[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.
____________________