[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 34 (Thursday, March 23, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1291-H1326]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2001

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 446 ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 446

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 290) establishing the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2001, revising the congressional budget for the 
     United States Government for fiscal year 2000, and setting 
     forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 
     2002 through 2005. The first reading of the concurrent 
     resolution shall be dispensed with. Points of order against 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution for failure to 
     comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII are waived. General 
     debate shall not exceed three hours, with two hours of 
     general debate confined to the congressional budget equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Budget, and one hour of 
     general debate on the subject of economic goals and policies 
     equally divided and controlled by Representative Saxton of 
     New Jersey and Representative Stark of California or their 
     designees. After general debate the concurrent resolution 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original concurrent 
     resolution for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute 
     rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. All 
     points of order against the amendment printed in part B of 
     the report are waived except that the adoption of an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the 
     conclusion of consideration of amendments to the amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     After the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution for amendment and a final period of general 
     debate, which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Budget, the Committee shall rise and report 
     the concurrent resolution to the House with such amendment as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the concurrent resolution or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to final 
     adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered 
     by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to 
     section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
     achieve mathematical consistency. The concurrent resolution 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     of its adoption.

[[Page H1292]]

       Sec. 2. Rule XXIII shall not apply with respect to the 
     adoption by the Congress of a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2001.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate on this issue only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 446 is a structured rule, which is 
fairly typical for bringing forward the annual congressional budget 
resolution. For a number of years, we have gotten into the very good 
habit of managing debate on the budget by asking that all amendments be 
drafted in the form of substitutes so that Members could consider the 
whole picture as we debate and weigh our spending priorities. This rule 
continues that tradition and wisely so.
  We have gone to great lengths with this rule to juggle the competing 
needs of having a full debate on a range of issues and perspectives 
without allowing the process to become so unwieldy that it breaks down 
of its own weight.
  In that regard, I think the rule is fair in making in order five 
substitute amendments reflecting an array of points of view.
  Specifically, the rule provides for 3 hours of general debate, with 1 
hour specifically designated for discussion of economic goals and 
policies as described by the Humphrey-Hawkins provisions of the current 
law.
  Two hours of the debate time shall be equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Budget, and 1 hour shall be equally divided and controlled by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark).
  The rule waives clause 4(a) of rule XIII, requiring a 3-day layover 
of the Committee report, against consideration of the resolution. The 
rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed 
in Part A of the Committee on Rules report as an original concurrent 
resolution for the purpose of amendment.
  This new base text makes a number of technical and substantive 
changes to the underlying resolution, changes that were discussed and 
negotiated throughout the day yesterday. This text is available to 
Members in the Committee on Rules report, which was filed last night.
  The rule waives all points of order against this amendment. The rule 
further makes in order only those amendments printed in Part B of the 
Committee on Rules report. I would note that, of those five substitutes 
I mentioned, four are sponsored by Members of the minority.
  Those amendments may be offered only in the order specified in the 
report, only by a Member designated in the report, and they shall be 
considered as read, they shall be debatable for the time specified in 
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, and they shall not be subject to amendment.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendments except 
that, if an amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted, it is 
not in order to consider further substitutes.
  The rule provides for a final period of general debate not to exceed 
10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
member of the Committee on the Budget to occur upon conclusion of 
consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment.
  The rule permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to offer 
amendments in the House necessary to achieve mathematical consistency.
  Finally, the rule suspends the application of House Rule XXIII 
relating to the establishment of the statutory limit on the public debt 
with respect to the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
2001.
  Mr. Speaker, thanks to the effort of our congressional majority, we 
have emerged from decades of deficits; and we are now operating in a 
brave new world of surplus. But that does not mean we can or should now 
abandon our commitment to fiscal discipline. In fact, it is when the 
sky looks most blue that we should be thinking about how best to shovel 
out from the mountain of debt we have incurred and prepare for the next 
rainy day, which inevitably we know will come.
  So I am delighted to be bringing forward to the House, House 
Concurrent Resolution 290, the fiscal year 2001 fiscal budget 
blueprint. This document, although not binding as a law, sets forth the 
guideposts that will dictate the path we take for the rest of this 
session of Congress as we complete our budgeting work.
  The budget reflects conservative principles and lays the groundwork 
for continued success in our mission of paying down the debt, 
protecting Social Security, shoring up Medicare, strengthening the 
national defense and education, and offering meaningful tax relief to 
our seniors, our families, and our small businesses.

                              {time}  1100

  This budget outlines $1 trillion in deficit reduction while taking 
the Social Security trust fund completely off the table and while 
opening the door for Congress to provide realistic prescription drug 
coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. At the same time, we have gone 
further than the President in the area of defense, something that is so 
critical in this changing world and at a time when we are asking so 
much of our men and women in uniform and those in our intelligence 
activities.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and his 
committee for the work they have done. I particularly share their 
interest from a process standpoint in seeking ways to enforce the 
fiscal discipline this budget document outlines. I am delighted that we 
have been able to work out an arrangement that meets the concerns of 
some Members about setting aside surplus moneys up front for further 
debt reduction even while we make sure that we have provided the 
resources necessary so the appropriators can bring forward legislation 
that brings to life our commitments in key areas.
  This rule brings that negotiation to fruition, and we have now put in 
place a process so that the issue of debt reduction will continue to be 
addressed as we move through this year's spending process. That is good 
news all around for all Americans. This is a fair rule. I urge Members 
to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 
This resolution has never seen the light of day. This is not the 
resolution that the Committee on the Budget worked over for a few 
months. It is certainly not the resolution that the Committee on Rules 
held hearings on for several hours yesterday. In fact, I have talked to 
Members who have been here much longer than I, and they can recall no 
time in which a bill has come to the floor under those circumstances.
  It arrived at 2 in the morning, hours after the final vote when the 
majority of the Members of this House had left the Hill. The ink will 
barely be dry when the leadership makes Members vote on this document. 
How many Members will see this new substitute before they have to vote? 
I would note that these are not technical changes. The majority has 
added $3 billion for science, still below what the President requested. 
The new resolution calls for $5 billion in unspecified cuts all to be 
announced later, and this is a travesty. The measure changes 
reconciliation numbers and includes two new points of order. It even 
changes the public debt limit though the rules of the House prohibit 
changing that number from what is reported by the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been down this road with this budget process 
time and time again. The leadership in this body reminds me of the 
bridal contestants in the television show ``Who wants to marry a 
millionaire.'' They know it is a charade, but they are going through 
the motions anyway. This budget is as unrealistic as the failed budgets 
from

[[Page H1293]]

1998 and 1999. This proposed budget by the majority maintains a single-
minded obsession with large tax cuts. It does nothing to extend the 
solvency of Social Security and Medicare for a single day and cuts 
funding for critical education, housing, and environmental protection 
programs.
  In 1998, the majority party in the House and Senate failed to pass a 
budget resolution for the first time since the creation of the 
congressional budget process. In 1999, the budget adopted by the 
majority called for draconian cuts in appropriations to finance a huge 
$792 billion tax cut for the wealthy. This budget was disregarded by 
the majority almost as soon as they began the appropriations process.
  When the final appropriations bill passed Congress in November, 2 
months into the fiscal year, appropriated spending overran the budget 
resolution by $43.8 billion. In both 1998 and 1999, the American people 
rejected these same unrealistic cuts in essential Federal spending and 
excessive tax cuts for the very rich. Why on earth does the majority 
party believe the American people will suddenly change their minds and 
reject essential government services like Social Security and Medicare 
in favor of benefits for the wealthiest among us?
  The definition of folly is to repeat what has failed and expect it to 
succeed, and that is just what this resolution does. It assumes that 
Congress will cut nondefense spending by $7 billion below this year's 
level and by $20 billion below the level needed to make up for 
inflation. Congress must then keep its foot on the brake for 4 more 
years, eventually taking nondefense spending $114 billion below the 
level of current purchasing power.
  Compounding the problem of calling for implausible program cuts is 
the fact that the resolution already spends some of the Social Security 
surplus. The resolution's $200 billion tax cuts overwhelm the $114 
billion reduction in the purchasing power of domestic appropriations. 
As a result under the resolution, the non-Social Security surplus is 
virtually gone by the year 2003. By 2004, the Government begins 
spending the Social Security surplus. And by 2010, the measure spends 
$68 billion of the Social Security money.
  We have a choice. We can substitute this budget for one that extends 
the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, repays the national debt 
by the year 2013, provides targeted tax cuts to working families, 
invests in domestic priorities such as school modernization and 
improved access to health insurance for families.
  I would like my colleagues to reflect for a moment. The surpluses on 
our horizon offer an extraordinary opportunity to pay down our large 
public debt which would be the ultimate tax cut. They allow us to make 
Social Security and Medicare sound and solvent for future generations. 
They mean that we can close the gaping hole in Medicare coverage and 
they make it possible for us to do more for education at all levels.
  Unfortunately, this proposed budget resolution squanders this 
opportunity and jeopardizes the progress that we have made in 
eliminating the annual deficits and paying down the public debt. This 
measure also passes up the opportunity to put Social Security, 
Medicare, and the Nation as a whole on sound fiscal footing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I would urge 
Members to pay very close attention to debate on the five substitutes 
we have made in order, four of them being from the other side of the 
aisle. Members need to know that under the process of this rule as I 
stated, once a substitution passes, we are not going to continue any 
others. In the vernacular, that means there are no free votes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I think it is 
important for us to note that this rule in fact puts into place what 
has been the case under both Democratic control of this institution and 
Republican control. What we have done is we have made four Democratic 
substitutes in order, one Republican substitute in order. We have been 
able to provide an opportunity for a wide range of proposals, to be 
very fairly debated. We listened up in the Committee on Rules to 
authors of those substitutes. They have indicated their willingness to 
be supportive of what it is we are trying to do here by moving ahead 
with a very fair and open debate, and I believe that it is in fact 
that.
  99.9999 percent of this package was provided by the Committee on the 
Budget. We had the package placed in the hands of the minority and 
other Members of the Committee on Rules by 8:30 last night, and we did 
in fact make a modification. It deals with increasing spending for 
science. I happen to think that is a very high priority. For me as a 
Californian it is very important for us to do that. So let me just say 
that the rule is fair. The rule provides the minority with four 
opportunities to offer substitutes; the majority with one opportunity. 
So I think it should continue to enjoy very strong bipartisan support.
  Let me move beyond the debate that we have going on right here to 
talk for just a few moments about the issue of the budget itself. I 
have found, maybe this is just my perspective as a Californian, that 
the American people very much want to see an end to the extraordinary 
partisanship that goes on, the partisan bickering which we have seen 
back and forth, just listening to some of the speeches that have been 
made and criticism of this very fair rule. They do not like those sorts 
of partisan attacks, and I hope very much that we can bring an end to 
that kind of harsh partisanship, and I think we have evidence of it 
coming to an end by simply looking at this budget.
  Frankly, just take the example of education. Republicans and 
Democrats alike want to improve our public schools. This budget 
actually increases by almost 10 percent over last year the level of 
funding for schools. That is a $20 billion increase over 5 years. As we 
develop policies to go with those resources, we need to make sure that 
every American child has a chance to learn the skills and knowledge to 
succeed in our new  21st century economy.

  Now, let us take another issue on which we have bipartisan agreement, 
national defense. Most Democrats, I am happy to say, now agree with 
what we Republicans have been saying for years, that we must bolster 
our national security spending so that we can get every soldier, 
sailor, and airman and their families and their children off of food 
stamps and into quality housing.
  Let us look at a third issue, Social Security. This budget shows how 
Republicans and Democrats now stand together to ensure that the Social 
Security surplus is never again spent on other government programs. I 
am very happy to say that it is under this Republican leadership, under 
the strong leadership of Speaker Hastert, we have successfully 
protected every dollar of the Social Security surplus for the past 2 
years, and this plan now does that for an additional 5 years. This is 
clearly the basis for long-term bipartisan retirement security reform.
  Republicans and Democrats stand together to increase medical 
research. This budget dedicates $1 billion more than last year to find 
cures that will ease the pain of millions of American families. 
Republicans and Democrats stand together on key science initiatives, as 
I was saying. When we pass this rule, we will ensure that the science 
and space programs funded in this budget are supported at a level 
needed to continue the cutting-edge science and space work that go on 
in places like the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California and 
other fine facilities throughout the region that I am privileged to 
represent.
  Now, Republicans and Democrats do agree on a wide range of very 
important priorities. But of course, there is still quite a bit of 
politics left. There is a difference between the basic philosophy of 
the competing budgets with the five substitutes that we will have 
today. Republicans believe that the Government has an important role in 
helping to address many problems, but we never lose sight of the 
fundamental fact that America is great because of

[[Page H1294]]

the American people, families, entrepreneurs, neighborhoods, businesses 
and farmers, not the Federal Government.
  What does this mean in a budget? It means that while we work hard to 
address education, medical research, national defense, retirement 
security, and health care, we also set something aside for families. 
The Republican budget helps families by paying down $1 trillion in 
public debt by 2005 and retiring the entire debt by 2013. This will 
provide a tremendous boost to ensuring a strong, stable, vibrant 
economy for our children and grandchildren.
  The Republican budget also provides some tax relief for American 
families, senior citizens, small businesses and farmers. Make no 
mistake, this budget spends a lot of money. As I said, we increase 
spending on education, health care, medical research, defense and 
science. But we believe that families should be in that priority list 
as well so that they have a little more of their own money to spend on 
school clothes for the kids, college tuition, or a new home computer. 
With half of American households participating in financial markets 
today, our Nation has what we like to call an emerging investor class. 
More than ever before, the American people recognize that they have a 
direct stake in policies focused on expanding economic prosperity, 
including smart tax relief.
  Mr. Speaker, the investor class supports pro-growth, pro-investment 
tax reductions because they know that America's strength, our 
prosperity, is driven more by the emerging Internet economy and the 
NASDAQ, the wonder of NASDAQ and the companies involved there, than the 
Federal bureaucracy that exists here in Washington, DC.
  This is a very, very good budget that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kasich) is going to be moving forward here. I think that this rule 
deserves again strong bipartisan support by providing all these 
alternatives to our colleagues, and we can move ahead focusing on the 
areas of agreement and we can have what the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) describes as a full, vigorous, tough debate on 
these areas of disagreement.
  I urge support of the rule and our budget package.

                              {time}  1115

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, judging from comments by the campaign of 
Governor Bush, this Republican budget abandons conservatives. If we 
take a close look at the details of this budget, it is clear that this 
budget also abandons middle-class families. In their haste to embrace 
massive fiscally irresponsible tax cuts, Republicans are abandoning 
Social Security, Medicare, and fiscal responsibility.
  Despite their talk about how much they care about seniors, the 
Republican budget does nothing to strengthen the retirement security 
for current and future retirees.
  This Republican budget does nothing to extend the life of Social 
Security and Medicare. It does not provide one dime to strengthen the 
Social Security or Medicare trust funds. They ignore the looming 
shortfall that threatens the future retirement security of all 
Americans.
  The Republican budget fails to propose a Medicare prescription drug 
benefit to cover all seniors. The cost of prescription drugs is hurting 
all seniors. This is not a problem which is just limited to low-income 
retirees.
  The Republican budget does not help middle-class seniors. Their 
budget says that they need to be spending themselves into poverty with 
prescription drug costs before they get Medicare coverage of 
prescription drugs.
  To make matters worse, I understand at 3:00 a.m. in the morning, the 
funding that was in their budget to support a Patients' Bill of Rights 
was taken out. So I suppose that priority will also be lost.
  The Republican budget abandons the fiscal responsibility that we 
worked so hard to achieve and tries to turn back the clock to the early 
1990s. They threaten the balanced budget and efforts to pay off the 
debt by the year 2013.
  The analysis by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on the 
Budget found that the Republicans would spend some of the Social 
Security surplus by 2004 and as a result we would be revisited by on-
budget deficits if we enact this budget once again.
  The Republican budget proposes deep cuts in investments in education, 
health, and veterans affairs, putting our children and others even 
further behind.
  One may ask, why this abandonment? The Republican budget sacrifices 
fiscal responsibility on the altar of massive tax cuts. The Republican 
budget proposes $150 billion in tax cuts now, $50 billion after the 
smoke clears, and then possibly another $50 billion in tax cuts for the 
wealthy and special interests if revenues increase.
  The American people rejected these massive tax cuts that threaten our 
economic progress and retirement security last year, in last year's 
budget debate. Clearly, Republicans still have not gotten the message. 
The American people want a budget plan that pays off the debt, extends 
the life of Social Security and Medicare, provides a prescription drug 
plan for all seniors, and addresses our pressing health and educational 
priorities.
  So this is not the right budget. We need to vote against the rule and 
vote against this budget. Let us reject this budget and protect the 
surplus for the priorities of working families.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget and for our 
alternative that puts families first and keeps our fiscal house in 
order.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I am frankly kind of astounded by what I 
have just heard because I thought that was a speech laying in the 
bottom of the desk drawer from 6 years ago. It is so far from 
representing reality, I am really stunned.
  I want to say what the budget does. I think the people will be very 
surprised when they hear about what we have in this budget.
  First of all, this will be the second year, I think in my lifetime, 
that the politicians in Washington kept their mitts off of Social 
Security. That never happened before. In 1995, we were running $175 
billion deficits; and they were projected to be as far as the eye could 
see, and here we are for the second year in a row, because of the 
leadership of people in this House, we are not going to touch the 
Social Security surplus. We are locking it up. We are saying to senior 
citizens, we are not going to take one dime of it and use it for any 
other spending like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did 
for all of my lifetime.
  We are saying we are not going to touch it. We are going to lock it 
up. We are going to put an electric fence around it, and it will only 
be used to pay for Social Security benefits or to pay down debt. We are 
the first group of leaders in this town to keep our mitts off of Social 
Security in decades. It is amazing.
  Secondly, in terms of Medicare, not only are we going to have a 
reform agenda on Medicare to try to strengthen Medicare, but we have 
money set aside so that our poorest senior citizens can have access to 
prescription drugs; $40 billion worth of potential resources to both 
reform Medicare, strengthen Medicare and to provide a prescription drug 
benefit to our poorest seniors who cannot afford to go to the pharmacy 
because they do not have any money. That is in this budget.
  Thirdly, we are going to pay down a trillion dollars in the publicly 
held debt. Did my colleagues hear what I said? We are going to pay down 
$1 trillion of the debt that is owed to the public in this country.
  Now, if Regis was here and he was flashing this up on the wall about 
being a millionaire, everybody in the gallery would be standing up and 
cheering; but the fact is I think they will be cheering when they 
realize that by paying down a trillion dollars in the publicly held 
debt we are lifting a huge burden off the backs of our children.
  When we came to this body in 1995 and took our majority, the guiding 
star was the future of our children. We are beginning to carry through 
with our promises, which is unusual for politicians.

[[Page H1295]]

  Fourthly, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) just said that 
we do not have any tax relief for the middle class. I have to send him 
our budget because the first thing we passed around this House was to 
ease the marriage penalty so that when people get married they do not 
get punished for getting married. Now that is not something that does 
not apply to the middle class. Most of the people who are going to 
benefit are middle-class couples who got married, who are not going to 
be punished anymore because they got married. This budget will 
accommodate that.
  In addition to that, if one is a senior citizen and they have decided 
to work, in this town we have a formula: if they work, we punish them.
  Well, we just passed a bill through this House that I think received 
total support from everybody in this House that said if seniors work we 
are not going to take away their Social Security benefits.
  Who does that apply most to? People at the lower end of the economic 
spectrum.
  Now, say someone is a little family farmer. We just had a thousand 
farmers show up in this town. We are saying that when they die, they 
are not going to have to visit the undertaker and the IRS on the same 
day. They can take their family farm, and they can give it to their 
kids.

  Is that not what we want in America? I think so.
  Someone owns this little pharmacy, they are struggling every day to 
make it, they make their dollars, they get old, they want to pass it on 
to their kids, that is the American dream. To say that that does not 
reflect a middle-class value, I mean, come on, shame. We know better 
than that.
  There are going to be more programs for tax relief for all Americans. 
If someone is self-employed and they want to get health insurance, we 
are going to make that available to them. If one is a mother and father 
that has their kid in a school where their kid is not safe and not 
learning, we are going to give them incentives so they will be able to 
save so their kid can go to the school of their choice.
  It is going to be in this budget. It is all provided for.
  We strengthen defense, and we also strengthen education. We also 
continue our historic increases in investments at the National 
Institutes of Health to help people fight the diseases that afflict 
them with heart, with cancer, and with lung.
  I am astounded. I believe in a good old-fashioned, fair fight, but 
let us just fight on the facts. Let us not make stuff up. Let us not 
scare people.
  The question today is whether we are going to advance the reform 
agenda in Washington or whether we are going to continue to be 
obstacles in this town to the need to reform and pare down government 
and prioritize government and clean up waste, fraud and abuse and 
protect Social Security and provide tax relief.
  If one is for the reform agenda, they will support this budget. I 
know that for the period of the next, I do not know, 6 or 7 hours, we 
are going to hear a lot of code words: risky, dangerous, irresponsible. 
Those are code words for more bureaucracy. They are code words for more 
standing in line. They are code words for more frustration. They are 
code words for higher taxes.
  That is fine, but let us not just make stuff up out of the thin air.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope some of my colleagues will have the good sense to 
fight this fair. If they want more spending, great; say it. If they 
want higher taxes, fine; say it. That is what the fight ought to be on.
  This is a budget we should all support.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, last week things were looking pretty good around here. 
Last week the Republican members of the Committee on the Budget showed 
the world their proposed budget. They gave people plenty of time to 
read it, and they were not ashamed of it.
  Last night, all that changed. Last night, or this morning, at 2:00 
a.m. this morning, the real Republican budget came out. But unless one 
is a member of the Committee on Rules, they did not see the Republican 
budget until 2:00 this morning, just hours before its coming up for a 
vote.
  Mr. Speaker, these days the only creatures that stir in the middle of 
the night, long after the sun goes down, are vampires and members of 
the Committee on Rules. Eighty percent of the members' meetings on the 
Committee on Rules do not start until the lights have to be turned on, 
and from the looks of some of these bills, Mr. Speaker, I could see 
why. They read a lot better in the dark.
  This budget does nothing to save Social Security or Medicare or help 
seniors with the Medicare prescription drug plan. The chairman of the 
committee said that 99.9 percent of this was the same budget. Let me 
say some of the other parts of that budget.
  Some of the changes are pretty big, Mr. Speaker. This was all done 
after the hearing concluded. They went back into this room somewhere, 
and they changed the public debt limit, which is a violation of the 
Budget Act. They promised to cut $5 billion, but they did not say where 
they were going to cut it from. They added $3 billion for science, 
which still is far less than the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) 
would have added if his amendment was made in order.
  They still did not do much more middle-class families.
  They added two brand-new points of order. They changed the 
reconciliation directives. They changed the provision dealing with 
health care and Patients' Bill of Rights. They changed the reserve fund 
for thrift savings plans and benefits. These were all done, Mr. 
Speaker, after the hearing had been concluded for hours.
  This bill that we are voting on today never appeared before the 
Committee on the Budget.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject this budget and send it back and 
let the Committee on the Budget who have expertise in this field really 
have a chance to look at it and do something about Social Security and 
Medicare, and preferably earlier in the day.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time available on both 
sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss) has 11 minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) has 19 minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, last year, for the first time in 40 years, 
we balanced the budget without including the surplus and Social 
Security. We balanced it to the tune of $704 million. Having reached 
this milestone, we made a vow on both sides of the aisle when we 
brought our budget resolution to the floor last year that we would not 
get back into an on-budget deficit again, we would not slip back into 
borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. We would use the 
surplus, we said, in the Social Security trust fund instead to buy up 
existing Treasury bonds and notes, reduce debt rather than create new 
Federal debt.
  To accomplish that purpose we both trotted out something we called 
``lockboxes,'' a portentous name. When you got through all the 
boilerplate, both of them came down to this. You have a point of order. 
If somebody brought to the House floor a resolution, like this 
resolution, a budget resolution, and it dipped into Social Security 
again, went into deficit, you could raise a point of order.
  Now, to the American people, that suggests summary dismissal. It 
disposes of the question. But in truth, the Committee on Rules in the 
House is the task master at waiving points of order.
  We have before us today a rule that ought to be subject to a point of 
order if we take the lockbox seriously, because this rule waives all 
points of order. This rule permits a budget resolution to come to the 
floor that, in our

[[Page H1296]]

opinion, would wipe out the surplus in 3 years and, in the 4th and 5th 
years, 2004, 2005, and subsequent years, it would put us back into 
deficit again, put us back into borrowing from Social Security.
  This simple chart, this simple arithmetic on this chart shows you 
why. The Republicans claim that they have $110 billion surplus over the 
next 5 years. But the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) just showed that 
they intend to use $40 billion for a prescription drug benefit, and we 
welcome them to the fold on this issue, because we think it needs to be 
done. So they have matched us. They have $40 billion for a Medicare 
benefit.
  In addition, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has said on 
repeated occasions in committee markup, yesterday in the Committee on 
Rules, last night on the floor, that they will have a tax cut of $150 
billion, plus $50 billion more, and if CBO says there are more 
revenues, they will go up still more. When you factor in that 
additional $50 billion, the $40 billion for Medicare prescription 
drugs, guess what? The surplus disappears in 3 years and we are back in 
deficit, back into borrowing from Social Security.
  So this in simple arithmetic is the argument why this rule should be 
voted down. Vote it down. Make the Republicans bring back to the floor 
a budget resolution that safely is in surplus, and not this one, which 
clearly puts us in danger of backsliding into deficit and borrowing 
again from Social Security.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me time to speak in opposition to this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is restrictive. Although there are claims that 
it is allowing all debate on all points of view, it, in fact, does not 
do that.
  I spent a considerable amount of time with my staff putting together 
a substitute amendment that certainly would have allowed this debate to 
be expanded out to talk about tax fairness and the kind of investments 
we need to keep our economic growth and to keep families secure in this 
country. I think it was a point of view that deserved to be debated, 
deliberated and voted upon.
  We ought not to have just a debate about whether we are going to have 
incredibly huge tax cuts that favor only a small segment of already 
wealthy individuals and corporations, or a situation where people talk 
about taxing some more.
  We have within this trillions of dollars of budget a huge amount of 
unnecessary and unwarranted advantages that are given to special 
interests. If we were to recapture those, we can do the two things that 
we need to do in this country, invest in our economic growth, in 
education and job training, in health care and retirement security, and 
research and development, in infrastructure, and, at the same time, 
have the kind of fairness we need.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to have this process go back to the drawing 
board and come out again.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem with the rule, but I do have a 
problem with the budget resolution offered by the Republican Party 
today. Yogi Berra should be with us here today, because it is ``deja vu 
all over again.'' Last year it was a $800 billion risky tax cut scheme, 
this year it is a $1 trillion 10-year risky tax cut scheme.
  You would think that the Republican leadership would get it 
eventually and start listening to the American people about where our 
priorities should lie. But the problem is not that they do not get it, 
the problem is that they cannot sell it. They could not sell it last 
year when it was a $800 billion tax cut, they are not going to be able 
to sell it this year with a $1 trillion tax cut.
  They can't sell it because the American people won't buy it. The 
American people understand if these projected budget surpluses do in 
fact materialize, although there is no guarantee they will, now is the 
time to take care of existing obligations, to shore up Social Security, 
Medicare, and pay down the $5.7 trillion national debt. That is the 
fiscally responsible and fiscally disciplined approach.
  It is sad that when the Republican leadership and members on the 
committee had an opportunity to vote for their presidential nominee's 
fiscal plan, a $1.5 trillion tax cut scheme, they were all ducking for 
cover, hiding under their desks and trying to flee the budget room in 
order to avoid having to vote on that issue.
  But the saddest commentary of all is that a contemporary American 
comic strip is more reflective of the values of the American people 
today than the governing majority party in the House of 
Representatives. I do not know how many of my colleagues had the 
opportunity to see the Doonesbury article that appeared about a week 
ago, but I think it tells the story very, very well.
  It opens up with a scene of men with one guy saying, ``Heads up, he 
is coming this way.''
  Another gentleman, ``Try not to make eye contact.''
  And an empty hat, which I suppose depicts Governor Bush. Then 
Governor Bush saying, ``Hi, fellows, I'm George Bush and I'm asking for 
your support. If you vote for me I will give a huge tax cut. How is 
that for a straight deal, huh?''
  ``Well, I'm not sure. I mean, I can see how the wealthy might get 
excited. They'd be averaging $50,000. But it wouldn't mean much to a 
guy in my bracket.''
  Another gentleman says, ``Besides, I care a lot more about shoring up 
Social Security and Medicare and paying down the national debt.''
  ``Yeah, didn't fiscal responsibility used to be a Republican issue?''
  Then Governor Bush: ``But, but, you do not understand. I am offering 
you something for nothing. Free money. Don't you want free money?''
  Then another gentleman: ``Sure, but not until we pay our bills.''
  ``Right.''
  Governor Bush: ``What is the matter with this country?''
  The last gentleman: ``I guess we have grown up a lot as a people. I 
know I have.''
  Now, I am not saying the Doonesbury comic strip should set fiscal 
policy in this Nation, but I do believe, sadly, this comic strip better 
reflects the values of the American people and why we should support 
the Democratic alternative today.
  I certainly didn't come to this Congress in order to leave a legacy 
of debt for my two little boys or for future generations.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today we enjoy the fruits of fiscal 
responsibility and an expanding economy. This budget resolution, thrown 
together at 3 in the morning in the dark of night in a secret room, 
this budget resolution puts all that at risk. Why? To support huge tax 
cuts that threaten to bust budget and endanger Social Security and 
Medicare.
  The only good thing that can be said about this resolution is that it 
is slightly less fiscally irresponsible than the plan put forward by 
Governor George Bush, to which Senator McCain responded that it 
represented fiscal irresponsibility.
  What kind of tax cuts are we asked to risk Social Security and 
Medicare for? We saw earlier this month, when the Republican tax bill 
provided three-quarters of the benefits to 1 percent of the richest 
Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, in his earlier speech, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Kasich) invoked the sacred name of Regis Philbin. What game are we 
playing here?
  The Republicans are not playing the game who wants to be a 
millionaire or who wants to marry a multimillionaire. They have a new 
game, who wants to risk Social Security to give huge tax breaks to 
multi-multi-multimillionaires.
  Let us not play that game. Let us reject this rule and reject the 
Republican budget resolution and return to fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough)
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me time.

[[Page H1297]]

  I love listening to these budget debates every year. It is like back 
to the future. It is like deja vu all over again. Unfortunately for the 
Democrats, they seem to be what Paul Simon called a one trick pony. It 
is the same thing over and over and over again.
  Except this year they have got three trick ponies. They have 
MediScare. They talk about how Republicans are going to destroy 
Medicare and Social Security. They have class warfare, talking about 
massive tax cuts for the rich, and Americans are not going to buy it. 
Well, heck, Democrats are buying it. One hundred Republican and 
Democrat Senators last night supported stopping penalizing senior 
citizens for earning money. They supported the marriage tax penalty 
reduction, bought and sold for by Democrats. God bless America. 
Everybody is doing it.
  They also spend without care. Every one of their substitutes spends 
more and taxes more than the Republican budget.
  Now they are reading cartoons. That is how sad it has gotten. I 
understand, because you know, in 1995, when we got here, they were 
doing the same class warfare argument, saying that we were going to 
destroy the economy. You cannot balance the budget in 7 years without 
destroying the economy and killing the middle class.
  Yet Alan Greenspan came to the Committee on the Budget and testified 
if you all would pass this Balanced Budget Act, I predict Americans 
will see unprecedented growth over the next 5 to 7 years. Greenspan 
said it in 1995. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) had the courage 
and vision to follow through with it, as did the Republican Congress. 
We did it, and you know what? It was not 7 years later. Five years 
later we balanced the budget. We gave the middle class Americans the 
strongest economic boom in over a generation. And we did something 
else. For the first time in a generation, this Congress did not steal 
from Social Security in their budget.
  Yet these same Democrats that come to the floor today, that have the 
nerve to call themselves protectors of Social Security, were the very 
ones while in power for 40 years, stole from Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, I remember when some of us in 1995 said we could balance 
the budget and not steal from Social Security's trust fund, we were 
called radical extremists. Five years later, the budget is balanced; 
and we are keeping Social Security solvent by keeping our hands off of 
it.
  I will tell you what, this year continues what we have done for the 
past 5 years. The gentlewoman from New York defined folly as repeating 
what has failed and expecting it to succeed. They have repeated the 
same class warfare arguments. They have repeated the same arguments of 
fear. They have repeated the same arguments of risky schemes. And their 
arguments have failed.
  It is time to look at what has happened because of the vision of the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the Committee on the Budget's vision, 
and this Congress' vision. We have balanced the budget. We have saved 
Social Security. And we have given tax cuts to middle class Americans.

                              {time}  1145

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the budget rule. I am 
totally against the budget debate and the budget rule. I think it is 
wrong for America. We just heard the debate right now, and we talked 
about keeping the budget balanced. It is not just about keeping the 
budget balanced today. We are talking about a solvent budget, a budget 
that will be there for the future as well, protecting our children for 
today, investing in our future, protecting Social Security, taking down 
the debt, taking care of drug prescriptions, taking care of what we 
need to do.
  It is easy to get up here and talk about a balanced budget. Yes, we 
can talk about it today, but what is the impact it will have on the 
future? That is what is so important right now. It is being fiscally 
responsible, taking that budget and doing what needs to be done. We are 
not doing that.
  The Democrats have a budget proposal right now that deals with taking 
care of the American people, working families; taking care of investing 
in our future, protecting as well what we need to do, and that is to 
make sure that we have good education, quality education, scholarships 
that will be available. It is investing in the future.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask again where we stand on the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss) has 8 minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Again, I did not have time before, but I think I should call to the 
attention of the House, in light of what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kasich) said earlier, that this resolution offered by the Republicans 
does not provide for the abolition of the Social Security earnings 
test. If it did, on page 33 of the concurrent resolution of the budget 
under function 650, Social Security over the next 5 years would have to 
be adjusted by $20 billion. They do not adjust it. They do not provide 
for this waiver, repeal of the earnings test, despite what the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) just said.
  Now, this is an example of doing something hurriedly, doing something 
slipshod and not attending to important detail. They are not doing what 
they are purporting to say that it does.
  We had the same problem last year. We had a military pay raise on the 
floor, retiree increases; and the budget resolution did not reflect 
those, did not account for those.
  Mr. Speaker, I call it to the attention of the House. Function 650 is 
unadjusted, does not reflect the cost that over the next 5 years if we 
are going to repeal the earnings test, we have to add $20 billion in 
outlay expenditures by the Social Security Trust Fund. Everybody should 
know that when voting on this rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The minority leader's speech today was a speech taken out from 
something he said 5 or 6 years ago, and the speech I just heard from 
the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget reminds 
me of straining out gnats and swallowing camels. We set aside $200 
billion for tax cuts. Now, we are told it is irresponsible. We are told 
it is outrageous. We are told it is something we cannot afford.
  The fact is, in the next 5 years we are going to raise $10 trillion 
in revenues, and we are going to return to the American people $200 
billion. The tax cut ends the marriage penalty. A good number of 
Democrats voted for that. The tax cut repeals Social Security earnings 
limit. All Democrats voted for that. The next tax cut, which a good 
number of Democrats voted for, reduces the death penalty. We are 
expanding educational savings accounts. We are increasing health care 
deductibility. We are providing tax breaks for poor communities, and we 
are strengthening private pension plans. Mr. Speaker, $200 billion out 
of $10 trillion, a 2 percent tax cut. But our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle do not even want to return 2 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, we protect Social Security. Last year was the first year 
since 1960 that a Congress did not spend Social Security reserves. We 
protect it in this budget we are in, and we protect it in the budget we 
are now voting on. We are strengthening Medicare. We are setting aside 
$40 billion for prescription drugs, $40 billion. That is what we are 
setting aside, and yet the minority leader said we were cutting 
Medicare.
  We retire the public debt. Mr. Speaker, $1 trillion of public debt in 
the next 5 years, $1 trillion. It never happened under Democrat rule. 
We are doing it now, and it is in this bill. We are providing that tax 
fairness for families. It is not just returning revenue to the American 
people, but dealing with fairness. Couples should not have to pay taxes 
when they get married; seniors

[[Page H1298]]

should not have to lose Social Security when they work. And we are 
restoring Americans defense; we are putting more money in education, 
science, and health. We are doing exactly what we should do.
  Now, we are going to have 5 amendments come up and we are going to 
oppose 4 of them. We are going to oppose them because they do not meet 
these tests. We are going to protect Social Security; and if it does 
not do that, we will oppose that. We want Medicare prescriptions, $40 
billion. If it is not there, we are going to oppose it. We want to 
retire debt. We have already retired $302 billion of debt. We are going 
to promote tax fairness, which on the other side of the aisle they seem 
to be opposed to. We are going to restore America's defense, and we are 
going to strengthen and support education and science. That is what we 
are going to do in our budget, and we are determined to succeed.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was so struck by what the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said just a moment ago, that this 
budget fails to take into account the repeal of the earnings test, and 
I want to yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) the 
rest of my time, save 1 minute, to sum up.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I 
would inquire of anyone on this side who wants to explain why the $20 
billion is not provided in function 650, spending by Social Security, 
to effect this policy that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
just claimed that he is accommodating. Where is it?
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is off-budget, is it not?
  Mr. SPRATT. It is indeed.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, function 650 is a discretionary account, is 
it not?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, function 650 is a discretionary account, but 
it also has an off-budget account.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, it does not include mandatories. We passed 
that bill unanimously in the House; it passed unanimously in the 
Senate. It will be signed by the President into law. It was initiated 
by the Speaker of this House, and it does not need to be included in 
function 650, because it is a mandatory outlay and not a discretionary 
fund.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would advise the 
gentleman simply to look at page 33 and the gentleman will see there is 
an on-budget provision and an off-budget provision, and the off-budget 
provision is the Social Security benefit spending provision. It is $20 
billion short. I mean this is government work, but $20 billion is still 
real money. It is a big mistake.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
think the point is clear, is eminently clear. All of Social Security 
spending is off-budget. Function 650 is a discretionary account. What 
we are voting on here today includes the incorporation of the Social 
Security earnings test to the extent that it needs to be included in 
this budget document. I think it is misleading to suggest that it was 
put together in a slipshod way when the gentleman knows that the 
legislation has already passed the House and the Senate and will be 
signed into law and that it will not have a material impact on 
discretionary outlays.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his explanation, although I think it falls short.
  The fact of the matter is there is provision for off-budget spending. 
It is on page 33, function 654 and your report; and that function 
understates spending over the next 5 years by Social Security to the 
tune of $20 billion. Because my colleagues understate spending here in 
calculating how much debt reduction they will achieve in the purchase 
of our debt held by the public, they owe the State the accomplishment 
of debt reduction. That is a significant mistake, unless they want to 
say this is a waivable mistake; it is not. It is bad work. It is a good 
reason to vote against the rule and to take this thing back and clean 
up.
  Let me go back to my chart. I did not have enough time to talk about 
it. This chart is simple arithmetic. In simple arithmetic, it shows my 
good friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), whom I have 
enormous respect for and who was just on the floor saying they are 
going to have a $200 billion tax cut. That is what the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) said in the Committee on Rules yesterday, and that is 
what he said repeatedly in our markup.
  If they have a $200 billion tax cut, then they have to add $50 
billion to the amount of tax reduction over the next 5 years. In 
addition, if they have a pharmaceutical benefit, a drug benefit in 
Medicare, they have to add $40 billion. And when they add those two 
things that they both claim are included, $50 billion and $40 billion, 
guess what? The surplus disappears.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This bill 
does not, in fact, reflect what the Committee on Budget did. Until the 
Committee on Rules stops rewriting budgets, we are going to be in a 
situation where neither the Committee on the Budget on the Democratic 
or Republican side or any House Members have had any real role in its 
construction. That is just plain wrong. This is the most important 
document which we produce.
  Moreover, let me tell my colleagues that in the Committee on Budget 
they blocked our ability to put the Bush tax cut up as an amendment. 
They do not want to vote on it. It was not a pretty sight in the 
Committee on Budget; it was not a pretty sight in the Committee on 
Rules. Neither one of them put the Bush tax cut in order for us to be 
able to take a vote upon it. And there is a good reason why, because 
two-thirds of the Bush tax cut goes to the richest 10 percent of 
taxpayers. The richest 1 percent of taxpayers get an average of $50,000 
tax cut. It does not leave enough money to shore up Social Security, 
Medicare, education, all the way down the line.
  So I urge a vote against the rule so that we can debate this issue 
fairly, openly and freely; let us have an open vote on the Bush tax 
cut. It is the centerpiece of the economic claim which is being 
proposed by the other party. All of us should be allowed to vote upon 
it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Let me go back just in conclusion to this chart so that everybody 
understands it. This is simple arithmetic. This is not smoke and 
mirrors. This takes their numbers, their assumption, their claims about 
what their budget resolution does and adds them up correctly. They 
claim that they are providing for a tax cut over 5 years of $200 
billion, so we adjust their tax cut of $150 billion by $50 billion to 
show and allow for a tax cut of $200 billion, which is what they claim 
on the floor and in committee.
  In addition, they claim on the chart that they just showed and 
through comments that they have just made that they too will have a 
pharmaceutical drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. They assume 
costs of that, they have it in a reserve fund, it is $40 billion. If 
they are going to claim it, they have to count it. They claim it, but 
do not count it. We count it. Add the $50 billion, add the $40 billion, 
adjust for debt service, and in 2003, the surplus of which we are all 
so proud which we want to protect, we do not want to backslide into 
Social Security, the surplus virtually vanishes. In 2004, there is a $6 
billion deficit. We are $6 billion into Social Security again if this 
resolution is adopted. In 2005, it is down to $2 billion, and the 
subsequent years are just as bad. That is the consequence.
  Now, we have tax cuts in our budget resolution, the Spratt 
substitute, the Democratic budget resolution. We provide for $50 
billion net tax cuts over 5 years and $201 billion net tax cuts over 10 
years. We think those are reasonable; and we believe that if our 
colleagues do the tax cuts that they are talking about that they are 
claiming, they are back in deficit, and that is why this rule should be 
voted down. Because it waives what we tried to establish as a major 
point of order last year in the lockbox when we said, we cannot bring a 
resolution, we cannot bring an appropriations bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, just to be sure both sides understand, could 
we

[[Page H1299]]

have a statement of the times again, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has 5 
minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleagues what is amazing 
about the chart we just saw. It is all made up. In fact, the numbers do 
not even add up. Talk about slipshod.
  Let me tell my colleagues how they put these numbers together, and I 
give them credit for actually explaining how they come up with this 
chart. In their document, they say figures 2002 to 2005 are 
interpolated by the Democratic staff. That means made up, interpolated. 
Extrapolations for the second 5 years made by the Democratic staff. In 
addition to that, my good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt), on November 2 of last year, said that we will be $17 
billion into the Social Security account, which, of course, never 
happened.

                              {time}  1200

  So he was wrong last year about arguing we were going to be into 
Social Security. His staff made up the numbers with extrapolations and 
interpolations. I am going to start including that language in my 
vocabulary.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, in a 
colloquy with respect to the points of order contained in the budget 
resolution.
  The first point of order prohibits the inclusion of directed 
scorekeeping language, and the second prohibits the consideration of 
advanced appropriations above $23 billion in the fiscal year 2001.
  My question is: Does either point of order preclude the consideration 
of H.R. 2563, a bill that provides advanced contract authority for the 
Woodrow Wilson Bridge?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say no, there is absolutely no point 
of order that precludes consideration of H.R. 2563.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would further engage the 
gentleman from California. Does either point of order preclude the 
inclusion of H.R. 2563 with directed scorekeeping language in an 
appropriations bill?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that, while the new 
directed scorekeeping point of order would affect the timely 
consideration of H.R. 2563 with directed scorekeeping language, there 
are several other points of order that would currently apply. I would 
make a commitment to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) that we 
will work together to craft a rule that would remove all obstacles to 
consideration of this important bill.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's 
assurance.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kasich.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to complete the thought that the 
Republican budget does not use extrapolations and interpolations to 
cook numbers and make things up and make claims that never come true.
  We will have an ending of the Social Security earnings limit. It will 
be paid for through this bill. It passed the House. It passed the 
Senate. It will be signed into law.
  The fact is that, by the time we are at the end of this summer, we 
are going to have in the vicinity of $250 billion worth of tax relief 
for every American who pays taxes without any extrapolations, 
interpolations or any other hyperbolations that the Democrats may want 
to lay on this floor today. But they are my friends, and I appreciate 
their ingenuity. They are just wrong.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to be calling a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to allow an up-or-down vote on Governor Bush's 
proposed tax cut. There has been a good bit of discussion about where 
the House stands on those tax cuts. I think the House should have the 
opportunity to go on record and end the speculation.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment I 
would offer be printed immediately before the vote on the previous 
question. The vote on the previous question may be the only opportunity 
the House has to vote on Governor Bush's proposal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


                     Amendment Offered By Mr. Goss

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goss: Page 2, line 10, after 
     ``comply with'' insert ``clause 3(b) or''.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this amendment waives clause 3(b) of House 
Rule 13, which requires each committee report to include specific vote 
information from that committee's markup session. All Members are 
familiar with that.
  This amendment is necessary to address an inadvertent technical error 
in the report of the Committee on Budget to accompany H. Con. Res. 290. 
Specifically, on page 88 of the report, the rollcall vote on the motion 
to report the concurrent resolution fails to indicate how the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) voted, although her vote is 
reflected in the total vote.
  Again, this is an inadvertent technical error in the report that is 
not intended to be captured by clause 3(b) of House Rule XIII.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I include the amendment that I previously 
referred to, as follows:


                   amendment to house resolution 446

       On page 3, line 5, after ``Rules'' strike the period and 
     add the following:
       ``or the amendment printed in section 3 of this resolution 
     which shall be treated as if it were the last amendment 
     printed in part B of said report.'' and
       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Section 3. Amendment to be offered by Representative Markey 
     of Massachusetts.
       Amend section 4 to read as follows:

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       Not later than May 26, 2000, the House Committee on Ways 
     and Means shall report to the House a reconciliation bill 
     that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to accommodate tax relief of $10,000,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $483,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2006, and $1,269,000,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2001 through 2010.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment 
and on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 Chair will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time 
within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on 
the question of agreeing to the amendment and to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 203, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 67]

                               YEAS--220

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer

[[Page H1300]]


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

                               NAYS--203

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Ackerman
     Crane
     Dixon
     Greenwood
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lowey
     McCollum
     McDermott
     Pallone
     Royce
     Schakowsky

                              {time}  1237

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM and Mr. KNOLLENBERG changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 228, 
nays 194, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 68]

                               YEAS--228

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--194

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley

[[Page H1301]]


     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Ackerman
     Crane
     Dixon
     Greenwood
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lowey
     McCollum
     McDermott
     Pallone
     Rangel
     Royce
     Schakowsky

                              {time}  1253

  Mr. PORTER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to House Resolution 446 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 290.

                              {time}  1256


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
concurrent resolution (House Concurrent Resolution 290) establishing 
the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal 
year 2001, revising the congressional budget for the United States 
Government for fiscal year 2000, and setting forth appropriate 
budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005, with Mr. 
Boehner in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the general debate shall not exceed 3 hours with 2 
hours confined to the Congressional Budget equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the 
Budget, and 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies 
equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Saxton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 1 hour of debate on the 
Congressional Budget.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, one more time, it is probably going to be about five 
more times, I want to go through what we are presenting in this budget 
today. If I can just take us back a few years. I mean, it is pretty 
astounding that a Congress that was increasing spending through the 
roof, having deficits in the neighborhood of several hundred billion 
dollars, could reverse itself today under a policy that we believe as 
majority Republicans that, if we could just restrain the growth of the 
Federal Government, we could contribute mightily to the growth of this 
economy. That, in fact, has happened.
  Starting in 1995, we made a commitment that we would relieve the 
burden that has been placed upon our children's backs. We do not 
believe that at the end of our lives our children should show up for 
the reading of the will to find out that what mom and dad left them was 
a big bagful of bills totalling into the trillions of dollars.
  So we made a commitment that, frankly, was pretty amazing. As for me, 
I have held public office now for approaching 25 years. For those that 
gasp at that number, do not worry, I am leaving at the end of this 
year. I am going to retire. As you can see, I am, you know, tenderly 
young, even though I have been here so long. But what I can tell you, I 
can tell my colleagues that in politics, in the 25 years that I have 
been involved with it, it is very seldom that I have been able to see 
public officials put aside their own self-interests and instead adopt 
the community interest, the interest of the country.
  We did that starting in 1995. And we had a rough road. We were 
outwitted at times. We were outspoken at times. We were out-PR'd at 
times, but that is soft stuff. That is not about results, and that is 
not about policy, and that is not about programs.
  We kept our eye on the ball. And the eye on the ball was to balance 
the Federal budget. And starting in 1995, with our rollercoaster ride 
of emotions to try to get to a balanced budget, we demonstrated our 
commitment. I believe the chairman of the Federal Reserve, who sets the 
interest rates policies for this country, noted our commitment and 
gained confidence in what result we would produce here on Capitol Hill; 
and as a result, he lowered interest rates, which, of course, has 
allowed this economy to grow in a spectacular fashion with the wealth 
generated from this economy being shared by all Americans.
  We get to 1997, and we make a budget agreement with the 
administration; and what we find in 1998 is the first balanced budget 
in a generation. In 1999, we wrote a budget that for the first time in 
my lifetime kept our mitts off the Social Security surplus.
  The leadership of many members of the Committee on the Budget, most 
notably the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), with assistance of 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Ryun), and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), 
there was an effort being made to say that we should not any longer 
grab the Social Security surplus and use it for anything other than 
protecting Social Security; that we should not take that Social 
Security surplus and use it on running any other department agency and 
bureau, because it is the people's money.
  In 1999, we were able to achieve something that was even more 
significant than the balanced budget, it was not just balance the 
budget, but also put ourselves in a position where we would safeguard 
Social Security, keep our hands off it, put an electric fence around 
it, and say that the Social Security money should only be used to pay 
the benefits of Social Security recipients and kept in surplus to pay 
down the public debt until we solved long term the Social Security 
problems for both our baby boomers and their children.

                              {time}  1300

  For the second year, we will protect Social Security in that fashion. 
With the efforts of my good friend, the gentleman from the State of 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), we will bring to this floor a bill that will 
provide that the politicians in this town cannot grab Social Security 
for any other purpose than paying down debt or paying benefits. That is 
a significant accomplishment, Mr. Chairman.
  We are also very aware of the fact that the American people are 
saying, in an era of surpluses, we not only want Social Security to be 
protected but we would like Medicare to be strengthened.
  I must say that Medicare is a program that is in trouble. I must say 
that the next President, elected next January, whether it is a 
Republican or a Democrat, must work with the Congress of the United 
States, leave the demagoguery, the name calling, and the political 
hyperbole behind, and begin to deal with the two giant issues of Social 
Security and Medicare so that we do not end up in generational warfare.
  We are setting the stage for that to be able to happen, to solve that 
problem long term. We are strengthening Medicare; we are going to 
reform Medicare. We are going to improve Medicare, and with those 
reforms and improvements we will also provide for our neediest senior 
citizens a prescription drug benefit.
  Now, we know that there are many seniors, and think about it for a 
second, they need the prescription drugs; they need to go to the 
pharmacy and

[[Page H1302]]

many times it is a choice between the utilities, the trip down the 
street, the meal or a drug that their doctor has prescribed for them.
  We believe, as Republicans, and I think are joined by our friends on 
the other side of the aisle, that our poorest senior citizens must have 
access to prescription drugs. This budget will provide it, while at the 
same time encouraging the preservation, strengthening, and reforming of 
Medicare; two significant accomplishments.
  Thirdly, we also do something for our children. We will reduce the 
total publicly held debt over the next 5 years by $1 trillion. In 1995, 
our guiding star were the children, to lift that burden from their 
backs, to not ring up more debt, to begin to reduce the national debt. 
We already have a headstart on paying down that publicly held debt. 
Last year, we paid it down in the vicinity of $100 billion, but over 
the next 5 years we are going to have more momentum, and we achieve it 
by restraining the growth of spending in this town.
  We do it and we take those savings and we use a large chunk of it, $1 
trillion, to begin to pay down the publicly held debt.
  I say today that we achieve it in large part by restraining the 
growth of government. Now people might call us names and say we are 
heartless. I have to say that when the Agriculture Department, the 
Justice Department, the Education Department, the Pentagon, and the 
Agency for International Development cannot even have their books 
audited to figure out how they are spending their money, is it not time 
we get back on the reform agenda and send money back home to people and 
to pay down some of the debt?
  My great friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), told me 
that in the bowels of the Department of Education there are 48 VCRs 
operating day and night to record television shows, and yet they cannot 
even add up their books.
  Think the days of thousand-dollar hammers and screwdrivers and bolts 
are gone? Wrong. The Pentagon loses ships; they do not know where they 
are. Yet, they say we cannot restrain spending in this town? They are 
wrong, because they have gotten too addicted to the Potomac fever. They 
need the antidote, and the antidote are our children and our seniors.
  So we restrain the growth in public spending, and we pay down a 
trillion in the public debt; and that then leaves us room for tax 
relief. Who does the tax relief go to? It goes to our senior citizens 
who are punished because they decide to go to work and earn more money 
so they can have more for themselves and more for their grandchildren.
  We eliminate the penalty that they are now exposed to that says if 
they earn money they lose Social Security benefits. We also say to our 
farmers, our small businesspeople, that at the end of the day when they 
leave this earth they should not have to visit the undertaker and the 
IRS on the same day; that we are trying to ease the tax on inheritance, 
which is double and triple taxed. We are trying to say that if someone 
works a lifetime to build something, something I would like to build 
for my children Emma and Reese, that at the end of my life I would like 
to give them the fruit of my bounty, the fruit of my toil. Whatever 
burdens my wife and I experience, we want to pass on the good results 
to my children, and the Government should not take 55 percent of 
everything I have earned to spend it on what? More VCRs in the bowels 
of the Department of Education? I think not.

  We want tax fairness for families. When people get married, they 
should not be punished for having a union. Today, if one pays their 
taxes individually, in too many cases they will have a lower tax burden 
to the Federal Government different than if they get married. We 
believe that that tax burden ought to be ended. We ought to ease the 
marriage penalty, and this House has already voted for it.
  In addition to that, we believe that if one is self-employed they 
should be able to get the same insurance opportunities and the same tax 
provisions that are available to large companies so they can afford 
health insurance for themselves. So the fact is that we are going to 
have a variety of tax-cut measures that will pass this House, but these 
tax-cut measures come, once we have secured Social Security and 
Medicare and paid down some of the national debt, we want to send money 
back; we want to get it out of town because I want us all to understand 
one thing. If people get bigger, government gets smaller. If government 
gets smaller, people get bigger.
  I believe in the 21st century, in the Information Age, on the edge of 
an incredible revolution, that it is the individual that we prize; that 
it is the individual who is paramount in our society, not bureaucracy 
and bureaucrats and standing in line. It is about speed. It is about 
innovation. It is about excitement.
  The more power we have in our pockets, the more we can do for 
ourselves and our communities and our schools and our children; and 
that is why we are committed to cutting taxes, not at the expense of 
our seniors, not at the expense of our children; but we believe every 
day that we should reduce the size and scope of this Federal 
Government. Let it do the things that people cannot do or business 
cannot do for itself and use government in a limited fashion.
  We believe we need to restore America's defense. Now, we do have a 
very strange time where we have a department whose books cannot be 
audited, yet we are giving them more money. Why? Because we do not want 
our people in uniform to pay the price for sloppy management inside the 
Pentagon. But I must say there is a crusade building in this House, on 
this side of the aisle, that we want that building changed; we want to 
force the services to work together; we want accountability and we 
intend to make every effort to secure that.
  We will also strengthen support for education, trying to send more 
Federal dollars to meet the Federal mandate of special education. 
School districts are handicapped because the Federal Government ordered 
them to carry out a task but never provided the money. Because of the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), we 
are going to provide more money for special education; and because of 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) we are going to make sure 
that the remaining dollars are sent to the classroom so that 
flexibility is provided to our educators.
  In addition, we are going to improve the National Institutes of 
Health and basic science research, because we think it is a priority of 
the Federal Government. It is a proper role for the Federal Government, 
and we are committed to the efforts to eliminate cancer, to improve the 
treatment for heart disease, to be able to deal with the pain that 
families experience in Alzheimer's. Yes, we are going to spend more 
money on the National Institutes of Health, and we are going to spend 
more money on basic science, because it was through basic science 
programs in the Pentagon that we got the Internet. It was not invented 
by any politician. It was developed through a basic science initiative 
so that computers could talk together through the Pentagon. Basic 
science is a proper role of this Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear this budget called a lot of 
things: risky, reckless, irresponsible. They are code words, for me. 
They are code words for more bureaucracy, more standing in line. Is 
there anything you hate more than standing in line? More frustration, 
higher taxes. The fact is that there will be charges that we are 
somehow affecting these programs for the elderly. It is false.
  The proof is in the pudding. We have secured them, like no one has in 
a generation.
  The fact is, we believe that this budget that invests in limited 
priorities in the Federal Government, reduces the public debt, 
transfers wealth that we have given to government back to people and 
secures the programs not just for our seniors but for baby boomers and 
their children. We believe this is a budget that is consistent with the 
economic development that is going on in America today. There really is 
no reason for Members not to come and in a unanimous fashion support 
this budget.
  I would ask my colleagues to think carefully about it. I think it is 
an outstanding blueprint, and I think it is consistent with those that 
believe in

[[Page H1303]]

limited government, in strong economic growth in the private sector. So 
I would urge support of the Republican budget proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have come a long way in 8 years. We have come from a 
deficit in 1992, a record deficit of $290 billion and deficits 
projected as far as the eye can see, to a surplus computed the same way 
of $175 billion and that has underlaid this phenomenal economy.
  We are now at a fiscal fork in the road. We have wiped out the 
traditional deficit, the deficit in our annual budget. We have created 
surpluses in place of those deficits as far as the eye can see, but 
those surpluses only exist because of the way we keep books. We keep a 
cash set of books. If we had accrual accounting instead of cash 
accounting and if we recognized our liability to the Social Security 
program and the benefits promised to those working today and to the 
Medicare program and the benefits that it entails, we would be booking 
substantial costs to both of those programs; and I do not think we 
would be in surplus. We would be in deficit again.
  There are many differences between our budget, the Democratic 
substitute, and their budget, the Republican budget. The resolution is 
on the floor today, but the main difference is this: we recognize our 
liability to Social Security and Medicare. They do not, and I will say 
why.
  Our budget generates savings, too. We have a cumulative surplus over 
the next 5 years of $48 billion; over the next 10 years of $365 
billion. We take the $365 billion surplus, a substantial share of it 
over the next 10 years, and we direct the Committee on Ways and Means 
to provide legislation so that $300 billion of that surplus will be 
taken out of the general fund and contributed to the Medicare Trust 
Fund so that it will be more solvent than ever; we think more solvent 
to the tune of at least 10 additional years.

                              {time}  1315

  We further direct the Committee on Ways and Means to reconcile 
legislation so that in 2011, 10 years from now, the total amount of 
debt savings that we are able to achieve because we have accumulated 
these surpluses over 10 years, the total amount of debt service, the 
reduction in interest on the national debt, will be computed, and that 
amount will then be transferred from the general fund to the Social 
Security trust fund for a period of years such that we can extend its 
life by 15 years. Those proposals have been made by the President. We 
put them in reconciliation language in our budget.
  They simply do not have anything. They are saying they are going to 
leave the Social Security surplus alone, and we are too. Good policy, 
and we agree. They are saying they will pay down $1 trillion of debt. 
So will we, using the Social Security trust fund. But we are going 
further. We are extending the life of both programs, and that is the 
main difference between us and them.
  We have shown in this budget resolution that we are presenting that 
we can cut taxes, by less, but significantly. We can pay down debt, $48 
billion over the next 5 years, $365 billion over the 10-year period in 
time. We can do all of these things and still provide for the 
reasonable needs of our country. $20.5 billion more for education, for 
example, in our budget than their budget. More for community 
development. In fact, they cut community development by nearly $2.5 
billion between this year and next year. The Community Development 
Block Grant, the Economic Development Administration that means so much 
to many of our districts, they slice it, $2.5 billion. We plus it up. 
More money for law enforcement in ours.
  There is also an account that is vitally important, because this is 
not spending, this is an investment, more money for science, more money 
specifically for the National Science Foundation.
  You know, Mr. Chairman, when we had our markup in the Committee on 
the Budget, one of our Members from Princeton, from New Jersey, who is 
a professor of physics at Princeton and knows something about science, 
offered an amendment to the budget markup which would have added $2.8 
billion over 5 years. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) made 
that amendment, $2.8 billion over 5 years, $675 million a year to 
Function 250, which provides for the National Science Foundation.
  The Holt amendment was rejected. There was a compromise reached such 
that the committee did give him $100 million plus-up in the mark. But, 
you know, the arguments of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) 
began to resonate apparently with the majority. Over the last week, 
something happened.
  Last night, haunted by the persuasive arguments that the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) made in our committee last week, a majority 
had some kind of an epiphany, because they came around, and after 
rejecting his requested increase in NSF, they put $3 billion, exactly 
what he wanted, even more, in the National Science Foundation function.
  Mr. Chairman, in light of that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), to explain what we have also put in our 
budget resolution to accommodate an increase in scientific research and 
exploration.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the ranking member of 
the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to see that the budget does not amount to a 
fiction. What we want is to see that we can maintain the kind of robust 
economy that stands behind our projections. We want to have an economy 
with real productivity growth. And what is behind that? New ideas and 
smart workers. It is necessary ingredients.
  I thank the ranking member for the kind remarks, and I would like to 
extend my thanks to the chairman and to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for helping to 
prevail on our colleagues to see the benefit of my amendment.
  The strong economy that we enjoy today is due in large part to 
previous investments in research and education, and the increase that 
we now see in the budget at the 11th hour, or actually it was the 2 
a.m. hour last night, in research, is most welcome. But that is only 
part of what we need.
  We should approve the Democratic substitute budget which will provide 
for increased funding in education as well.
  The Republicans' budget cuts the purchasing power of education by 
$8.5 billion over 5 years, it freezes funding at the 2000 level for 5 
years, it would reduce funding for 316,000 low-income students to 
receive Pell Grants to attend college. Head Start would have to cut 
services to more than 40,000 students.
  The Democratic alternative budget, on the other hand, rejects this 
Republican freeze for educational funding. It provides $4.8 billion 
more for education for 2001 than the Republican budget. Over 5 years, 
the Democratic budget provides $21 billion more than the Republicans.
  So we have made a partial fix in research, but we need to do more in 
education, so that we can have the new ideas, the well-trained 
workforce, necessary for the kind of productivity growth that we have 
been enjoying.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark) for a colloquy about prescription drugs.
  (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with 
the distinguished ranking member.
  Somewhere in this budget there is supposedly a reserve of $40 billion 
that is supposed to take care of Medicare and the pharmaceutical 
benefit and whatever, but I cannot seem to find it. Could the gentleman 
explain to me where that is?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution, the Republican 
resolution, sets up a so-called reserve fund. It basically says if and 
when the Committee on Ways and Means reports a prescription drug 
benefit for Medicare, along with, coupled to, Medicare reform, whatever 
that means, then $40 billion is provided for that purpose.

[[Page H1304]]

  Unlike their resolution, our resolution has reconciliation language. 
That is the whole purpose of having the reconciliation power vested in 
the Committee on the Budget. We can use this resolution to tell 
committees they should change basic law to provide for things like drug 
benefits. We have directed it and we have put up $40 billion also.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I could further 
inquire of the distinguished ranking member the chances, I would like 
to ask the gentleman's opinion of the chances of the Committee on Ways 
and Means passing a prescription drug benefit, when just recently the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) offered an amendment to provide 
a discount on prescription drugs to seniors at no cost to the Federal 
Government and every Republican voted no, and every Democrat, of 
course, voted yes. So the Republicans voted, the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Hayworth), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), right down 
the line, they voted to deny seniors a discount on prescription drugs 
when it would have had no budget impact at all.
  Now, given that kind of compassion, and this is a word that comes out 
of Texas, given that kind of compassion, what do you think the chances 
are that the Republican-led Committee on Ways and Means would vote out 
a prescription drug benefit that would help anybody?
  Mr. SPRATT. I take it the gentleman's question is rhetorical.
  Mr. STARK. Oh, no, it is a question that I hope the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw) will answer to the seniors in Florida, and that the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) will answer to the seniors in 
Arizona, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) will answer 
to the seniors in Pennsylvania, and that the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Weller) will answer to the seniors in Illinois, because they have 
denied their own constituents the chance to buy these prescription 
drugs which they so vitally need at no cost to the Federal Government.
  What kind of assistance is that to your constituents, I ask the 
gentleman rhetorically? And the answer is they do not want any 
prescription drug benefit. They do not want to save Medicare as we know 
it. I think that should be pointed out in this debate today.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).
  (Mr. WEYGAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to follow up on the 
great comments made by the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and 
our ranking member, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  In 1965, this Congress took a bold move in policy. It set forth a 
program called Medicare, because the highest costs that were 
encountered by our seniors was the hospital stays. They deliberately 
went out and determined that, indeed, we as a budget, we as a Congress, 
should in fact develop that kind of a program.
  Today, 35 years later, the highest costs that are being encountered 
and incurred by our seniors is the cost of prescription drugs. Yet when 
we put forward a program, a real program of reform, on how to pay for 
and provide for prescription drugs for our seniors, the Republicans on 
the Committee on the Budget turned it down.
  As a matter of fact, what they did was they put together a double 
count kind of system of providing $40 billion for Medicare reform and 
prescription drugs, but they counted it in another fashion as a 
surplus. So they have double-counted it.
  We indeed then put forward a program of providing $40 billion 
strictly for prescription drugs so that the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Stark) and the Committee on Ways and Means and all the members of 
the Committee on Ways and Means could truly vote on and pass 
legislation that would reduce prescription drugs costs for our seniors.
  We have been denied that. But, more importantly, our seniors have 
been denied that. This budget that is before you today does not provide 
one penny for prescription drugs. As a matter of fact, since they 
already made a mistake of $20 billion on the Social Security earnings 
limit portion of this budget, you know where that reserve fund will go 
to? $20 billion of it will go to making up for that mistake. Then we 
have even less for any kind of Medicare reform or prescription drugs.
  Each one of us in our district knows the anecdotes, knows the 
stories, of seniors who have gone without paying their rent or paying 
for food to buy prescription drugs or the reverse. It is time to change 
that kind of situation for our seniors and make a bold move in 
leadership to truly give prescription drugs an opportunity to be 
lowered and to benefit our seniors.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina, Mr. Price.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, recent calls for biennial 
budgeting have claimed that the budget process around here is broken 
and needs fixing. Well, I would like to suggest that the problem is 
less one of process, and more one of a failure on the part of the 
majority to produce realistic budget resolutions. What we need is not 
endless tinkering with the budget process. What we need is to use the 
existing process responsibly.
  The Republican budget resolution before us today repeats patterns 
that are all too familiar to us from fiscal 1999 and fiscal 2000. It 
makes highly unrealistic domestic spending assumptions, like those that 
led to last year's budgetary train wreck. It relies on false 
assumptions about the level of cuts which can be absorbed by critical 
domestic accounts.
  The only way the Republican plan can make room for its exorbitant 
$200 billion in tax cuts over 5 years--and that goes up to $1 trillion 
over 10 years--is to drastically undercut domestic programs that are 
critical for working families and for the most vulnerable among us.
  In 2001 the Republican plan would cut non-defense domestic spending 
by $7 billion, compared to a freeze at the 2000 level. When you account 
for inflation, this represents $19.7 billion, or a 6.4 percent cut in 
purchasing power, from our current level of activity. By 2005, the 
Republican plan would cut non-defense domestic spending by $39.4 
billion or 11.5 percent relative to the funding necessary to keep pace 
with inflation.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to remember that since 1962, non-defense 
appropriations have grown by 2.8 percent annually above the rate of 
inflation. From 1996 to 2000, the Republican Congress has increased 
non-defense spending at an average rate of 2.5 percent above inflation. 
So how can we realistically expect to suddenly reduce non-defense 
spending, not only below the level needed to maintain constant 
purchasing power, but below even the current year's nominal spending 
level? The answer is we cannot expect to do that, we should not, and we 
are not being honest with ourselves if we suggest that we can.
  I am not talking here merely about cuts to domestic programs in a 
generic sense. It is easy to talk about belt tightening, and we indeed 
do need to press the war against waste and fraud and abuse. But what is 
at stake here are large cuts to programs that serve as essential safety 
nets which help struggling families help themselves. We are talking 
about cutting 310,000 people out of the Women, Infants and Children 
nutrition program. We are talking about making Pell grants to 316,000 
fewer students by 2005. We are talking about eliminating more than 
40,000 children from Head Start.
  By contrast, Mr. Chairman, the Democratic resolution is realistic and 
it is responsible. Under the Democratic alternative, we would pass our 
appropriations bills on budget, on time. Unlike the Republican 
resolution, we would extend the solvency of both Social Security and 
Medicare, and we would mandate the addition of a prescription benefit 
to Medicare. We would buy back publicly-held debt, not only with the 
entire Social Security surplus, but, unlike the Republican plan, with 
$365 billion of the non-Social Security surplus. And we would create 
room for a reasonable and well-targeted tax cut.

                              {time}  1330

  The Democratic plan is well-balanced, by reducing debt, protecting 
and

[[Page H1305]]

strengthening Social Security and Medicare, providing targeted tax 
relief, and maintaining our investments in public education, research, 
transportation and affordable housing.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt the Democratic 
alternative.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of my 
distinguished colleague's budget proposal which will provide 
prescription drug coverage and better access to the Department of 
Defense health system for Medicare-eligible military retirees.
  This legislation upholds the obligation; and yes, we do have an 
obligation to those who have served. In Orange County alone, we have 
over 100,000 military retirees, and we need to provide these Americans 
the access to health care they deserve. It is time to do it, and this 
bill does it.
  Fortunately, our society has been blessed with many leaders who 
imparted the values of leadership, responsibility, and loyalty while 
wearing the uniform of this country. For without their dedication to 
duty, we would not enjoy the many freedoms that America has to offer. 
Congress should keep the promises made to these brave men and women. We 
should vote yes on the Spratt substitute.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Connecticut for yielding me this time.
  I would just like to bring us back down to earth and talk about what 
this budget achieves. This budget that we are talking about here 
protects 100 percent of the Social Security surplus; it strengthens 
Medicare with a prescription drug plan by setting aside $40 billion; it 
retires the public debt by the year 2013; it promotes tax fairness for 
families, farmers and seniors; it restores America's defense systems; 
and it strengthens our support for education and science.
  But what I would like to focus on today is Social Security. I think 
it is important to note where we have been on Social Security. Well, 
over the last 30 years, the Federal Government has been taking money 
out of the Social Security Trust Fund and spending it on other 
government programs. In fact, just last year alone, the President of 
the United States gave us a budget last year where he said, I want to 
take 62 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund and dedicate that to 
Social Security, but take 38 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund 
out of Social Security to spend on other government programs.
  Well, last year we said enough is enough. Mr. Chairman, 100 percent 
of Social Security should go to Social Security.
  So last year the President basically said, let us take $52 billion 
out of the Social Security Trust Fund, spend it on the creation of 120 
other Federal Government programs.
  Well, if we take this year's budget and take last year's rhetoric, we 
can see the difference between the two parties. Last year's rhetoric 
was this: a number of Members from the Democratic side of the aisle 
said on the same day, the Republican budget already dips in to the 
Social Security Trust Fund by more than $18 billion. The Republican 
budget has already spent $13 billion of the Social Security Trust Fund. 
The Republican budget raids Social Security by $24 billion. Another 
Member on the next day said the Republican budget takes $17 billion out 
of the Social Security Trust Fund. All remarks last year by Members of 
the other side.
  Well, let us take a look at actually what happened. Last year, in 
1999, guess what happens? We took zero money out of the Social Security 
Trust Fund. We locked away every penny of the Social Security Trust 
Fund. We are doing it again this year, and we are going to bring budget 
language to the floor that says never again will Congress go back to 
the days of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund.
  Mr. Chairman, if we look at the President's budget, if we take out 
his Medicare cuts, if we take out his tax increases, the President is 
sending us another budget that takes $60 billion out of the Social 
Security Trust Fund.
  Let us look at the facts. Let us not believe the hype. We have 
already stopped the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund, and we are 
going to continue to stop the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I believe we are at a crossroads in our 
Nation's history. In front of us is every opportunity for a future so 
bright, so filled with promise that our children and grandchildren have 
a chance to live in a Nation where every person truly has the 
opportunity to reach their fullest potential, a Nation where every 
child is educated in a modern school, in smaller classes with an 
excellent teacher; a Nation where people who have worked a lifetime can 
retire with security and without worries; a safe Nation with guns off 
of our streets and away from our schools. We can achieve these things 
if we make the right choices today.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, this Republican budget makes 
all the wrong choices. Its main goal is a $1 trillion tax cut that 
snuffs out the aspirations of all but the wealthiest among us. It cuts 
310,000 low-income babies and mothers off the nutritional assistance 
they use to buy things like milk and baby food. It takes away home 
heating assistance from 164,000 poor families. It cuts financial aid 
from hundreds of thousands of students. It ends Head Start for 40,000 
preschoolers. It does not extend Social Security and Medicare, not even 
for a single day. That is no way to lift people up, to give them a 
chance to make a brighter future.
  Great nations recognize that families in trouble are families with 
untapped potential, not problems to be swept under the rug.
  Mr. Chairman, we can pay off our debt, save Social Security and 
Medicare, give our children the education they deserve, and our seniors 
the retirement they have earned, and lift people up to join in the 
prosperity and opportunities of this country. But we cannot lift people 
up if they are buried under the mountain of debt the Republican plan 
would pass along to our children.
  Mr. Chairman, let us reject the short-sighted choices of the 
Republican budget and pass a Democratic budget that will help us get to 
that even brighter future that is now well within our reach.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), a member of the Committee on the 
Budget as well as the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Protect 100 percent of the Social Security surplus, strengthen 
Medicare with prescription drugs, retire the public debt by 2013, 
promote tax fairness, restore America's defense, and lets us strengthen 
and support education and science.
  Let us talk Medicare. Here come the me-too Democrats. That is not 
what they were saying a month ago. The me-too Democrats a month ago 
were rushing in and saying the President has a fantastic prescription 
drug benefit. Well, let us look at that. Let us see what the 
prescription drug benefit did.
  Well, the President in the first year cut Medicare. No money left for 
prescription drugs. Second year, $2 billion, but the President's plan 
did not start yet. The third year, a $100 million increase for Medicare 
according to the President's budget; no room for prescription drugs.
  What does the Republican plan do? Mr. Chairman, $40 billion set aside 
for Medicare, and what do the Democrats do? Last night, rush in with a 
substitute, saying oh, me too, me too, me too. I want to give a 
prescription drug benefit that is real, not the President's that is not 
real, that cuts Medicare; and let us look at some of those cuts.
  In order for the President to fund his Medicare benefit, it increases 
beneficiary costs, it cuts kidney dialysis, cutting prescription drug 
payments, cutting hospitals.
  Let me tell my colleagues something. Out in rural America, out in 
Iowa, you close my hospital, you do not have health care, let alone the 
President's fake prescription drug benefit that did not even go into 
effect until 2004. So do

[[Page H1306]]

not come in here and ``me-too,'' 2 months after the President stood 
right up here and promised America a drug benefit that was not even 
real. Do not come here 2 months later and claim credit for a 
prescription drug benefit that is a ``me-too'' with our Republican 
budget.
  We welcome our colleagues in a bipartisan way to solve this problem, 
but do not tell us that this is where you have been, because you have 
been cutting benefits under Medicare. The President's plan did that. It 
is not real. Vote for the Republican plan for Medicare.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to answer the gentleman and say, if the gentleman's proposal is real, 
why did he not put reconciliation directly to the Committee on Ways and 
Means and the Committee on the Budget? If your proposal is real, why 
did you not say here is $40 billion, not here is a reserve fund, if you 
can reform Medicare and if you can report a bill?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, last year the Republicans in the 
House of Representatives beat their chests mightily to talk about a 
$792 billion tax cut over 10 years. That tax cut was so fiscally 
irresponsible that it was rejected throughout the country. We are back 
this year with the same situation, except now we will not even talk 
about it.
  In our Committee on the Budget hearing I asked our chairman, what was 
the price tag over 10 years for this tax cut? I could not get a 
straight answer. But today, I understand that number has been put out 
here before the body. It is $200 billion over 5 years.
  Now, the question that the public deserves to have the answer to 
here, and we ought to answer it for ourselves, is what is the 10-year 
cost of this tax cut?
  Well, last year the $792 billion tax cut was $156 billion over 5 
years. We are talking about $200 billion over 5 years. So the math is 
pretty simple. We are looking at a $1 trillion tax cut over 10 years.
  Now, there are those up here that think we ought to use the projected 
surplus for massive tax cuts and some that want to go on a spending 
spree, and I reject both positions. We should take the lion's share of 
the projected surplus and use it to pay down this massive Federal debt. 
Why should we focus on paying down a $3.47 trillion Federal debt?
  Consider these facts: in 1999, we spent $230 billion in interested 
payments, 13 percent of our discretionary spending. That is $3,644 per 
every family in America with four people. That is more than we spend on 
Medicare; it is slightly less than what we spent on national defense. 
Think of the things that we could do by paying down the debt and not 
having that interest payment. We can do a responsible tax cut. We spent 
$60 billion last year on education. We spent $230 billion in interest 
payments.
  Paying down the debt has also been an offense to our wallets at home. 
Several economists, including the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan 
Greenspan, have said, that as we pay down the debt it has a positive 
impact on interest rates, as much as 2 points. Take a homeowner in my 
home State of Florida with a $115,000 mortgage. If his or her interest 
rate goes down by 2 points, that is a reduction of $155 a month in 
their mortgage payment. That is a better benefit than most of the tax 
cuts that are being proposed up here.
  Mr. Chairman, let us stop playing games with the future of America.
  This budget is not a responsible step towards paying down the debt 
and extending the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. In fact, 
under this plan, the Social Security surplus will be spent as early as 
2004. The public does not want gargantuan tax cuts at the expense of 
paying down the debt and preserving Social Security and Medicare, and 
we should reject the resolution for that reason.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), a distinguished member of the House Committee 
on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, we have a Republican budget on the floor 
here today, and it cannot be emphasized enough. It sets the right 
priorities; it protects ever penny of the Social Security surplus. It 
sets aside $40 billion for Medicare and makes sure that there is enough 
for prescription drug coverage for those that need it. It retires 
public debt. It promotes tax fairness by eliminating the marriage 
penalty, by making the Tax Code more fair for those seeking to purchase 
health insurance or send their children to school. It restores the 
strength of our defense system, and it invests in education and science 
as well.
  The previous speaker spoke a little bit about the importance of 
retiring public debt, and I think he spoke the truth. It is important. 
It does help lower interest rates, and it does make a difference in our 
economy. But I think it is also important to remember where we started.
  The President was not setting aside ever penny of the Social Security 
surplus a year ago; he was not making the commitment to pay down the 
debt that we have in this budget. Just 1 year ago, the President 
suggested that we spend 40 percent of the Social Security surplus. We 
have come a long way, and what a difference just a year makes.

                              {time}  1345

  In 1998, we paid down $50 billion in public debt. In 1999, over $80 
billion in public debt retired. Last year, when the critics on the 
other side of the aisle said, no, you are not going to set aside every 
penny of the Social Security surplus, we proved them wrong. We not only 
did it, we paid down over $160 billion in debt.
  With this Republican budget, we will bring the 4-year total of debt 
retirement to over $450 billion. Paying down debt to protect our 
future, to lower interest rates, to keep the economy growing, it does 
make a difference on every home mortgage someone has. It does make a 
difference in lowering the cost of college loans and lowering the cost 
of an automobile loan. It helps keep interest rates low, and it helps 
protect America's savings.
  When one's interest rates are lower, those are funds that one never 
even has to send to Washington. We are paying down debt, over $450 
billion in the most recent 4 years. But over the next 5 years, we will 
pay down over a trillion dollars in debt, paying down that debt to 
protect the public.
  Now, the critics say, well, maybe we could pay down more debt if we 
did not cut taxes. We could pay down more debt if we did not eliminate 
the marriage penalty and kept penalizing married couples. We could, but 
that would be wrong. We could pay down more debt if we did not get rid 
of the Social Security earnings limit. We could, but that would be 
wrong. We could pay down more debt if we did not give individuals 
health insurance deductibility. We could, but it would be wrong.
  We set aside over a trillion dollars over the next 5 years, and we 
can criticize and harangue and suggest that maybe we should keep 
raising taxes so that we can spend more.
  My colleagues have heard the code words, risky scheme. My colleagues 
have heard the code words, it is a dangerous plan. Taxes are not high 
enough. The fact of the matter is those are code words for spending 
more and for keeping more of the money that the public sends here.
  We are paying down over a trillion dollars in 5 years, and that is 
why my colleagues should support the Republican budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the budget resolution in front of us today has a 
misguided focus. It double counts. It cooks the books. It does not have 
enough debt reduction. It has unrealistic assumptions in terms of cuts 
and domestic programs. It has risky tax cuts, risky indeed. Because 
they are simply too big, and they risk the future of Social Security.
  If the Republican budget resolution is fully implemented, it would 
use up all of the surplus funds and threaten the future of Social 
Security. But if it is not fully implemented, if they cannot make the 
domestic spending cuts of 10 percent over 5 years that they include in 
this document, then they are directly going to raid Social Security.

[[Page H1307]]

 That is an important subject for us to focus on.
  All of us know how important debt reduction is. There is bipartisan 
agreement on that fact. The question is who accomplishes it. Debt 
reduction is important. This year, 12 percent of our budget is going to 
pay interest debt service on our debt, $224 billion. That money crowds 
out private sector investment. It keeps interest rates artificially 
high.
  If we can reduce that debt, we can free up money for tax cuts or 
other spending needs. If we can reduce government borrowing, then the 
private sector interest rates will be kept lower, and we will 
strengthen our economy. But we have got to have a realistic budget.
  The Republican budget resolution in front of us calls for 10 percent 
reductions in domestic discretionary programs. That is across the 
board. But they pick on some particularly important programs such as 
the community in regional development function that would have a 
reduction in purchasing power over 5 years of one-third.
  I do not believe there are enough votes on that side of the aisle to 
do that. I hope there are not enough votes on that side of the aisle to 
do that because of the pain that would cause.
  Two years ago, I was a county commissioner, and I was dealing with 
community development block grants in a wealthy county, Montgomery 
County, Pennsylvania, which this year will get $7.5 million in CDBG 
grants. It gets about $20 million in requests from the townships, the 
bureaus, and the housing groups, the nonprofits in Montgomery County.
  So the county commissioners can fund one-third of those requests 
presently. If this budget goes through and across-the-board cuts are 
made as envisioned by the Republicans, that money is going to drop 20 
percent. Over 5 years, it will drop by one-third. We are not meeting 
the needs of the public. This budget does not work. We have got to vote 
``no'' on it.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, our budget protects 100 percent of the 
Social Security surplus, 100 percent. It does it in the next year's 
budget just as it is doing in this year's budget just as we did not 
spend any Social Security money last year. It strengthens Medicare with 
prescription drugs. We set aside $40 billion in the next 5 years. It 
retires debt, $1 trillion in the next 5 years. We have already retired 
$302 billion. It promotes tax fairness for families, farmers, and 
seniors.
  The GOP tax plan ends the marriage penalty, repeals Social Security 
earnings limit, reduces the death tax, expands educational savings 
accounts, increases health care deductibility, promotes tax breaks for 
poor communities, and strengthens private pension plans. We set aside 
$200 billion in the next 5 years, just 2 percent of the budget in the 
next 5 years.
  The Clinton plan came in with $96 billion of gross increases in 
taxes. The Republicans had zero. We do not have any taxes.
  The Clinton plan increases taxes $10 billion in the next year. We 
provide tax relief of $10 billion in the year.
  The Republican tax relief plan, over the next 5 years, $200 billion 
for the marriage penalty, the death tax, the educational savings 
account, health care deductibility, the community renewal, and pension 
reform. We set aside $50 billion in potential update. We want to make 
sure it is locked up for paying down debt or tax relief. We do not want 
it spent by the Democrats on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, the Republican majority's fiscal year 2001 
budget resolution before us today tests the bounds of fiscal reality 
while failing the tests of fiscal responsibility.
  The Republican budget resolution is premised upon an unsustainable 
tax cut of $250 billion over 5 years and $1 trillion over 10 years, 
which absorbs the entire on-budget surplus and then some, while 
requiring untenable, unreasonable cuts in nondefense discretionary 
programs. These cuts amount to 11 percent in real terms in the funding 
of such things as community and regional development, health care, and 
the environment.
  Further, the Republican budget does nothing to address the need for a 
prescription drug benefit and Medicare, does nothing to extend the 
solvency of Social Security and Medicare. If fully implemented, it 
fails to adequately reduce the debt.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is designed solely to 
provide huge tax cuts at the expense of proper investment and human 
resources and prudent debt reduction.
  The Republican budget assumes that nondefense discretionary spending 
will be cut by $363 billion over 10 years, cuts such as 1,000 FBI 
agents, 800 Drug Enforcement Agents, and hundreds of Border Patrol 
Agents.
  It means a retreat from our bipartisan efforts to double the funding 
for the National Institutes of Health. It means cutting Pell Grants for 
kids to go to college and Head Start for kids to begin to learn.
  In reality, we know the Republicans will never achieve these cuts for 
two reasons. First, the American people oppose them; and, second, the 
Republicans themselves oppose them.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1995 and 2000, 
Republican Congresses have increased discretionary spending faster than 
the rate of inflation. The majority knows that these cuts will never 
occur, but they provide cover for their huge tax cut which will 
ultimately eat through the on-budget surplus and into the Social 
Security surplus at the expense of Social Security solvency.
  On Medicare, the Republicans offer lip service to the public's desire 
to a new prescription drug benefit with the so-called $40 billion 
reserve. During the Committee on Budget markup, that reserve was spent 
several times on prescriptions, Medicare reform, and debt reduction. 
But the fact is we can only spend it once.
  Finally, the Republican budget fails in debt reduction. If fully 
implemented, the Republicans will use none of the on-budget surplus to 
pay down debt and spend a portion of the Social Security surplus for 
their tax cut. If history is any judge and the Republican majority 
fails to make huge discretionary spending cuts they propose, it will 
spend even more of the Social Security surplus.
  So, Mr. Chairman, the budget before us will ultimately lead the 
Nation back to debt finance spending, doing nothing to extend the life 
of Social Security and Medicare, failing on prescription drugs for 
seniors, and failing on paying down the national debt adequately.
  The Democratic substitute offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is a far better fiscal plan for the Nation. It 
provides for tax relief, debt reduction far more than the Republicans 
offer, and investment in the Nation's priorities of education, health 
care, the environment, and economic development.
  The Democratic substitute does so in a way which is fiscally prudent 
and solvent, dedicating 100 percent of the Social Security surplus and 
40 percent of the on-budget surplus to paying down the national debt, 
$400 billion more than our Republican friends.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose the Republican budget resolution 
and adopt the resolution of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 
32\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
has 34 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the vice chairman of the Committee on Budget.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, we are here today to discuss a budget 
which Republicans have put forward that, number one, is going to 
protect Social Security, 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. We 
are going to strengthen Medicare, and we are going to provide our 
Medicare beneficiaries with a real meaningful prescription drug plan.
  We are going to retire over the next 5 years, under this budget, $1 
trillion. By the year 2013, we are going to pay down all of the public 
debt that this country now owes.
  We are going to promote tax fairness for families, for farmers, for 
small

[[Page H1308]]

business people, and for seniors. We are going to restore America's 
defense. We are going to strengthen support for education and science.
  I want to concentrate just a minute on the area of national defense. 
Let us look at where we were when this new majority came in in 1995. 
When the current administration and the Democratic Congress took over 
back in 1993, the budget for defense that year was $282 billion. Over 
the next 2 years, this administration and the Democratic-controlled 
Congress reduced spending for defense by $20 billion, down to $262 
billion.
  Well, what was the effect of that reduction in spending? Well, let me 
show my colleagues what happened. We have reduced the number of Army 
divisions from 18 to 10. We have reduced the number of fighter wings in 
the United States Air Force from 24 to 13. We have reduced the number 
of ships in the United States Navy from 546 down to 333.
  Well, since this majority has been in control, we have been about the 
business of providing more money for the national security of this 
country. We have taken the Clinton budget since 1996 alone, and have 
increased it by almost $40 billion. This year, again, in the current 
budget that we are debating today, we are going to add $1 billion over 
the President's request for defense.
  What are we doing with that money? Let us look at what we are going 
to do with that money. We today are competing in our military services 
with every Fortune 500 company in the country. We have got to provide 
our folks with the quality of life in the military services that is 
second to none, and we are going to do that.
  We are going to provide them with pay raises. We are going to provide 
them with better housing. We are going to provide them with better 
recreational opportunities to be able to continue to attract the finest 
men and women that America has to offer.
  We are going to make sure that, from a readiness standpoint, that 
those folks are the best trained forces in the world today; that our 
folk in the depots have the parts to repair the equipment; and that our 
forces are equipped with the latest technologically advanced weapons 
systems that the world has to offer.
  We are the world's greatest country in large part because we are the 
world's strongest military power. This Republican budget maintains that 
commitment to the national security of this country.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say in response to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Chambliss), by my reading of their budget, it pluses up the 
President's budget $1 billion this year and no more than $300 million 
in the out year. It basically tracks the Clinton budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Clement).
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Democratic alternative to the budget resolution offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). As a veteran, I urge my 
colleagues to support this alternative which keeps the promises to our 
veterans.
  We have debated on a lot of different issues in the Committee on 
Budget, which I am a member of: education, national defense, social 
security, Medicare, health care, and a plan to retire the national 
debt.

                              {time}  1400

  But the fact is the Democratic alternative offers us more hope and 
more opportunity to accomplish our goals and objectives for the 21st 
century.
  For 2001, the Democratic alternative provides $22 billion in 
appropriations for veterans' programs, $100 million more than the 
Republican plan. Over 5 years, the Democratic alternative provides $1 
billion more than the Republicans.
  In addition, the Democratic budget provides for an expansion of the 
Montgomery GI Bill education benefits, a key recruiting retention tool 
for the Armed Services. The value of these benefits has failed to keep 
up with the rising cost of higher education. Our budget increases the 
basic monthly GI bill benefit to nearly $700 for 2001, a 25 percent 
increase for the benefit level in current law.
  Our veterans are growing sicker and older each year. As a result, 
their health care needs only will grow in the years to come. It is 
imperative that we fund the various mandates included in the Millennium 
Health Care and Benefits Act, which the overwhelming majority of my 
colleagues supported last year.
  In addition to increasing funding for health care benefits, our 
alternative also provides for an increase in the benefits available to 
veterans under the Montgomery GI Bill. The erosion of purchasing power 
severely hampers the effectiveness of these education benefits in 
recruiting and retention at a time when all branches of the military 
are falling short of their recruiting goals.
  America and our veterans need a Montgomery GI Bill for the new 
millennium. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
alternative budget resolution.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), a member of the Committee on the Budget and a 
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  What does a Republican budget mean for our families? Very simply, it 
means that we start moving towards a debt-free Nation for our children. 
Now that we have balanced the budget, we will eliminate the $3.6 
trillion public debt over the next 13 years.
  It means a more secure retirement for our seniors. We stop the raid 
on Social Security, and we protect the Social Security surpluses into 
the future; a stronger effort to find cures for cancer and other life-
threatening diseases, and a safer world while we fulfill our promise 
and our pledge to those who made it that way.
  It also means more education dollars for our classrooms. It means 
more money for our kids; more money for learning, instead of 
bureaucracy and red tape.
  We are committed to funding special education. We are committed to 
funding Title VI. What does that mean? It means that we are going to 
fund innovative education program strategies, the area that gives local 
school districts the most flexibility in educating their kids and 
spending their dollars to meet their needs.
  We are going to make sure that we keep our commitment to those areas 
that have Federal facilities, military facilities, by increasing impact 
aid. These are areas that we are committed to because when we fund 
them, it gives flexibility to local school districts to meet the needs 
of their children and their schools.
  It is a sharp contrast to the President's direction. The President's 
direction builds on the failed Washington approach which has given us 
760 education programs spread over 39 different agencies, an education 
department that for 4 years will fail its audits. They have already 
failed two audits; they are going to fail the next two.
  We give the Department of Education $35 billion per year to help 
educate our kids, and the thanks that we get is a department that does 
not even commit to the basics of balancing its books and providing us 
with a clean audit. They have failed two, and they are going to fail 
the next two.
  They have a theft ring operating within the Department of Education 
requiring a vigorous investigation identifying where their computers 
and their electronic equipment is going.
  They recently printed 3.5 million forms for financial aid. Only one 
problem, they printed the wrong ones. They recently notified 39 
students that they got a great scholarship. The only problem is these 
39 students did not qualify.
  This is an agency that is out of control. We need to move away from 
the failed bureaucracy here in Washington and move these dollars to 
people who know the names of our children and empower them to make the 
decision for learning environments that will enable them to learn and 
succeed.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican 
budget

[[Page H1309]]

proposal as it is presented here today and in support of the Democratic 
proposal.
  I am particularly concerned that the Republicans are not near as 
generous with American students as they claim to be. In fact, the 
Democratic proposal offers $20.25 billion more in spending for 
America's students than the Republican proposal on the floor at this 
time.
  I am also concerned that the Republicans will actually do damage to 
many of the programs we support in this country. For example, much of 
the Republicans' claimed increase for special education exists on paper 
only. Although they claim to provide a $2.2 billion increase for 2001, 
only $200 million in real spending increases will be available to 
America's schools.
  And this sleight of hand grows dramatically over the next 5 years. 
Despite claiming that they will add $20.3 billion in budget authority, 
this hollow $11 billion promise, they will have only $9.3 billion 
available in real dollars; this hollow proposal will not buy one book; 
it will not hire one teacher; it will not pay for $1 toward spending 
for special education.
  But more importantly, as the Republicans put together this package, 
they are going to hurt other educational programs. If we follow their 
proposal and say that any additional monies are going to go to special 
education, what we find is that the other elementary and secondary 
education programs must be frozen at 2000 levels. What does that mean? 
It represents a real cut in purchasing power of almost 9 percent by the 
year 2005.
  This represents a real loss of 316,000 fewer low-income students who 
could get Pell Grants, and Head Start would have to cut services to 
more than 40,000 children and their families. They are not raising 
educational spending. They are hurting educational programs.
  Instead, I would urge Members to support the Democratic proposal 
which increases education funding. As an individual who served for the 
better part of a decade on a local school board, I am pleased to 
support the Democratic proposal. I believe the programs we are 
advancing will offer support to the activities of local school boards. 
We will, in fact, supplement, rather than supplant, the hard work that 
is going on in communities all across the country.
  The Democratic proposal provides real spending increases, unlike the 
Republican proposal. The Democrats will provide dollars to move forward 
on the President's promise to hire 100,000 new teachers. The Democratic 
increase is enough to continue that 7-year initiative, and we can 
expect we will be able to support about 49,000 teachers in the third 
year of funding. Research has proven that adding new teachers and 
reducing class size produces real improvement in student achievement.
  Democrats also provide dollars to renovate schools. The Democratic 
budget provides tax credits and funding to help low-income school 
districts to make needed repairs to crumbling schools, something we 
know is a problem all across this country. It provides for loans and 
grants to leverage nearly $8 billion for about 8,300 renovation 
projects.
  We increase Pell Grants, Head Start, employment and training, and 
funding for all elementary and secondary education. Please support the 
Democratic plan.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Ryun), a member of the Committee on the Budget, the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Republican budget.
  I want to direct my focus to defense and to education in particular, 
because the Republican budget does support our military families, those 
that have been suffering from low morale. The quality of life in the 
military has been allowed to fall to historic lows over the last 8 
years while deployments have risen to historic highs.
  The Republicans began to reverse this trend last year by following 
through with the first real dollar increases in defense in the last 15 
years, and this year we will do it again. We are going to make those 
changes.
  I want to talk specifically about an issue that not only affects our 
Nation's defense but our education as well, and that is impact aid. 
Impact Aid provides funding to educate children of our military 
personnel. Impact Aid gives parents that are serving in uniforms the 
assurance that their children are being educated while they are 
deployed throughout the world. The fine men and women of our Armed 
Services deserve the assurance that while they are away doing their job 
their children are being taken care of.
  The Clinton-Gore budget wants to cut the funding by 16 percent this 
next year while providing for an overall increase in education 
spending. That cut is a slap in the face to the parents who are serving 
in the uniforms that serve our country.
  The Clinton-Gore budget wants to cut education programs like Impact 
Aid that provide flexibility in and local control of education. 
Instead, it wants to increase the number of Federal mandates that are 
often left unfunded. Republicans want to invest in education by 
prioritizing their funding in a way that directly benefits children and 
allows local educators to make those decisions as to how that money is 
spent; whether it is in a classroom, whether it is for teachers, or 
perhaps new computers.
  The Republican budget rejects new Federal mandates and prioritizes 
the best needs for our children. I urge adoption of the Republican 
budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
in response to the last speaker, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  Every President while I have served here has sought to reduce Impact 
Aid, and I agree with him that we should increase it. I would say to 
him that its chances of being increased are far greater under our 
budget, with $20.5 billion over 5 years more for education, than their 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, this budget is based on a false 
assumption; and no better than Senator John McCain makes the 
observation that, indeed, this great surplus we think we have to give a 
big tax is problematic. Indeed, if we do that, we may indeed affect 
Social Security.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution before us promises much to 
farmers but delivers little. In this budget, programs for agriculture 
are weakened at a time when they should be strengthened. Discretionary 
spending for agriculture is cut. Resources needed to process claims and 
make timely loans are cut. Funds for programs to provide vital 
information to farmers are cut.
  Over a 5-year period, this budget resolution cuts the purchasing 
power of agriculture by $1.6 billion. At a time when the Department of 
Agriculture field offices face staff shortages and funding squeezes, at 
a time when farmers face long lines at the service counters and delays 
in getting needed assistance, this budget cuts agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, American farmers as we know them are in peril. 
Commodity prices are down. The cost of farming is up. Foreign 
competition is unfair. The farm safety net is virtually nonexistent, 
and many farmers have borrowed to the brim. Yet the very offices that 
can help them are understaffed and overwhelmed.
  While this budget resolution offers larger farm payments, it 
withholds the resources to administer those same programs. This budget 
resolution, with its wizardry and magical acts, gives something; but 
guess what, at the same time it takes it away.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an answer. The Democratic alternative provides 
$4.7 billion more to agriculture in the fiscal year 2001. The 
Democratic alternative budget provides some $213 million more for 
agriculture than this resolution does for this year. Over a 5-year 
period, the Democratic alternative budget provides $1.8 billion more 
for agriculture than this provides.
  This budget resolution gives farmers rights without any relief. It is 
a promise without any substance. It is an illusion. The Democratic 
alternative extends the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, 
repays the entire debt by the fiscal year 2013, and gives targeted tax 
cuts to working families.

                              {time}  1415

  The Democrat alternative is fiscally responsible. Mr. Speaker, reject 
this budget. Support the Democrat alternative. Our farmers and our 
citizens deserve better.

[[Page H1310]]

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith), a member of the Committee on Agriculture and the 
Committee on the Budget, so that he can respond to what was just said.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) that ag and farmers deserve better. 
But I think it should be very clear that in our budget, unlike the 
budget of the President, we immediately put in $6 billion for use and 
then we add another $6 billion over the next 5 years for crop insurance 
to beef up that program. So, for the first time ever, we put in ahead 
of time $6 billion right away.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, as this first point shows, this Republican 
Congress has ended the 30-year, $655 billion raid on Social Security.
  As the next chart shows, regrettably, Congresses of the past raided 
Social Security to pay for unrelated Washington programs. This was 
wrong, and this Republican Congress has done something about it. 
Seniors deserve to have their Social Security protected.
  First, Congress adopted the Contract with America that led to the 
first balanced budget in more than 30 years. We moved from $200-plus 
billion deficits to surpluses by 1998. But we knew and the gentleman 
from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) and the Republican leadership and the 
American public knew that we could do more.
  With their support, the House passed, despite the opposition of the 
Clinton-Gore administration, legislation I sponsored, the Social 
Security lockbox, by an overwhelming 416-12 vote.
  As this next chart shows, last year President Clinton and Al Gore 
only agreed to set aside 62 percent of the Social Security surplus and 
proposed to spend the other 38 percent, or $52 billion, of Social 
Security on risky spending schemes. But we knew 62 percent was not good 
enough and refused to allow this reckless Social Security raid to 
continue.
  Even with the overwhelming endorsement of the Social Security lockbox 
vote, again this year the Clinton-Gore administration budget would have 
raided the Social Security Trust Fund by an additional $60 billion when 
the tax hikes and budget gimmicks were taken out.
  The budget resolution we are considering here today reinforces our 
Social Security lockbox for fiscal year 2001 and beyond. I urge my 
colleagues to support our seniors by protecting their Social Security 
benefits, vote for this Republican budget resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to introduce the subject that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services, is 
going to address, because it deals with a major difference between our 
resolution and their resolution.
  Our resolution contains $16.3 billion over the next 10 years 
specifically earmarked for health care initiatives for military 
retirees over the age of 65.
  Our alternative includes the funding that would be necessary to cover 
the major provisions of H.R. 3655, a bill that was introduced by the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) who is the ranking Democrat on 
the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed 
Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) who is the ranking 
Democrat on the House Committee on Armed Services, and the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Over that 10-year period, our Democratic alternative provides $5.4 
billion in Function 550 for a prescription drug initiative and $10.9 
billion in Function 570, the Medicare function, to provide for what we 
call around here Medicare subvention, to make military retirees over 
the age of 65 able to use their Medicare benefits at military treatment 
facilities. This is a major initiative and a major distinction between 
our budget and their budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am curious how much time the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) yielded to himself. How much did he 
consume?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) consumed 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt budget 
alternative that is offered this afternoon.
  As a ranking member of the House Committee on Armed Services, I 
believe this alternative is the only one that addresses the critical 
need to improve access to health care services for our men and women in 
uniform and for our military retirees who have given so much to the 
Nation in the past.
  I also want to express my disappointment that the Kasich budget does 
not provide adequate funding for our military. In my view, it 
shortchanges the military by at least $12 billion this year.
  But let me speak about the Spratt budget and the military health 
care. Today I speak for those young men and young women, their 
families, and the military retirees who have given so very much to our 
Nation, because they are entitled to the best health care available 
from our Government.
  The Spratt substitute is the only one that meets the obligation we 
owe our active duty members, our military retirees, and their families. 
I am pleased that the Spratt substitute embodies a bill that the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and I have introduced, H.R. 3655, to provide 
access to quality health care services for our retirees and for active 
duty and their families.
  H.R. 3655 is supported by the Military Coalition, an organization 
comprised of 28 nationally prominent associations representing more 
than 5\1/2\ million current and former members of the seven uniform 
services.
  The Spratt substitute provides for a comprehensive approach to 
address the problem of access to military health care, particularly for 
retirees and family members over the age of 65. It includes a 
comprehensive mail order and retail pharmacy benefit for all military 
retirees. It includes an expansion of the Medicare subvention program 
so that Medicare-eligible retirees may be treated at military hospitals 
and have the cost of their care reimbursed by Medicare.
  It includes the elimination of co-payments for active duty family 
members under TRICARE so that our active duty service members will have 
fewer out-of-pocket expenses.
  It also includes expansion of the TRICARE program to remote locations 
so the service members not near military hospitals may receive better, 
more affordable health care.
  Overall, this Spratt substitute provides over $16 billion over 10 
years for military health care.
  How many times, Mr. Chairman, have we heard military retirees say, do 
something to live up to the obligation? This does it. This provides the 
money therefor.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that, in 
our defense budget, we are going to be adding $17.4 billion more to our 
defense.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith) a member of the House Committee on the Budget and the Committee 
on Science and the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my understanding is, I read in the Democrat 
Spratt budget that my colleagues are putting in the same amount that 
the President did at $306.3 billion, and the Republicans are putting 
$307.3 billion into the defense. How they divide it up, we were not as 
articulate as our colleagues are, but just the fact that we are upping 
them one on the military budget.
  I would yield to the gentleman, but I only have a minute to talk 
about what I need to talk about, and that is where we are going on 
Social Security.
  Too often I think Republicans want to move ahead and do not look back 
to how much they have accomplished. And what we have accomplished is 
significant since 1995, when we took the majority. We actually for the 
first time in almost 40 years quit using Social Security surplus for 
other Government programs.

[[Page H1311]]

  What has happened is, in 1995, we were looking at on-budget deficits 
of approximately $300 billion. Today we have a surplus. We are moving 
ahead in the right direction.
  I am disappointed that this budget, Republican, Democrat, nobody 
else, deals with the huge problem of really fixing Social Security. The 
Democrat budget says they are extending the life of Social Security and 
Medicare by 13 years and 10 years, respectively, but actually what they 
are doing is adding just two more giant IOUs to those trust funds. It 
does nothing to fix the program. That has got to be the challenge in 
the years ahead.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the Kasich budget 
has not one cent in that budget for the military retirees and the 
Spratt budget does.
  We have got to think of our military retirees. They have given us so 
much.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree. If 
the Spratt budget is the same as the budget of the President budget, we 
add an additional $1 billion to up that budget by, I think, $18 
billion.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) please explain that, in his budget, we do take care of 
military retirees, as opposed to the Kasich budget, which does not.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to say that that is 
absolutely correct and to further clarify the difference, the very 
slight difference, between our resolution and theirs, the budget of the 
President and theirs.
  Over this year and next year, their budget would add $1 billion for 
defense. It would increase the President's request of $16.4 billion up 
to $17.4 billion.
  When the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) says they provide 
$17.4 billion, that is a billion more than the President requested.
  By the way, the President's request is $24.4 billion more than we 
provided for defense in 2001 when we did the Balanced Budget Agreement 
of 1997.
  Over the 5-year period of time, both budgets provide about $1.6 
trillion. The difference between our budget and theirs over that period 
of time is less than one-tenth of one percent.
  When my colleagues add what we just provided, we are adding $16.3 
billion on top of that, on top of that $1.6 trillion, $16.3 billion to 
go to military retirees and to be reconciled and designed for 
application to them by the House Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget contains tax breaks for the 
wealthy while ignoring working Americans, which I think is an 
irresponsible and not a fiscally oriented budget that looks toward the 
future.
  I believe the budget that has been presented right now from the 
Democratic side has specifics in terms of the dollars for each of the 
areas. I am not going to go into depth in that area, but I will go into 
areas that I feel impact our area.
  The Republican budget cuts down domestic spending. The Republican 
budget cuts down the FBI agents and Drug Enforcement agents. This will 
open up a season for drug dealers. We already have enough drug dealers 
in our streets.
  College scholarships. It will cut down college scholarships. This 
presents an opportunity of hope for many of our individuals to go to 
school. Many of our individuals will be dropping out if we do not 
provide the assistance.
  The Republican party cuts down the air traffic controllers. We are 
already having a lot of problems with our flights every day, and every 
day we are looking at the emergency on that level. So if we cut down 
the funding in that area, look at the impact it has on many of us who 
fly in that area.
  Programs for women and children. Women and children will be out on 
the streets. We look at the services that we need to provide there. 
There will be more latch-key kids with nowhere to go in my area or many 
other areas. There will also be a burden on our churches to take care 
of these individuals because we have not provided the assistance.
  By contrast, the Democratic plan would invest in education. And it is 
a high priority. Education is the foundation. It affects behavior and 
attitudes. It prepares us for the working force of the 21st century. It 
reduces class size. It builds more schools. It provides scholarship 
opportunity. It protects our seniors. It provides affordable drug 
prescription. It preserves Social Security and Medicare that is very 
important to a lot of our seniors. And our seniors know that that is 
the one issue that they very much care about when we are talking about 
Social Security and we are talking about Medicare and protecting them.

                              {time}  1430

  It eliminates the marriage penalty on low-income households. It 
invests in public safety. It helps veterans as we just discussed 
earlier. Democrats have a responsible budget. It pays down the debt 
before spending and emptying the bank account. The Democrats look at 
the future. It saves for a rainy day, it is a sensible budget, it deals 
with tax relief, it deals with opportunities for all individuals of 
America. It provides for our children, our senior citizens, those who 
are less fortunate, for the middle class and for all working Americans.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), a member of the Committee on the Budget as 
well as the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the things that we need to 
come back and look at is that when the Democrats controlled Congress, 
we had deficits approaching $200 billion a year. Now we have surpluses, 
a surplus last year of $178 billion that we have used to pay down the 
publicly held debt. And so even the fact that they can have this 
discussion about talking about paying down the debt, it amazes me; and 
it is because of the work of the Republican Congress that they have 
been even able to talk about paying down the debt, which was really not 
part of their dialogue until we were able to balance the budget and to 
have the surpluses.
  What does this budget do? First, it protects Social Security. 
Remember last year when the President wanted to spend 38 percent of 
Social Security on more and bigger government? We are saving 100 
percent of Social Security. We are strengthening Medicare and 
prescription drugs, setting aside $40 billion for that over the next 5 
years. The President had a plan. He has a plan that puts zero in next 
year, the year after that zero, the year after that zero and then the 
last 2 years of his plan, he begins to put in some money.
  When you watch his plan, the cost skyrockets. Why? Because you have 
working people, a bricklayer, a teacher paying taxes to buy 
prescription drugs for the Ross Perots of the world. But we have set 
aside $40 billion for prescription drugs and for Medicare for help with 
our hospitals back home that we will be able to provide targeted relief 
for those who need it in a fiscally responsible way.
  We also plan on retiring the public debt by 2013. Who wants to see a 
child born here and have the debt of $20,000 upon their back? We are 
going to eliminate that publicly held debt that has been passed on by 
the minority for years to our future generations. We are going to 
strengthen and support education. We put more money into education, 
more flexibility, more money coming right back to the classrooms where 
it can be used most effectively with local control.
  We promote tax fairness for families, farmers and seniors. It is 
interesting, they are talking about the huge tax breaks. What we are 
talking about is tax breaks that have to do with relief and fairness. I 
can remember them talking about not wanting to pass the marriage 
penalty tax, not wanting to relieve that $1,400 penalty. We have been 
able to set aside money to make sure that our taxes are more fair while 
we are paying down the debt and certainly restore America's defense.
  Let me say additionally, we are adding money to basic research and

[[Page H1312]]

science, hoping to find cures for disease like cancer, diabetes, 
Alzheimer's disease. We have consistently increased our support for the 
National Institutes of Health well above what the Democrats have 
proposed.
  I am very pleased with this budget. I certainly encourage my 
colleagues to vote against the Democratic budget and for the Republican 
budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from South 
Carolina for yielding me this time. The budget speaks to priorities. 
The Republicans are not very subtle as to what their priority is all 
about. It is about a tax cut. We know that this budget, their budget, 
says that that is their top priority. We do not have the details as to 
how it would specifically be organized, but all we have to do is look 
to last year and know that it will be an irresponsible tax cut, 
reckless and benefit the most wealthy. And we know that it jeopardizes 
the Social Security and Medicare and our ability to reduce our national 
debt.
  We could take a look at what Senator McCain said when he said it is 
fiscally irresponsible to promise a huge tax cut that is based on a 
surplus that we may not have. To bank it all on the unending surpluses 
at the possible risk of the Social Security trust fund is our 
fundamental disagreement. We could not agree more with Senator McCain.
  Now, we have an alternative. The Democratic alternative makes it 
clear that our priority is to protect Social Security, Medicare, and 
reduce our national debt, to have targeted tax relief to those who 
really need it, to make sure that we can continue our investments in 
education and the priorities that are important for our economic 
progress to continue. Fortunately, the budget that the Republicans 
enacted last year did not become law. The irresponsible tax cut was 
vetoed by the President. It is interesting that that veto message was 
never brought up before this body for a veto override, because I think 
my Republican colleagues know how reckless that really was.
  Mr. Chairman, we are going to have a choice in a few moments to speak 
to what we think the priority should be for our Nation. Should we put 
tax cuts first or should we put the Social Security Medicare and 
continuing our economic prosperity first? I urge my colleagues to 
defeat the Republican resolution and to pass the substitute.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond with no 
disrespect, but I think some of what I heard was almost silly. The 
bottom line is we are reducing taxes in the next 5 years by 2 percent 
of total revenues. Out of $10 trillion, the gentleman from Maryland 
thinks we cannot afford $200 billion of tax cuts, some of which many of 
his members have even voted for. Of course we can afford to reduce 
taxes 2 percent. And we are doing it after we are paying down our debt. 
We are doing it after we are dealing with Social Security. We are doing 
it after we pay for Medicare payments and prescription drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg), a member of both the Committee on the Budget and the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. I rise in strong support of the resolution today. I want to 
commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) for the work that he has 
done. I wish the chairman luck in his future endeavors. He has made a 
substantial difference here, and his leadership has been extraordinary.
  The Republican budget pays down $1 trillion in debt, protects Social 
Security, strengthens Medicare, and increases funding for defense and 
education. With these priorities fulfilled, it is time to give back to 
Americans their hard-earned money. Promoting tax fairness is the 
subject. When the Government is running continuous on-budget surpluses 
and CBO is forecasting surpluses far into the future, it is now time to 
provide tax relief. If we cannot return the overpayment of taxpayers' 
money now at a time when we have surpluses and a strong economy, when 
can we?
  It is obvious that money left in Washington will be spent. Why do I 
say that? The Clinton-Gore budget creates 84 new Federal programs, 
increases spending at twice the rate of inflation, and despite our 
surpluses the administration again proposes to raise taxes and fees on 
working families. Our Republican budget would return the surplus back 
to the American people who earned it and who deserve it.
  The Republican budget provides at least $150 billion in tax relief, 
including the recently passed marriage penalty relief and small 
business tax relief. A very responsible $60 billion will be included 
for additional tax relief or further debt reduction. Let us look at 
facts. Facts are facts. American taxpayers are overpaying the Federal 
Government. This money does not belong in Washington, not to Washington 
bureaucrats. The budget is paid for by the hard work and the sweat of 
the American worker. With the strong economy and the Federal Government 
in the black, it is our responsibility to provide tax relief. The 
Republican budget is a responsible plan for our Nation's future. I urge 
my colleagues to support this budget resolution.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Budget Committee 
budget recommendation for fiscal year 2001. As was said by previous 
speakers, this is quite an extraordinary event which we can produce 
over a period of less than 5 years a budget that goes from deficit to 
not only to going to surplus but protecting 100 percent of that surplus 
for Social Security while strengthening Medicare and providing the 
resources that are necessary to provide prescription coverage for 
seniors; retiring potentially the entire public debt by the year 2013; 
at the same time promoting tax relief for families, farmers and 
seniors; providing significant increases in defense; and strengthening 
support for education and science.
  I am here specifically to talk about one aspect of education that is 
of particular interest to me, and that is funding for the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act, commonly known as special education. 
When I came to Congress in 1996, total funding was just a little bit 
more than $3.5 billion, or about 5 percent of the total 40 percent 
mandated as required by law. I am pleased to say that in this budget 
this year, we have incorporated instructions to the appropriators to 
increase special education funding by a full $2 billion, which is 
almost 100 percent of what the entire funding was when I came to 
Congress in 1996.
  Full funding of special education is good education policy. It is 
good policy for communities, for families, for school administrators, 
for those who are affected and participate in IDEA programs; but most 
importantly it is also a form of tax relief. For us to have failed to 
meet this unfunded mandate for so many years is inexcusable. What we do 
in this budget is move a long way towards meeting that obligation.
  I stand here today as a proud supporter of the budget plan that we 
have here before us today; and for American families, for taxpayers, I 
urge the adoption of this budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary Miller), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in 
support of the House budget resolution. The American people need to 
know what we are really talking about here, $1.8 trillion of your 
money. The money does not belong to government. It is the money we took 
from you and you have asked us to spend wisely or allow you to keep it, 
in many cases. What we are talking about today and what the other side 
is arguing against is allowing you to keep a little of your hard-earned 
money. What we happen to think does not matter. It is what the American 
people happen to think and what they say.
  I would like to read part of a letter written to me by Mr. Todd 
Kolber of Upland, California. His dad was a physician; his dad was 
raised poor and worked his way through college. He specialized in 
chemotherapy to help people with cancer. His father passed away. He 
wrote me:
  ``I am the son and executor of the estate that he worked so hard 
saving for and didn't get to enjoy. Today I am

[[Page H1313]]

going to have the pleasure of writing two checks totaling nearly $1 
million divided between the State and Federal Government. This is the 
most revolting and disgusting thing that I have ever had to do. When 
the CPA told me how much money the death penalty imposed on my dad's 
estate, I literally almost threw up. I was sick to my stomach.''
  Mr. Kolber closes with the following question:
  ``Can you write me back with even one good reason that validates the 
usurpation of $1 million that was left by my dad to my family?''
  I cannot justify this tax of 50 percent on this family. I cannot 
justify this tax on any American citizen. For this reason I urge my 
colleagues to do what is right, the right thing for Mr. Kolber and his 
family and the right thing for you and the constituents of my district 
who will undoubtedly find themselves in the same situation at some 
time. I urge my colleagues to vote for the budget resolution that 
begins to dismantle this unfair tax that does nothing for grieving 
families. It is wrong. We need to change it. The debate here should be 
focusing on the fact that this is your money. It is not our money. We 
got this money because we took this money from you. We are saving 
Social Security. We are saving Medicare and Medicaid. It is time for 
you to save a little bit for your family. If you want to buy shoes or 
clothes or whatever you want to do, you should have your money to do 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following letter for the Record.

                                               Todd M. Kolber,

                                        Upland, CA, March 7, 2000.
     Representative Gary Miller,
     Diamond Bar, CA.
       Dear Representative Miller: Today marks the 1st day of the 
     9th month since my dad passed away. He was a physician 
     specializing in chemotherapy treatments for cancer patients. 
     He grew up in a very poor family in Brooklyn, New York, and 
     he still managed to put himself through school and become a 
     doctor, without the help of the government I might add. His 
     plan was to retire this summer, after doing so much good for 
     his patients and our community, and spend time sailing the 15 
     year old 27 foot sailboat he bought two weeks before he died. 
     He paid untold sums of money in taxes throughout his lifetime 
     while working to the age of 65, a requirement necessary to 
     save enough money to retire at a financial level that a 
     physician deserves. While paying 50% of his income in taxes 
     to the government, money that might otherwise have been used 
     to fund an early retirement, he died.
       I am his son and executor of the estate that he worked so 
     hard saving for and didn't get to enjoy. Today I am going to 
     have the pleasure of writing two checks totaling nearly one 
     million dollars divided between the state and federal 
     government. This is the most revolting and disgusting thing 
     that I have ever had to do. When the CPA told me how much 
     money the death penalty imposed on my dad's estate, I 
     literally almost threw up. I was sick to my stomach. As a 
     result of my dad's strong desire to save for his retirement 
     the majority of his estate is in Individual Retirement 
     Accounts and you know the tax consequences that creates when 
     distributed to heirs, right? After all is said and done, the 
     government will have taken over 50% of my dad's property and 
     money.
       I adamantly believe that the government's only societal 
     role is to protect the rights, lives, and property of the law 
     abiding. Period. All socialized legislation beyond that is an 
     unnecessary intrusion into my life and a waste of my money.
       The government already confiscates too much money through 
     taxation by means of Income tax, Property tax, Capital Gains 
     tax, Gasoline tax, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, 
     Telephone tax, Hotel tax, Airline Ticket tax, Energy Tax, 
     Entertainment tax and numerous other hidden Excise taxes that 
     I continuously pay.
       Having stated that, and inasmuch as you are supposed to be 
     representing me, can you write me back with even one good 
     reason that validates the usurpation of one million dollars 
     that was left by my dad, to my family?
           Sincerely,
                                                   Todd M. Kolber.

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to point out 
that we are probably $200 billion or plus each year having to pay 
interest on the debt that we do have. I think what we need to do, and 
we owe it to the American public, is to reduce the debt and the 
interest on the debt that they are paying for and that we are all 
paying for and the children are going to be paying for and to begin to 
be responsible in addressing those issues in not allowing for a very 
large tax cut to benefit the very few in America at the expense of 
everybody else in America.
  We know from hearing from small business people if we can reduce an 
interest rate by 1 point over a 30-year note that we are going to be 
able to save them $25,000 on $100,000. And businessmen are telling me 
if you do more to reduce the interest rates, to reduce the rates and 
the interest on the debt, that is going to mean more business for me, 
more purchases that people are going to be able to make, and by keeping 
our economy strong.
  We have to keep our economy strong, because our economy has produced 
the benefits that we are now enjoying, and it was the American public 
through the hard work that they have been undergoing that have given us 
this opportunity; and we should not do it and jeopardize it on a very 
risky large tax scheme that does nothing for prescription drugs, that 
does nothing on the interest on the debt, that does nothing to preserve 
and protect Medicare or strengthen Social Security.
  We need to be able to make sure that those are the programs that we 
take care of and the interest that we take care of, not on a very risky 
tax scheme that is going to benefit very few people.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), a member of the 
Committee on Armed Services and Chairman of the Republican Conference.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. I thank my friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, we hear that giving people their money back is a risky 
thing. It is a risky thing for the economy not to give people their 
money back, because what happens is, if those dollars stay here in 
Washington, we then grow the Government and create more government; and 
then we have to take more money from the American people to feed those 
new government programs.
  It is an amazing thing to me that someone would say that it is risky 
to give people their money back when you consider that the economy, the 
strength of the economy is driven by, or 70 percent of the economy is 
driven by consumer spending. So when you give people their money back 
to buy appliances, to buy food for the kids, to buy cars, or to buy new 
tires, to buy a new washer and dryer, to make the house payment, that 
is good for the economy. That is not risky.
  Again, I repeat, it is risky to leave that money here in Washington. 
I think the Committee on the Budget has come up with a very responsible 
budget. It takes care of 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. It 
strengthens Medicare and prescription drugs.
  It sets aside about $40 billion for the prescription drug benefit, 
retires the public debt by 2013. I think it is important that we pay 
down the public debt, that we get rid of that public debt and not strap 
our kids and our grandkids with that. It promotes tax fairness for 
families and farmers and seniors. So it benefits our farmers. It 
eliminates the marriage tax penalty.
  We set aside a dedicated reserve fund of $50 billion for tax and debt 
relief only, rejects the $96 billion gross tax increases over the next 
5 years by the Clinton and Gore budget, restores America's defense, 
puts more dollars in national defense, and strengthens support for 
education and science.
  Again, I think the Committee on the Budget has come up with a very 
responsible budget.
  One thing before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I want to add, I just had 
a press conference with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich), 
about 10 or 11 of us; we had a press conference talking about the 
waste, fraud and abuse and what the General Accounting Office has found 
in our Federal agencies. We looked through some of those reports.
  We have a Dow that is approaching 11,000. The economy is good. 
Unemployment is low. And I hope we do not get complacent, because our 
economy is doing good and we have surpluses; and it still does not mean 
that the Federal Government is not wasting money or abusing taxpayers' 
dollars.
  We should be good stewards of taxpayers. We have a lot of waste and a 
lot of abuse in this government that we can go at and go after and even 
create

[[Page H1314]]

more tax revenue for the American people.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I would say to my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Watts), here is what we are concerned about. Here are the risks that we 
are really concerned about. The gentleman claims that he generated an 
on-budget surplus of $110 billion, but he is also claiming a tax cut of 
$250 billion. We have spread that tax cut out at the same rate as the 
gentleman increases the $150 billion tax cut over time. And when we 
look at the bottom line, when we add in the gentleman's $40 billion for 
Medicare, prescription drugs, add in the additional 50 for additional 
tax cuts, the surplus vanishes in the year 2003. It goes into the red 
in 2004 and stays in the red in 2005.
  The bottom line, instead of being $110 billion of cumulative surplus 
instead is $11 billion and declining, because it has been in a deficit 
for 2 years. We are back in the Social Security fund, back into Social 
Security in 3 years if the gentleman does it this way. That is what is 
risky. That is what concerns us.
  If somebody will show us this arithmetic is wrong, we will listen; 
but until then, we say this is what the budget leads us to, dangerously 
close to being in deficit again, back into the Social Security Trust 
Fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from 
Connecticut for yielding me the time.
  I would like to actually take a look at some of the numbers that the 
minority staff continues to bring on the floor of Congress. If you take 
a look at the numbers, they are trying to tell us that we are dipping 
into the Social Security surplus.
  Take a look at these numbers. These numbers they made up. These 
numbers they made up. These numbers right here, the costs of the 
Medicare plan, they do not even add up on their chart. If you look at 
this chart, in their report, I noticed they took a little bit out of 
this on the chart.
  They say, on this chart over here, that the figures in the year 2002 
to 2005 are interpolated by the Democratic staff. In Webster's 
dictionary, interpolate, that means to alter by text, by insertion of a 
new matter deceptively or without authorization.
  They go on to say that the extrapolations for the second 5 years are 
made by the Democratic staff.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, if we take a look at these numbers, they are 
wrong. The numbers on the surplus are wrong. The numbers that they are 
making up are wrong. The numbers do not add up. It is an extrapolation. 
It is an interpolation, which the definition is simply stated here in 
Webster's Dictionary.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would ask the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) a question.
  Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman is reading, the quote, is the 
footnotes in their own documents?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, 
absolutely.
  Mr. SHAYS. So these are their own words?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Yes.
  If we take a look at the chart that the minority staff has prepared, 
the footnote of these two quotes on this chart, the figures on this 
chart are interpolated by Democratic staff. They are extrapolations for 
the second 5 years made by the Democratic staff.
  If we look at the dictionary, interpolation means insert new or 
spurious matter in this manner, meaning insert, estimate or find an 
immediate term deceptively or without authorization.
  That is what we see here with these numbers. They do not even add up 
their totals. The numbers that they are taking from the Republican 
budget, if we look at the Republican budget, they are different 
numbers. This does not add up.
  Mr. Chairman, it is the same thing. Last year they said we were 
raiding Social Security. Guess what? We stopped the raid on the Social 
Security trust fund. Last year they said we were going to take $17 
billion out of Social Security when we debated this bill last year.
  Guess what happened? For the first time in 30 years this Congress 
actually stopped the raid on Social Security and put 100 percent of the 
Social Security money back in the Social Security trust funds.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman please tell us then what is the 
year-by-year impact of the $200 billion tax cut over the next 5 years 
so that we can put it in the chart correctly and we can tell what the 
bottom line properly is?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan) to respond.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the 
gentleman has recognized that his numbers are interpolations; that his 
numbers are estimates.
  Our numbers add up. Our numbers on the 5-year spendup, our numbers on 
the tax relief, do add up. If we take a look at the gentleman's surplus 
numbers, taken out of our budget, they are lower numbers as well. They 
do not add up.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has a year-by-year breakout for the $150 
billion tax cut.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, yes, we do.
  Mr. SPRATT. For the $50 billion tax cut that is additional to that, 
the gentleman has no year-by-year break out. That is all I am asking 
for, if we could see the year-by-year breakout of the $50 billion tax 
cut, too.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, to respond to the gentleman's 
question, in his chart he says in the first year that we have zero tax 
cuts. If we take a look at page 29 of the bill, we actually have $5 
billion in tax cuts.
  So looking at the legislation that we are here voting on right now, 
the chart that the gentleman has prepared is actually in error by $5 
billion in the first year alone.
  Mr. SPRATT. Well, we know that because the chart was changed last 
night at 1:00 a.m., and we received that information then.
  We have adjusted the numbers, added the $50 billion to the $150 
billion, and increased it at the same rate that the $150 billion tax 
cut was increased.
  Using that method of interpolation, the budget is still $5 billion in 
deficit by 2004 and a billion dollars in deficit in 2005. We are using 
the gentleman's same numbers, the gentleman's same proportionate 
increases each year and we come up with that result.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), who is a member of both the Committee on 
Science and Committee on Agriculture, as well the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting debate but it almost is as 
if there is an echo in here. This debate certainly sounds like debates 
we have had around this House. Every year when the budget comes up, 
many of the same expressions, we are hearing terms like exploding tax 
cuts, risky tax cuts. Somehow I am not really certain what a risky tax 
cut is and especially when we look at what we are doing with this 
budget. All we are really doing is making room to eliminate the 
marriage penalty tax.
  Now, nobody wants to debate that because we all know that it is 
incredibly unfair to say to married couples that they have to pay extra 
taxes just because they are married.
  I do not think it is risky for us to say we are going to make room in 
our budget to eliminate that unfairness over the next 5 years. That is 
not risky.
  Then we hear always, and this is a common refrain, that this is a tax 
cut for the rich. Well, I think the only tax cut that they can be 
talking about, because certainly what is being said is not that married 
people, just because they are married they are rich. Perhaps what is 
being talked about is reducing or eliminating the estate tax.
  Now, currently, as we all know, it does not take very long for a 
small

[[Page H1315]]

business person or a farmer to reach that threshold where their estate 
is going to pay 55 percent, 55 percent.
  That is confiscatory.
  How can it be risky to say it is wrong to say to a farmer or a small 
business person, to their families, that we are going to take away 55 
percent of their estate after they reach a certain level?
  If the tax relief that we have put into this bill is looked at, it is 
absolutely fair.
  I am reminded of the story and I said it the other day, of the little 
red hen. Nobody wanted to help bake the bread.
  No one wanted to help create the surpluses, but it is amazing how 
people argue about who is going to get the biggest slice.
  This budget, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely fair, and for the first time 
in my adult lifetime we are actually allowing the Federal budget to 
grow at a slower rate, in fact about half the rate of the average 
family budget. If we do that over the next 5 years, if we control 
Federal spending, we are going to create big surpluses. Some of that 
surplus ought to go back to the people who pay the taxes.

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment that once 
again our friends on the other side have chosen to offer what I 
consider to be a very irresponsible and unrealistic budgetary mirage 
rather than a real budget based upon real values.
  Rather than work toward our common objectives, they have again put 
irresponsible tax cuts first. They have offered a budget that puts 
Social Security at risk, and for the same reasons backed off their 
proposals last summer, in 1999, in that particular budget, when they 
saw that Social Security was at risk.
  Senator McCain has repeatedly said this is a, quote/unquote, 
``fiscally irresponsible approach.''

                              {time}  1500

  There is a simple question here: Are we better off now than we were 8 
years ago? Are we better off with the fiscal discipline and key 
investments we started in 1993? The answer is yes, and we should not 
fail our values by endorsing the failed policies of the past.
  Most importantly, the budget from our friends on the other side 
proposes cuts that just will not happen. Do they believe that by 
October of this year Head Start will be cut by 40,000 kids? Do they 
believe that if we provide for 300,000 less college students for Pell 
grants over the next 5 years, that that will be a part of the final 
budget? And do they believe that cutting home energy assistance to 
160,000 families will actually be a reality in October? This budget is 
irresponsible. It is not a base from which to do our work here.
  We believe in tax cuts, we believe in paying down our debt, we 
believe in allocating money for veterans health care and prescription 
drugs for seniors. We can do that. We should do it together. We agree 
on it.
  Let us get down to business and do something today that will actually 
be useful when decisions must be made later this year. Let us adopt a 
budget blueprint that embraces all of our values, not one that ignores 
them.
  I ask that Members support the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, could the chairman tell us who has the right 
to close and how much time is remaining on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 6 minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Connecticut has the right to close.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green), a member of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services and the Committee on Science.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Minnesota a 
little while ago talked about the story of a little red hen. I was 
reminded of a different story. It is a story about the rooster who used 
to get up every morning and crow right before the sun came up. One 
morning the rooster overslept, and the sun came up anyway and the 
rooster was shattered and crushed.
  I think our friends on the other side in the minority are like that 
rooster. They have been crowing, as they have been every year, about 
how Republican plans would hurt the debt, hurt Social Security and set 
us back. Yet, every year we have made great progress.
  Here we are again. We are here today on the threshold of a chance to 
make history, paying down the debt, strengthening our retirement 
security system, making major new investments in the programs that 
families care about. With our budget plan, we will make sure that every 
family has the tools and the opportunity to pursue the American dream, 
and we do it in a responsible fashion, built on conservative values and 
conservative priorities.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this great budget plan.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, one more time let me put our chart up. The reason we 
had zero in allocating the $50 billion tax cut to 2001 is that is what 
your resolution provided, until last night at 1 o'clock. Your 
resolution now provides $5 billion, no more in that particular year.
  We have, therefore, taken that single number, the only one you 
provided in breaking out the tax cut, and we have increased the $50 
billion tax cut at the same rate that your $150 billion tax cut 
increased it every year. The same proportion.
  When you do that, in 2001 the tax cut becomes $15 billion. In 2002, 
the total tax cut becomes $29 billion. In 2003, it becomes $41 billion. 
In 2004, it becomes $55 billion. In 2005, it becomes $59 billion. The 
total tax cut over that period of time is $200 billion.
  As a result, using simple arithmetic, as a result of those 
adjustments, just trying to figure out how your $200 billion tax cut 
would distribute, we get a bottom line that is $5 billion in deficit in 
the year 2004, and in the year 2005, still negative, minus $2 billion. 
You are back in deficit, back in the Social Security surplus.
  If these numbers are wrong, come change them.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Sweeney), a member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and 
the Committee on Small Business.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of the Committee on the Budget and 
have not been part of the process that caused this incredible debt that 
caused this high taxation or that has caused repeated raids on the 
Social Security system, but I am proud to be part of the solution.
  I am proud to support this budget which strengthens Medicare. I am 
proud to be part of this process that pays down the national debt. I am 
proud to support this budget that provides tax relief in the areas of 
marriage penalty tax, death tax, education, health care, and repeal of 
seniors' earning limitations.
  I am proud to support this budget which strengthens national defense, 
strengthens education funding, aggressively attacks waste and fraud.
  Lastly, I am proud to support this Republican budget which 
strengthens and protects Social Security and permanently ends the raid 
on that. I am proud to do that, Mr. Chairman, as the father of three 
children, because I am proud to give them the future and America's 
children the future they deserve.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said at the outset, we have come a long way since 
1992 when the budget was in deficit $290 billion. We have wiped out the 
deficit. Now we stand at a fiscal fork in the road, deciding whether or 
not we take on the second biggest and toughest problem, and that is the 
long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare, or whether we take 
another fork and ignore those particular problems.
  We have presented to the House a budget resolution which cuts taxes, 
not by as much as our Republican colleagues, but it is a significant 
tax cut, $50 billion net tax cut over 5 years, $201

[[Page H1316]]

billion over 10 years. We provide for tax cuts. We also pay down our 
mountainous national debt, at long last, $48 billion over 5 years in 
debt reduction, $364 billion over 10 years in debt reduction.
  But we go further. Given the opportunity that we have, we step up to 
the problem of the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare 
by transferring over the next 10 years $300 billion into the Medicare 
trust fund, extending its life by 10 years, and then by transferring 
funds from the general fund into Social Security and extending its life 
by 15 years.
  We do this, and at the same time we provide for things that the 
country needs. I come from a district where there are a lot of military 
retirees. I have heard their complaints about the kind of commitment we 
have made to them and the extent to which we have kept it. So, 
consequently, we have made room in our resolution to provide for a 
major increase in retiree health care benefits. We are going to say to 
them, Medicare subvention, we can do it. If you want to use your 
Medicare benefits at a military treatment facility, we have provided 
for it in this resolution.
  Furthermore, for those over 65 who do not have a drug or pharmacy 
benefit anymore, we are going to reinstate it. We are going to fully 
fund the Abercrombie-Skelton bill.
  When you look at these things, the $20.5 billion for education, the 
additional amounts we provide for law enforcement over and above what 
they provide, the realistic level of funding we provide for community 
and regional development, as opposed to their cut, which is $2.5 
billion in CDBGs, EDA and these agencies that help us help the hardest 
hit parts of our country, there is no question about it, we have not 
just a balanced budget in the sense that the bottom line is in the 
black, thank goodness, but it is balanced as to its priorities. It is 
the better budget of the two, and I urge support for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Price.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the 
gentleman in a colloquy here about this tax cut debate we have been 
having.
  I understand that one of our friends on the other side said there was 
no such thing as an irresponsible tax cut. That is a dangerous view. In 
fact, the tax cut proposed by George W. Bush, the Republican 
presidential candidate, seemed to fit that category very well, because 
our Republican friends refused to even allow us to vote on it in the 
Committee on the Budget.
  This chart indicates where we are with these various tax cut 
proposals. The Republican tax cut proposal that is included in this 
budget would use the entire non-Social Security surplus and take us 
into deficit, into borrowing from the Social Security surplus to the 
tune of $68 billion over the 10 year period. It would just barely avoid 
doing that over the first 5 years and be $68 billion in the red over 10 
years.
  The Bush tax cut is even more irresponsible, $136 billion into the 
red in 5 years, and $376 billion over 10 years. So, it is not 
surprising, I suppose, that our Republican friends would not permit a 
vote on that.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a good presentation of 
exactly the point we have been trying to make all day long. We have 
called it risky and dangerous. What we are talking about is skating on 
thin ice. For the first 5 years, this resolution, which has $200 
billion of tax reduction in it, comes perilously close to putting us 
back in deficit. If we do, we are back into the Social Security trust 
fund.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the 
Democratic alternative does have responsible tax relief, targeted at 
the marriage penalty, targeted at the need to get school construction 
moving in this country, targeted at a number of important priorities. 
But it is balanced and responsible. That is the key point. It is 
balanced with the other priorities of shoring up Medicare and Social 
Security and paying down the national debt. It is that sort of balance 
that I think is missing in our Republican friends' resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina has 15 
seconds.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, in the time remaining, I would urge every 
Member to look in earnest at these two proposals. We have made the 
House a budget proposal that pays down the debt, provides for tax 
relief, but also provides for the real needs of this country.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut has 3\3/4\ 
minutes to close this portion of the debate.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, only in Washington when you cut taxes by 
$200 billion in a $10 trillion revenue stream would people call it 
irresponsible.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, it is never easy to put together a budget 
that spends $1.8 trillion. It is difficult to bring together all of the 
Members on this floor on either side of the aisle, talk through 
priorities, make trade-offs and set forth a blueprint that talks about 
our broad vision for where this economy ought to be headed, for where 
Federal spending ought to be headed and for what we ought to be doing 
to protect the taxpayers of this country. But the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich) has provided tremendous leadership to the Committee on the 
Budget; and I think it is worth reviewing, not just the record that he 
has established in setting these priorities, but where this budget is 
really going to take us.
  Let us cut through the rhetoric a little bit and talk about what our 
priorities are. First and foremost, it is to set aside every penny of 
the Social Security surplus. This is not old hat. This is not an idea 
that Democrats or Republicans have been talking about for 4, 5, or 6 
years. It was just last year that Republicans responded to the 
President's call to spend 40 percent of the Social Security surplus 
with a commitment that no longer will we take funds out of the Social 
Security surplus, that we will set aside every penny. We did it despite 
the calls of critics that we would not be able to do it. We did it 
because we had the will and determination to put forward spending bills 
that achieve that goal.
  What else does this budget do? It sets aside funds for Medicare, for 
prescription drug benefit. We have heard a lot of scare tactics about 
losing benefits, Medicare or Social Security, trying to intimidate 
Members of this House, trying to intimidate the American people. But 
the fact is we have set aside $40 billion. If you just take a look at 
the allocations for Medicare, the red showing the President's set-aside 
for Medicare, the blue slowing the Republic plan for Medicare, there is 
a dramatic difference. If we have the wherewithal and will to pass 
bipartisan legislation in the Committee on Ways and Means, we will 
achieve historic Medicare reform and deliver that prescription drug 
benefit to those seniors in need.

                              {time}  1515

  Set aside Social Security surplus, protect Medicare, and pay down 
debt.
  Look at the record on debt relief. This is not a projection; this is 
what has actually been done. In 1998, $50 billion. In 1999, over $80 
billion. This fiscal year, $163 billion. Despite the fact that the 
critics on the other side said we were going to dip into the Social 
Security Trust Fund surplus, we did not. Over 4 years we have paid down 
over $450 billion in debt. It keeps interest rates low, it keeps the 
cost of one's home mortgage or car loan low, and that money never has 
to be sent back to Washington.
  Critics say we could pay down more debt if we did not cut taxes. 
Well, of course, we could pay down a little more debt if we did not cut 
the marriage penalty, if we kept penalizing married couples; but that 
would be the wrong thing to do. If we did not eliminate the Social 
Security earnings ban, we could pay down a little bit more in debt, but 
that would be the wrong thing to do. If we did not give individuals 
health insurance deductibility just like we give to big corporations, 
we could pay down a little bit more in debt, but that would be wrong. 
We are supporting this historic tax relief for Americans, not because 
of what it does or does not add

[[Page H1317]]

up to, but because of eliminating the marriage tax penalty, eliminating 
the death tax, because giving individuals health insurance 
deductibility is the right thing to do.
  Even with this historic tax relief, we pay down debt over the next 5 
years. Mr. Chairman, $1 trillion in debt paid down over the next 5 
years. What a historic achievement, bringing public debt from over $3.9 
trillion to well under $3 trillion over the next 5 years. That 
achievement will not just serve fiscal responsibility or serve our 
budget priorities well, but it will serve the American people well.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the right set of priorities for America, from 
paying down debt and cutting taxes to investing in defense and funding 
our special education mandate. I urge my colleagues to support this 
vision, this set of priorities, and support the Republican resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
Republican Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Resolution and in strong support of 
America's home healthcare agencies and patients. This resolution is 
skewed and misguided. It is a framework for disaster and for a return 
to the deficit spending of the 1980s. It is a political document 
designed to further the Majority's ill-advised tax cut agenda. Instead 
of focusing on strengthening Social Security, improving education, and 
extending Medicare, this budget will place our surplus in jeopardy 
through the risky tax cut scheme that was vetoed last year. I challenge 
the Republicans to take a stand for America and fund the programs 
Americans depend on.
  One of those programs is home healthcare, which received some of the 
worst cuts in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). Home healthcare is 
vital to millions of people across this country. It allows patients to 
recover from illness or surgery and to receive treatment in the comfort 
of their own homes and in the security of their own families, instead 
of having to move into a nursing home or stay in a hospital. In 
addition, treating patients at home saves money for Medicare in the 
long run.
  Home healthcare received attention last year because there was a 
pressing need to restore funding for ailing home healthcare agencies. 
This need has not diminished. An important provision in last year's 
budget resolution expressed support for delaying the automatic 15 
percent cut in home healthcare funding upon implementation of the 
Prospective Payment System (PPS) and for the enactment of the PPS in a 
timely fashion. At the end of the year, the BBRA included a one-year 
delay of the 15 percent cut, in part due to the language in the Budget 
Resolution.
  Today we are debating the FY 2001 Budget Resolution, and while I will 
not support final passage because of the misguided policies outlined in 
this resolution, I am somewhat encouraged by the home healthcare 
language it includes. However, I believe it is time for the Majority to 
show some courage and dedicate specific funds for home healthcare 
agencies.
  This Budget Resolution contains a Sense of Congress that ``Congress 
and the Administration should work together to avoid the implementation 
of the 15 percent reduction in the prospective payment system and 
ensured timely implementation of that system.''
  Instead of a Sense of Congress, I challenge the Majority to include 
$5 billion to eliminate the 15 percent reduction. It is time for the 
Majority to admit it made a mistake with the BBA and begin to fix that 
mistake.
  I am extremely disappointed that the Republican Majority does not 
recognize the damage done by the BBA, especially to home healthcare. We 
are living in the most prosperous time in this nation's history. Our 
seniors deserve better than this budget.
  Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. Chairman, today I address H. Con. Res. 290, the 
Republican budget resolution for FY 2001. Further, I would like to 
discuss the opportunities that the Blue Dog substitute provides. I am 
working to amend some of the inequities in the resolution drafted by my 
Republican colleagues.
  In 1993, when President Clinton first came to office, the deficit 
stood at $332 billion. Beginning with the Deficit Reduction Act in 
1993, the Administration worked its way to a surplus. By Fiscal Year 
1998, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that total 
revenues exceeded spending by $70 billion, producing the first surplus 
in almost 30 years. This surplus allowed us to move our attention 
beyond the deficit and onto other pressing national problems.
  Mr. Chairman today seniors make up a greater percentage of our 
population than ever before. The generation that made this nation 
great--that lifted us out of an economic depression, won both world 
wars and the cold war--is retiring by the millions and in need of care. 
This trend will continue with the fast-approaching retirement of the 
baby boom generation, placing an unprecedented strain on Social 
Security and Medicare--programs created by the Democrats for the 
people.
  Medicare, the primary vehicle of health care for seniors, is 
threatened with insolvency by 2008. Population increases, coupled with 
rising health costs, have threatened to annihilate this program. 
However, we have an opportunity to change this.
  The Blue Dog substitute, which I support, pays heed to these vital 
programs. This substitute promotes responsible budgetary policy by 
reserving half of the on-budget surplus for debt reduction and saving 
the entire Social Security surplus. While the Republicans budget uses 
the surplus for irresponsible tax cuts, we save Medicare and Social 
Security. We also establish a Medicare reserve of $40 billion over 5 
years that could be used to finance reforms that extend solvency, 
create a prescription drug benefit, or allow for additional health care 
provider relief. Further, we take care of our rural health care 
programs by increasing funding for discretionary health care programs 
by $4.6 billion over the Republican budget.
  The Blue Dog substitute will put the government on the path to 
completely eliminate the publicly held debt by 2012, one year earlier 
than the goal set forth by the President. Because the Republican plan 
spends the Social Security surplus for other purposes, it reduces less 
debt. Federal reserve Chairman Alan Greesnspan has stated that paying 
down the debt is crucial to preparing for the fiscal hurdles that face 
Medicare. It's clear that social Security, Medicare, Social Security 
and the national debt are intricately linked.
  Mr. Chairman, another thing I simply cannot overlook is the lack of 
funding that the Republican budget resolution provides for education 
programs. The substitute I am supporting provides $15 billion more 
funding over the next five years for education than proposed in the 
Republican budget. These funding increases are targeted toward 
education reform initiatives. Although our children have no legislative 
voice, they represent our nation's future and deserve an investment in 
their education today.
  Our budget should not only educate our children, but also protect 
their security in an increasingly dangerous world. I support a budget 
that will give this nation an appropriate level of military readiness. 
Mr. Chairman, several renegade nations have recently completed 
successful nuclear weapons testing. Although the Cold War has ended, 
the nuclear arms race continues to this day. With this concern in mind, 
the Blue Dog substitute provides $15 billion more in defense budget 
authority (over 5 years) than the Republican budget. In addition, the 
Blue Dog substitute takes care of veterans by providing funding for 
prescription drug benefits.
  The Blue Dog budget also meets the agricultural and energy needs of 
this nation--areas of crucial importance in my district of East Texas. 
The Blue Dog substitute increases the baseline for mandatory 
agricultural programs by $23.6 billion over the next five years, in 
addition to providing $6 billion for assistance in fiscal year 2000. 
This increase provides funding for crop insurance legislation, long-
term agricultural safety net and income support programs, and 
agricultural research. In contrast, the Republican budget does nothing 
to increase the agricultural baseline beyond the minimum necessary to 
fund crop insurance reform.
  While the Republican budget cuts the energy function by $2.2 billion, 
the Blue Dog substitute includes funding for research to increase 
domestic energy production, develop alternative energy sources, and 
promote energy conservation. The Blue Dog budget prioritizes funding 
for energy initiatives critical to the economic vitality of this 
nation.
  Although I have only highlighted a few differences between the 
Republican budget resolution and the Blue Dog substitute, it should be 
obvious that they are significant. I encourage my colleagues to vote 
for the blue Dog substitute, a budget with responsible priorities. This 
is our opportunity to vote for comprehensive fiscal change and support 
a budget that will improve the lives of our fellow Americans.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to say a few words about 
the budget resolution. Unfortunately, I will not be able to vote for 
the resolution or any of the five alternatives put forth before us 
tonight, because none of them have a good combination of debt relief 
and spending priorities.
  The Republican resolution offered by Mr. Kasich shortchanges 
important domestic programs by cutting non-defense discretionary 
spending by $6.9 billion over 2000 levels. This would mean that over 
300,000 students will lose their Pell grants for college, and that 
almost 2,000 FBI and DEA agents will lose their jobs. In addition, the 
Kasich resolution does not provide near enough money for debt relief. 
Virtually all economists, including Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 
Greenspan, have argued that there is almost no better way of improving 
the government's finances than reducing the debt. That is also why I am 
opposing the Democratic, Black Caucus, and Progressive

[[Page H1318]]

Caucus alternatives, because they do not reserve enough money for debt 
reduction.
  In contrast, while I support the Blue Dog's position on using one-
half of the surplus debt reduction, I believe that their high spending 
on defense--even higher than the Kasich resolution--jeopardizes other 
discretionary spending. Specifically, I am particularly opposed to the 
Blue Dog substitute because of the cuts in transportation spending. 
Under this proposal, and that of the CATS substitute and the Black 
Caucus substitute, it would not be possible to honor the commitments 
Congress made in TEA 21 and AIR 21 transportation bills, thereby 
risking the safety of millions of motorists and air travelers.
  I appreciate the hard work and effort that my colleagues put into 
their respective proposals, but unfortunately, I do not feel that any 
of these proposals have the right mix of savings for debt reduction and 
funding for our nation's infrastructure needs. Moreover, this and other 
recent budget resolutions have been composed of blue smoke and mirrors 
that do not reflect year-spending agreements, Rather, it is unfortunate 
that the budget resolutions have been and will continue to be breached 
during appropriation's negotiations between Congressional leaders and 
the White House. Hopefully, this and future Congress will break that 
cycle and lead us into the 21st Century in a fiscally responsible 
manner.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this Budget Resolution because I 
believe that, in this time of great prosperity and urgent needs, we can 
do better. We should be voting on a bipartisan and realistic budget 
resolution.
  Instead, we have a resolution that doesn't secure the future of 
Social Security and Medicare, and doesn't focus on critical education, 
health, and consumer safety needs.
  Under this resolution, our federal commitment to education would be 
$4.7 billion under the President's budget. The increases proposed are 
solely for elementary and secondary education, leaving no increase for 
critical needs in school modernization, professional development, Title 
I, and higher and adult education.
  Under this resolution, the NIH would received a lower increase than 
necessary to continue our bipartisan effort to double funding for the 
world's premiere biomedical research institution. And this increase 
would mean that other, equally worthy health programs at CDC, SAMHSA, 
HRSA and related agencies would be at or below a freeze.
  Under this resolution, programs like LIHEAP--so desperately needed 
this winter--would serve 164,000 fewer low-income families. Pell Grants 
would go to 316,000 fewer students by 2005; and more than 40,000 kids 
would be denied access to Head Start by 2005.
  The fact is that this budget resolution sets us against each other. 
We cannot have tax cuts of the extraordinary magnitude being discussed 
unless we make deep cuts in programs that millions of Americans rely 
upon.
  I believe maintaining a strong defense and providing meaningful tax 
relief does not need to come at the expense of vital programs that help 
get kids through college, translate scientific discoveries to patient 
care, and help families raise healthy kids. No one wins when we set 
program against program.
  I hope we can avoid that destructive game and work together to 
provide strong support to the important and worthy efforts that 
Americans are calling on us to support. Together, we can improve the 
lives of the American people.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the greatest magician of all time was Harry 
Houdini. He was the first person to do the Straight Jacket Escape. In 
that one, Houdini allowed himself to be tied up in a straight jacket 
and hung upside down from the eaves of a tall building. Invariably, 
Houdini found some sensational way to escape.
  The Republican majority has turned the budget process into an annual 
escape act. Each year, the Republicans march down here and tie 
themselves up in a straight jacket budget. Then they spend the next few 
months trying to escape from it. Invariably they fail and they resort 
to budgetary sleight-of-hand, smoke and mirrors and accounting 
gimmicks. Invariably, the appropriation bills are not passed and we are 
left with a last minute, take-it-or-leave-it, catch-all budget that 
funds most of the government.
  This year's Republican budget is no exception. The budget the 
Republican Majority is advancing today is completely unrealistic. It 
calls for a $150 to $200 billion tax cut, but the only way they can 
achieve this is through draconian cuts in discretionary spending, which 
even they won't be willing to vote for when the appropriations bills 
reach the Floor.
  The fact is that if the Majority actually implemented everything in 
their budget, the tax cuts would significantly exceed the projected 
non-Social Security surpluses for the next five years. This is 
irresponsible. We should use the budget surpluses to pay down the debt 
and extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
  The bottom line is this: The GOP budget is a straight jacket that 
Houdini himself couldn't escape from. I urge my colleagues to reject 
the Majority's budget and adopt the Spratt Substitute.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, when I was growing up near Detroit, the 
Four Tops had a hit single called: ``It's The Same Old Song.'' Well, 
that could be the title of this Republican Budget Resolution. Because 
when you listen closely to what they're proposing you'll hear is the 
same old song they were singing this time last year.
  What's in their budget? Over $1 trillion dollars in tax cuts for the 
wealthy over 10 years. And who gets stuck with the tab? You guessed it: 
America's families do.
  Sound familiar? It ought to: this is what the Republicans tried to 
peddle to the American people last year. It's the same old song.
  Well, I've got some news for the Republican leadership: the American 
people weren't dancing to it then and they're not dancing to it now. 
And what made their proposal a bad idea last year makes it an even 
worse one today.
  It's the fact that while they wrote a tax cut for the rich into their 
plan, they wrote America's working families out.
  Mr. Chairman, when I listen to working families back home in Michigan 
they're not telling me they want to cut taxes for the rich. No. What 
they're telling me is that they want to see us start paying down the 
debt. They're telling me they want us to strengthen Social Security.
  What they're telling me is they want us to make Medicare efficient 
and modern--and that includes making sure it offers a prescription drug 
benefit.
  But this budget plan not only fails to address any of those 
priorities--it would tie our hands so we couldn't respond to them in 
the future. And, if that's not enough, it would also slash needed 
investments to the tune of $114 billion dollars. That would knock the 
stuffing out of our efforts to provide clean drinking water and promote 
energy conservation.
  It would rob us of the resources we need to enforce environmental 
protection laws the way they ought to be. And it doesn't stop there.
  Under their plan, the WIC nutrition program would have to turn away 
three-quarters of a million pregnant women, new moms, babies and little 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, if that's what George W. Bush calls compassionate 
conservatism I'd hate to see the other kind.
  It's the same old song--and today we're saying that America's 
families deserve better.
  What America's families want is a sensible, balanced budget that 
invests in America's future, not some ``golden oldie'' of a budget that 
would only repeat the mistakes of the past. What working families back 
home in Michigan want is a budget that's responsive--and responsible. 
We want a budget that enables us to strengthen Social Security. A 
budget that allows us to modernize Medicare. We want a budget that 
gives us the ability to pay down the national debt. Those are the 
priorities of the families I listen to.
  And while the Republicans talk sometimes like they know the words--
proposals like this remind us that they just can't carry the tune.
  I urge you to vote ``no'' on the resolution.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, the American people have told 
us exactly what we're here to do: we are here to retire the national 
debt so our children aren't forced to pay our bills, we are here to 
maintain a balanced budget, we are here to ensure the long term 
solvency of Social Security and Medicare, we are here to relieve the 
tremendous burden from our nation's seniors by including basic 
prescription drug benefits in Medicare, we are here to invest in our 
children's future. We are her to offer prudent, targeted tax cuts for 
America's working families.
  H. Con. Res. 290 abandons the middle-class family, disregards the 
plight of America's senior citizens, and sacrifices our hard won fiscal 
discipline. H. Con. Res. 290, if adopted, will spend us right back into 
deficit, thus jeopardizing the Social Security trust funds, and will 
fail to stabilize Medicare or improve the quality of health care. Not 
one single dime will be used to reduce our national debt. In fact, by 
2004 the budget must dip into the Social Security trust funds in order 
to finance the massive tax cuts for special interests sought in the 
Republican measure.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1999 our Federal Government spent 13 percent of its 
entire budget just paying off the interest on our national debt. 
Because of the Budget Act of 1994 and our continuing fiscal discipline 
to maintain a sound economy, we can pay off our debt by 2013. This must 
be our top priority. H. Con. Res. 290 jeopardizes paying off the debt 
and continuing our strong economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Spratt substitute because it pays down 
the debt, ensures the solvency of Social Security, invests in our 
children, and includes prescription drug coverage in Medicare. 
Throughout my district I am approached by seniors who express their 
frustrations with having to choose between medically

[[Page H1319]]

needed prescription drugs and putting food on their table. Whether 
these seniors live in the public housing complex at Brush Creek Towers 
in the economically depressed central city or in the more affluent part 
of my district in Lee's Summit's John Knox Village, the astronomical 
cost of their medications is forcing them to make an impossible choice: 
food or medicine. This must not continue.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to reject H. Con. Res. 290, and 
vote to protect the Social Security trust fund. We must pay down the 
national debt. We need to ease the burden on our seniors and invest in 
our children, and provide for modest, prudent, targeted tax cuts for 
working families. Let's do what's right for the future of America.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican budget resolution.
  In order to make room for $150 billion of irresponsible tax cuts, the 
Republicans cut budget authority for nondefense discretionary programs 
by a total of $138 billion over 5 years below the baseline needed to 
maintain program levels. As a result, this would among other things: 
Cut 310,000 low-income women, infants, and children off WIC assistance 
in 2001 alone, and more in years thereafter; cut 1,000 FBI agents and 
800 Drug Enforcement agents by 2005; cut LIHEAP to only 164,000 low 
income families in 2001, just as oil prices are skyrocketing; provide 
Pell grants to 316,000 fewer low-income students by 2005; eliminate 
Head Start for more than 40,000 children and their families by 2005; 
and raid the Social Security surplus to pay for its tax cuts.
  It is time for the Republicans to stop trying to cut taxes on the 
backs of America's seniors, working families and children.
  It is also time for the Republicans to stop claiming that we can't 
afford to spend more on important programs, like education and health, 
when they are pouring more and more money into defense.
  We have 11 million children who are not covered by health insurance; 
we have a Head Start program so chronically underfunded that only 2 out 
of every 5 eligible children can get in; and we have 26,000 schools--
serving 14 million kids--that need major repair or replacement.
  This past fall, 53.2 million U.S. students returned to school. For 
the fourth year in a row, we set a record for enrollment rates--447,000 
more children than last year. And public high school enrollment is 
expected to increase by 11 percent between 1998 and 2008--on top of a 
16 percent jump since 1988.
  Schools are straining to accommodate the influx of students, setting 
up classrooms in trailers, hallways and closets. The U.S. Department of 
Education estimates that 6,000 new schools must be built by 2006, at a 
cost of billions of dollars, to handle this overflow.
  Yet the Republicans have chosen to cut non-defense discretionary 
spending, like education.
  Furthermore, 46 percent of today's schools lack adequate electrical 
wiring to support the full-scale use of technology. And our schools are 
still suffering from a digital divide. Schools with 90 percent or more 
of minority students have less access to computers--17 students per 
computer compared with only 10 students per computer in schools with 
less than 25 percent minority students.
  Yet, instead of focusing on these important issues, the Republicans 
are increasing defense spending by $17.4 billion.
  The biggest percentage increase in the DOD budget (11 percent) is not 
for what is really needed, like pay raises or operations and 
maintenance. Countless numbers of our soldiers are on food stamps, but 
the Republican budget focuses more on building new weapons than helping 
to retain our soldiers, and to improve their quality of life.
  Our long-term national security depends not just on how many bombs 
and missiles we build, but how well we can retain our soldiers and how 
we can prepare our children for the highly-competitive global economy 
they will face.
  The Democratic alternative focuses on these important issues. It 
focuses on the needs of Americans by: Extending the solvency of both 
Social Security and Medicare and protecting 100 percent of the Social 
Security surplus; providing a voluntary prescription drug benefit for 
all schools through Medicare and issuing reconciliation instructions to 
the Ways and Means Committee to make it real; providing more debt 
reduction than the Republican budget by not spending all of the on-
budget surplus. The Democratic alternative maintains on-budget 
surpluses for the next ten years, unlike the Republican budget. Thus, 
the entire debt would be eliminated by 2013 under the Democratic 
alternative; maintaining funding for non-defense discretionary programs 
at the level needed to adjust for inflation; Providing targeted tax 
cuts to average families of $78 billion over five years and $263 
billion over ten years, and offsetting this cost by closing corporate 
loopholes and shutting down corporate tax shelters; and, by including 
initiatives to extend access to health care and health insurance and 
reforming the health care system for military retirees.
  What we do in this budget will affect more than what we do next 
year--it will affect what we do years down the road.
  We must prepare for our future. We must provide security for our 
Seniors. We must support our working families, and we must invest in 
our children. The Democratic alternative does that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Republican proposal and to 
support the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in proud support of a 
responsible Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Resolution put forth by this 
Republican Congress. This budget provides the blueprint to do great 
things this year, including: Balancing the budget for the second 
consecutive year, eliminating the public debt by 2013, safeguarding 
Social Security, increasing defense spending, setting aside $40 billion 
for Medicare reform and prescription drug coverage, increasing 
elementary and secondary education funding by more than 9 percent and 
much more.
  The Clinton-Gore administration's budget, submitted to Congress on 
February 7 this year, increases discretionary spending by over $39 
billion. That is an increase of more than twice the rate of inflation--
evidence that the Clinton-Gore-Gephardt alliance continues to support a 
``government on autopilot'' approach.
  Mr. Chairman, that is simply irresponsible. There is plenty of fat 
that can still be trimmed off Uncle Sam. Just because we have 
increasing surpluses does not mean all Government spending is 
responsible or justified. We need to continue to address the billions 
of dollars lost on waste, fraud, and abuse. We need to eliminate those 
programs that don't work and are a burden to the American taxpayers. 
This budget resolution will do that by restraining federal spending, 
setting aside funds for paying down the debt and saving Social 
Security.
  This budget resolution will allow Americans to keep more of their 
hard earned dollars and allow us to keep our promises to the nation's 
youth, small businesses, parents and seniors.
  In closing Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to support the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Resolution.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, today, the House will vote to approve a 
Republican budget resolution which will set the priorities for spending 
in the next fiscal year. I will join many of my colleagues in opposing 
this irresponsible plan.
  I have many concerns about the resolution. It fails to take the 
necessary steps to keep our economy going strong so that all parts of 
our country can benefit. It does not meet our national priorities of 
paying down the debt, preserving Social Security, providing targeted 
tax cuts for working families, and making crucial investments in 
important areas.
  The majority's resolution calls for spending $114 billion less on 
domestic programs than is required simply to keep up with inflation. 
This could have a devastating effect. It would require us to stop 
providing LIHEAP assistance to 164,000 families; to cut-off 310,000 
low-income women, infants, and children from WIC assistance; to give 
Pell grants to 316,000 fewer low-income students; to end Head Start 
services for more than 40,000 children and their families by 2005. 
These cuts do not match our national priorities, especially as we enjoy 
a significant non-Social Security surplus for the first time in 
decades. Moreover, at the same time it erodes support for important 
safety net programs, the majority's resolution provides for a $250 
billion tax cut over the next 5 years, which could grow to up to $1 
trillion over 10 years. These cuts are not targeted to working people, 
but rather would benefit primarily those who are most wealthy. I could 
not support such a plan.
  Instead, I supported a substitute plan which would have paid off the 
national debt by 2013, provided $50 billion in targeted tax cuts, 
invested in domestic priorities, and extended the solvency of Social 
Security and Medicare. This plan struck me as being more balanced with 
regard to maintaining our fiscal discipline and planning for future 
needs. Unfortunately, it did not prevail.
  We are fortunate to be enjoying a robust economy which has resulted 
in significant budgetary surpluses. Instead of splurging on expensive 
giveaways, we need to maintain fiscal discipline and keep an eye toward 
the challenges that are coming our way. Social Security and Medicare 
will soon be facing serious financial problems due to the huge 
demographic shift that will occur when the baby boomers retire. We must 
act now to prepare for that reality.
  I also believe that we should use more of our surplus to retire our 
national debt. Currently, the federal debt is about $5.5 trillion. In 
1998 alone, we paid about $243 billion just in interest on that debt. 
By paying down the

[[Page H1320]]

debt, we could free up tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars for 
more productive use. In addition, it would prepare the country for 
future fiscal challenges.
  I am not opposed to tax cuts. The plan that I supported includes $50 
billion in targeted cuts. Last year, I voted for approximately $100 
billion in tax cuts that were signed into law. However, the $250 
billion plan contained in this year's budget resolution runs the risk 
of not only eating up the entire budget surplus, but some of the Social 
Security surplus as well.
  As we continue work on the budget this year, my goal remains to 
ensure that we maintain fiscal discipline to keep our economy going 
strong, to shore up Social Security and Medicare, to pay down the 
national debt, and to provide adequate funding levels for our domestic 
priorities. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to achieve a budget of which all Americans can be proud.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his 
support for H. Con. Res. 290, the FY 2001 Budget Resolution, as 
approved by the House Budget Committee.
  This budget resolution proposes $596.5 billion in total discretionary 
spending for fiscal year 2001, a $10.5 billion increase which amounts 
to half of the rate of inflation. In fact, the spending limits for most 
of the five budget alternatives offered today are relatively close in 
total spending. This Member votes for H. Con. Res. 290 only with the 
expressed understanding the resolution presents an overall guidance to 
the House on spending and revenues which he supports. However, this 
Member views the spending breakdown by categories as only advisory; he 
does not agree with several areas of this part of the committee's 
recommendations. Therefore this Member does not view himself as 
committed to the detailed budget function breakdown included in H. Con. 
Res. 290. Indeed, this Member intends to ask the leadership to make 
certain different recommendations to the Appropriation Committee as 
allocation decisions are made among its subcommittees.
  Having said that, this Member is pleased that H. Con. Res. 290 
provides an increase for the category education, training, employment, 
and social services programs. The resolution also includes a necessary 
increase for Medicare. Moreover, the budget category for transportation 
is adequate to permit spending of accumulated dollars in the highway 
trust fund and aviation trust fund, so these funds will not be diverted 
for other purposes. This Member strongly supports that concept. Also 
very importantly, the budget resolution stipulates that if a portion of 
a FY 2001 tax relief is vetoed by the president, the vetoed amount must 
be allocated toward debt reduction, not additional spending--in effect 
creating a debt reduction ``lockbox.'' In addition, H. Con. Res. 290 
proposes to devote the entire amount of excess Social Security receipts 
(an estimated $166 billion in FY 2001) to a lockbox to prevent these 
Social Security funds from being used to finance other government 
programs.
  Importantly, there is $8 billion over the next 5 years for crop 
insurance reform. It is this Member's hope that since the other body 
passed its version of crop insurance legislation today, we will have a 
conference committee appointed shortly and actually enact crop 
insurance reform well before FY 2001 begins. Furthermore, H. Con. Res. 
290 includes $6 billion for a reserve fund to address potential 
agriculture emergencies during FY 2000. This fund will allow Congress 
the flexibility to quickly address agricultural emergencies within the 
framework of the budget throughout the year.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, this Member supports the Budget Committee 
version of H. Con. Res. 290 and urges his colleagues to vote ``aye.''
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget 
resolution before us today.
  This resolution, like many in recent years, makes unacceptable cuts 
in domestic discretionary spending to pay for unwise tax cuts and 
increased defense spending. This bill would hold domestic discretionary 
spending $114 billion below inflation over the next five years. That 
means that a number of important Government functions would be short-
changed--maybe education, maybe veterans, maybe scientific research, or 
maybe air traffic control. I don't think that we should short-change 
any of those activities. In fact, I think that we need to invest more 
in the federal programs that will make this country safer, healthier, 
and more productive in the future.
  In addition, this budget fails to do enough to pay down the national 
debt and shore up Social Security and Medicare. By providing such a 
large tax cut, this budget consumes the projected on-budget surpluses 
in just a few short years. In fact, according to Representative John 
Spratt, Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, the tax cuts 
provided for in this budget resolution would start eating into the 
Social Security Surplus by 2004. That means the Government would pay 
down less on the debt than it otherwise would. That means the 
Government would do less to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. 
And that means that a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit 
would be much harder to enact. I believe that paying down the debt and 
fixing Social Security and Medicare must come first.
  Finally, I would like to point out that Congress has not adhered to 
similar budget resolutions passed in the last few years. It couldn't--
these budgets required unrealistic and unacceptable levels of spending 
for important domestic programs like education and health care. Many 
Members, myself included, have pointed out how unrealistic these budget 
resolutions were when the House considered them in past years, but the 
Majority pushed them through without regard for our concerns--concerns 
which with hindsight appear to have been correct.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to reject this unrealistic and 
unwise budget. Instead, let us work together to produce a budget 
resolution which pays down the debt, strengthens Social Security and 
Medicare, provides a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and invests in 
the health and education of our people.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge support for H. Con. Res. 
290, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001.
  The budget allocations for transportation contained in this 
resolution are fully consistent with the Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st century (TEA 21) and the Aviation Investment and Reform Act 
for the 21st century (AIR 21).
  As a result, this budget resolution keeps faith with the American 
taxpayer and preserves the integrity of the transportation trust funds.


                                 tea 21

  The resolution allocates to the Appropriations Committee sufficient 
budget authority and outlays to fully fund TEA 21, thereby ensuring 
that highway trust fund revenues are used for their intended purpose of 
improving our Nation's highway and transit systems.
  In addition, the function 400 allocation in this resolution is 
sufficient to restore in fiscal year 2001 the 0.38 percent across-the-
board cut that was imposed on highway and transit programs in fiscal 
year 2000.
  Last year's Omnibus appropriations bill applied this cut to the 
highway and transit budget categories even though highway and transit 
spending was within the levels established by the TEA 21 firewalls. In 
effect, highway and transit spending was cut to cover a funding breach 
in the general discretionary budget category.
  The House leadership has assured me that these funds will be restored 
in fiscal year 2001 so that, over the two-year period from 2000-2001, 
the link between highway trust fund revenues and spending that was 
established in TEA 21 will be maintained.
  Not only does the resolution fully fund TEA 21, it assumes that all 
TEA 21 funds will be used according to the formula distribution that 
was agreed to in TEA 21.
  The resolution also assumes that highway and transit programs are 
held harmless from, and not reduced by, technical differences between 
Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Budget Office scoring 
of the TEA 21 firewalls. Similar to last year, these technical scoring 
differences will be accommodated in a manner that does not reduce the 
guaranteed spending levels below those provided by TEA 21.


                                 air 21

  Regarding aviation, the budget resolution allocates to the 
Appropriations Committee sufficient budget authority and outlays to 
fully fund AIR 21, thereby ensuring that the taxes and interest 
credited to the airport and airway trust fund each year are used for 
their intended purposes and that the general fund contributes its fair 
share toward meeting aviation funding needs.
  The 18 percent general fund contribution that is assumed both in AIR 
21 and in this budget resolution is far less than the historical 
average of 30 percent.
  It is important to note that this budget resolution ensures 
sufficient resources to fully fund Federal Aviation Administration 
operations, as well as aviation capital programs, and it does so 
without reducing funding for any other transportation program, such as 
Coast Guard and Amtrak.
  This is because the function 400 allocations in this resolution have 
been increased to accommodate the funding increases in TEA 21 and AIR 
21 without requiring reductions in any other function 400 programs.
  Therefore, it is simply not accurate to say that TEA 21 or AIR 21 
will force the Appropriations Committee to reduce funding for FAA 
operations, Amtrak, on Coast Guard. Funding for all of these programs 
has been accommodated within this budget resolution.
  I congratulate the Budget Committee for restoring honesty to the 
budget process, and ending the use of the transportation trust funds to 
mask the deficit or fund other, non-transportation programs.
  Given the commitment of the Senate majority leader and the chairman 
of the Senate

[[Page H1321]]

Budget Committee to fully fund AIR 21 without affecting other 
transportation programs, I am confident that the conference report on 
the budget resolution will likewise be fully consistent with TEA 21 and 
AIR 21.
  Again, I urge you to support the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution 
as proposed by Chairman Kasich.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the budget 
and to highlight the need for budget accountability in our federal 
agencies. Waste, fraud and abuse is rampant under the Clinton-Gore 
Administration and has plagued my own congressional district. $300,000 
toilets and half-million dollar federal employee housing in Yosemite 
National Park demonstrate the gross misuse of taxpayer dollars by the 
National Park Service. This is an outrage.
  The budget before us today provides federal agencies with needed 
funds. It is now up to the Administration to eliminate the blatant 
fiscal irresponsibility found in these agencies. By operating more 
efficiently, federal agencies can accomplish their purpose without 
flushing taxpayer dollars down $300,000 toilets.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican 
Majority's socially and fiscally irresponsible budget resolution for 
fiscal year 2001. I strongly support the Democratic substitute, and 
urge Members to do the same.
  This bill is socially irresponsible because it cuts non-defense 
discretionary spending $114 billion below inflation over the next five 
years. It does so in order to fund a fiscally irresponsible tax cut 
that could balloon to as much as $200 billion in five years, and over 
$1 trillion in ten years. This bill hurts the most needy Americans whom 
the Republican Party has traditionally ignored. It benefits the most 
wealthy, as well as the Republicans' special interest friends.
  Let's take a close look.
  Under the Majority's bill funding for critical education, training, 
employment, and social service programs is either frozen or cut, 
producing significant reductions in current service levels. Only 
special education is spared the sledgehammer. For example, by fiscal 
year 2005, 40,000 fewer children would be able to participate in Head 
Start; and 164,000 fewer low-income families would be able to receive 
LIHEAP assistance. In just one year, 316,000 fewer low-income students 
would be able to receive Pell Grants; and 310,000 fewer low-income 
women, infants, and children would be able to participate in the WIC 
program.
  The bill would also slash Title I funding, forcing school districts 
to provide services to a smaller number of low-income students. The 
Clinton/Clay class size reduction initiative would be cut, leaving 
school districts with fewer resources to hire and train new teachers. 
After-school and summer programs established to help improve student 
achievement and reduce juvenile crime would be cut back, undermining 
vital school reform efforts.
  Clearly, this budget abandons those most in need of Federal support. 
It also fails to address important national priorities such as securing 
Social Security and Medicare, and paying down the debt. None of this is 
necessary. The Democratic substitute shows why. Our substitute cuts 
taxes, but does so in a manner that targets the benefits to working 
families. Our substitute provides sufficient resources to invest in 
education and develop our communities. Our substitute would make Social 
Security and Medicare strong and solvent, while reducing the debt and 
preserving the hard-won budget surplus.
  Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I urge the rejection of the 
Republican Majority's budget resolution, and urge the adoption of the 
Democratic substitute.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
GOP's Budget Resolution. Once again, we are confronted with a 
Republican budget that inserts risky tax cuts in place of a sound 
federal budget and the general welfare of our nation. The current 
reality of budget surpluses presents this Congress with a historic 
opportunity to help ensure the solvency of the Social Security and 
Medicare trust funds, pay down the national debt, and make necessary 
investments in our public infrastructure and education system. Yet, the 
Republicans continue to adhere to the mantra that tax cuts should drive 
the Congressional agenda, even with the certain risk of future deficits 
that results from such action. Moreover, they continue to show an 
inexplicable willingness to shortchange critical spending programs for 
millions of Americans to help pay for these tax cuts.
  This second session of the 106th Congress should have at least 
learned from the mistakes of the first. Last year's GOP budget denied 
reality and insisted upon tax cuts beyond the performance of the 
growing economy. Finally, last November, after the public had 
resoundingly rejected those tax cuts, and through unusual manipulation 
of budgetary gimmicks, we were able to come to agreement. Today, just 
four months later, the Republicans seem to want to resuscitate that 
legislative farce.
  Despite widespread public opposition to last year's irresponsible tax 
schemes, the Republicans are again seeking to facilitate large tax 
cuts. Numerous reports and studies have shown that these tax proposals 
will disproportionately benefit a very small, wealthy segment of 
Americans. In addition, these tax cuts will grow exponentially over the 
next ten years, completely obviating future surpluses and jeopardizing 
the fiscal prudence that has allowed us to start paying for our 
burgeoning national debt. Congress should be seeking ways to help all 
Americans share in this time of prosperity, not exacerbating income 
disparities between rich and poor. It is particularly unfortunate that 
the Republican leadership is prepared to implement cuts to 
environmental programs, Head Start, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, the Coast Guard, anti-drug activities, and the National 
Park Service to realize misguided tax breaks.
  As another example of the skewed priorities in this Republican 
budget, five miles the resources have been dedicated to tax cuts as for 
a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and nothing has been devoted to 
the solvency of the overall Medicare program. Millions of Americans 
have no prescription drug coverage and the insurance that does exist is 
in many instances inadequate. Yet, this budget does little to address 
the financial burden of escalating drug costs or improve access for 
millions of middle income seniors. Furthermore, the Republican 
prescription drug proposal is a contingent fund, which means there are 
no guarantees. Without a substantial investment in Medicare, a new wave 
of retirees will quickly overburden the program. Congress should take 
advantage of this booming U.S. economy and ensure that this critical 
program is modernized to meet the needs of our nation's seniors.
  Not surprisingly, this budget blueprint also fails to take any steps 
to extend the solvency of the Social Security program. In fact, this 
resolution is completely silent on the most important insurance 
challenge facing older Americans. Republicans have repeatedly rejected 
President Clinton's proposal to dedicate a portion of debt reduction 
savings to Social Security solvency, even though non-partisan actuaries 
have certified that the President's plan significantly extends the 
lifespan of the program. Still worse, this resolution fails to save the 
entire Social Security surplus solely for debt reduction. Walling off 
the surplus allows the federal government to pay down the national debt 
and then channel interest savings to other government programs. The so-
called GOP ``lock box'' has broken hinges.
  Education is a key area of investment in our future and in the engine 
of economic success that drives our nation. On the surface, the 
increase in funding for education seems like a step in the right 
direction. However, virtually all of this increase is for special 
education. The GOP plan essentially freezes funding for all other 
education initiatives, and that translates into a $1.1 billion cut in 
purchasing power for higher education, social service, and employment 
training programs. Make no mistake, ensuring the success of children 
with special needs should be a priority, but focusing only on this 
segment of students shortchanges the other education programs. All of 
our children could benefit from initiatives such as reducing class 
sizes, modernization of facilities and greater financial support for 
higher education. Unfortunately, this budget plan simply does not allow 
enough dollars to implement these important programs.
  The Pentagon budget continues to mushrooms and consume over half of 
the total discretionary expenditures. With this resolution, defense 
spending would increase each year until reaching a whopping level of 
$328.9 billion in FY 2005. Of course, under the Republican plan, these 
increases in defense spending will be accompanied by decreases in other 
domestic social programs. Now is the time to reassess our national 
security goals and show that a strong military does not preclude other 
important spending initiatives. We need to eliminate unnecessary pork 
projects and Cold War era programs, reduce the U.S. nuclear weapons 
force to the START III level of 2,500, stop any further production of 
the budget busting F-22 fighter jets, and finally abandon the 
unsuccessful deployment of a national missile defense. We need smart 
soldiers and sailors, not just more smart weapons.

  This budget resolution also reduces the government's ability to spend 
additional funds on important environmental initiatives. Funding 
programs such as the Lands Legacy Initiative would go a long way toward 
helping communities around the nation develop smart growth strategies, 
preserve open space and restore oft-neglected urban parks. While this 
resolution fails to look toward the future to solve today's problems, 
it also fails to look back at the huge maintenance backlog in our 
national parks. As a result, our parks will have to wait indefinitely 
for badly needed upgrades to facilities that serve millions of visitors 
each year.
  The United States imports more crude oil now than at any other time 
in this nation's history, and gasoline, diesel and heating oil

[[Page H1322]]

prices are reaching an all time high. Congress must develop solutions 
to reduce our dependence on foreign oil through energy research and 
conservation programs. Instead, this budget resolution reduces funds 
for these programs by almost one-third. The rise in home heating oil 
prices has also left our low-income families struggling to keep their 
homes warm. While energy bills have almost doubled as a result of price 
increases this past winter, the Republican's want to cut access to 
LIHEAP, an important federal heating assistance program. The volatility 
of the oil market is too great to rely on low heating oil prices to get 
our needy families through cold, harsh winters.
  The budget resolution also does little to solve the many hardships 
that our family farmers face. Our nation is built upon and around an 
agrarian society, and owes must of its success to this agricultural 
sector. The resolution, which is akin to patching the holes in a boat 
when the hull must be replaced, provides money to farmers, but not to 
those who need the economic assistance most. It is inflexible and 
unworkable.
  Finally, in regard to housing and community development allocations, 
the GOP budget is unrealistic at best or destined to gut core programs 
at worst. The very lack of specificity in most cases within the 
different functions should not give anyone comfort. For example, under 
Function 370, which covers housing credits, the allocation could lead 
one to wonder if the billion dollar slight will harm the Federal 
Housing Administration (FHA), one of the most successful homeownership 
programs in the world. Although the FHA has contributed to record 
homeownership rates by providing the opportunity for millions of 
Americans to own their first home, the GOP continues to attack this 
program!
  As written, though I would again point to the lack of specificity, 
Function 450, Housing and Regional Development, could do nothing less 
than gut core rural, suburban and urban community development. 
Assessing only across the board reductions, CDBG, a core component of 
community upkeep and revitalization, faces a $1.1 billion cut in 
purchasing power and a $1 billion cut below the FY 2000 freeze level.
  I am particularly concerned about Function 600, Income Security. 
While there may have been statements that the Section 8 outstanding 
would be fully renewed, a similar attitude to that taken in the past 
could prevail, whereby Section 8 continues to serve as a honey pot for 
those looking for money to spend on other, non-housing programs. 
Furthermore, presuming a full renewal of Section 8, this function is 
woefully inadequate to meet the needs in other accounts under this 
function. People will face serious harm if Congress were to actually 
implement the goals as encompassed by this GOP budget.
  In sum, the budget does nothing to address the affordable housing 
crisis being faced across this nation. It does nothing to further 
community and economic development in neighborhoods across this nation. 
And it places in jeopardy the lives of millions of Americans who are 
served by the programs of housing, community development and 
homeownership.
  I urge all members to vote no on this GOP budget resolution, as it 
does not reflect the priorities of the American people to strengthen 
Social Security and Medicare, reduce our national debt, and invest in 
necessary and important public programs.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the ``Straight Talk 
Express!'' As you all will recall, the Presidential candidate from my 
home state, Arizona, took to the campaign trail and gave our country 
some ``Strait Talk'' on some important issues, including campaign 
finance reform, health care reform, veterans programs, defense 
spending, deficit reduction, and massive tax cuts.
  But of all his ``Straight Talk,'' Candidate McCain made one point 
perfectly clear. He called it irresponsible to propose and implement 
massive tax cuts in this time, or even in the near future. He believes, 
as do many people in this Chamber, that any significant tax reduction 
will only weaken Social Security and Medicare. And while it may give 
the wealthiest one percent of the people in our nation more spending 
change, it will do nothing to stimulate the economy, it will do nothing 
to pay down the debt which continues to drain precious funds away from 
important programs that can really help people, it will do nothing to 
ensure that a strong Medicare program exists as the baby boom 
generation begins to age, and a huge tax cut will do nothing to shore 
up a Social Security that many claim will be broke in thirty years.
  But Candidate McCain went a step further. He not only said that a 
huge tax cut will weaken Medicare and Social Security, he said that 
huge tax cuts will actually hurt Social Security and Medicare. And this 
doesn't mean it will hurt these programs--these words ``Social 
Security'' and ``Medicare.'' What it means is that it will hurt people. 
It will hurt the elderly woman in Yuma, Arizona who is trying to decide 
if she should turn off her air conditioner so she can pay her doctor, 
or if she will be able to go to the drug store and get her much needed 
medicine and still have enough to eat at the end of the month. It will 
hurt the elderly widower in Phoenix who has been saving for months, 
maybe even years, to finally visit his grandchildren in Tucson, but 
then has the unexpected illness that keeps him at home because he can't 
afford to pay his rent and his doctor's bills and his drug store bill.
  My point is simple. We can talk of cutting taxes all we want, but, 
according to the ``Straight Talk Express,'' such a tax cut will cut 
into Social Security and Medicare. It will cut into the daily lives of 
our parents, and our grandparents, and it will cut into our own lives 
in just a few years when we reach that age of dependence.
  This Republican budget makes irresponsible tax cuts. Over the next 
five years, this budget cuts $150 billion worth of taxes, with another 
$50 billion ``reserve tax cut fund,'' for a total of $200 billion in 
tax cuts. And there is another $40 billion ``reserve fund'' set up for 
Medicare reforms. If both these ``reserve funds'' are used as the 
authors of this Resolution intend, it will mean the Social Security 
surplus will be breached. We might give a little to Medicare, but it 
will be at the expense of Social Security. And while we give some 
wealthy businesses and super wealthy individuals a little extra money 
in their pockets, we will be taking it from the pockets of the elderly.

  But worse, over the next ten years, it is projected that this budget 
resolution will cut taxes by $750 billion, with another $250 billion in 
a tax cut ``reserve fund.'' This is a $1 trillion tax cut! One trillion 
dollars!
  Mr. Chairman, I support tax cuts. I support tax cuts when they make 
sense for our economy. When we needed to stimulate our economy and put 
some capital on the streets, we have done that, and I have supported 
it. And I could support tax cuts now, if I knew they were going to help 
that elderly lady in Yuma and that elderly man in Phoenix, and the 
plumber in Tucson who is trying to make this house payments and keep 
his two kids in good clothes and maybe put a little something away in 
case they have the opportunity to go to college. But I can't support 
this huge, massive tax cut proposal that I know will only go to line 
the pocket of multi-millionaires.
  We should take this money, this $1 trillion, and use it for our 
people.
  We should use it for education. We should make sure that every child 
in this country has a fair and equal chance to use his talents and 
intelligence and knowledge to make us a stronger nation in the long 
run. We should try and give every eligible child the opportunity to 
attend college. We should make sure that every child is taught to read, 
that every child is given the chance to learn about, enjoy and 
appreciate the arts and music, that every child has a place to go after 
school where he feels safe and can continue to learn. We should make 
sure that every child is given a fair chance to learn English and is 
not penalized because he can't. We should make sure that every child 
can go to a school where he is not afraid and his parents are never 
concerned that a classmate has come to school with a gun. We should 
make sure that every child is attending a school where the teachers 
still care and are trained in the newest techniques and are still 
motivated when they look into the wonders gleaming from a kid's eyes 
when he finally ``gets'' the math problem.
  Could we not even give just a portion of this one trillion dollars to 
education?
  And a trillion dollars would go a long way in our hopes of 
solidifying a strong and viable Social Security system beyond 2032. We 
have spent almost four years around here talking about how Social 
Security is going broke, yet we never do anything about it, except put 
it in a ``lockbox'' that is not made of steel, but only of worthless 
words. It's time to put our money where only our words have been. Let's 
take some of this $1 trillion and put it into Social Security and 
Medicare. Let's take the advice from the ``Straight Talk Express'' that 
rolled through this whole country winning the hearts and minds of 
people. They know we need to do something to strengthen Social 
Security. The people know we must do something to stabilize Medicare. 
Let's do it. And we have $1 trillion to use.
  And finally, Mr. Chairman, we can use some of this $1 trillion to pay 
down the debt. When President Carter left office we owed $930 billion. 
When President Bush left office we owed $4.1 trillion. We borrowed 
ourselves out of a recession. And now, the American economy is the 
strongest economy in the history of civilization and we have the 
opportunity to pay back some of that money we owe. Our alternative is 
to continue to use more than ten percent of our money to pay only the 
interest on this debt. But this budget resolution only ignores this 
responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, the Presidential candidate from Arizona and I do not 
agree on a lot of things a lot of times. But we do agree that these 
will be irresponsible tax cuts. Let's use

[[Page H1323]]

this money wisely. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to our elderly, 
and we owe it to our children.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Resolution.
  Building on last year's historic $1.7 billion increase in funding for 
veteran's health care, this year's budget continues to increase our 
commitment to veterans by providing an additional $1.3 billion.
  Last year, I hosted the largest town meeting in the history of the 
Texas Hill Country. Over 1,400 veterans and concerned citizens came 
together to discuss the Administration's shortchanging of veteran's 
medical care. The message was clear: veterans will stand up for what is 
right. And what is right, Mr. Speaker, is full funding for veterans' 
medical care. This budget moves us in that direction.
  The Kerrville VA Hospital in my district provides health care to more 
than 16,000 veterans in Texas. This is just one hospital among hundreds 
across the nation that veterans depend on for their health care needs. 
With the $3 billion increases in the last two years, veterans can be 
assured that the high quality health care they deserve will continue.
  Responsibility tells us that this finding is necessary. Commitment 
and dedication is what the men and women of the armed services have 
given to our country, and commitment and dedication to our veterans is 
what this budget rightly gives.
  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time allocated for the 
Committee on the Budget has expired.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), as now the designee of the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark) each will control 30 minutes on the subject of 
economic goals and policies.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to show my colleagues a couple of 
charts regarding the budget. Last year, the President gave us a budget 
which said, he wanted to take $52 billion out of the Social Security 
surplus to spend on other Federal Government programs. We countered 
with a different budget which said, put all of the Social Security 
surplus back into Social Security. At this time during this debate on 
this bill last year, we had so many Members of the other side coming to 
Congress on the floor saying, we are going to raid Social Security. The 
Republican budget will raid $13 billion from Social Security. The 
Republican budget will raid $18 billion, $24 billion, $17 billion from 
Social Security.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, here is what actually transpired last year.
  For the first time in 30 years, this Congress stopped the raid on the 
Social Security Trust Fund. So when we hear the rhetoric now that we 
will be raiding Social Security again, remember they said that last 
year and here is what happened. We raided nothing from Social Security. 
In fact, for the first time in my lifetime, for the first time in 30 
years, this Congress in 1999 stopped raiding the Social Security Trust 
Fund.
  If we look at all past years dating back to 1969, the red ink, 
Congress, the President, both parties, I might add, dipped into the 
Social Security Trust Fund. Now, that is what we are offering the 
American people, an extension of this policy, of not raiding the Social 
Security Trust Fund.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and myself will be bringing 
legislation later this year to make sure that never again will Congress 
go back to the days of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, that 
every dime we pay in Social Security taxes will actually go toward 
paying off our national debt and paying back the debt we owe to Social 
Security so Social Security can be a program that is solvent, not just 
for the current generation, but for the baby boomer generation and for 
their children.
  Many things have been talked about regarding what the Democratic plan 
has done for the Social Security solvency of the Social Security Trust 
Fund. The President gave us a plan. Well, here is exactly what the 
President and the Democratic budget does with the Social Security Trust 
Fund. It simply takes a credit card and increases the credit limit. 
What they are doing is putting $300 billion of IOUs into the Social 
Security Trust Fund. It is illusory. It creates the illusion that we 
are going to increase the solvency of Social Security; yet according to 
the GAO, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it does not put 
one more penny into the Social Security Trust Fund. It gives us the 
illusion that we are fixing Social Security when, in actuality, here is 
what they are doing. They are taking the U.S. Government credit card, 
they are taking the limit and they are adding to it.
  They are not changing the income to Social Security. They are simply 
saying, we are saving Social Security, extending solvency from the year 
2034, crossing that out and making it solvent to the year 2050 by 
simply raising the credit limit on the Social Security credit card from 
$7.8 trillion to $28.6 trillion. No new income to Social Security, no 
changes in the Social Security program, just more IOUs into the Social 
Security Trust Fund, which gives the illusion of reform; but what in 
actuality it does is simply raise the credit limit to the Social 
Security credit card. It does nothing to reform Social Security.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important to note, what did 
the President propose this year? Last year the President said, take 38 
percent out of the Social Security Trust Fund, or $52 billion to spend 
on other government programs. This year, the President said, he is in 
favor, he agrees with the Republican Congress that we will stop raiding 
Social Security; but in order for the President's budget to add up, in 
order for the President's budget to work, to stop him from actually 
raiding Social Security, he does this: he takes the estimated surplus; 
then he increases taxes by $96 billion; he increases user fees by $19 
billion; he cuts Medicare, skilled nursing facilities, home health 
agencies, hospitals; he cuts Medicare by $18 billion; and he has fantom 
interest savings of another $17 billion; cuts to Medicare, tax 
increases by $60 billion to keep the President from raiding Social 
Security.

  If Congress, which it wisely will do, I believe, on a bipartisan 
basis, rejects these tax increases and Medicare cuts, then the 
President's budget will have raided Social Security by $60 billion.
  This is what we are dealing with. We are simply trying to take 
rhetoric and divide it with truth. The truth is, this Congress, for the 
first time in a generation, last year actually stopped the raid on the 
Social Security Trust Fund. The other side said that would not be 
possible; the other side said it was not happening, but it did happen.
  This budget attempts to do the same thing and move on to it, for once 
and for all, forever, stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, so 
that when one pays their Social Security taxes, it actually goes to 
Social Security. Pay off our national debt. This budget over the next 5 
years alone pays off $1 trillion in national debt. If people are still 
paying their taxes after we stop the raid on Social Security, after we 
put money back into Medicare for prescription drugs and paid off our 
national debt, if they are still overpaying their taxes, the President 
is proposing to create 84 new government spending programs.
  We are saying no to that. We are saying give hard-working Americans, 
working families their money back, by making the Tax Code more fair and 
simpler if they still overpay their taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Many years ago distinguished legislators, Senator Humphrey and 
Congressman Hawkins, had the Humphrey-Hawkins bill which was to deal 
with unemployment and the right of all Americans to participate in our 
economy and the largest that this country has to offer. We have had 
success. Currently unemployment and inflation are low, and the average 
wages are rising; productivity is growing, and there is cause to 
celebrate. These economic gains were due largely to the policies of the 
last 7 years. But we may have met the numeric targets of Humphrey and 
Hawkins, but we still have a lot to do to meet the overreaching goals 
which the Joint Economic Committee is charged with researching and 
analyzing.
  Despite the prosperity that we have experienced, the average after-
tax income of the wealthiest families grows

[[Page H1324]]

 faster than that for all Americans. Some of my colleagues would like 
to argue that the Tax Code should not be used to redistribute income to 
the poor, and I will buy that; but we should also stop using the Tax 
Code to redistribute income to the rich, such as we have been doing.
  Today, 2 million or 3 million people took home as much after-tax 
income as 100 million people in the lowest 38 percent of our population 
combined. That does not seem right. We have been ignoring these 100 
million people. It has led us to some serious problems.
  As the Republican budget would call for increasing defense $17 
billion above the administration's request and above, in many 
instances, the request of the Defense Department branches themselves, 
this additional $17.5 billion could, indeed, provide Head Start to 2 
million additional children; it could provide child care to 8 million 
additional children; it could provide, in addition, good high-quality 
21st century after-school to close to 35 million additional children. 
Think what we could do for our children if we were willing to forego 
just one new weapons system that indeed the armed forces say they do 
not want.
  In addition to being a budget-buster, this excessive defense spending 
forces us to shift priorities away from feeding and clothing and 
educating children, caring for the sick, the elderly and the poor. The 
Republicans, of course, have a solution to this problem: cut nondefense 
discretionary spending by 6 percent or $115 billion. Where are they 
going to get that money? Well, they are going to cut 310,000 low-income 
women off of WIC just next year. The Republicans will deny child care 
to over 12,000 children of working parents in 2001; they will eliminate 
Head Start services for more than 40,000 children and their families by 
2005; and they are going to cut emergency energy assistance to 164,000 
low-income families.
  Now, that may be compassion, but with compassionate senior-friendly 
friends like that, who needs enemies?
  The Republicans say they set aside money for reforming Medicare, but 
they did not; and as I said before, every Republican on the Committee 
on Ways and Means voted against providing a prescription drug benefit 
to seniors at no cost. This was free.
  Now, I would invite the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), for 
instance, who has a lot of seniors in his district, to explain to the 
seniors. Come to the floor, I say to the gentleman from Florida, and I 
will give him time, and tell the seniors in Florida why he will not 
give them a discount on their prescription drugs such as we get, say, 
for the Veterans' Administration. Or the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) where we have a lot of seniors to come and say why he voted 
against providing a drug benefit to seniors in Arizona, or the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), and why she voted against 
it for seniors in Connecticut, or the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English), why the seniors in Pennsylvania should be hamstrung and have 
to pay twice the reasonable cost for their prescription drugs because 
he voted against a provision to provide a discount to seniors for their 
prescription drugs, and it would have no cost.
  I know the Republicans do not want to spend any money and take it 
away from the tax cuts they want to give to the rich, but why can we 
not help all of the seniors at no cost? I would like any Republican to 
stand up and explain to the seniors of America why they oppose giving 
them a break on their prescription drug benefits. To me, that is not 
compassion, that is indifference and arrogance. The only answer could 
be is that they want to help those pharmaceutical companies, with big 
campaign contributions, to continue to make their outrageous profits on 
the backs of our poor elderly citizens. And to campaign for the White 
House on the basis of compassion with that kind of a record, to me, is 
a travesty; and I am sure that the American people will see through it.

                              {time}  1530

  The Democrats will offer several budgets. We are a broader coalition. 
We include more people. We have more than just rich people in our 
party.
  My colleagues will hear some disagreement, and there will be 
different votes this afternoon. None of the budgets offered will 
increase defense spending, and particularly on unneeded, unwanted 
weapons and, in many cases, weapons that have been proven not to work. 
None of the budgets will cut programs to the needy and the elderly and 
children in our country at the rate the Republicans will.
  This is a priority that we are establishing. This budget tells one 
what one's legislators believe in. Look at it carefully. The Democrats 
believe in helping all Americans in closing the income gap and 
educating our children and providing prescription drug benefits and 
good health care to all Americans.
  The Republicans would give it to the 2 or 3 percent richest people 
and the largest campaign contributors only and let the poor people and 
the innocent children take the hind most. If that is what my colleagues 
want, and there may be some very rich people in the country who want 
it, fine, vote for Republican. But for those of my colleagues who want 
to help our seniors and children and provide education and medical care 
to all Americans, they better support the Democratic budget, because it 
is the humane, decent American thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess I should begin by suggesting to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Stark) that that was about the best political 
speech I ever heard on the floor. I am not sure what it had to do with 
the budget, but it was a great speech anyway.
  The purpose of the Humphrey-Hawkins section of this budget debate is 
to reflect on perhaps what the economy is doing and what it is that the 
Federal Government has done in some way to effect that. I would just 
like to reflect on those thoughts for a few minutes here.
  Mr. Chairman, the performance of the economy in recent years has been 
very, very strong, and I think that all Americans have noted for one 
reason or another, either because they watched job growth, perhaps they 
watched the rate of unemployment fall, or perhaps they have watched 
income go up. But the performance has been strong and people are 
working all across the country. It is very encouraging.
  During the expansion, the Federal Reserve's policy has been gradually 
moving to price stability and has resulted in declines of inflation, 
which is hardly perceptible today, and as a result, lower interest 
rates, and, of course, the lowest unemployment in many decades. Those 
things have happened all at the same time.
  Now, let me repeat, we do not usually hear about low rates of 
inflation, low unemployment, and low interest rates all at the same 
time. That is a very interesting phenomenon, and I think one that we 
ought to say if we have done something collectively to make that happen 
that, maybe, we ought to continue to do the things that made it happen.
  The thrust of this policy has been very successful. Although I have 
some differences with recent explanations of Fed policy overall, over 
the last 2 decades, we have seen very successful economic growth with 
the exception of one 9-month period in 1990, 1991. The health of the 
economic performance has also generated higher than expected revenues 
for the Federal Government.
  As a result, we get to have this discussion today about how we are 
going to spend money over the next fiscal year in the atmosphere of 
surpluses. State and local governments have also enjoyed a fiscal bonus 
from the combination of positive economic trends.
  The benefits of the United States economic growth have also been seen 
outside the country, and this has produced very positive results for 
the citizens of our country as well as citizens of many other 
countries.

  All of this, including the role of Chairman Greenspan, is more or 
less well recognized by most Americans. What is less well known is the 
specific policy framework which the Federal Reserve has used to achieve 
the positive results that I have just described.
  Chairman Greenspan's exceptional leadership of the Fed is associated 
with the framework of policy-making known as inflation targeting. That 
is right. The Fed has had its sites set on

[[Page H1325]]

creating an environment in which low rates of inflation will take 
place.
  As the chairman and I have discussed at previous JEC hearings, the 
Federal Reserve has essentially adopted an informal policy of inflation 
targeting and used it to gradually reduce or squeeze inflation out of 
our economy.
  Now, serious discussion of this policy might be useful to explain 
what the Fed under Chairman Greenspan has done and how it has fostered 
the extraordinary economic expansion we enjoy. Personal judgment and 
wisdom have played an important role, and that, of course, is the 
personal judgment of Chairman Greenspan. But the framework for policy-
making is even more important. The success of Fed policy is a 
combination of several factors, but more understanding is needed about 
the basis of the policy framework itself.
  Formal inflation targets are a narrow range of permissible increases 
in a broad-priced index expressed as annual percentage increases. For 
example, an inflation target could be defined as an increase in a 
retail price index of between, say, zero to 2 percent. We have been 
within that zero to 2 percent on many occasions for the last couple of 
years.
  Price stability improves the operation of the price system and 
promotes economic and efficient growth.
  As noted previously, during this expansion, inflation has been 
reduced, but unemployment has fallen as well. Low employment and low 
inflation, low rates of inflation are mostly unheard of or have been 
mostly unheard of in economic circles until the last decade or possibly 
a little bit longer.
  In addition to its successful monetary policy, recently the Federal 
Reserve has made further strides toward increased transparency. Another 
important factor.
  Perhaps my colleagues have noticed with me, however, that things have 
begun to change just a little. We have had five interest rate increases 
in the last year by the Fed.
  In recent months, the public explanation of Federal policy has 
increasingly tended to shift from trends in price measures to tight 
labor market conditions and excessive economic growth related to GDP. 
In other words, the Fed now appears to be less targeted on inflation 
and more targeted on economic growth and potential GDP growth.
  In other words, the recent explanations of Fed policy are reminiscent 
of the notion of a Phillips curve trade-off, which essentially said 
that good economic growth always causes high rates of inflation. We 
have proven over the last decade that that is false, and, yet, there 
are indications that the Fed is returning to that framework for some 
reason.
  This shift towards the view that solid labor market and economic 
conditions may increase the potential for inflation seems to be 
associated with the changing composition of the Federal Reserve Board. 
As new members have come on board, things have begun to change.
  Although Chairman Greenspan has relatively new colleagues on the 
board that seem to have a somewhat Keynesian perspective, I hope he is 
able to avoid the mistakes that this point of view is prone to produce.
  I hope that we will be able to continue on the path that we have, 
which has produced this budget situation where we can debate this 
budget in terms of a surplus rather than the deficits that persisted 
for so many years.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
motion to rise offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245, 
noes 165, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 69]

                               AYES--245

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--165

     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Ackerman
     Archer
     Bonior
     Crane
     DeMint
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Forbes
     Greenwood
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lowey
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHugh
     Murtha
     Pallone
     Quinn
     Royce
     Schakowsky
     Thomas
     Vento

[[Page H1326]]



                              {time}  1601

  Messrs. FATTAH, PASCRELL, and MORAN of Virginia changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PICKERING, HILLEARY, LEWIS of Kentucky, LIPINSKI, 
BLAGOJEVICH, BALDACCI, BONILLA, COSTELLO, LARGENT, KILDEE, and Mrs. 
ROUKEMA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. OXLEY changed his vote from ``present'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman pro tempore 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con.Res. 290) establishing the congressional budget for 
the United States Government for fiscal year 2001, revising the 
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 
2000, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal 
years 2002 through 2005, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________