[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 149 (Thursday, October 28, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H11075-H11085]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2000
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House
of Wednesday, October 27, 1999, I call up the joint resolution (H. J.
Res 73) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2000, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of House Joint Resolution 73 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 73
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public
Law 106-62 is further amended by striking ``October 29,
1999'' in section 106(c) and inserting in lieu thereof
``November 5, 1999'', and by striking ``$189,524,382'' in
section 119 and inserting in lieu thereof ``$288,903,248''.
Public Law 106-46 is amended by striking ``November 1, 1999''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``November 5, 1999''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Pursuant to the order of the
House of Wednesday, October 27, 1999, 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 H. J. Res. 73, 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, the continuing resolution before us extends current
spending levels for a week, until November 5. That is one week from
tomorrow.
The current rates, as contained in the original continuing
resolution, are continued for the five bills which have not been signed
into law. And, of course, for those eight that have been signed into
law, the funding levels in those bills are the controlling elements.
There are two technical provisions for two anomalies which need to be
adjusted in the continuing resolution, the waiver of the quorum
requirement for the Export-Import Bank, and adjusted funding rate for
the census.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this is acceptable to the
President, that he is willing to support this and to sign this
continuing resolution, and I would hope that we could expedite this
matter.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1115
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young),
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, is
correct; the President will sign this third continuing resolution.
He should not have to. I would have hoped that we would have been
done by now. But we all, I think, understand why.
My problem is that, right after this continuing resolution, we are
going to
[[Page H11076]]
be dealing with about a 3-hour charade. I need to discuss that in the
context of this continuing resolution.
After this continuing resolution is disposed of, we will be bringing
to the House floor a so-called conference report on the Labor, Health,
Education appropriation bill.
The problem is that that conference took place on a bill that never
even saw the light of day on the floor of this House. And under the
rules of the Congress, we are not supposed to have a conference until
both Houses have been able to vote on the bill.
Now, the bill that comes out is an important bill. The problem with
that bill is not really, in the end, the funding level. We could
resolve our remaining dollar differences in that bill in about 3 hours
if we are given the opportunity to do so. But the problem is that the
debate on this bill and the bill to follow today will, in my view,
symbolize how political debate in this House has been trivialized and
used to obscure rather than reveal the truth.
Next year we enter a new century; we enter a new millennium. We were
sent here to make certain that we make the big decisions that will
preserve the security of our country and strengthen the prosperity of
our country for the next decade and for the next generation. Instead,
we will be treated to a 3-hour, cheap, phony, manipulated debate about
Social Security.
Now, how did this all happen? In January, the President stood right
here behind me, and he asked the Congress to pass legislation that
would extend the solvency of Social Security for today's generation and
tomorrow's. He asked us to strengthen Medicare and provide coverage for
prescription drugs under Medicare. He asked us to pass a budget that
would help communities to rebuild falling-down schools, reduce class
size by providing 100,000 new teachers, equip every school with modern
technology. He asked us to protect the environment. He asked us to help
him provide more police on our streets.
This bill, the last appropriations bill for the year that will
shortly follow, does none of those things. Instead of listening to what
the President asked for, instead of trying to resolve those problems,
our majority friends, our Republican friends on the other side of the
aisle spent the last 8 months trying to pass a tax cut package which
gave 70 percent of the benefits to the wealthiest 5 percent of people
in this country making above $100,000 a year. That tax package ate up
virtually every dollar in sight that could have been used to strengthen
Social Security and to strengthen Medicare.
In fact, our Republican friends at one point were willing to cut
virtually every program in the Labor, Health, and Education bill by
almost 30 percent in order to make that tax package happen.
Now, after it did not sell, and after our friends on the Republican
side have seen their numbers drop in the polls, we now have a very
troubling situation. They have passed through this House a series of
appropriation bills, four appropriation bills, which spend almost $30
billion more than the President asked us to spend.
The chairman of the committee himself said that the defense bill
alone was $16 billion above what the President had asked for. But now
after that has been done, we now have our Republican friends saying,
Oh, guess what, folks? We cannot fund the President's education and
health and crime fighting and environmental priorities without spending
the Social Security surplus.
There are three problems with that, to be blunt about it. The first
is that it is a phony issue. Not one dollar in the President's request
or in any bill that we support on this side of the aisle will reduce
the balance in the Social Security Trust Fund by one dollar.
Second, it is a joke for our Republican friends to cry crocodile
tears about protecting Social Security. This is the party that tried to
kill Social Security when it was born. They have tried to turn it over
to the insurance companies for 30 years and privatize it. They have
been willing to put an unaffordable tax cut ahead of fixing up Social
Security and Medicare. And this is a party which is led by their
leader, who said that Social Security should be phased out and that in
a free society there should be no room for a program like Medicare.
For us to believe that a party with that track record suddenly stands
as the only hope for Social Security recipients is to make Jay Leno
look bad.
The third problem with the argument is that our Republican friends,
despite their assertions to the contrary, have already spent billions
of dollars out of the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for other
things this year. At one point they had spent up to $27 billion out of
that Social Security Trust Fund.
To hide that fact, what did they do? First they simply adopted a
budget technique which hid $18 billion so it could not be counted. That
still left them with a $9 billion hole. And so, what have they done? In
the bill that they are bringing to the floor today, they did not take
out all the pork that was put in appropriation bills. They did not take
out the famous billion dollar ship that was nailed into the defense
bill by the majority leader in the other body.
No, they did not do that. They did not take out any of the hundreds
of projects that were put in those bills. Instead, they pretend that
they are imposing a harmless 1 percent across-the-board cut in
programs.
Well, what does that harmless 1 percent do? Well, for one thing, it
cripples the Social Security Administration because it forces them to
cut back on the number of people that we use to ferret out fraudulent
claims in Social Security and Medicare and people who also try to get
legitimate checks cut to the people who legitimately deserve those
programs.
They are cutting millions of dollars out of veterans' health care
under their proposal. And they are in the process also creating a
colossal disruption of medical research. They are virtually shutting
down all new grants to scientists in this country who go to the
National Institutes of Health to get funding to do research on cancer,
heart disease, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease, you name it.
What they do is they pretend that they are going to give them a
couple of billion dollars more money, but then they say that they
cannot spend it for an entire year. And they do it all for budgetary
reasons.
Well, I want to say, make no mistake about it, this is not just a
budgetary gimmick. There will be people who will die because of that
delayed medical research. Anybody who understands how the research
programs in this country work understands that.
And all of this is to pretend that they have not spent any of the
Social Security surplus. That whole issue is a false issue to begin
with. For a generation, this Congress has taken surpluses in the Social
Security account, it has put Federal notes in that Social Security
account, and it has used that money for other purposes.
And now next year what do we face? Instead of having 100 percent of
that money being used for other purposes, as it was for 30 years, what
we have instead, under a worst-case scenario, is that 80 percent of
that money instead is going to be used to pay down the national debt.
Only the folks running this House could turn that kind of major
progress into a political crisis. They ought to be ashamed of
themselves for doing that.
The fact is, if they really want to strengthen Social Security, they
will quit playing games with it; and what they will do is recognize
that the best thing they can do, along with paying down debt, the best
thing that they can do is make the kind of investments we need in
Generation X for their education and for their job training so we can
raise the income that they will earn so they will have decent salaries
and can pay more into Social Security in order to extend the strength
and the life of that Social Security fund.
That is what we would say if this issue was being dealt with honestly
on the floor. But it is let's-pretend time, and so we cannot get to the
truth, I guess.
So, Mr. Speaker, what I guess I would say to my majority friends on
the Republican side of the aisle is simply this: if they have the
votes, pass this turkey, get it on to the President, let him veto it,
let us clear the air, and then let us really sit down and do business.
If we could get the political bull gravy out of this debate, we could
solve all of the remaining dollar problems in about 3 days.
We are not that far apart. The gap in dollars that separate us is not
nearly as large as the credibility gap that
[[Page H11077]]
they have developed in the way that the majority has handled this
issue.
There are only four ways to get a budget. The first is, if they
really want to protect Social Security, we can go back and we can cut
out a lot of the excess spending that they have included in some of the
previously passed appropriation bills. If they want to do that, I will
work with them on that. If they do not want to do that, I am not going
to argue.
Second thing they could do then is simply say, Okay, we are going to
take a look at some of the President's revenue sources, such as his
proposal to try to discourage the use of tobacco by young people, which
would bring some additional revenue into the Treasury. I do not much
like that, but I would rather support that than to lie. And that is
what is happening now.
The third thing they can do if they want to pass a budget is simply
get real and to simply adjust the spending caps which we are operating
under to reflect what we are actually spending rather than what we
pretend we are spending. I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
has urged the same solution. I agree with him on that.
They can get my support on any of those three options. The one option
I do not want to support is the one that the House continues to pursue
at this moment, which is to stay in Let's-pretend land and to hide
everything that we are doing through all of these fancy budgetary
devices.
This chart shows what they are doing to the National Institutes of
Health. The blue graph shows what amount of money was provided by the
National Institutes of Health to medical researchers in each month last
year as those contracts were signed in an orderly fashion.
Under this bill that they are bringing to the floor today, they are
telling the National Institutes of Health that, even though they are
going to give them more money, they are not going to let them spend it
for an entire year and then; in the last 2 days, they are supposed to
put out a huge percentage of their own budget.
{time} 1130
That is irresponsible. It is a financial gimmick. It does not serve
any purpose but to cover somebody's political tail, and it will hurt
our efforts to find cures for every major disease that plagues mankind.
So I would say simply, there are a lot of good people on both sides
of the aisle, and sooner or later they have to be unleashed so that we
can sit down, work out a rational compromise on these bills, and get
this Congress out of town before it does any more damage to its
reputation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First, I would like to get back to the subject of the continuing
resolution. I listened with interest to the debate of my friend from
Wisconsin. His debate went to the overall issue of budget items as well
as the bill that we are going to consider next. But right now, what we
have before us, is the continuing resolution.
I want to tell my friend from Wisconsin when he says we are not that
far apart, he is pretty accurate. We are not that far apart on our
legislation. We are miles apart on the political rhetoric. And I am
afraid that it is going to be more difficult to close that gap between
the political rhetoric than it will be to solve the problems of the
appropriations bills.
The gentleman suggested that we should consider the President's new
tax program that he sent to us. We did. Maybe the gentleman forgot. But
the President's package of tax increases was presented to this House
just about a week ago, and after great debate, not a Republican voted
for that tax package and not an independent voted for that tax package,
and not a Democrat voted for that tax package. So the effect, Mr.
Speaker, was that the President's plan to increase taxes got zero votes
in the House of Representatives.
My friend from Wisconsin said that it is pretend time. Let me tell
you how much pretending we are doing here. Yesterday, official figures
released show that the Federal Government ran a surplus of $122.7
billion in the last fiscal year, fiscal year 1999, which just ended
September 30th. That is the first time the government has recorded
back-to-back surpluses since the Eisenhower administration in 1956-
1957. The 1999 surplus was almost double the 1998 surplus, which was
$69.2 billion. So we are getting there. We are getting to the point. We
are not spending Social Security surpluses. And in fiscal year 2000, we
will not spend Social Security surpluses. That is not pretend time,
that is the fact. I am basing this on official reports that were
released yesterday.
I am not going to do this now but I might do this later and show how
much various Congresses spent out of the Social Security trust fund in
recent years. It is a tremendous amount, as high as $60 billion in the
year that the gentleman from Wisconsin chaired the Committee on
Appropriations. So a lot of money was spent out of the Social Security
trust fund in the past. But in fiscal year 2000, that will not be the
case. We are keeping our word. We are not dipping into the Social
Security trust fund to finance the day-to-day operation of the
government. We are saving that money for the people that it was
promised to.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers), the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee
on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary.
Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, we heard it for the first time or at least I did
publicly from the gentleman from Wisconsin a few minutes ago when he
spoke in the well. We have heard it privately from that side of the
aisle for a long time now but we heard it publicly here, when the
gentleman said, yes, we have spent out of the Social Security surplus
for 30 years, when the gentleman's party controlled this Congress. And
he said now you folks want to not spend the Social Security moneys for
general government purposes, and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves,
he said.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not ashamed of myself at all. I am extremely
proud that our party, for the first time in more than 30 years, is
saying to that party no, you cannot spend any more from the Social
Security trust fund. That is for our elderly, and you can live on the
tax moneys that come into the general treasury, and that is what this
party is attempting to do. And so we heard it for the first time here.
Get the transcript and read it. Publish it in the newspapers. That
party stands for blowing the Social Security trust fund for anything
and everything, and they have, as the gentleman said, for 30 years at
least. And our party now says no more. The Social Security moneys that
hardworking Americans pay into this government system shall be used
only for the purposes for which it was paid, and that is to provide for
the care of the elderly when they reach that retirement age. And our
party has laid down the line, no more raiding Social Security, leave it
alone, it is for our elderly. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for
suggesting the continuation of that kind of a policy of using Social
Security for every other purpose.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Despite what we have
just heard from the past two speakers, the Congressional Budget Office
this morning has indicated that you are spending this year $17 billion
out of Social Security. What I said on the floor is that you should be
ashamed for denying the truth. That is what you ought to be ashamed of.
The second thing I would point out to the gentleman is that whatever
money was spent out of Social Security by Democratic Congresses was
less than we were asked to spend by President Bush and President Reagan
in all 12 years they were in office except for 1 year. In 11 out of the
12 years, we were asked to spend more out of Social Security by
President Bush and President Reagan than the Congress agreed to do.
So let us keep the facts straight. If you are going to quote me,
quote me right. I am not attacking your actions. I am attacking the
hypocrisy that I so often see in this House.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
[[Page H11078]]
Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say why are we here. I would say
probably for three real reasons. Number one, in response to the
American people in 1997 to get our fiscal house in order, we passed a
bipartisan budget agreement. I did not support it. I know the gentleman
from Wisconsin and many others did not but over 300 Democrats and
Republicans joined with the White House to pass this agreement to give
us a road for budget restraint in the next couple of years. That is
number one.
Number two, we have said as recently as last week, no new taxes. On a
vote of 419-0, Democrats and Republicans rejected President Clinton's
proposals to increase taxes. And number three, despite the fact that
the President said in his State of the Union address that we should
only preserve 62 percent of the Social Security trust fund, we on the
Republican side have insisted on 100 percent, and now many of the
Democrats have said, let us protect 100 percent of the Social Security
trust fund.
So with these three principles colliding, what we are trying to do is
balance the budget by reducing spending by about one cent on the
dollar. It is not that hard to do. If you look back at the principles,
here is what the White House said about the Republican plan: The key
goal is to not spend Social Security surplus. That is right from the
mouth of Chief of Staff John Podesta at the White House.
This chart, Mr. Speaker, shows that under Democrat control and under
Republican control up until this year, we have been spending Social
Security surplus. But this year on this chart, we have not. We do not
want to back off that commitment. I think it is very important.
And the way to not do that is this simple, shown in this chart. We
are going to spend out of a dollar 99 cents and we are going to save
one cent. Where can you get some of this money? Look at it in practical
examples. The President went to Africa last year. One thousand three
hundred Federal employees went with him at a price tag of $42.8
million. Under this proposal, 13 of them would have to stay at home. He
went to China, $18.8 million, 800 Federal employees. Under this plan,
eight of them would have to stay at home. Ben & Jerry's, the delicious
and successful ice cream company, gets a Federal subsidy of $800,000 to
sell ice cream overseas. Under this proposal, they would get less, and
who knows, maybe they would have to do it the old-fashioned way and pay
for it themselves.
Under this proposal we may want to look at the FDA cheese inspection
program because the FDA inspects cheese pizza but the USDA, the
Department of Agriculture, inspects pepperoni pizza. I do not know,
maybe they could get together. That might be an example of cutting out
government waste.
Here in Washington, D.C., one of the cronies of the city council was
awarded a $6.6 million contract for job placement. One year later after
being asked to place 1500 people, 30 people had been placed.
Those are just a couple of examples. That is all we are saying. If we
can do that, we can keep from raiding Social Security or increasing
taxes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, let me again repeat the facts to counter the fiction
that we have just heard. Despite the fact that our majority party
friends have taken $12 billion of education money and slipped it one
day over into the next fiscal year so they could hide it in this year,
despite the fact that they have taken almost $4 billion at the National
Institutes of Health and squeezed that spending just over the line into
the next fiscal year, it will still be spent, still come out of Social
Security, just next year's Social Security money, despite the fact that
they have simply ordered the accountants to not count $13 billion in
spending that they do at the Department of Defense, despite all of
that, we have a letter from the Congressional Budget Office this
morning that indicates that you are still spending $17 billion worth of
Social Security this year. Now, get off the baloney, get back to the
facts and let us resolve our differences in an honest way.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay), ranking member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
Mr. CLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, if the Republican leadership had done its job instead of
playing politics with appropriations for vital government services, I
would not be here this morning to speak on this unnecessary continuing
resolution and to oppose H.R. 3064, which includes the Labor, HHS and
Education Appropriations Act, because if passed it would make drastic
cuts in programs that are vitally important to Americans, especially to
those most in need of the Federal Government's assistance and
protection.
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, this ill-conceived and sensitive bill faces
swift death at the hands of a veto by the President. Many of the
important initiatives proposed by the President to improve our schools
and to prepare our children for the 21st century have either been
eliminated or underfunded. The bill that we will be considering after
this guts the Clinton-Clay plan to hire 100,000 new teachers and reduce
class sizes in the early grades. Instead, it diverts $1.2 billion to a
block grant that requires no real accountability and would permit
spending public money to send children to private schools.
Mr. Speaker, last week this body overwhelmingly defeated the
Republican majority leader's ill-advised attempt to authorize vouchers
for private and public schools. Now the same misguided leadership is
attempting a backdoor enactment of the same raid on public funds. The
cuts in H.R. 3064 are devastating. The Republicans' bill cuts $26
million from the President's funding request to improve the reading
skills of 100,000 students as proposed in the Reading Excellence Act.
The Republicans' bill denies $60 million of the President's funding
request for Gear Up, thus preventing 131,000 low-income students from
receiving mentoring, counseling and tutoring services intended to help
them prepare for college.
{time} 1145
The bill provides $300 billion less than the President requested for
after-school enrichment centers, thereby funding 3,400 fewer centers;
and after selling our children and teachers short, the Republicans'
bill also reflects the same legislative assault on workers. The bill
would undermine worker protection programs by cutting $18 million from
the President's request for the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. Funding for the Labor Relations Board is cut by $10
million below the President's request, which will result in total
gridlock in resolving labor-management disputes.
Mr. Speaker, I recommend that we defeat the bill that comes after
this continuing resolution.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is the very distinguished chairman of
the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay) and what he had to say about education funding;
and, Mr. Speaker, he is way off the mark. This bill does better than
the President in his budget, which was a political document in the
extreme.
It does better than the President on education funding by over $300
million, and to say that Republicans are not committed to education is
simply wrong. Our commitment is just as strong or stronger than that on
the other side of the aisle; but we do not believe, and the reason the
gentleman referred to accounts that he said were not plussed up as the
President suggested, we do not believe that public education ought to
be directed by Washington. The very genius of public education in our
country is that it is not directed by Washington; it is directed by our
school districts and our States, where the primary responsibility lies.
We put a great deal of money into primary and secondary education,
and we put a great deal of money, more than the President has suggested
in both areas, into college student financial assistance so that young
people have a chance to get a higher education. We put in $679 million
more than the President in his budget request in special education for
handicapped kids. We put $45 million over last year and $15 million
over the
[[Page H11079]]
President's request in the Trio program so that minority young people
have a chance to get a higher education. We funded impact aid, a
Federal responsibility, for more than the President.
In line item after line item in this bill we do better than the
President, and we give more flexibility to the local school districts
and States.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
As my colleagues know, this Congress is quickly running out of
Federal buildings to name around the country. It has about commemorated
everything that could be commemorated, and since these uncontested
measures represent the principal legislative product of this Republican
do-nothing Congress, it is appropriate that this legislation would be
before us today as really only another of these uncontested
commemorative resolutions. It commemorates failure. It deserves a name:
The Republican Congressional Failure Act of 1999.
As late as September 19, the Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hastert), told the country that ``by the first of October we will
have all of the appropriation bills passed out of the House and the
Senate,'' and here we are, nearing November 1, not October 1, and one
of those very important bills has never even been presented to the
House for consideration, much less the Senate or the President of the
United States for his consideration.
We will have later today that bill finally come before us, and it is
clear that the reason for the delay of that bill; now that we have it,
is that it has failure written all over it. This legislation funds all
of our Federal commitment to public education in this country, funds
all of our major health research for all the very dreaded diseases that
touch families throughout this country; and yet here we are a month
after the conclusion of the fiscal year for which it was supposed to
have been approved, and it has never even been debated on the floor of
the House.
This is a measure that touches every family, one way or another,
throughout the United States. Like the other parts of the Republican
legislative agenda, this bill fails to add one single dollar to
strengthen Social Security, and it also fails to meet the standard of
the rhetoric we have heard about Social Security here this morning. I
have a letter that the Congressional Budget Office sent this morning,
October 28, to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert. The Congressional Budget
Office says, and I quote:
Outlays from congressional action on appropriation
legislation including the latest action on all 13
appropriation bills would also exceed the discretionary caps
(those are the ones put in place to assure a balanced budget)
by more than CBO's baseline estimate of the on-budget
surplus. After taking that surplus into account, the
Congressional Budget Office projects an on-budget deficit of
about $17 billion.
That is $17 billion directly out of Social Security Trust Fund
monies. To say that they are not using Social Security monies for non-
Social Security purposes is flat wrong, and the evidence is here from
the Republican Congressional Budget Office to demonstrate it. This bill
and the legislative program of which it is a part fails to get
prescription drugs to seniors, fails to ferret out waste. It is late,
and it is wrong for America. This bill should be rejected, and another
stop gap continuing resolution undoubtedly will be presented to this
House, because of the same failures that have characterized the first
10 months of this year.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman of the
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs.
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I love this House. Witness the ceremony yesterday
afternoon where we honored former President Ford and Betty Ford and the
comments that were made there about the respect this institution has
had over past decades.
But are we so naive or so stupid, Mr. Speaker, that we think the
American people cannot see what we are doing here? Is there anybody in
this body who thinks they are fooling the American people by saying we
are going to destroy the Social Security Trust Fund? Of course we are
not. The only thing we have to argue is history, and history says for
40 years until 1993 that the majority party during those years was
spending much of the Social Security Trust Fund.
And now we are here today with a balanced budget talking about
whether we might dip into the Social Security Trust Fund by $10 or $15
billion, which we are not, but the American people are not that naive.
The American people are truly appreciative of the fact that during the
last 3 years we have balanced the budget. What a wonderful argument it
is to develop today, saying we are not going to spend all of the Social
Security Trust Fund. Maybe CBO or some other organization might score
some of the things we pass here today as a possible invasion of the
trust fund, which I do not think it is. But the American people are not
easily fooled. The American people know exactly what we are talking
about when we have debates such as this which is nothing but
demagoguery.
Mr. Speaker, I am just as guilty as any of my colleagues. I stood on
this floor the other day and demagogued the President of the United
States for taking 1,700 people to Africa and spending $47 million of
the taxpayers' money on that trip. We do all of that, but let us not
think for 1 minute that the American people are so naive as to think,
Mr. Speaker, that anybody in any party would deliberately do anything
to the detriment of the Social Security Trust Fund.
We have to look at where we were when we, the majority, took control
of this House 5 years ago and where we are today, and it is as simple
as that. The chairman of my committee (Mr. Young) has the most
compelling chart of all of the charts that have ever been presented on
this issue to the House, and it shows what was happening before the
Republican party took control of this House, and it is so glaring that
the amount of money that we are now saving for the Social Security
Trust Fund is a result of what we have done in this body.
So we can have all this fun we want, and we can engage in all this
rhetoric, and we can demagogue, and we can stand up and we can say
these bad things about each other. The real fact is the American people
are no fools. We have balanced the budget, we have saved Social
Security, and it is because of the programs that we have implemented in
the last 4 years.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), ranking Democrat on the
Committee on the Budget.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, a continuing resolution is a confession of
failure on the part of Congress. It is a confession by Congress that it
has not done its job, so is the appropriation bill that follows this
continuing resolution.
We were elected to use our judgment, our experience, to use our
discretion to get the best value out of the American taxpayers' money.
What do we do with an across-the-board cut? It is nothing less than
abdication of the judgment that we were elected to use. It whacks the
budget across the board by 1 percent, cutting the good with the bad.
Now that may sound minimal. One percent sounds trivial. But if it is
minimal, why not go back through these 13 bills and do it using
discretionary judgment, picking out things that have been larded into
these bills, Member adds, and we can start with Senator Lott's
helicopter landing ship, just one of many things that cost several
hundred million dollars that we can do without. The Navy said so, did
not want it, did not ask for it.
One percent is not minimal if someone is one of the people who have
been hurt by the cut. As my colleagues know, we have spent the better
part of this year, this past year, trying to get veterans health care
up to the level that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs itself says we
need to fund it at in order to keep our promises made to the men and
women who served our country particularly in time of war, and if
[[Page H11080]]
there are any promises we ought to keep; we ought to keep the promises
we made to our veterans.
What does this bill do? We have got the veterans' health care up by
1.5, $1.7 million; it whacks it $200 million. That is health care
veterans will not be able to get if this bill were to become law.
We spent last year, the whole past year, trying to get funding for
our men and women in uniform, our Armed Services, up to the level where
they want to stay in the service and encourage others to join the
service because recruitment and retention are off, both badly.
What does this bill do? The appropriations bill that will come after
this continuing resolution will whack our men in uniform to the tune of
28,000 men and women on active duty who will have to be involuntarily
separated, removed from service. What in the world will that do to
morale when we are trying to encourage retention and recruitment?
Kicked out of the service, mindless across-the-board cuts. General
Shelton summed up the effects yesterday when he said a 1 percent
across-the-board would be devastating to our national defense. But that
is what we are proposing here today.
All of this mindless carnage to the budget is being done in the name
of holding Social Security surplus harmless, and it is a worthy goal;
but I suggest to my colleagues in truth this is not the real goal. The
real goal is to send these 13 appropriation bills to the President,
have them veto several of them, and then we will be able to say he is
responsible for our having to borrow this year from Social Security.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that dog will not hunt.
{time} 1200
Do not take my word for it. Listen to what CBO says this morning just
off the press in its summary of 12 bills that this Republican majority
and this House and the Senate have passed, the last to come, Labor-HHS.
It summed them all up, and here is the summary right here on this chart
in the simplest possible terms for people to understand.
The appropriations spending cap for this year in July was $580
billion. At that level, CBO said we would have a surplus this year of
$14 billion, $14.4 to be exact. So that means if you spend $594
billion, the cap on appropriations, plus the on-budget surplus, you can
stay out of Social Security. But CBO says today, looking at all 13
appropriation bills, that they spend altogether $611 billion. Simple
arithmetic says, therefore, these bills to date are $17 billion already
into the Social Security trust fund, $17 billion already into the
Social Security surplus, because these bills to date spend $611 billion
as opposed to a spending ceiling of $594 billion if you want to stay
out of Social Security.
There it is in simple form. In more complicated form I have a letter
here dated October 28, 1999, from Dr. Crippen, who is the Director of
CBO, which I would like to insert in the Record. It sets it straight.
It spells it out. You are already $17.1 billion into Social Security.
That is the bottom line, no way around it.
Let us vote down the Labor-HHS bill so we can get down to reality and
get down to budgeting, rather than blaming, which is what the people
elected us to do.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:
Congressional Budget Office,
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, October 28, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: As you requested in your letter of
October 27, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has
estimated the on-budget deficit for fiscal year 2000,
incorporating appropriation action to date.
CBO's estimates are based on appropriation bills that have
been signed by the President and, for those that have not yet
been enacted into law, on the most recent conference
agreements. The enclosed table provides CBO's estimate of how
those bills would affect the on-budget surplus for fiscal
year 2000. As you requested, the table displays the impact on
that estimate of the adjustments made to CBO's figures for
Congressional scorekeeping purposes--with the exception of
the adjustment made for contingent emergencies.
In response to numerous questions about the on-budget
deficit and related matters, CBO has prepared a memorandum
entitled Discretionary Spending Caps, Deficits, and the
Social Security Surplus, which provides some context for
addressing the budgetary issues you have raised. A copy of
that memorandum is enclosed.
If you wish further information, we will be pleased to
provide it.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen,
Director.
Enclosures:
TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY IMPACT OF CURRENT APPROPRIATION ACTION FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000, AS OF OCTOBER 27, 1999
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
authority Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Appropriations (By bill): \1\
Agriculture..................................... 22.7 22.7
Commerce, Justice, State, the judiciary......... 37.2 36.3
Defense......................................... 269.4 267.8
District of Columbia............................ 0.4 0.4
Energy and water................................ 21.3 21.0
Foreign operations.............................. 12.7 13.3
Interior........................................ 14.4 14.7
Labor, HHS, Education \2\....................... 84.6 83.4
Legislative..................................... 2.5 2.5
Military construction........................... 8.4 8.8
Transportation.................................. 13.6 44.7
Treasury and general government................. 13.7 14.7
Veterans, HUD, independent agencies............. 71.9 83.7
---------------------
Subtotal \1\................................ 572.9 614.1
Across-the-board reduction of 0.97 percent...... -5.7 -3.5
Savings from additional collections of defaulted -0.1 -0.1
student loans..................................
---------------------
Total \1\................................... 567.1 610.5
CBO's July 1999 Baseline Estimate of Discretionary 539.3 579.8
Appropriations...................................
---------------------
Difference (Total appropriations minus baseline 27.8 30.7
estimate)........................................
Additional Interest Costs Resulting from Higher n.a. 0.8
Appropriations...................................
---------------------
Total Change from Baseline.................. n.a. 31.5
CBO's July 1999 Baseline Estimate of On-Budget n.a. 14.4
Surplus..........................................
CBO's Estimate of the On-Budget Deficit (-) n.a. -17.1
Reflecting Appropriation Action to Date \2\......
Congressional Scorekeeping Adjustments \2\........ 3.4 18.1
Projected On-Budget Surplus Under Congressional n.a. 1.0
Scoring..........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CBO estimates, excluding scorekeeping adjustments.
\2\ Reductions applied to CBO's estimates for Congressional scorekeeping
purposes; not included in any of the figures above. Includes $0.4
billion in debt service savings, but does not include $1.6 billion in
adjustments for contingent emergencies.
SOURCE: Congresisonal Budget Office.
NOTE: HHS=Department of Health and Human Services; HUD=Department of
Housing and Urban Development; n.a.=not applicable.
Discretionary Spending Caps, Deficits, and the Social Security Trust
Funds
October 28, 1999
The current budget debate centers around two distinct
objectives. The first is adherence to the statutory caps on
discretionary spending specified in the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997 (BBA). The BBA extends an accounting framework for
discretionary spending and requires across-the-board cuts
(sequestration) if the caps are exceeded. The executive
branch alone determines whether a sequestration is needed
and, if so, executes it.
The second objective is avoiding an on-budget deficit--that
is, avoiding the need to borrow from the Social Security
trust funds to finance non-Social Security spending. Whether
that objective is met depends on the total amount of revenues
and spending in the rest of the budget. No enforcement
mechanism, such as sequestration, exists to ensure the
attainment of that goal.
Those two objectives are related but are not identical, and
actions taken to achieve one of them would not necessarily
increase the likelihood of achieving the other. In addition,
confusion exists about the relationship between on-budget
deficits and the Social Security surplus. In response to
numerous questions, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has
prepared this memorandum to provide some context for
addressing those issues.
limits of budget estimates
It is important to keep in mind that at this stage in the
budget process, all of the numbers being presented are
estimates of outcomes over the next 12 months. Even without
future Congressional action, at this time next year, current
estimates of total revenues and outlays will probably have
proved to be too high or too low by significant amounts.
Fourteen months ago, for example, CBO predicted an on-budget
deficit of $37 billion for fiscal year 1999. (The spending
and income of the Social Security trust funds and the Postal
Service are defined by law as off-budget. All other spending
and income of the government are on-budget.) In fact, the on-
budget accounts were virtually in balance that year,
recording a deficit of only $1 billion.
At present, the primary focus of the budget debate is the
outlays that will occur in fiscal year 2000 as a result of
discretionary appropriations of budget authority. On that
score--estimating the outlays from discretionary budget
authority--CBO has an admirable track record. Between 1993
and 1998, its projections of appropriated spending each year
differed from actual outlays by an average of just $2
billion, or 0.4 percent (disregarding whether the difference
was above or below actual spending).
However, for the remainder of the budget (revenues and
mandatory spending), CBO's projections--along with those of
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other
[[Page H11081]]
forecasters--have not been as accurate. With total federal
revenues and outlays in the vicinity of $1.8 trillion each
year and a national economy of $9 trillion, even small
variations from the forecasts for economic variables, tax
revenues, or mandatory spending can lead to changes in the
surplus or deficit of tens of billions of dollars. For fiscal
year 2000, if revenues and outlays differ from CBO's
estimates by as little as 1 percent, the on-budget surplus
could be $36 billion higher or lower. Thus, the on-budget
surplus for 2000 could differ substantially from CBO's
baseline projection of $14 billion, even if the two
objectives mentioned above are met.
discretionary spending caps
The caps on discretionary spending are moving targets
rather than permanently fixed values. The caps can be
adjusted upward to account for funding designated as
emergency requirements and for certain other, generally
small, items. OMB, which is responsible for determining
compliance with the caps, may also make adjustments to
reflect changes in budgetary concepts and definitions. As a
result of those various types of changes, the caps on
discretionary outlays for 2000 have increased from a total of
$564.3 billion (as initially set in the Balanced Budget Act)
to $575.8 billion (as specified in OMB's Sequestration Update
Report, issued on August 25, 1999).
Adherence to the caps is enforced through sequestration,
which involves across-the-board cuts in funding for
discretionary programs. After this session of Congress ends,
OMB will determine whether a sequestration is required on the
basis of its estimates of the discretionary caps as adjusted
and of the spending that will result from appropriation
actions. CBO produces estimates of both the caps and
spending, but for the sequestration process, those estimates
are purely advisory.
In CBO's view, the President's most recent budget request
and House and Senate appropriation action to date all exceed
the outlay caps for 2000 by similar amounts. CBO estimates
that discretionary outlays from the policies of the
President's Mid-Session Review would exceed CBO's July 1
estimate of the caps by $35 billion. The Administration, by
contrast, asserts that those policies would adhere to the
caps--in part because it estimates lower outlays from the
policies and in part because it has proposed a number of
offsets (such as tobacco taxes and Medicare savings) that CBO
believes cannot be used to offset discretionary spending
under the provisions of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
CBO estimates that Congressional appropriation action, as
of October 27, also exceeds its July 1 estimate of the outlay
caps--by a total of about $31 billion. But even though
estimated outlays exceed the caps, a sequestration may not
occur. A significant part of the overage--about $26 billion--
results from spending that has been designated as emergency
requirements. If the President concurs with the designation,
that spending will result in corresponding upward adjustments
to the caps.
In addition, OMB's estimates of outlays are lower than
CBO's especially for defense spending--and OMB's estimates
are the ones that determine the need for a sequestration.
Indeed, the budget committees' scoring of the appropriation
bills includes scorekeeping adjustments intended to
approximate the Administration's outlays estimates. Depending
on the funding levels established in the appropriation bills
that have not yet been enacted, the combination of emergency
designations and lower outlays estimates may be enough for
OMB to determine that a sequestration is not required.
on-budget surpluses or deficits
The second budget issue that has received much attention
lately is whether an on-budget surplus will result in fiscal
year 2000. Whether discretionary spending adheres to the
statutory caps, as determined by OMB, can affect whether the
government ultimately achieves an on-budget surplus, but the
first does not guarantee the second. It is possible to exceed
the caps and still have an on-budget surplus; conversely, it
is possible to adhere to the caps and still have an on-budget
deficit. (The sequestration procedures are aimed at holding
spending under the caps, not necessarily at avoiding on-
budget deficits.)
Two major factors can account for those different outcomes:
spending for which the caps are adjusted and estimating
errors. Although the caps may be increased for spending
designated as emergency requirements, such spending still
counts toward determining the on-budget surplus or deficit.
Thus, appropriating emergency funds is not a violation of the
caps, but it will result in additional outlays that will
lessen or eliminate an on-budget surplus.
Estimating errors can have a similar result. If the
estimates of outlays used to determine compliance with the
caps are too low, spending may appear to fall within the
statutory limits when, in reality, it will exceed them. The
use of OMB estimates--or scorekeeping adjustments that
approximate them--creates such a possibility, particularly
because the Administration has routinely underestimate
defense spending in recent years.
CBO's current estimates indicate that there is some room to
exceed the spending implied by the discretionary caps while
still maintaining an on-budget surplus. In its summer update
of the baseline, CBO projects an on-budget surplus of $14
billion for 2000, assuming that discretionary outlays would
be about $580 billion (CBO's estimate of the discretionary
caps at that time). If those projections are accurate,
discretionary spending could exceed CBO's estimate of the
caps by up to $14 billion without causing an on-budget
deficit.
Both the President's budget proposals and Congressional
action would result in discretionary spending that, by CBO's
estimates, would exceed the caps by more than $14 billion and
thus result in an on-budget deficit for 2000. CBO estimates
that the President's budget, if enacted in full, would result
in an on-budget deficit of $7 billion. That number is
considerably lower than the amount by which this budget would
exceed the spending caps because of his proposals to offset
total outlays with revenue increases and Medicare reductions.
However, the President's budget does not include provisions
for some of the emergency appropriations that have been
enacted. For example, the emergency agriculture package will
add approximately $8 billion to outlays. Including that sum,
the on-budget deficit for 2000 under the President's
proposals would increase to $15 billion even it the offsets
were enacted.
Outlays from Congressional action on appropriation
legislation, including the latest action on all 13 regular
appropriation bills, would also exceed the discretionary caps
by more than CBO's baseline estimate of the on-budget
surplus. After taking that surplus into account, CBO projects
an on-budget deficit of about $17 billion (see Table 1).
the social security surplus
The current off-budget surplus is much larger than any on-
budget surplus projected for the near future. The Social
Security trust funds account for virtually all of that off-
budget surplus. (The net income or spending of the Postal
Service is quite small in comparison.)
Income credited to the Social Security trust funds (from
tax revenues and interest on the funds' holdings of Treasury
securities) exceeded spending for Social Security benefits
and administrative costs by about $125 billion in fiscal year
1999. CBO expects that, under current law, the Social
Security surplus will grow to $147 billion in 2000. What
happens to that money?
TABLE 1. ESTIMATED BUDGETARY IMPACT OF CURRENT APPROPRIATION ACTION FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000, AS OF OCTOBER 27, 1999
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
authority Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Appropriations (By bill): \1\
Agriculture..................................... 22.7 22.7
Commerce, Justice, State, the judiciary......... 37.2 36.3
Defense......................................... 269.4 267.8
District of Columbia............................ 0.4 0.4
Energy and water................................ 21.3 21.0
Foreign operations.............................. 12.7 13.3
Interior........................................ 14.4 14.7
Labor, HHS, Education \2\....................... 84.6 83.4
Legislative..................................... 2.5 2.5
Military construction........................... 8.4 8.8
Transportation.................................. 13.6 44.7
Treasury and general government................. 13.7 14.7
Veterans, HUD, independent agencies............. 71.9 83.7
---------------------
Subtotal \1\................................ 572.9 614.1
Across-the-board reduction of 0.97 percent...... -5.7 -3.5
Savings from additional collections of defaulted -0.1 -0.1
student loans..................................
---------------------
Total \1\................................... 567.1 610.5
CBO's July 1999 Baseline Estimate of Discretionary 539.3 579.8
Appropriations...................................
---------------------
Difference (Total appropriations minus baseline 27.8 30.7
estimate)........................................
Additional Interest Costs Resulting from Higher n.a. 0.8
Appropriations...................................
---------------------
Total Change from Baseline.................. n.a. 31.5
CBO's July 1999 Baseline Estimate of the On-Budget n.a 14.4
Surplus..........................................
CBO's Estimate of the On-Budget Deficit (-) n.a. -17.1
Reflecting Appropriation Action to Date \1\......
Memorandum:
Emergency Designations \2\...................... 27.2 25.8
Congressional Scorekeeping Adjustment \3\....... 3.4 19.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CBO estimates, excluding scorekeeping adjustments.
\2\ Included in the appropriation figures above.
\3\ Reductions applied to CBO's estimates for Congressional scorekeeping
purposes; not included in any of the figures above.
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
Note: HHS = Department of Health and Human Services; HUD = Department of
Housing and Urban Development; n.a. = not applicable.
That surplus is invested in Treasury securities and earns
interest for the trust funds. The cash that the Treasury
receives in return for those securities can be used in two
ways. If the revenues and expenses of the rest of the
government (other than Social Security) are in balance, the
cash generated by the Social Security surplus is used to
reduce federal borrowing from the public--that is, to pay
down the debt. Alternatively, if the budget of the rest of
the government is in deficit, some of the cash generated by
the Social Security surplus is used to pay other expenses of
the government and to avoid the need to borrow from the
public to support that spending. In either case, the balances
credited to the Social Security trust funds and the
government's legal obligation to pay Social Security benefits
are unaffected.
Surpluses, both on-budget and off-budget, nevertheless have
significant benefits because they allow the government to
reduce debt held by the public. Such debt reduction cuts the
government's interest costs, adding further to the surplus or
providing more resources to be used for other purposes. In
the long run, substantial reductions in federal debt held by
the public can add significantly to national saving, thus
enhancing economic growth and better equipping the nation to
bear the economic and budgetary burdens imposed by the aging
of the baby-boom generation.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H11082]]
Mr. Speaker, I know there is a little confusion here today about
which bill we are considering. We are considering actually a continuing
resolution, and we are not continuing the several bills that the
gentleman who just spoke had referred to, but he made a couple of
comments that I think we cannot allow to go unchallenged.
First, he talked about veterans health care. What our colleagues on
both sides of the aisle ought to realize is that in the bill that we
presented for veterans health care, we increased the President's budget
request for veterans health care by $1.7 billion. We increased veterans
health care over the President's budget, contrary to what the gentleman
in the well had just said.
Then he talked about cuts in salaries. No salaries will be cut by the
language in the next bill that we consider, nor this bill, and this
bill does not cut anybody's salary. The CR does not cut anything. The
next bill does not cut anybody's salaries, except Members of Congress.
So I am not sure where all these confusing statistics are coming from.
Then there is one more item that supposedly comes from the
Congressional Budget Office. What the Members on the other side, who
are referring to Mr. Crippen's papers, failed to go to is the next two
lines. The next two lines say ``Congressional scorekeeping adjustments,
$18.1 billion,'' which brings us to an on-budget surplus of $1 billion,
according to Mr. Crippen, who they are quoting in their debate.
Here is the paper from the Congressional Budget Office. It says using
the scorekeeping adjustments, we have saved $18.1 billion.
So, Mr. Speaker, I realize there is some confusion here as to which
bill we are considering. We are considering a continuing resolution,
and I think everybody supports it, including the President of the
United States. We are debating a number of other bills.
We will, after we pass the CR, get to the actual bill, the conference
report on the District of Columbia and the Labor-Health and Human
Services appropriations bill, but that is not what is the issue before
us at this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the chart makers on both sides.
While we have used a lot of charts today, and I am going to use one in
my final presentation that I think is a great chart, we have really
improved our ability to present charts, and I compliment both sides for
that.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California, the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the
chairman yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak during this discussion on the
bill that is before us, but the comments made by the last speaker are
of concern to me as well, for in those comments he presumed in the next
bill there may be some across-the-board cut that could affect the bill
we have recently had the President sign, the bill funding national
defense.
Indeed, it is conceivable that if the House does adopt and there is
signed into law an across-the-board provision that affects all
accounts, that defense could be affected, and that does concern me a
lot. But I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, it concerns me most because of
the condition we find our national services in today.
There is little doubt that the bill the President signed is a breath
of fresh air in terms of returning to recognizing the priority needed
for national defense. But indeed the reason we need to be concerned is
because of the actions of past Congresses.
Since I have been in the Congress, we have reduced our annual
expenditures for national expense in amounts of almost $150 billion. If
indeed we have had a problem funding our personnel, keeping our forces
and numbers and strength that is required, it is because of that past
history of a lack of support of the former majority of our national
defense systems.
I am very concerned about the discussion that is going forward. But,
in the meantime, I think the public should understand what this
discussion is actually all about as it relates to national defense.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, my friend, whom I greatly respect, the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, has just said that I left
out a line. There is a line on Dr. Crippen's chart. It comes at the
bottom of the page after CBO has scored this budget and says it is $17
billion into Social Security. That line says ``if you use Congressional
scorekeeping.''
Well, CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, is our budget office. We
have hired them to do it. Their record for scorekeeping is pretty
impeccable. Over the last 10 years they have only been 0.4 percent
wrong, plus or minus $2 billion dollars, for the past 15 years in
scoring discretionary spending.
What they are saying is, ``Do not use their scorekeeping; use our
arbitrary scorekeeping. We will borrow this from OMB, and this from
CBO, whatever best serves our purposes.''
The best, consistent and proper way to score the budget before us is
to use CBO. Their track record is good. We have always used them in the
past. If you use CBO, you are $17 billion into Social Security.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would concede to the gentleman that we are using and
cooperating with the President's Office of Management and Budget in
this issue of scoring, so I wanted them to know that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a member of the Committee
on Appropriations.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back a little bit to an issue raised
a little while ago that questioned the Republicans' commitment to the
National Institutes of Health that was not answered, and I think it
should be.
In 1998, I think, the Republican Conference put an initiative of
plussing up the National Institutes of Health that is appropriate for
the research that needs to be done in this country, and to question our
credibility on supporting NIH I think was uncalled for.
Now, why are we here today debating a continuing resolution? Why? I
think we heard the discussion. Because we are trying to get it right.
We are trying to pass a budget for the first time without using the
Social Security surplus, and that is not easy. It may take a little
longer, but the American people are going to be very well served if we
break this practice.
Now, I think we heard today from the gentleman from Wisconsin the
difference. If we look at the record and read it, if I heard the
gentleman correctly, he said, ``You know, we could do this rather
easily,'' and I am trying to be accurate in what I heard, ``we could do
this rather easily because historically we were spending 100 percent,
borrowing it, putting the notes in the drawer and spending it. If we
would agree to spend 80 percent to pay down debt and use 20 percent to
fund government programs, we could get this done real quick.''
Mr. Speaker, that is true. That was a very accurate statement. This
would be over with. We would be home, Congress would be done, the
President would have signed the bills.
We are trying to get it right. It has been difficult to suddenly take
$100-some billion out of this process and say we are going to do it
without that. That is the argument that is going on, and if we read the
Record of this morning's discussion on the continuing resolution, there
is a very valid argument of why we are having a difficult time, because
we have not agreed to take 20 percent, borrow it, spend it. We are
trying to have 100 percent of the Social Security trust fund set aside
and not spent for general government purposes, and that has made it
difficult.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, let me again correct the gentleman. When I described the
80 percent, I said if you assume worst case scenario, which is the
Republican actions on the budget so far, that you
[[Page H11083]]
would have that 80 percent--20 percent split. So if you want to know
why that is so bad, do not ascribe it to me. You are the folks who have
already passed bills that have produced that reality, once you start
telling the public what the actual facts are, rather than hiding almost
$18 billion in spending.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, here we are, 29 days past the day that started the
fiscal year 2000. Only 8 of 13 bills have been passed, so here we are
debating another continuing resolution to get us one week deeper into
the process, and a week from now we will end up here debating still
another continuing resolution.
For weeks now the Republicans have accused Democrats of spending the
Social Security surplus on this year's budget. Now, give us a break.
The Republicans are in the majority here. Democrats cannot pass a
budget at all. We cannot spend a single penny of the budget. The
Republican majority has passed appropriations bills, one right after
the other, with accounting gimmicks that call for routine items
becoming emergencies and putting future expenditures past the end of
the fiscal year so it appears in next year's accounts.
The Office of Management and Budget says you have been spending
Social Security money, your own Congressional Budget Office says that
you have been spending Social Security money, $17 billion by the latest
count, but the Republican leaders, one after another, proclaim they are
not spending a single dollar of the Social Security surplus.
Well, every propaganda campaign depends on convincing people you are
doing exactly the opposite of what you are actually doing, and this is
a propaganda campaign. The big lie, repeated again, and again, and
again.
It really does not matter, because a year from now, by election time,
one year from now, every American will know exactly how much money has
been spent from the Social Security surplus, and it will be impossible
to hide it or lie about it any longer. But, more importantly, is the
fact that in all of this year the Republican majority has deliberately
refused to extend the life of the Social Security system by so much as
a single day. They have deliberately refused to extend the solvency of
the Medicare program by so much as a single day. There is not a whimper
of dispute on either of those facts.
They have refused to put the interest saved by paying down America's
debt into the Social Security trust fund, which alone would extend
Social Security by 15 years, so that people over the age of 30 would be
able to know that they have Social Security good for them into at least
the year 2050. And they have refused to extend the solvency of the
Medicare program beyond the 15 years the present law assures.
At the same time, they have refused to expand the Medicare program to
provide for a prescription drug benefit for our senior citizens. In
fact, they passed earlier this year a disastrous tax bill which would
have made it impossible to extend the life of either Social Security or
Medicare. Both would have died a slow death by strangulation.
Fortunately, the President vetoed that bill.
{time} 1215
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), who plays a major role
on the issue of Social Security as a senior member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding this time to
me.
I think everyone on the Committee on Appropriations knows that social
security comes under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and
Means, and I have been sitting here listening to Member after Member
coming down and talking about how the appropriation process is not
extending the life of social security for even one day.
Mr. Speaker, this committee has no jurisdiction with regard to social
security. If we do not solve the problem of social security, it will
become a problem in about 2014, because we will be looking for
appropriations to put money into the social security trust fund to pay
off the Treasury bills that are in the trust fund to keep the benefits
flowing.
That is my greatest concern, and I think this should be America's
greatest nightmare at this particular time. But that has absolutely
nothing to do with the appropriations process. We have to leave this to
another day. We have to work together to solve this problem.
If we start putting cash into the social security trust fund now,
through the appropriation process under the law governing the social
security trust fund, that money just comes right out the other end and
is converted into Treasury bills. It does not in any way affect the
solvency of the social security trust fund and as far as what date is
it going to have to go out and tap into the taxpayers to get some money
to take care of its obligations and the benefits.
I even saw a member of the Committee on Ways and Means on the
minority side get up and start talking about how this does not extend
the life of social security. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on
Appropriations does not have jurisdiction over social security.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I fully agree that it is not under the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Appropriations to do, but this is passing the buck from one
committee to another. This is a year when, in very good economic times,
we could have extended the life of social security by a very simple
measure, and with reference to passing the buck, all I said was that
the Republican majority has steadfastly and deliberately refused to
extend the lifetime of social security by so much as a day.
Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, I would like to ask the gentleman two
questions. One, exactly what does the gentleman expect the Committee on
Appropriations to do to extend the life of social security in a bill
this year?
Mr. OLVER. I do not expect the Committee on Appropriations to do
anything. I was merely pointing out that it is a responsibility of the
majority to solve America's problems.
Mr. SHAW. The gentleman is absolutely correct.
Mr. OLVER. The problem in this instance is that we need to extend
social security.
They really cannot pass the buck from one committee to another when
it is a matter of all the committees.
Mr. SHAW. If the gentleman would let me explain to him, and if he was
listening, he would know that I said the buck stops at the Committee on
Ways and Means, not the Committee on Appropriations. It is a Committee
on Ways and Means responsibility to do this. We need to do it with a
plan that is going to save social security for all times.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
(Mr. BOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into the fray behind my friend,
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). I want to say that the rhetoric
on social security has reached a new level for the time I have been
here, a short 3 years.
The gentleman from Florida is right, nothing that we will do here
today or in the next month will change, and I think the American people
know and I know every Member of this body knows, nothing will change
the fact that every social security recipient will get their paycheck
on time, with full benefits, at least until the year 2034.
I want to remind Members, though, that what the Committee on Ways and
Means has done over the last 8 months under the leadership of the
Republican majority is focus on an $800 billion tax cut, rather than a
structural reform for social security. I think many of us feel like we
ought to set some money aside so when we address the structural reform,
we will have that money to be able to pay for it.
I want to talk to the Members about the cuts, if I might, the across-
the-
[[Page H11084]]
board cuts. I want to tell a very personal story. I got word earlier
this week that last Thursday a young lieutenant commander in the Navy
who happens to be a cousin of mine, Lieutenant Commander Raymond
Worthington, flying off the U.S.S. Eisenhower, lost power on both
engines as he began to take off, and the nose turned down into the
water and he and his back seat ejected, and obviously were rescued and
safe, but the plane was destroyed.
I tell that story because his mother, for the 3 years I have been in
Congress, has been hounding me about the age of F-14s and the
availability of spare parts, and the shortage of mechanics and people
who keep these F-14s running and in good shape.
I want to tell the Members, this across-the-board cut will cut $1
billion out of the operations and maintenance account of the Department
of Defense. It will make it harder for Lieutenant Commander Raymond
Worthington and his cohorts to get the maintenance and spare parts they
need.
I want to tell the Members also what else these across-the-board cuts
do. They take approximately $200 million out of veterans' health care,
something that we all agree has been underfunded for many, many, many
years. That is very wrong, and I would hope that this Congress, this
House, would reject those across-the-board cuts.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, just two points in closing. With respect to veterans'
health care, everyone has said that the original budget request was
inadequate. We all agree on that.
On this side of the aisle, during consideration of the Veterans
Department budget we asked that $2.4 billion be made available for
veterans health. The committee chose to provide $1.7 billion, instead.
Now, the action that is coming today on the part of the majority party
will cut an additional $200 million out of that $1.7 billion. We do not
think they ought to do that.
Secondly, we have heard a lot of people give some lurid examples of
waste, fraud and abuse. They said, we can easily get at that if we pass
this 1 percent cut. The problem is that the way the 1 percent cut is
designed, we cannot get at any of that waste, fraud, and abuse. We also
cannot get at any congressional Members' pork projects, any of the
earmarks.
One example, in the VA-HUD report on page 95, we will find a list of
444 earmarked items. The problem is that none of those items can be
eliminated under this proposal before us today. All we can do is take 1
percent out of them.
I will place all of those items in the Record so people can see what
I mean. I am not suggesting that some of these projects are not
perfectly legitimate. I am saying that it is a fraud when Members come
to the floor and bring up these lurid examples, mostly from 5 and 7
years ago, and say, ``oh, we should cut this out,'' when in fact the
way they have drafted this provision prevents the administrators from
being able to cut out that which they object to.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, in the time remaining, I recognize
the gentleman from Florida has done everything that he can in order to
keep this issue on the merits. I recognize he has done everything he
can to try to see that we handled these issues in a responsible way. I
think there have been considerable problems above his pay grade that
have prevented us from doing that. I know if he were left to his own
instincts, we would have a far different product here today. Again, I
appreciate the opportunity I have had to work with the gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I compliment both sides of the debate for their
chartsmanship, because we have produced some nice-looking charts. This
one that I am going to refer to today has a lot of writing on it.
Members may not be able to see it too well, but I will refer to it.
I wanted to say to my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina, who
said that we cannot get our job done, I want the Members of the
Congress to know that we are getting our job done. When we pass the
next bill today, we will have sent all 13 appropriation bills to the
President, along with the two supplementals that the President had
asked for. We are doing it without a massive omnibus appropriations
bill like we saw last year, and that most all of us pledged not to let
happen again.
I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
While we have had some fairly strong political differences, and we have
had different approaches to our positions, the fact is that we have
worked together very well, and we have cooperated with each other in
order to get the job done.
Let me tell the Members how the job has been done. If we look at this
chart, there are 30 items on this chart that the Committee on
Appropriations will have done at the end of this day, 30 items. I
challenge any other committee in the House or the Senate to have
produced 30 measures to bring before their body for votes.
Let us just take a look at it: the Kosovo emergency supplemental; the
Hurricane Mitch supplemental; the conference report on the two
supplementals; the Agricultural Appropriations bill; the conference
report on the Agriculture bill; the Commerce-Justice-State
Appropriations bill; the conference report on Commerce-Justice-State;
the Defense Appropriations bill; the conference report on the Defense
Appropriations bill; the District of Columbia Appropriations bill No.
1; the conference report on the D.C. bill No. 1; the District of
Columbia bill No. 2; the Energy and Water bill; the conference report
on Energy and Water; the Foreign Operations appropriations bill; the
conference report on the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill; the
Interior Appropriations bill; the conference report on the Interior
Appropriations bill; the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill; the
conference report on the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill; the
Military Construction Appropriations bill; the conference report on the
Military Construction Appropriations bill; the Transportation
Appropriations bill; the conference report on the Transportation
Appropriations bill; the Treasury-Postal Service Appropriations bill;
the conference report on that bill; the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies
Appropriations bill; the conference report on the VA bill; the steel,
oil, and gas loan program issue that came to us from the Senate; and
today, then, item No. 30, the conference report on D.C. No. 2 and
Labor-HHS.
So the Committee on Appropriations, while we have had political
differences, has worked well together to produce these items. They all
will have been on the President's desk by the end of this week. The
President will probably veto the last five bills. He has signed the
first eight, which I think is a major accomplishment. There are five
bills that we expect will be vetoed.
We need to have this last bill on the President's desk so that then
we can deal with the President's vetos specifically. Once he vetoes the
bill, he sends that message back to us and he tells us why he rejects
that bill. That gives us somewhere to start in the final negotiations
to find how we can rewrite those bills to get them signed by the
President.
So contrary to those who say we cannot get our job done, the
Committee on Appropriations is and has been getting its job done. I
think the appropriators on both sides of the aisle, while maybe not
totally supportive of everything in all of these bills, ought to be
rather proud of the record they have established here. Again, I thank
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for helping us move these
bills.
I want to say a word about our leadership. Our leadership has come in
for some criticism because they have involved themselves in
appropriations issues on occasion.
{time} 1230
Well, that is the role of the leadership. They have a right to do
that.
I have to tell our Members that, when I, as speaking from the
Committee on Appropriations, presented a problem or had a discussion, I
found great support for the strategies that we were suggesting, for the
policies that we were suggesting. Our leadership supported us every way
they could. Did they have input? Of course they did. That is why we
elect leaders, to have something to say about the outcome of the
legislative process.
So all in all, despite being miles apart on political rhetoric, we
are fairly close together on getting our job
[[Page H11085]]
done. I am proud of the Members of the Committee on Appropriations on
both sides. While I may disagree with some of them, especially on that
side, I am very proud of the fact that we have been able to produce 30
separate appropriations issues and passed all of them but one, and we
are going to pass that one today.
I would also like to add that, up until today and all the votes that
we have had on appropriations bills, we have received 8,702 aye votes
to 3,514 no votes. That is almost three to one ayes. So the House, in
my opinion, has shown great support for the work product of the
Committee on Appropriations. I am very, very proud of that record. I
hope that all of the members on the Committee on Appropriations on both
sides share that pride, because we are getting our job done.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). All time for debate has
expired.
The joint resolution is considered as having been read for amendment.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, October 27, 1999,
the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the 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 passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 424,
nays 2, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 546]
YEAS--424
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
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
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
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
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
Kaptur
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
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
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
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
Riley
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
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
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--2
DeFazio
Paul
NOT VOTING--7
Brady (PA)
Coburn
Hinojosa
Mascara
Rush
Scarborough
Waters
{time} 1251
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.
____________________