
       Congress has used borrowing from future years, a process 
     called forward funding, in the past. But it has never used 
     more than $12 billion in a single year for all Government 
     programs combined, let alone a single spending bill, the 
     Senate Budget Committee said.
       And it has not declared programs like hone-heating 
     assistance to be fiscal emergencies, a category usually 
     reserved for wars and natural disasters, not the coming of 
     winter.
       Nor has it asked and states to give back welfare money. At 
     least 38 states would be affected if the welfare recession 
     becomes law. New York would lose $508 million in welfare 
     funds in the fiscal 2000 year, and California would lose $47 
     million.
       The $89 billion bill labor, education and health and human 
     services was approved today by a House appropriations 
     subcommittee on a party-line vote, with eight Republicans in 
     favor and six Democrats Opposed.
       The subcommittee's chairman, Representative John Edward 
     Porter, Republican of Illinois, made it plain that the 
     creative accounting measures to finance the bill had been 
     dictated by the Republican leadership. ``I work with what 
     they give me.'' he said. ``Decisions have been made that I'm 
     not a part of.''
       In other legislative action, negotiators from the House and 
     the Senate worked toward a compromise that would require more 
     flight tests for the F-22 fighter plane, a $70 billion 
     program, before allowing the plane to begin production. The 
     House voted to withhold $1.8 billion to build the first six 
     F-22's; the Senate wanted the planes built next year.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 20, 1999]

  Congressional Time Crunch Will Play In Decisions Regarding Spending 
                                 Bills

                           (By David Rogers)

       WASHINGTON.--As Republicans prepare for a year-end 
     confrontation with President Clinton regarding budget 
     priorities and tobacco taxes, they are trying to clear the 
     decks this week of spending bills affecting everything from 
     Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-22 to emergency farm aid.
       Under a revised spending plan adopted Friday, Senate 
     Republicans agreed to billions more for defense in 
     anticipation of the House restoring funds for the purchase of 
     F-22

[[Page H8906]]

     fighters as test planes for the Air Force. Senate 
     Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R., Alaska) 
     wants the full complement of six aircraft under contract with 
     Lockheed. F-22 critics want fewer, but some purchases seem 
     certain and GOP opponents in the House are being undercut by 
     their own leaders, who are anxious to move bills.
       Toward that end, the GOP hopes to complete negotiations 
     tomorrow night on an emergency farm-aid bill that has grown 
     to nearly $8 billion. The House is retreating from deep 
     Energy Department cuts opposed by Senate Budget Committee 
     Chairman Pete Domenici (R., N.M.). And hundreds of millions 
     of dollars more will be restored for space-science programs 
     cut by the House less than two weeks ago.
       The targets would lift spending above what either chamber 
     has approved. The GOP no longer appears to be clinging to the 
     pretense of staying within prescribed budget caps and instead 
     would allow spending to go about $14.5 billion higher.
       That number matches the on-budget surplus projected by the 
     Congressional Budget Office, although there is serious doubt 
     it still exists. CBO's estimates show the surplus has been 
     exhausted, given spending commitments by Congress. But by 
     keeping what amounts to two sets of books, Republicans have 
     clung to the claim that excess spending under $14.5 billion 
     won't require borrowing from the Social Security trust fund.
       The collapse of the budget caps and shift of focus to 
     Social Security changes the technical nature of the spending 
     debate. The multiyear caps--first adopted as part of the 
     balanced-budget plan in 1997--govern the level of 
     appropriations, which may be spent out during several years. 
     By comparison, the claims and counterclaims about Social 
     Security focus more narrowly on the direct outlays that 
     result from these bills only in the 12-month period that 
     begins Oct. 1.
       To the extent Republicans ignore CBO as Congress's 
     scorekeeper, the GOP becomes that much more dependent on the 
     Office of Management and Budget, which is allied with the 
     president. Yet the two sides also have common interests at 
     times in playing down the costs of their actions.
       A case in point is the farm package, which would lift total 
     aid to agriculture to more than $20 billion this calendar 
     year. Republicans are desperate to see the money distributed 
     before Oct. 1 so it won't appear that seems unrealistic, it 
     might be to the president's advantage to score the costs as 
     committed in fiscal 1999, so as to minimize any threat to 
     Social Security in fiscal 2000.
       The reason why is that Mr. Clinton wants to keep the 
     numbers manageable himself. He will want more spending, for 
     everything from foreign aid to education. But the 
     administration wants to keep the total in add-ons to less 
     than $8 billion so it can pay for the costs and protect 
     Social Security with tobacco taxes.
       The chief accomplishment of the GOP plan is to minimize 
     House and Senate differences. The goal is to produce passable 
     bills: between $9 billion to $11 billion is allocated to try 
     to expedite committee action this week on a long-delayed bill 
     funding the departments of Labor, Education, and Health and 
     Human Services. But by pumping so much into defense--about $6 
     billion over Mr. Clinton's request--the plan doesn't leave 
     enough for other priorities to receive the President's 
     signature.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 23, 1999]

                              Fake Debate

       On the budget, the Republicans continue unaccountably to 
     set themselves up to fail in this Congress. They set goals 
     that derive from a mythic view of government rather than the 
     reality. Then reality intrudes, and they turn out to lack the 
     votes to attain the goals even within their own caucus.
       They began the year by saying they could cut domestic 
     spending for all programs but Social Security deeply enough 
     to produce a $1 trillion surplus over the next 10 years, most 
     of which they proposed to use to pay for a major tax cut. 
     They passed the tax cut, though narrowly, but can't produce 
     majorities for even the first phase of the corresponding 
     spending cuts--and the president is about to veto the tax 
     cut, having made the case that the spending cuts would do 
     serious governmental and social harm.
       Their new goal, if they can't have the tax cut, is to hold 
     down domestic spending anyway by invoking Social Security. 
     They propose to outdo the Democrats as protectors of the 
     giant program by using none of the Social Security surplus 
     next fiscal year to cover other governmental costs, as has 
     regularly been done in the recent past. It would all be 
     virtuously used instead to pay down debt. But that requires 
     that spending for everything but Social Security be financed 
     out of non-Social Security taxes, a tight constraint, and 
     they don't have the votes for that either.
       What they're doing now is pretending otherwise, not by 
     cutting spending but by shifting it around so that, under the 
     budget conventions, it won't count against next fiscal year's 
     total. They've designated billions of dollars for the census, 
     agriculture and defense as emergency spending. They propose 
     to move billions more into either the current fiscal year, by 
     hurrying it up, at least on paper, or into the fiscal year 
     after next, by delaying it, even if only a few days.
       But that matters only in the world of accounting. In the 
     real world, the money still will be spent, and the more that 
     is spent, the less will be available for debt reduction. When 
     they move the money into the adjacent years, they merely eat 
     into those years' likely Social Security surpluses in order 
     to keep up the appearance that next year's will be left 
     intact. But it's merely show.
       The projected Social Security surplus for the year that 
     will begin next week, Oct. 1, is about $150 billion. A 
     realistic accounting suggests that at least a fifth of that 
     will be used to cover other governmental costs. Strictly 
     speaking, Social Security will be no worse off; the same IOUs 
     will be placed in the Social Security trust fund whether the 
     money is used to cover other costs or pay down debt. The 
     Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that Congress 
     already has used about $11 billion in Social Security funds. 
     That's without the pending $8 billion-plus in emergency farm 
     aid, and without the $8 billion to $9 billion that 
     congressional leaders themselves now acknowledge will be 
     required to complete the appropriations process.
       Missing also was the money--about $3 billion--that the 
     administration is expected to seek to cover peacekeeping 
     costs in Kosovo. Nor were allowances made for Hurricane 
     Floyd, the earthquake in Turkey, the stub of a tax bill that 
     still is likely to pass, some money for the hospitals to make 
     up for Medicare cuts of a couple of years ago that sliced 
     deeper than anticipated, etc. In that real world, they're 
     already past $30 billion and counting.
       The Republicans will try to make it seem the president's 
     fault, and he, theirs. But it's no one's fault that they're 
     breaching a limit that has nothing to do with the true cost 
     of government and was never more than a political artifact. 
     What does the harm is not the money they're about to spend. 
     It's the fake debate they continue to conduct.
                                  ____


                    [From USA Today, Sept. 28, 1999]

                 Clinton Announces $115 Billion Surplus

                        (By Laurence McQuillan)

       Washington.--President Clinton said Monday that the 
     projected federal budget surplus for fiscal 1999, which ends 
     Thursday, will be at least $115 billion, the largest in U.S. 
     history.
       Clinton, who last week vetoed a GOP plan to cut taxes by 
     $792 billion over 10 years, said the revised budget estimate 
     amounted to ``a landmark achievement for our economy.'' He 
     urged Republicans to work with him on cutting taxes and 
     shoring up the Medicare and Social Security systems.
       Although the administration had previously predicted a $99 
     billion surplus, the Congressional Budget Office had 
     projected a $114 billion figure for the current fiscal year.
       ``More surplus money for Washington means less money for 
     families and workers across our country,'' said House Ways 
     and Means Chairman Bill Archer, R-Texas.
       Fiscal 1999 will be the second consecutive year there has 
     been a surplus, the first time that has happened since 1957. 
     There was a $69 billion surplus last year.
       Virtually all of the surplus is the result of the 
     government collecting more in Social Security taxes than it 
     is paying in benefits.
                                  ____


                    [From USA Today, Sept. 28, 1999]

            Congress Looks to Gimmicks To Bend Budget Rules

                         (By William M. Welch)

       Washington.--Declare the Census an emergency. Add a 13th 
     month to the year. Delay mailing government checks to the 
     poor. Take money from the states.
       Whether Orwellian or Scrooge-like, these ideas and more 
     have been offered with straight faces in Congress in recent 
     weeks, and some stand a good chance of being passed.
       Why? It's budget crunch time in Washington.
       As usual, the approach of the federal government's new 
     fiscal year, which begins Friday, is bringing a mad rush to 
     pass the 13 spending bills that are required to finance the 
     normal operations of government.
       This time, the strain is higher than ever because Congress 
     and its Republican leaders must make the package fit within 
     the tight budget confines they've set for themselves.
       Paradoxically, the political tension comes after both 
     parties have spent most of the year fighting about what to do 
     with $3 trillion in budget surpluses forecast to materialize 
     during the next decade.
       But lawmakers in both parties, particularly majority 
     Republicans, have painted themselves into a budget corner 
     with a pair of political vows:
       To live within the tight budget limits, called ``caps,'' 
     that both sides agreed to in a balanced-budget deal in 1997.
       Not to spend any of Social Security's money on other 
     programs.
       The federal government is projected to enjoy a record 
     surplus in fiscal 2000 of $161 billion. Yet if Congress 
     strictly follows the spending limits set in 1997, it would 
     have to cut spending in many programs.
       So Congress has been looking for ways to get around both of 
     those commitments.
       After failing to find any other good solution, Republican 
     congressional leaders acknowledged recently that they cannot 
     live within the spending limits set two years ago and will 
     approve more spending.
       ``You have to be honest and acknowledge we're not going to 
     meet the caps,'' Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott says.
       That decision ensures that billions more will be available 
     for education and health

[[Page H8907]]

     programs, but it doesn't resolve the problem created by their 
     second commitment not to spend any of the budget surplus that 
     is tied to Social Security, which accounts for all but $14 
     billion of next year's expected surplus.
       So lawmakers have reached new levels of creativity in their 
     search for ways to spend money without having it count in 
     budget bookkeeping--in other words to tap the Social Security 
     surplus while denying they are doing so.
       ``The only question is, which gimmicks are we going to use 
     and which new ones are we going to invent?'' says Stan 
     Collender, a former budget aide on Capitol Hill and head of 
     the Federal Budget Consulting Group, a fiscal watchdog 
     organization at public relations firm Fleishman-Hillard.
       Congress has completed only four of the 13 spending bills, 
     and the most controversial one--for education, labor and 
     health programs--began to take shape only late last week. An 
     $89 billion version of that bill proposed by House GOP 
     leaders is on the cutting edge of budget gimmickry.
       Among the examples of creative accounting:
       Declare an ``emergency'' so the money isn't counted against 
     spending limits. Congress has done that liberally with 
     floods, hurricanes, drought and military operations. Now it's 
     considering declaring the $4 billion cost of the 2000 Census 
     an emergency, as well as a $1.1 billion program that helps 
     the poor pay heating bills.
       Spend in a 13th month. Congress often uses a device called 
     ``advance funding,'' in which spending in one year is moved 
     to another to keep the books in balance. Clinton proposed 
     doing it in his own budget plan. But this Congress is taking 
     that device to new lengths by shifting nearly $13 billion in 
     the health and education bill into the next year. Senate 
     critics derided the plan as declaring a 13th month of 
     spending.
       Whack the states. After assuring governors they wouldn't do 
     it, House GOP leaders now propose to reclaim $3 billion in 
     federal welfare payments to the states that the states 
     haven't spent.
       Tap the poor. Another proposal GOP leaders have floated is 
     to delay income tax credits to qualifying low-income 
     families, sending out refunds in a series of checks over the 
     course of the year rather than in one lump sum, as is done 
     now. That would allow the government to hold the money 
     longer.
       Congressional Democrats and the White House reacted to each 
     idea with ridicule.
       ``They can't make their budget work without resorting to 
     cheap gimmicks,'' Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle says. 
     ``Now reality is meeting rhetoric.''
       And in the end, some of the proposed gimmicks might be 
     dropped.
       ``You test them out and see if they've got legs,'' House 
     Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, says.
       Congressional Republicans acknowledge they won't resolve 
     the budget squeeze before the new fiscal year begins Friday. 
     They're making plans for a stopgap spending measure to keep 
     programs going for another month. That would give both 
     parties time to work out differences and avoid a repeat of 
     the government shutdown in late 1995 and early 1996.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just hope that all Members will come to the floor and 
vote for this continuing resolution so that we can continue the 
appropriations process.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, after discussions with the White House, it is 
my and Congressman Gene Green's understanding that H.J. Res. 68 
continues the moratorium placed on the Department of Interior from 
implementing final rulemaking regarding the valuation of crude oil for 
royalty purposes.
  Section 101(a) of H.J. Res. 68 states: ``Such amounts as may be 
necessary under the authority and conditions provided in the applicable 
appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 for continuing projects or 
activities including the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees (not 
otherwise specifically provided for in this joint resolution) which 
were conducted in the fiscal year 1999 and for which appropriations, 
funds, or other authority would be available in the following 
appropriations acts: (7) the Department of Interior and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000;''
  I appreciate this clarification from the White House.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 305, the joint resolution is considered 
read for amendment and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the joint resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 421, 
nays 2, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 453]

                               YEAS--421

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin

[[Page H8908]]


     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--2

     DeFazio
     Paul
       

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Kaptur
       

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bishop
     Cox
     Hoyer
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Riley
     Rush
     Scarborough
     Wu

                              {time}  1405

  So the joint resolution 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. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was unavoidably 
detained by official business and, as a result, missed roll call vote 
number 453. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on this 
resolution.

                          ____________________