[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 34 (Thursday, March 23, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1330-H1402]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). 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 further consideration of 
the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 290.

                              {time}  1655


                     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 further consideration of 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 290) with Mr. LaHood (Chairman 
pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose 
earlier today, 40 minutes of debate remained on the subject of economic 
goals and policies.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) has 17\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has 22\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before we were delayed for the proceedings that just 
concluded, I was involved with the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Stark) in carrying out the statutory rights that we have as members of 
the Joint Economic Committee to discuss the budget in the context of 
our economy and the various aspects of the economy that may have 
something to do with policies of our government.
  I would like to turn to another subject. I discussed Fed policy at 
some length earlier, and I would like to spend a few minutes discussing 
one other set of issues that had to do with the potential effect of 
high oil prices on the economy as we move forward.
  As I said before, overall economic conditions are strong. Rising oil 
prices and gasoline prices are one of several economic issues, however, 
that concerns millions of Americans.
  This week Energy Secretary Richardson began a trip to OPEC nations to 
try to convince them to lower sky-high oil and gas prices. I believe 
the administration should release some oil from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, like several other Members do, but there is another source of 
pressure also available to help American consumers.
  A review of the situation reveals that U.S. taxpayer dollars are 
being provided to nations involved with the OPEC conspiracy to raise 
oil and gas prices. Consumers across America are outraged when they 
pull up to the pump and view each day or each week the rapid price 
increase in home heating fuel and gasoline prices over the last few 
months. In the section of the country where I live, that is the 
Northeast, I am from New Jersey, of course, we are especially hard hit 
because of our dependence on home heating oil.
  OPEC's supply restrictions are a primary reason for these price 
hikes, I think all Americans know that today, and many Americans are 
justifiably angry at the oil producing nations and their allies. These 
citizens would be even more angry if they knew their hard-earned tax 
dollars were being funneled to key oil producing nations by the United 
States Government. That is right, billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are 
being funneled to oil producers such as Algeria, Venezuela, Indonesia, 
and Mexico. These U.S. resources are first contributed to the 
international monetary fund, the IMF, and then lent to various nations 
at cut-rate rates.
  The oil producers are now borrowing from the IMF at interest rates of 
about 4.7 percent, much lower interest rates than typical taxpayers can 
get on their home or their car or their credit card loans. Interest 
rates this low do not make any economic sense. Subsidies are being 
provided by taxpayers, our constituents, to these borrowing nations who 
are Members of OPEC who are forcing up the price of petroleum.
  Many argue that this is a way to provide foreign aid or to promote 
U.S. interests. However, the IMF is not supposed to be an aid agency, 
and much of its activity does not reflect U.S. interests. Only a year 
ago I had to act to force the IMF to stop a planned mission to Iraq, 
another oil producing Nation that is also an enemy and on the U.S. list 
of states that sponsor terrorism.

                              {time}  1700

  If taxpayer subsidies to several of the oil-producing nations cause 
them to argue against OPEC supply reductions, this would be consistent 
with the argument that U.S. subsidies to the IMF and its borrowers were 
in our Nation's best interest. However, this is not the case. These oil 
producers cooperate with OPEC even after receiving IMF loans. In other 
words, they take our money and act against us anyway. In fact, at least 
four of these oil-producing nations have been among the most active 
borrowers of the IMF over the last 2 decades. One of these, of course, 
is Algeria, traditionally one of the hard-line price hawks in OPEC.
  I am currently drafting legislation to address this situation, and I 
hope to have the grand support of Members from both sides of the aisle. 
We will address the situation by exerting pressure on oil-producing 
nations that are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers through the IMF. The U.S. 
Government should tell these countries in no uncertain terms that past 
aid extended through the IMF demands reciprocity now. The perpetual IMF 
borrowers should be reminded that the U.S. is the largest single source 
of IMF funds and that the U.S. will not support continued IMF borrowing 
by unfriendly nations. The U.S. Government, including the U.S. 
representative on the executive board of the IMF, should pressure oil-
borrowing producers to undercut the OPEC cartel and let market forces 
lower oil prices. U.S. taxpayers are under no obligation, Mr. Chairman, 
to subsidize OPEC or its allies as they conspire to keep oil prices 
high.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair will remind all 
Members to remove charts and exhibits from the well of the House when 
they are not being utilized in debate. The point is, if Members are not 
utilizing these, they should not be exhibited. When the Members come to 
the well, they can use them; but when they are not in the well, they 
should be removed.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).

[[Page H1331]]

  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, may I respond to the Speaker's comment 
before we go on?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman has 3 minutes. He may 
proceed.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I was the next speaker and had these charts 
up earlier, and I am the next speaker now, and that is why they are on 
the floor, in answer to the Chairman's announcement.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will remind all Members to remove 
charts and exhibits from the well of the House when they are not being 
utilized in debate.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, we are embarked on a very important exercise 
this week, the adoption of the House budget resolution. I think that it 
is well that we keep in mind the state of our Nation's economy and the 
state of the Nation's debt as we proceed. So as a member of the Joint 
Economic Committee, I would like to review these matters in the context 
of the budget.
  First, with respect to the debt, the United States currently has a 
debt of about $5.7 trillion, about $21,000 for every man, woman, and 
child in this country. And we can see, Mr. Chairman, how this debt has 
mushroomed since 1980. It has increased over five-fold, 570 percent, in 
fact, in a period of 20 years.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, the previous person to address the House reminded 
us that we have seen good economic times. I would point out that during 
these good economic times we built the economy or strengthened it, if 
you will, on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. Now that 
we finally have an era when a balanced budget is possible, I think it 
is very important not to forget that even with a balanced budget, we 
still have $5.7 trillion of debt.
  Balancing the budget in the year 2000 in no way wipes out the 
enormous size of this debt. Our first obligation, I submit, as we move 
ahead is to make sure that we responsibly use this surplus to pay down 
on this debt. We cannot say that we are doing that if we simply respect 
the integrity of the Social Security program. Yes, it may reduce some 
of this red ink in terms of what we owe to private investors or foreign 
investors in American bonds, but in no way does it diminish the debt 
that we owe all together. I submit that what we owe to the Social 
Security program is just as much debt as anything else that we owe.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that my Republican colleagues like to try to 
paint over this with a happy scenario and neglect to explain that even 
with the 5-year projections that they have for their budget, that the 
size of the U.S. debt grows, let me emphasize that, that over the next 
5 years, the size of the United States debt will grow to $5.9 trillion. 
This, I submit, is unconscionable. In a period of surplus, we ought to 
be reducing the debt that we owe, not seeing it expand to $5.9 
trillion.
  We have several different budget proposals that will be voted on this 
evening. I would like to point out the differences between three of 
them. This is how much is devoted to debt reduction over the next 10 
years; that is, how much smaller will our debt be. The debt, 
unfortunately, will not shrink with the Republican proposal; it will 
shrink with the Democratic proposal, and it will shrink more 
dramatically with the Blue Dog Coalition proposal.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I sat in my office and I was listening to some of the 
debate today. I was meeting with different constituents, all coming up 
to ask for different things because of needs that they have, and I was 
somewhat astonished that we kept hearing about how only the Republican 
Congress put this national government back into surpluses. Well, I 
quite frankly do not agree with that. I just have to voice my opinion 
about that. I think that is just a real stretch here.
  However, I do want to say that I will not vote for the Republican 
budget resolution and will support the Democratic alternative for lots 
of reasons. Yesterday on this floor I talked about renewable resources 
for gas so that we could go on with solar energy, wind, biomass; and I 
think that is an absolute necessity for this country. I think the 
veterans' mail order plan is absolutely something that has to be done, 
something that I have looked at and actually introduced. I think the 
extension of Social Security for 15 years, the Republican plan, does 
nothing in that area, Medicare by 10 years, and then the long-term tax 
credit for caregivers, and then also in education, reducing class size, 
renovation of schools, Pell grants, Head Start; we can go on and on. 
And as importantly as all of these expenditures are, so is paying down 
the debt.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons I come here today is to talk about 
an issue that I think has become a national interest; and obviously, it 
has caught people's attention, because everybody wants to talk about it 
now, and that is prescription drugs. Last year my colleagues and I on 
the Committee on Ways and Means actually offered a no-cost program to 
this country to have a prescription drug plan that would have cut the 
benefit or to have cut the actual drug cost in half. It was denied. We 
never even had the chance to talk about it last year.
  Now, we have $40 billion in the Democratic budget, which I think is 
tied to a prescription drug benefit; and my understanding is that on 
the Republican side they have $40 billion reserve fund for an undefined 
prescription drug benefit and defined only if Medicare reform happens. 
If Medicare reform happens, as I know some on the other side would like 
to have, it changes how we see Medicare in this country. It actually 
potentially puts us in a voucher system, some people like to call it 
premium support.
  So I cannot support something that is tied. Why, why are we going to 
hold our seniors hostage, hostage to Medicare reform to get a 
prescription drug benefit? Let us face it. We give them in the 
hospitals through health care already prescription drugs to make them 
better. We get them stabilized, we do everything that we possibly can, 
and then we send them home and we do nothing.
  So please support the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee 
on which I serve.
  The purpose of this Humphrey-Hawkins debate here is to talk about the 
law and how it relates to the Federal Government; and for educational 
purposes, the Humphrey-Hawkins law is the law that governs the Federal 
Reserve. We are here to talk about how these laws impact our economy.
  The chairman of the Federal Reserve, in multiple testimony to 
Congress in both the House and the Senate, has said, and this is a 
quote from the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, January 
26, 2000, testifying before the Senate Banking Committee. Chairman 
Greenspan said,

       My first priority would be to allow as much of the surplus 
     to flow through and into a reduction of the debt to the 
     public. If that proves politically unfeasible, I would opt 
     for cutting taxes, and under no conditions do I see any room 
     in the longer term outlook for major changes in expenditures.

  Let us review what we are trying to accomplish in this budget. What 
we have accomplished just in the last few years alone is an 
unprecedented level of debt reduction, following Chairman Greenspan's 
advice. In 1998 we paid $51 billion off on the Federal debt. In 1999, 
$88 billion paid toward reducing the Federal debt. In the year 2000, 
this year alone, we are dedicating $163 billion toward reducing the 
national debt held by the public; and next year as we project, we will 
be dedicating $170 billion to reducing the public debt, for a grand 
total of paying off the Federal debt held by the public to zero in 12 
years.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget we are considering before us today is the 
most sweeping document this body has ever agreed to in a generation. 
We, for the first time in a generation, are stopping the raid on the 
Social Security Trust Fund.

[[Page H1332]]

  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and I plan to bring legislation 
to the floor of Congress which says no longer can Congress ever go back 
to the days of dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund. We are 
going to use those surpluses to pay off the debt held by the public. In 
the first 5 years alone in this budget, we will pay off $1 trillion of 
debt. We will bring our public debt from $3.5 trillion down to $2.4 
trillion in the next 5 years alone. This is what fiscal responsibility 
is all about. This is what we are achieving in this budget resolution 
we are having here. This is what Chairman Alan Greenspan is telling us 
to do.
  Remember what he said after we get the debt paid off. He said, after 
you pay off the public debt, reduce taxes. Under no conditions spend 
more money.
  So here is what we are doing. The priorities of this budget are 
basically this: first, stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. 
Second, pay off the national debt. And as we pay off the national debt, 
if taxpayers are still overpaying their taxes, give them their money 
back, rather than spend it on new programs in Washington. That is the 
division here.
  What are we trying to do by giving people their money back after 
paying off the debt, after stopping the raid on Social Security? We are 
doing this: we are ending the marriage tax penalty so that those who 
are married do not have to pay taxes just for being married. We are 
repealing the Social Security earnings limit so seniors who want to go 
back into the workforce are not penalized by losing some of their 
Social Security benefit simply for trying to supplement their insurance 
income. We are reducing the death tax, so that small business owners, 
family farmers, can pass their businesses, their farms on to the next 
generation without the Government taking it away from them. We are 
expanding educational savings accounts so parents can pay for sending 
their children to schools, to private schools, to public schools, to 
college, to vocational technical colleges. We are increasing health 
care deductibility for the self-employed. For people who, if they do 
not get health insurance from their job, we are saying, you should be 
able to write your premiums off of your income taxes just like any 
other corporation can do.

                              {time}  1715

  We are providing tax breaks for poor communities to revive those 
urban, inner-city areas that are in despair that need a help on that 
rung of the economic ladder where they are at the bottom.
  We are trying to strengthen pension plans so that workers who are 
changing jobs in a rapidly changing economy can bring their pensions 
with them as they change those jobs without fear of tax taking away 
their pensions, without fear of losing some of their pension when they 
change their jobs. This is the priority spelled out in this budget.
  Mr. Chairman, the responsible budget is the Republican budget and a 
budget that pays off debt and lets people keep more of their own hard 
working money in the Republican budget.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Thurman) just pointed out, we offered the Republican majority an 
opportunity in the Committee on Ways and Means last fall in the 
Thurman-Doggett proposal to deal with this problem of prescriptions for 
our seniors. It was soundly rejected, as it is in this resolution.
  Instead of addressing the price discrimination that our seniors face 
where, in Travis County, for example, on the five most commonly used 
drugs, those seniors who do not have insurance are paying 136 percent 
more than the most favored customers of the pharmaceutical industry, 
instead of addressing that discrimination which could be done for very 
little no cost to the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry's 
best friends in this Congress are blocking action.
  What do they offer in this proposal as an alternative? A new welfare 
program. I can tell my colleagues that our seniors do not need another 
welfare program. What they need is an end to the discrimination that 
the pharmaceutical industry, backed by its many Republican supporters 
in this Congress, cause our American seniors to face with reference to 
getting the essentials for their health care.
  But of course there is a medicinal aspect to this resolution. One can 
almost see in this resolution, coming out of the Old West, a 
dilapidated wagon with a banner that promises ``better health, restored 
youth, quality schools, more of one's money in one's pocket,'' this is 
the old time medicine man with ``tax cut elixir,'' the same old snake 
oil that pours out here every spring. We seem to have spring ritual, 
rite of spring in this House with this medicine man coming along most 
every year. It does not make any difference what the season is 
economically or the reason politically, there is always a tax cut for 
every need of this country. The same elixir that is offered every year 
at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, they used to say, how do you spell relief? T-U-M-S. Now 
it is ``tax relief.'' What kind of tax relief does the ordinary 
American citizen get? Not much from this Congress.
  We had the so-called ``marriage penalty relief.'' I do not know if my 
colleagues have noticed, but our Republican leadership devotes a lot 
more energy to the titles they put on their bills than what is in them. 
What did the marriage tax penalty bill do? Well, it gave most of its 
relief to people that do not incur any marriage tax penalty.
  Yesterday, in committee, we considered the educational savings 
account that is to allow people to send their kids to elite private 
academies. It is not the kind of tax relief that benefits most American 
families. I believe in reasonable tax relief but it must be 
accomplished in a fiscally responsible way. And this resolution fails 
to do that.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on 
each side.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Saxton) has 7 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Stark) has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the Committee on Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me that 
skimpy amount of time, but I will try to do it in that time.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just talk for just a few minutes about the 
economic condition of our country. I wanted to say that it is amazing 
the prosperity that we are experiencing and continue to experience, 
with many Americans every day getting up and watching the market, 
reading the economic reports with disbelief.
  I do not think this is just a wild happenstance that we have seen 
such economic growth and such economic progress. Number one, we have 
revived our tradition of free trade. When nations are able to trade 
across borders, it brings prosperity to everyone. That does not mean 
trade should supplant all values. But it does mean that the fundamental 
policy of free trade will lift all boats, as my friend Jack Kemp likes 
to say. He stole that, by the way, from John Kennedy. A free trade 
will, in fact, rise all boats.
  Secondly, of course, we have had new markets. With the fall of the 
Berlin Wall and with the ability to trade in many parts of the world 
that we could not trade before, we have been able to, not only 
experience and promote free trade, but we have been able to practice it 
with more opportunity because more nations can avail themselves of a 
unique opportunity to practice free enterprise and free markets and 
free trade.
  We also have had a policy of sound money. Obviously Alan Greenspan 
deserves a lot of the credit. But all of the Fed Board, and, frankly, 
even I will give credit today to Robert Rubin, the former Treasury 
Secretary, I think they always pursued the policy of sound money, which 
allowed this Nation and the Fed to pursue a policy of low interest 
rates, which has driven economic growth.
  I also believe that the House, the Senate, and the President deserves 
a great amount of credit for the 1997 budget agreement, for our 
vigilance in wanting to keep government growth at a low rate to provide 
continual tax cuts to reduce some of the public debt.
  But also, of course, has been the development of new technologies. We 
are

[[Page H1333]]

on the edge of what is a remarkable revolution. It comes about every 
hundred years. How do we recognize it? We recognize it because 
industries grow off the major growth industries in these kinds of 
periods.
  What we are seeing in biotech and with the communications and with 
all the information technologies is an amazing development of a new 
revolution that is driving the essential part of economic growth, which 
is greater productivity, the ability of people in the same amount of 
time with the same amount of resources to produce more.
  With growing productivity, we begin to dampen the threat of inflation 
because we eliminate the bottlenecks. Increased productivity means more 
income for more workers, and it means more supply. When supply is 
consistent with demand and meets the wage growth, we lose the prospects 
of inflation.
  Let me just give my colleagues a warning and a suggestion that I 
think the House ought to consider. We need to keep the incentives in 
place. We need to cut capital gains. Frankly, I think we ought to zero 
out the capital gains tax because we want people to have incentives to 
invest, risk take, and build this economy.
  Secondly, we should do nothing destructive that damages this new 
economy. I want to applaud the commission that just met in Dallas for 
agreeing to extend the no tax of the Internet until at least 2006. We 
have obviously got to continue to promote free trade in the world.
  In addition, the legal system in this country needs significant 
reform. We need a loser pays legal system with limits on the 
liabilities, the punitive damages that are strangling, not only 
medicine, education, all businesses in America, it is choking us, and 
it holds us back from even stronger economic growth.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, we also need to have a school choice program 
in America where mothers and fathers can send their kids to the best 
educational settings. With all those, I believe we can continue to 
grow.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt) a member of the Committee on Budget.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues review 
carefully the Republicans' budget, it really appears to be a massive 
shell game. They would have us believe that they can deliver massive 
tax cuts, extend the life of Social Security and Medicare, eliminate 
every dime of public debt, increase defense spending by massive 
amounts, not reduce other domestic programs, give prescription drug 
benefits. They sound like they used to accuse the Democratic Party of 
being, everything for everybody.
  The problem is that the numbers system do not add up. There is not 
enough money to do all of this. So what one then has to do is figure 
out now what is their top priority, what will it be under all 
circumstances, regardless of what happens; and that is reducing taxes 
by unreasonable and massive amounts.
  Now, what did Alan Greenspan say about this? One of the previous 
speakers put his quote up, and he said we ought to be paying down the 
debt. I was at the hearing where he testified, and he said we should 
not be giving tax cuts before we pay down the debt. That is the highest 
priority we have, paying down the debt. That is what is going to keep 
our economy moving and sustain the economy moving in the direction that 
it is going now.
  Yet, do they put that at the top of the priority list? No. They put 
massive tax cuts ahead of paying down the debt. They want to be 
everything to everybody in this equation.
  Mr. Chairman, when we look at the number of dollars that are 
projected in surplus, the money is simply not there to do all this. We 
should reject the Republican budget and pass some of the alternative 
budgets.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, last week, House Republicans held a press conference to 
announce that their budget would include $40 billion to help low-income 
elderly pay for their prescription drugs. Today the House Republicans 
present their budget. But they have already abandoned last week's $40 
billion promise. The Republican budget contains no funds specifically 
reserved for a prescription drug benefit.
  Instead, the resolution allows the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to allocate up to $40 billion of the non-Social Security surplus 
if a bill that reforms Medicare also provides coverage for prescription 
drugs. This is a separate reserve fund. If they did not create a 
separate reserve fund, their budget would have a deficit.
  Furthermore, their prescription drug reserve is contingent upon a 
plan to reform the entire Medicare program by turning it over to HMOs. 
That is a nonstarter.
  In short, to make room for huge tax cuts for the wealthy, they have 
abandoned seniors who are trying to stretch their Social Security 
checks and modest pensions to cover both food and medicine. It is 
wrong, and this budget should be rejected.
  Our seniors do not need empty promises. They need relief now. They 
are 12 percent of the population, but they use one-third of all 
prescription drugs. We have done studies which show that, on average, 
seniors pay twice as much for their medications as the drug companies' 
best customers, the HMOs, the hospitals, and the Federal Government. 
They pay more than consumers in Canada or Mexico or anywhere else in 
the world.
  Seniors need action now. They do not get it in the Republican budget. 
They need a universal prescription drug benefit under Medicare and an 
end to pharmaceutical company price discrimination. The Democratic 
budget has $40 billion committed to those goals, and the Republican 
budget does not.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, here we are today debating the budget, which is the 
most important work that we have to do as Members of Congress. Our 
national budget should be a statement of our national values. We should 
spend our money on what is important to us. But it is hard to see how 
the Republican budget, the risky, irresponsible Republican budget is a 
statement of the values of the American people.
  The differences between the two parties have been highlighted for us 
once again in today's debate on the budget resolution. While the 
Democrats fight for a budget that protects middle class values, extends 
the life of Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and enables 
families to meet their responsibilities at home and at work, the 
Republicans again have sacrificed fiscal responsibility for large and 
risky tax breaks.
  Is it a statement of our national values to give a $200 million tax 
break to the wealthiest over the next 5 years while cutting $114 
billion in domestic initiatives for education, health care, and the 
environment? -

                              {time}  1730

  This downpayment that Republicans are making on the trillion dollar 
tax scheme proposed by candidate George W. Bush will result in 750,000 
fewer women receiving WIC benefits, and that applies to women, infants, 
and children; 316,000 fewer Pell Grants; and 1,100 fewer FBI agents.
  Is it a statement of our national values to give a Republican tax 
break over the next 10 years which will utilize all of the resources 
needed to pay down the debt, strengthen the Social Security and 
Medicare trust funds, and fund priority investments like education, 
child care and law enforcement?
  We know that trading health care, education, and law enforcement for 
tax cuts does not match the priorities of many American people. It is 
not a statement of our national values and should be rejected by this 
House of Representatives.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the House 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services, 
I

[[Page H1334]]

rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by my dear friend 
and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  All Members who believe that we owe our military service members and 
their family members access to quality health care should support the 
substitute amendment being offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina. The budget being proposed by the gentleman from South 
Carolina upholds the commitment to our armed forces personnel, 
particularly our military retirees who were promised health care in 
return for service to this great Nation.
  I support the Democratic budget amendment because it embodies the 
spirit of H.R. 3655, a bill I introduced along with the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the House Committee on 
Armed Services, and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), to 
improve health care services for our Nation's service members, 
retirees, and their dependents.
  I regret deeply that the Committee on the Budget failed to 
incorporate necessary authority for the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel, enabling us to complete that which should be a bipartisan 
task. I have high regard for the commitment of the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer) on these issues. Last year's success on efforts 
regarding pay, promotion, and benefits in the context of recruitment, 
retention, and retirement demonstrated what can be done when we set 
aside partisan considerations. I intend to continue to work with the 
chairman to accomplish these goals.
  But absent the Committee on the Budget preparing us for this, we have 
to go with the Democratic substitute in order to have our military 
retirees, our existing active duty members and their families receive 
the kind of health care that they have been promised. Our active duty 
troops and their families are having difficulty with access to military 
health care systems.
  The budget alternative before us today would allow for the 
elimination of copays for active duty personnel and their families who 
are in the TRICARE Prime program. The amendment also increases access 
to health care.
  Currently, families that receive care at a military treatment 
facility pay no co-payments. However, families that are not fortunate 
to live near a military treatment facility and use civilian health care 
providers in the TRICARE PRIME system must pay co-pays. This is not 
fair.
  The amendment also increases access to health care for our military 
family members who are often living in remote, rural areas by expanding 
the TRICARE Prime Remote program. These families are doing some of the 
hardest duty in the military. We should ensure that these families are 
cared for, which means that they should not have to drive hundreds of 
miles to receive health care for which they are entitled. Their ability 
to access health care services is just as important.
  Mr. Chairman, as our honored retired service members continue to age, 
their need for access to quality health care continues to grow. Today, 
thousands of our military retirees and their families are often going 
without the necessary medical care that they need and deserve because 
they have been shut out of the military health care system.
  As you may know, under the current program, military retirees who 
reach the age of 65 are forced out of the TRICARE Program and receive 
their health care services through Medicare. For many of these retirees 
who were promised access to military health care for their lifetime, 
this has been a broken promise of their faith. Many of these retirees 
and their families were led to believe that they would have access to 
military health care services if they made a career of serving their 
nation.
  Unfortunately, as the Department of Defense has drawn down and a 
number of military hospitals and clinics continue to close, space-
available care remains elusive for most retirees. For these Medicare-
eligible retirees, many of who are living on a fixed income, the 
prospects of costly medical care and high-priced pharmaceuticals is a 
scary proposition.
  The alternative budget proposal before us today would allow us to 
restore the necessary access to quality health care for military 
retirees over age 65 and their families. The amendment includes a 
provision that would incorporate the expansion of the TRICARE Senior 
Prime program, more commonly known as Medicare Subvention. This three-
year demonstration program, which will be completed at the end of the 
year, has been well received by the over 65 retirees. Expansion of this 
program within the Department of Defense will help a number of military 
retirees who live near military treatment facilities.
  For those who may not live near a military treatment facility, the 
budget proposal includes funding to expand the current pharmacy 
benefits. Pharmacy costs for these individuals are often the largest 
share of health care spending. The average retiree over age 65 spends 
approximately $620 for prescriptions. For a retired enlisted 
noncommissioned officer and his family, pharmacy costs can sometimes be 
nearly 50 percent of their monthly income. Often these families are 
placed in a difficult and traumatic position of choosing between 
whether to purchase their prescription drugs or food on their table.
  The substitute amendment before us today will improve access to the 
TRICARE program and enhance access to care for military retirees. I 
hope that my colleagues will support the Spratt budget amendment and 
uphold our moral obligation to provide for the health care of our 
nation's Armed Forces.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget returns to its old ways. The 
budget that is being offered to us ignores the wishes of the American 
public and caters to special interests. I would have thought the 
Republicans would have learned; but they did not, and they are back at 
it again.
  The Republican leadership is offering a budget that fails to extend 
the life of Social Security and Medicare, that recklessly cuts taxes 
and squanders the surplus we have worked so hard to gain for the 
American public. At the same time, they are cutting Head Start and 
telling 40,000 children and their parents that they cannot participate 
in this very valuable program. They cut millions of funding from child 
care, even though families are having a more difficult time finding 
quality care for their children as more and more Americans find a place 
in the American work force for the sustainability of their families.
  They make empty promises about fully funding special education, but 
they do so without providing the necessary funds to achieve that goal. 
They freeze higher education and training funds and cut the purchasing 
power by 9 percent over 5 years. That means that they deny Pell Grants 
to 316,000 students who desperately need that assistance to go on to 
higher education so they can participate in the American economy.
  They fail to make the needed investments to fix crumbling and 
overcrowded schools. They fail to invest in boosting the skills and the 
knowledge of teachers while continuing to funnel money into scores of 
wasteful programs and dozens of tax loopholes that benefit those who 
least need it.
  We, on the other hand, are offering a substitute and a clear 
alternative, a budget that supports millions of hard-working families; 
that protects Social Security and Medicare; that provides better care 
and real prescription drug coverage for all of our Nation's seniors 
with dedicated funds to do so; and that would direct sorely needed 
support to our schools, provide the resources necessary to help our 
children reach their highest academic potential.
  When it comes to special education, we put our money where the 
Republicans' mouths are because we provide $4.8 billion more in our 
plan. We should support the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost).
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, it has been almost comical to watch 
Republican Member after Republican Member come to the floor today and 
read the same talking points off the same blue chart. Well, Mr. 
Chairman, in politics as in life, talk is cheap.
  I was reminded of this fact earlier this week when I had the pleasure 
of speaking with a group of high school students. One of their major 
concerns, as we can all imagine, is the future of Social Security and 
Medicare. I remembered that the Republican talking points called this 
GOP budget ``senior friendly,'' Mr. Chairman. But these

[[Page H1335]]

students wanted the facts, and the fact is that this Republican budget 
would have us spending the Social Security surplus in 4 years.
  The fact is that this budget does not devote a single dime to 
extending the life of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Mr. 
Chairman, under the Republican budget, the Social Security Trust Fund 
would be insolvent just about the time these 17 and 18 year olds that I 
spoke to this week reach retirement age.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to issue a statement in response and 
in disagreement with the position of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie) that only the Democrats' budget has a response to military 
health care. That is false.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, may I ask what the remaining time is?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Each side has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. STARK. And the majority closes; is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct, the majority closes.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ 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, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, there have been a lot of comments made on the floor, 
particularly by the majority, about how they have come around to not 
spending any of the Social Security surplus. I think in our debate we 
have made it clear if their budget is fully implemented, if they really 
do make the cuts in discretionary spending, the 11 percent real cuts 
they talk about, even with their huge tax cut they will still spend 
part of the Social Security surplus.
  But I think history is an even better guide, and there are two points 
of history that I will bring up. One is that back in 1998 the 
Republicans brought their budget to the floor, which cut into the 
Social Security surplus, spent the Social Security surplus as part of 
their tax cut. They made the argument then that they were going to 
preserve 80 percent of the Social Security surplus, but they were going 
to spend 20 percent for a tax cut.
  The second point of history that I think needs to be made clear is 
that since the Republicans have been in control of the Congress, and 
this is the whole time I have been here, the rate of spending, for 
nondefense discretionary spending, has gone up above the rate of 
inflation. As such, it would be hard to make the case that the 
Republican majority this year is going to actually cut nondefense 
discretionary spending by 6 percent and by 2003 by 11 percent.
  Now, they may pursue that, and they may tell us they are going to do 
that; but history is working against them. So I think the protestations 
that they are not cutting into the Social Security surplus are rather 
hollow.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) to close the debate for us.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) is recognized 
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking Democrat on the House 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise in strong support for the 
substitute budget resolution offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking Democratic Member of the House 
Committee on the Budget.
  The Spratt budget resolution is a strong pro-veteran proposal that 
deserves the support of every Member of this body. It provides more 
discretionary spending in fiscal year 2001 for the Department of 
Veterans Affairs than either the budget proposed by the President or 
the budget resolution reported by the committee. With these additional 
funds, VA can better meet the medical needs of our Nation's aging 
veteran population.
  Specifically, for fiscal year 2001, the Spratt alternative provides 
$22.3 billion in appropriations for veterans' programs, $100 million 
more than the Republican plan and $200 million more than the 
President's plan. Over 5 years, 2001 through 2005, the Spratt 
alternative provides $1 billion more than the Republican proposal for 
veterans' medical care.
  Significantly, the Spratt proposal also increases the monthly GI bill 
benefit, which is mandatory spending. This increase in the educational 
benefit for veterans who have honorably served our Nation in uniform is 
clearly needed and long overdue.
  This increase proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) is an important first step in restoring our commitment to 
providing veterans a readjustment benefit for education which is worthy 
of their sacrifices to this country. Under this proposal, the basic 
educational benefit for veterans will increase from the current $535 a 
month for 36 months to nearly $700 a month.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting debate; but I would like 
to remind the last string of 1\1/2\ minute or 2-minute speakers on the 
other side that the purpose of the Humphrey-Hawkins discussion is to 
talk about the Federal Government and the potential effect the Fed has 
on the economy and the potential effect that our government has on the 
economy.
  Let me make five points, five reasons why the economy is doing good. 
And maybe some people will feel good about it, I hope they will, 
because we have done some things right around here, both Republicans 
and Democrats, Members of the House and the administration.
  I already talked about point number one. Lower inflation actually 
improves growth. And the Federal Reserve has gone out of its way to 
target inflation. It has brought interest rates down along with 
inflation and that has provided a lift for our economy.
  Number two. Government spending has actually fallen as a percentage 
of GDP. This is an important point. As a matter of fact, in 1992, our 
government spent 22 percent of our GDP. Today, we spend 19.5 percent of 
our GDP. And members of the Committee on the Budget, led by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), should say a cheer for themselves for 
that point.
  Number three. Lower tax rates remain in place. In spite of the 
hyperbole coming from the other side about Republicans that want to the 
cut taxes, marginal rates are still lower than they were in the 1960s, 
the 1970s, or the 1980s; and it is a primary factor in helping us lift 
the economy.
  Number four. Investment has worked to expand capacity, particularly 
technological change, which has increased productivity. American 
workers today produce more per man-hour and woman-hour than ever before 
because of the technological changes that have taken place, another 
important factor in improving our economy.
  Finally, global competition and freer trade have fostered growth. As 
we have opened markets around the world, as we have encouraged exports 
to take place, we have opened those new markets and created new 
opportunities for businesses all across our country and, therefore, 
opportunities for workers all across our country, another major boost 
to our economy.

                              {time}  1745

  So, Mr. Chairman, when speaker after speaker gets up on the other 
side, they are ignoring the facts, they are ignoring the progress that 
we have made in terms of spending, in terms of taxing, in terms of 
fighting inflation. All of these are important factors that need to be 
discussed.
  So I am pleased to have had the opportunity to close, Mr. Chairman, 
to make these points.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in Part A of House Report 106-535 is considered as an original 
concurrent resolution for the purpose of amendment and is considered 
read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 290

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),

[[Page H1336]]

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2001.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2000 is hereby revised and replaced 
     and that this is the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2001 and that the appropriate budgetary levels 
     for fiscal years 2002 through 2005 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2005:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,465,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,504,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,549,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,598,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,650,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,719,100,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       Fiscal year 2001: $10,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $22,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $31,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $42,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $45,000,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,478,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,524,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,557,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,603,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,653,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,712,200,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,460,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,490,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,536,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,581,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,630,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,689,200,000,000.
       (4) Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $5,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $14,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $12,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $16,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $20,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $29,900,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $5,640,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $5,710,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $5,787,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $5,869,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $5,944,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $6,007,800,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2005 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $306,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $297,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $309,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $302,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $315,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $309,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $323,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $317,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $331,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $328,100,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,800,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,500,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$900,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,100,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,200,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,600,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,100,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,800,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,200,000,000.

[[Page H1337]]

       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,200,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $159,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $152,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $169,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $167,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $179,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $177,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $191,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $190,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $205,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $205,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $221,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $220,300,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $199,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $199,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $215,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $216,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $221,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $221,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $239,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $255,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $278,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $278,700,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $238,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $248,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $252,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $254,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $263,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $272,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $273,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $283,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $294,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $295,900,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,900,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,100,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       ew budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $284,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $284,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $288,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $290,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $290,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $285,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $280,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $280,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $275,400,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$8,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,300,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$34,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$34,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$41,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$40,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$40,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$39,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$39,200,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Legislation Providing $150 Billion in Tax Relief Over a 
     5-Year Period.--The House Committee on Ways and Means shall 
     report to the House a reconciliation bill--
       (1) not later than May 26, 2000;
       (2) not later than June 23, 2000;
       (3) not later than July 28, 2000; and
       (4) not later than September 22, 2000;
     that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the total level of revenues by not more 
     than: $10,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and 
     $150,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2001 through 
     2005.
       (b) Submissions Regarding Debt Held by the Public.--The 
     House Committee on Ways and Means shall report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill--
       (1) not later than May 26, 2000, that consists of changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the debt 
     held by the public by $10,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; 
     and
       (2) not later than September 22, 2000, that consists of 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the debt held by the public by not more than $20,000,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2001.

     SEC. 5. LOCK-BOX FOR SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the social 
     security trust funds are off-budget for purposes of the 
     President's budget submission and the concurrent resolution 
     on the budget;
       (2) the social security trust funds have been running 
     surpluses for 17 years;
       (3) these surpluses have been used to implicitly finance 
     the general operations of the Federal Government;
       (4) in fiscal year 2001, the social security surplus will 
     be $166 billion;
       (5) this resolution balances the Federal budget without 
     counting the social security surpluses;
       (6) the only way to ensure that social security surpluses 
     are not diverted for other purposes is to balance the budget 
     exclusive of such surpluses; and
       (7) Congress and the President should take such steps as 
     are necessary to ensure that future budgets are balanced 
     excluding the surpluses generated by the social security 
     trust funds.
       (b) Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any revision to 
     this resolution or a concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2002, or any amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, that sets forth a deficit for any fiscal 
     year.
       (2) Deficit levels.--For purposes of this subsection, a 
     deficit shall be the level (if any) set forth in the most 
     recently agreed to

[[Page H1338]]

     concurrent resolution on the budget for that fiscal year 
     pursuant to section 301(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974.
       (c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     legislation should be enacted in this session of Congress 
     that would enforce the reduction in debt held by the public 
     assumed in this resolution by the imposition of a statutory 
     limit on such debt or other appropriate means.

     SEC. 6. DEBT REDUCTION LOCK-BOX.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives or the Senate to consider any reported 
     bill or joint resolution, or any amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon, that would cause a surplus for 
     fiscal year 2001 to be less than the level (as adjusted for 
     reconciliation or other tax-related legislation, medicare, or 
     agriculture as considered pursuant to section 4, 7, 8(a) or 
     (c), 9, 10, 11, or 12) set forth in section 2(4) for that 
     fiscal year.
       (b) Special Rule.--The level of the surplus for purposes of 
     subsection (a) shall take into account amounts adjusted under 
     section 314(a)(2)(B) or (C) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974.

     SEC. 7. SPECIAL PROCEDURES TO SAFEGUARD TAX RELIEF.

       (a) Adjustments to Preserve Surpluses.--Upon the reporting 
     of a reconciliation bill by the Committee on Ways and Means 
     pursuant to section 4(a) or, the offering of an amendment to, 
     or the submission of a conference report on, H.R. 3081, H.R. 
     6, or H.R. 2990, whichever occurs first, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House shall reduce to zero the 
     amounts by which aggregate levels of Federal revenues should 
     be reduced as set forth in section 2(1)(B) (and make all 
     other appropriate conforming adjustments).
       (b) Adjustments for Revenue Bills.--After making the 
     adjustments referred to in paragraph (1), and whenever the 
     Committee on Ways and Means reports any reconciliation bill 
     pursuant to section 4(a) (or an amendment thereto is offered 
     or a conference report thereon is submitted) or an amendment 
     to H.R. 3081, H.R. 6, or H.R. 2990 is offered or a conference 
     report thereon is submitted after the date of adoption of 
     this resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     of the House shall increase the levels by which Federal 
     revenues should be reduced by the reduction in revenue caused 
     by such measure for each applicable year or period, but not 
     to exceed, after taking into account any other bill or joint 
     resolution enacted during this session of the One Hundred 
     Sixth Congress that causes a reduction in revenues for such 
     year or period, $10,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 and 
     $150,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2001 through 
     2005 (and make all other appropriate conforming adjustments).

     SEC. 8. RESERVE FUND PROVIDING AN ADDITIONAL $50 BILLION FOR 
                   ADDITIONAL TAX RELIEF AND DEBT REDUCTION.

       (a) Additional Tax Relief and Debt Reduction.--Whenever the 
     Committee on Ways and Means reports any reconciliation bill 
     pursuant to section 4(a) (or an amendment thereto is offered 
     or a conference report thereon is submitted), or an amendment 
     to H.R. 3081, H.R. 2990, or to H.R. 6 is offered or a 
     conference report thereon is submitted after the date of 
     adoption of this resolution (after taking into account any 
     other bill or joint resolution enacted during this session of 
     the One Hundred Sixth Congress that would cause a reduction 
     in revenues for fiscal year 2001 or the period of fiscal 
     years 2001 through 2005) that would cause the level by which 
     Federal revenues should be reduced, as set forth in section 
     2(1)(B) for such fiscal year or for such period, as adjusted, 
     to be exceeded, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     of the House may increase the levels by which Federal 
     revenues should be reduced by the amount exceeding such level 
     resulting from such measure, but not to exceed $5,155,000,000 
     in fiscal year 2001 and $50,000,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2005 (and make all other 
     appropriate conforming adjustments, including reconciliation 
     instructions set forth in section 4(a)).
       (b) Sense of Congress on Additional Health-related Tax 
     Relief.--It is the sense of Congress that the reserve fund 
     set forth in subsection (a) assumes $446,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 2001 and $4,352,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2005 for health-related tax provisions 
     comparable to those contained in H.R. 2990 (as passed the 
     House).
       (c) Sense of Congress on Federal Employees Benefit 
     Package.--It is the sense of Congress that the reserve fund 
     set forth in subsection (a) assumes $17,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 2001 and $107,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2005 for legislation that permits Federal 
     employees to immediately participate in the Thrift Savings 
     Plan.

     SEC. 9. RESERVE FUND FOR AUGUST UPDATE REVISION OF BUDGET 
                   SURPLUSES.

       (a) Reporting a Surplus.--If the Congressional Budget 
     Office report referred to in subsection (c) projects an 
     increase in the surplus for fiscal year 2000, fiscal year 
     2001, and the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005 over 
     the corresponding levels set forth in its March 2000 economic 
     and budget forecast for fiscal year 2001, submitted pursuant 
     to section 202(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House may 
     make the adjustments as provided in subsection (b).
       (b) Adjustments.--Whenever the Committee on Ways and Means 
     reports any reconciliation bill pursuant to section 4(a) (or 
     an amendment thereto is offered or a conference report 
     thereon is submitted), or an amendment to H.R. 3081, H.R. 6, 
     or H.R. 2990 is offered or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted after the date of adoption of this resolution that 
     (after taking into account any other bill or joint resolution 
     enacted during this session of the One Hundred Sixth Congress 
     that would cause a reduction in revenues for such year or 
     period) would cause the level by which Federal revenues 
     should be reduced, as set forth in section 2(1)(B) for fiscal 
     year 2001 or for the period of fiscal years 2001 through 
     2005, as adjusted, to be exceeded, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House may increase the levels 
     by which Federal revenues should be reduced by the amount 
     exceeding such level resulting from such measure for each 
     applicable year or period (or for fiscal year 2000 may 
     increase the level of the surplus and make all other 
     appropriate conforming adjustments, including reconciliation 
     instructions set forth in section 4(a)), but not to exceed 
     the increase in the surplus for such year or period in the 
     report referred to in subsection (a).
       (c) Congressional Budget Office Updated Budget Forecast for 
     Fiscal Year 2001--The report referred to in subsection (a) is 
     the Congressional Budget Office updated budget forecast for 
     fiscal year 2001.

     SEC. 10. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE.

       Whenever the Committee on Ways and Means or Committee on 
     Commerce of the House reports a bill or joint resolution, or 
     an amendment thereto is offered (in the House), or a 
     conference report thereon is submitted that reforms the 
     medicare program and provides coverage for prescription 
     drugs, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may 
     increase the aggregates and allocations of new budget 
     authority (and outlays resulting therefrom) by the amount 
     provided by that measure for that purpose, but not to exceed 
     $2,000,000,000 in new budget authority and outlays for fiscal 
     year 2001 and $40,000,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     outlays for the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005 (and 
     make all other appropriate conforming adjustments).

     SEC. 11. RESERVE FUND FOR AGRICULTURE IN FISCAL YEAR 2000.

       Whenever the Committee on Agriculture of the House reports 
     a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto is 
     offered (in the House), or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted that provides income support to owners and 
     producers of farms, the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may increase the allocation of new budget authority 
     and outlays to that committee for fiscal year 2000 by the 
     amount of new budget authority (and the outlays resulting 
     therefrom) provided by that measure for that purpose not to 
     exceed $6,000,000,000 in new budget authority and outlays for 
     fiscal year 2000, $0 in new budget authority and outlays for 
     the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2004, and 
     $6,000,000,000 in new budget authority and outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 2000 through 2004 (and make all other 
     appropriate conforming adjustments).

     SEC. 12. RESERVE FUND FOR AGRICULTURE IN FISCAL YEAR 2001.

       Whenever the Committee on Agriculture of the House reports 
     a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto is 
     offered (in the House), or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted that provides risk management or income assistance 
     for agricultural producers, the chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget may increase the allocation of new budget 
     authority and outlays to that committee by the amount of new 
     budget authority (and the outlays resulting therefrom) if 
     such legislation does not exceed $1,355,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $595,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2001 
     and $8,359,000,000 in new budget authority and $7,223,000,000 
     in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005 
     (and make all other appropriate conforming adjustments).

     SEC. 13. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND 
                   AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and 
     aggregates made pursuant to section 7(b), 8(a) or (c), 9, 10, 
     11, or 12 for any measure shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this 
     resolution--
       (1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct 
     spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and 
     surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee 
     on the Budget of the House of Representatives or the Senate, 
     as applicable; and
       (2) such chairman, as applicable, may make any other 
     necessary adjustments to such levels to carry out this 
     resolution.

     SEC. 14. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--

[[Page H1339]]

       (1) while the budget may be in balance, it continues to be 
     ridden with waste, fraud, and abuse;
       (2) just last month, auditors documented more than 
     $19,000,000,000 in improper payments each year by such 
     agencies as the Agency of International Development, the 
     Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration, 
     and the Department of Defense;
       (3) the General Accounting Office (GAO) recently reported 
     that the financial management practices of some Federal 
     agencies are so poor that it is unable to determine the full 
     extent of improper government payments; and
       (4) the GAO now lists a record number of 25 Federal 
     programs that are at ``high risk'' of waste, fraud, and 
     abuse.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     the Committee on the Budget has created task forces to 
     address this issue and that the President should take 
     immediate steps to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse within the 
     Federal Government and report on such actions to the Congress 
     and that the resolution should include reconciliation 
     directives to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction to 
     dedicate the resulting savings to debt reduction and tax 
     relief.

     SEC. 15. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DOLLARS TO 
                   THE CLASSROOM.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) strengthening America's public schools while respecting 
     State and local control is critically important to the future 
     of our children and our Nation;
       (2) education is a local responsibility, a State priority, 
     and a national concern;
       (3) a partnership with the Nation's governors, parents, 
     teachers, and principals must take place in order to 
     strengthen public schools and foster educational excellence;
       (4) the consolidation of various Federal education programs 
     will benefit our Nation's children, parents, and teachers by 
     sending more dollars directly to the classroom; and
       (5) our Nation's children deserve an educational system 
     that will provide opportunities to excel.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Congress should enact legislation that would 
     consolidate thirty-one Federal K-12 education programs; and
       (2) the Department of Education, the States, and local 
     educational agencies should work together to ensure that not 
     less than 95 percent of all funds appropriated for the 
     purpose of carrying out elementary and secondary education 
     programs administered by the Department of Education is spent 
     for our children in their classrooms.

     SEC. 16. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EMERGENCY SPENDING.

       It is the sense of Congress that, as a part of a 
     comprehensive reform of the budget process, the Committees on 
     the Budget should develop a definition of, and a process for, 
     funding emergencies consistent with the applicable provisions 
     of H.R. 853, the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act of 
     1999, that could be incorporated into the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives and the Standing Rules of the Senate.

     SEC. 17. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON ESTIMATES OF THE IMPACT OF 
                   REGULATIONS ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) the Federal regulatory system sometimes adversely 
     affects many Americans and businesses by imposing financial 
     burdens with little corresponding public benefit;
       (2) currently, Congress has no general mechanism for 
     assessing the financial impact of regulatory activities on 
     the private sector;
       (3) Congress is ultimately responsible for making sure 
     agencies act in accordance with congressional intent and, 
     while the executive branch is responsible for promulgating 
     regulations, Congress should curb ineffective regulations by 
     using its oversight and regulatory powers; and
       (4) a variety of reforms have been suggested to increase 
     congressional oversight over regulatory activity, including 
     directing the President to prepare an annual accounting 
     statement containing several cost/benefit analyses, 
     recommendations to reform inefficient regulatory programs, 
     and an identification and analysis of duplications and 
     inconsistencies among such programs.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     the House should reclaim its role as reformer and take the 
     first step toward curbing inefficient regulatory activity by 
     passing legislation authorizing the Congressional Budget 
     Office to prepare regular estimates on the impact of proposed 
     Federal regulations on the private sector.

     SEC. 18. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON BIENNIAL BUDGET.

       It is the sense of the House that there is a wide range of 
     views on the advisability of biennial budgeting and this 
     issue should be considered only within the context of 
     comprehensive budget process reform.

     SEC. 19. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ACCESS TO HEALTH INSURANCE AND 
                   PRESERVING HOME HEALTH SERVICES FOR ALL 
                   MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.

       (a) Access to Health Insurance.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) 44.4 million Americans are currently without health 
     insurance, and that this number is expected to rise to nearly 
     60 million people in the next 10 years;
       (B) the cost of health insurance continues to rise, a key 
     factor in increasing the number of uninsured; and
       (C) there is a consensus that working Americans and their 
     families will suffer from reduced access to health insurance.
       (2) Sense of Congress on Improving Access to Health Care 
     Insurance.--It is the sense of Congress that access to 
     affordable health care coverage for all Americans is a 
     priority of the 106th Congress.
       (b) Preserving Home Health Service For All Medicare 
     Beneficiaries.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 reformed Medicare home 
     health care spending by instructing the Health Care Financing 
     Administration to implement a prospective payment system and 
     instituted an interim payment system to achieve savings;
       (B) the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget 
     Refinement Act, 1999, reformed the interim payment system to 
     increase reimbursements to low-cost providers and delayed the 
     automatic 15 percent payment reduction until after the first 
     year of the implementation of the prospective payment system; 
     and
       (C) patients whose care is more extensive and expensive 
     than the typical Medicare patient do not receive supplemental 
     payments in the interim payment system but will receive 
     special protection in the home health care prospective 
     payment system.
       (2) Sense of congress on access to home health care.--It is 
     the sense of Congress that--
       (A) Congress recognizes the importance of home health care 
     for seniors and disabled citizens;
       (B) Congress and the Administration should work together to 
     maintain quality care for patients whose care is more 
     extensive and expensive than the typical Medicare patient, 
     including the sickest and frailest Medicare beneficiaries, 
     while home health care agencies operate in the interim 
     payment system; and
       (C) 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.

     SEC. 20. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING MEDICARE+CHOICE 
                   PROGRAMS/REIMBURSEMENT RATES.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Medicare+Choice 
     regional disparity among reimbursement rates is unfair, and 
     that full funding of the Medicare+Choice program is a 
     priority as Congress deals with any medicare reform 
     legislation.

     SEC. 21. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON DIRECTING THE INTERNAL REVENUE 
                   SERVICE TO ACCEPT NEGATIVE NUMBERS IN FARM 
                   INCOME AVERAGING.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) farmers' and ranchers' incomes vary widely from year to 
     year due to uncontrollable markets and unpredictable weather;
       (2) in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Congress enacted 3-
     year farm income averaging to protect agricultural producers 
     from excessive tax rates in profitable years;
       (3) last year, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) proposed 
     final regulations for averaging farm income which fail to 
     make clear that taxable income in a given year may be a 
     negative number; and
       (4) this IRS interpretation can result in farmers having to 
     pay additional taxes during years in which they experience a 
     loss in income.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     during this session of the 106th Congress, legislation should 
     be considered to direct the Internal Revenue Service to count 
     any net loss of income in determining the proper rate of 
     taxation.

     SEC. 22. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE STABILIZATION OF 
                   CERTAIN FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO STATES, COUNTIES, 
                   AND BOROUGHS.

       It is the sense of the House that Federal revenue-sharing 
     payments to States, counties, and boroughs pursuant to the 
     Act of May 23, 1908 (35 Stat. 260; 16 U.S.C. 500), the Act of 
     March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. 963; 16 U.S.C. 500), the Act of 
     August 28, 1937 (chapter 876; 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. 1181f), 
     the Act of May 24, 1939 (chapter 144; 53 Stat. 753; 43 U.S.C. 
     1181f-1 et seq.), and sections 13982 and 13983 of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66; 16 
     U.S.C. 500 note; 43 U.S.C. 1181f note) should be stabilized 
     and maintained for the long-term benefit of schools, roads, 
     public services, and communities, and that providing such 
     permanent, stable funding is a priority of the 106th 
     Congress.

     SEC. 23. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NATIONAL 
                   SCIENCE FOUNDATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the year 2000 will mark the 50th Anniversary of the 
     National Science Foundation;
       (2) the National Science Foundation is the largest 
     supporter of basic research in the Federal Government;
       (3) the National Science Foundation is the second largest 
     supporter of university-based research;
       (4) research conducted by the grantees of the National 
     Science Foundation has led to innovations that have 
     dramatically improved the quality of life of all Americans;
       (5) grants made by the National Science Foundation have 
     been a crucial factor in the development of important 
     technologies that Americans take for granted, such as lasers, 
     Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Doppler Radar, and the Internet;
       (6) because basic research funded by the National Science 
     Foundation is high-risk, cutting edge, fundamental, and may 
     not produce tangible benefits for over a decade,

[[Page H1340]]

     the Federal Government is uniquely suited to support such 
     research; and
       (7) the National Science Foundation's focus on peer-
     reviewed merit based grants represents a model for research 
     agencies across the Federal Government.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the function 250 (Basic Science) levels assume an amount of 
     funding which ensures that the National Science Foundation is 
     a priority in the resolution; recognizing the National 
     Science Foundation's critical role in funding basic research, 
     which leads to the innovations that assure the Nation's 
     economic future, and in cultivating America's intellectual 
     infrastructure.

     SEC. 24. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SKILLED NURSING 
                   FACILITIES.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Medicare Payment 
     Advisory Commission continue to carefully monitor the 
     medicare skilled nursing benefit to determine if payment 
     rates are sufficient to provide quality care, and that if 
     reform is recommended, Congress should pass legislation as 
     quickly as possible to assure quality skilled nursing care.

     SEC. 25. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON SPECIAL EDUCATION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) all children deserve a quality education, including 
     children with disabilities;
       (2) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     provides that the Federal, State, and local governments are 
     to share in the expense of educating children with 
     disabilities and commits the Federal Government to pay up to 
     40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for 
     children with disabilities;
       (3) the high cost of educating children with disabilities 
     and the Federal Government's failure to fully meet its 
     obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act stretches limited State and local education funds, 
     creating difficulty in providing a quality education to all 
     students, including children with disabilities;
       (4) the current level of Federal funding to States and 
     localities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act is contrary to the goal of ensuring that children with 
     disabilities receive a quality education;
       (5) the Federal Government has failed to appropriate 40 
     percent of the national average per pupil expenditure per 
     child with a disability as required under the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Act to assist States and localities to 
     educate children with disabilities; and
       (6) the levels in function 500 (Education) for fiscal year 
     2001 assume sufficient discretionary budget authority to 
     accommodate fiscal year 2001 appropriations for IDEA at least 
     $2,000,000,000 above such funding levels appropriated in 
     fiscal year 2000.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Congress and the President should increase fiscal year 
     2001 funding for programs under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Act by at least $2,000,000,000 above fiscal year 
     2000 appropriated levels;
       (2) Congress and the President should give programs under 
     the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act the highest 
     priority among Federal elementary and secondary education 
     programs by meeting the commitment to fund the maximum State 
     grant allocation for educating children with disabilities 
     under such Act prior to authorizing or appropriating funds 
     for any new education initiative;
       (3) Congress and the President may consider, if new or 
     increased funding is authorized or appropriated for any 
     elementary and secondary education initiative that directs 
     funds to local educational agencies, providing the 
     flexibility in such authorization or appropriation necessary 
     to allow local educational agencies the authority to use such 
     funds for programs under the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act; and
       (4) if a local educational agency chooses to utilize the 
     authority under section 613(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act to treat as local funds up to 
     20 percent of the amount of funds the agency receives under 
     part B of such Act that exceeds the amount it received under 
     that part for the previous fiscal year, then the agency 
     should use those local funds to provide additional funding 
     for any Federal, State, or local education program.

     SEC. 26. ASSUMED FUNDING LEVELS FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION.

       It is the sense of Congress that function 500 (Education) 
     levels assume at least a $2,000,000,000 increase in fiscal 
     year 2001 over the current fiscal year to reflect the 
     commitment of Congress to appropriate 40 percent of the 
     national per pupil expenditure for children with disabilities 
     by a date certain.

     SEC. 27. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PAY RAISE.

       It is the sense of Congress that the pay increase for 
     Federal employees in January 2001 should be at least 3.7 
     percent.

     SEC. 28. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING HCFA DRAFT GUIDELINES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) on February 15, 2000, the Health Care Financing 
     Administration in the Department of Health and Human Services 
     issued a draft Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming 
     (MAC) Guide; and
       (2) in its introduction, the stated purpose of the draft 
     MAC guide is to provide information for schools, State 
     medicaid agencies, HCFA staff, and other interested parties 
     on the existing requirements for claiming Federal funds under 
     the medicaid program for the costs of administrative 
     activities, such as medicaid outreach, that are performed in 
     the school setting associated with school-based health 
     services programs.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) many school-based health programs provide a broad range 
     of services that are covered by medicaid, affording access to 
     care for children who otherwise might well go without needed 
     services;
       (2) such programs also can play a powerful role in 
     identifying and enrolling children who are eligible for 
     medicaid, as well as the State Children's Health Insurance 
     programs;
       (3) undue administrative burdens may be placed on school 
     districts and States and deter timely application approval;
       (4) the Health Care Financing Administration should 
     substantially revise or abandon the current draft MAC guide 
     because it appears to promulgate new rules that place 
     excessive administrative burdens on participating school 
     districts;
       (5) the goal of the revised guide should be to encourage 
     the appropriate use of Medicaid school-based services without 
     undue administrative burdens; and
       (6) the best way to ensure the continued viability of 
     medicaid school-based services is to guarantee that the 
     guidelines are fair and responsible.

     SEC. 29. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ASSET-BUILDING FOR THE WORKING 
                   POOR.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) 33 percent of all American households and 60 percent of 
     African American households have either no financial assets 
     or negative financial assets;
       (2) 46.9 percent of children in America live in households 
     with no financial assets, including 40 percent of Caucasian 
     children and 75 percent of African American children;
       (3) in order to provide low-income families with more tools 
     for empowerment, incentives, including individual development 
     accounts, are demonstrating success at empowering low-income 
     workers;
       (5) middle and upper income Americans currently benefit 
     from tax incentives for building assets; and
       (6) the Federal Government should utilize the Federal tax 
     code to provide low-income Americans with incentives to work 
     and build assets in order to escape poverty permanently.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the provisions of this resolution assume that Congress should 
     modify the Federal tax law to include Individual Development 
     Account provisions in order to encourage low-income workers 
     and their families to save for buying a first home, starting 
     a business, obtaining an education, or taking other measures 
     to prepare for the future.

     SEC. 30. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORTING 
                   THE NATION'S EMERGENCY FIRST-RESPONDERS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) over 1.2 million men and women work as fire and 
     emergency services personnel in 32,000 fire and emergency 
     medical services departments across the Nation;
       (2) over eighty percent of those who serve do so as 
     volunteers;
       (3) the Nation's firefighters responded to more than 18 
     million calls in 1998, including over 1.7 million fires;
       (4) an average of 100 firefighters per year lose their 
     lives in the course of their duties; and
       (5) the Federal Government has a role in protecting the 
     health and safety of the Nation's fire fighting personnel.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) recognizing the Nation's firefighters and emergency 
     services crucial role in preserving and protecting life and 
     property, such Federal assistance as low-interest loan 
     programs, community development block grant reforms, 
     emergency radio spectrum reallocations, and volunteer fire 
     assistance programs, should be considered; and
       (2) additional resources should be set aside for such 
     assistance.

     SEC. 31. ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT OF BUDGETARY LIMITS.

       (a) Prohibition on Use of Directed Scorekeeping.--
       (1) It shall not be in order in the House to consider any 
     reported bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon, that contains a directed 
     scorekeeping provision.
       (2) As used in this subsection, the term ``directed 
     scorekeeping'' means directing the Congressional Budget 
     Office or the Office of Management and Budget to estimate any 
     provision providing discretionary new budget authority in a 
     bill or joint resolution making general appropriations for a 
     fiscal year for budgetary enforcement purposes.
       (b) Prohibition on Use of Advance Appropriations.--(1) It 
     shall not be in order in the House to consider any reported 
     bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, that would cause the total level of 
     discretionary advance appropriations provided for fiscal 
     years after 2001 to exceed $23 billion (which represents the 
     total level of advance appropriations for fiscal year 2001).
       (2) As used in this subsection, the term ``advance 
     appropriation''means any discretionary new budget authority 
     in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations 
     for fiscal year 2001 that first becomes available for any 
     fiscal year after 2001.

[[Page H1341]]

       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall cease to have any 
     force or effect on January 1, 2001.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to that amendment is in order 
except the amendments printed in Part B of the report. Each amendment 
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 
only by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered 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.
  After conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
amendment, there shall be 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.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed in Part B of 
House Report 106-535.


   Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. Owens

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Part B Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute 
     offered by Mr. Owens:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2001.

       The Congress declares that concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2001 and that the appropriate 
     budgetary levels for fiscal years 2002 through 2005 are 
     hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2005:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
     Fiscal year 2001: $2,026,000,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2002: $2,097,000,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2003: $2,171,000,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2004: $2,262,000,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2005: $2,352,000,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
     Fiscal year 2001: $96,800,000,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2002: $109,700,000,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2003: $129,994,500,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2004: $154,043,480,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2005: $182,241,520,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,548,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,618,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,918,041,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $2,272,878,500,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,693,361,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,525,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,589,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,883,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $2,231,594,300,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,644,439,200,000.
       (4) Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $20,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $20,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $20,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $20,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $20,000,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $3,287,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $3,100,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $2,903,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $2,690,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,465,000,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 2001 through 2005 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $252,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $262,080,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $261,080,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $268,081,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $271,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,090,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $287,071,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,070,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,892,950,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,892,950,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,608,145,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,608,145,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,380,651,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,656,500,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,922,952,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,922,952,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,793,698,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,793,698,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,380,532,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $600,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,818,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,518,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,818,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,418,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,818,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,418,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,818,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,418,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,818,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,418,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,546,500,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,176,500,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,492,602,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,689,152,500.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,809,658,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,481,645,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,000,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,900,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,905,500,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,114,082,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,114,082,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,325,793,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,325,753,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,540,679,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):

[[Page H1342]]

       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,875,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,875,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,875,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,005,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,875,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $84,910,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,250,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $88,764,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,750,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $89,984,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $198,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $198,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $215,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $214,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $233,602,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $231,661,300,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $253,224,560,000.
       (B) Outlays, $249,962,540,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $274,495,420,000.
       (B) Outlays, $269,709,580,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $222,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $218,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $232,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $223,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $242,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $241,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $255,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $287,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,500,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $241,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $217,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $241,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $229,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $241,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $240,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $242,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $221,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $243,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $234,300,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,100,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,902,400,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,196,405,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,011,440,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,329,118,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,072,126,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,565,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,030,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,495,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,295,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $208,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $198,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $189,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $177,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $163,600,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,600,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 446, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) and the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to present the Congressional Black Caucus 
budget. I shall manage only a small part of the time.
  The Congressional Black Caucus budget is a budget for maximum 
investment and opportunity. We are carrying forward the great 
Democratic Party traditions of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, Harry 
Truman's Marshall Plan and health care proposal, Lyndon Johnson's Great 
Society that produced Medicaid and Medicare.
  As advocates for the Democratic Party mainstream philosophy, the 
Congressional Black Caucus sets forth this budget for maximum 
investment and maximum opportunities.
  As we prepare the year 2001 budget, we are blessed by the long, warm 
rays of a sun of a coming decade of surpluses. Compassion and vision 
are no longer blocked by the spectre of budget deficits.
  The conservative estimate is that there will be a $1.9 trillion non-
Social Security surplus over the next 10 years. Using simple logic, we 
should be able to program and apply this year about $200 billion for 
the 2001 budget as this window of opportunity opens.
  Investment for the future must be our first priority. Maximizing 
opportunities for individual citizens is synonymous with maximizing the 
growth and the expansion of a U.S. superpower economy.
  It is the age of information, stupid. It is a time of a computer and 
a time of digitalization. It is the era of thousands of high-level 
vacancies because there are not enough information technology workers. 
With enlightened budget decisions, we can at this moment begin the 
shaping of the contours of a new cybercivilization.
  The boldest and most vital proposal contained in the CBC budget is 
the Function 500. It is at the heart of our budget. Funding for school 
construction, responding to the fact that the American people in 
numerous polls have indicated that their number one priority for 
Federal budget action is education.
  Each of the budgets being presented offer increases in education. 
Even the Blue Dog budget at one end of the spectrum of the Democratic 
Party offers a $21 billion increase in education. The Republican budget 
offers a slight increase, also.
  But only the CBC budget has chosen to focus on the kingpin issue of 
school physical infrastructure. While we applaud the President's 
inclusion of $1.3 billion for our emergency repairs, we deem it to be 
grossly inadequate.

[[Page H1343]]

  We support school financing via the Tax Code, also. However, most of 
the local education agencies cannot borrow money without a lengthy 
taxpayer referendum procedure. This CBC budget proposes a $10 billion 
increase for funding for school construction. This amount would be 
taken from the $200 billion surplus.
  In addition to this 5 percent for infrastructure, and by 
``infrastructure'' we mean wiring, repair, security, and new 
construction, the CBC budget also proposes another 5 percent, another 
$10 billion, to address other education, social service, and employment 
initiatives.
  Only 10 percent of the overall surplus will be utilized for the all-
important mission of investment in human resources, only 10 percent of 
this amount available above the Social Security surplus.
  Other projected increases in our budget, and certainly the critical 
Function 500 section, include additional funding for Head Start, summer 
youth employment, TRIO programs, historically black colleges and 
universities, and community technology centers.
  We oppose the Department of Education's elimination of certain 
vitally needed ongoing technical assistance and research programs. OERI 
projects should not be dumped into a general slush fund for the 
Department of Education.
  The Department of Education's weak administration, with its bargain 
basement peer-review procedures, is not in a position to mount new 
programs on a timely basis. A better utilization of existing programs 
will be more efficient and more effective.
  For the critically important welfare to work programs administered by 
the Department of Labor, the year 2001 budget assumes a life-and-death 
importance. Infant mortality rates in poor communities will continue to 
rise, and families will suffer needlessly unless there is an end to the 
current Federal permissive policy which allows States to pilfer funds 
from the poor and to use welfare contracts as political patronage.
  The CBC proposes greater earmarking of funding connected with the 
chaotic welfare reform measures. A better funded and stronger Federal 
administration and direction is needed to restrain the greed and the 
neglect of our State governments.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget because 
it taxes too much, spends too much, and does not pay down enough debt.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kasich), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to just take a few minutes to say 
that we really believe that today, in the consideration of all these 
budgets, that we would like to take the six themes that I know the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) is so fond of. I am disappointed that 
he has left the floor. We wanted to take these six themes and kind of 
compare all the different budgets that are going to come to the House 
floor today against what we think is the best proposal.
  If I could go through this again rather quickly. As my colleagues 
know, the Republican budget proposal will protect 100 percent of the 
Social Security surplus for the second year in a row. We will not dip 
into that surplus. We will use that Social Security surplus only for 
purposes of paying benefits and paying down the publicly held debt.
  Secondly, we, in our budget, provide for the strengthening of 
Medicare, reform of Medicare, and also make money available for a 
prescription drug for the neediest of our senior citizens. We think it 
is absolutely vital that those who are needy have access to 
prescription drugs.
  Thirdly, we also move to retire the publicly held debt over the next 
5 years by $1 trillion. Now, some budgets are going to propose that we 
pay it down by more. Other budgets are going to propose that we pay it 
down by less.
  We think that the trillion-dollar pay-down, in combination with 
additional spending needs and with tax cuts, are the right formula. So 
we believe that not only should we move first to protect Social 
Security and Medicare, but we also believe that the trillion-dollar 
number is the right number to pay down public debt, thereby giving good 
signals to the Federal Reserve in terms of their interest rate 
policies.
  Fourthly, we believe that we can have tax fairness. And we have a tax 
cut bill that approaches by the end of this summer, we believe, 
somewhere in the neighborhood of $250 billion. We provide for $200 
billion in tax relief. That will provide tax relief to America's 
families by being able to ease the penalty on getting married that all 
too many couples face today; that, in fact, we will take small 
businesses and farmers and not force them to visit the undertaker and 
the IRS on the same day but begin to ease that penalty on success, ease 
that penalty that people experience when they try to pass their bounty 
on to their children.
  We also believe that our senior citizens ought not to be penalized 
for their independence and hard work by cutting their Social Security 
as an offset to any dollar they earn. We think that is just a bogus 
idea that was cooked up here in Washington.
  Furthermore, we think that it is important that we restore America's 
defense and also believe, however, that the message that the Black 
Caucus sends of one that this Pentagon needs reviewed and reformed is 
clearly a point of which we can all agree, and that we believe we need 
to support education and the National Institutes of Health and basic 
science research in the country.
  So, today I would like to say that I think that this is the right 
formula. And if we can come with a formula that protects Social 
Security and strengthens Medicare and provides the prescription drug 
and pays down the public debt by a trillion dollars and provides 
significant tax relief while rebuilding our defense and education as a 
priority, we are going to be pretty close to what we think is the right 
formula.
  I know that the Congressional Black Caucus comes to the floor every 
year with a budget, they lay it out there, and their priorities reflect 
the needs as they see them in this country. I want to offer my respect 
and congratulations to the members of the Black Caucus for their hard 
work. I know it is a tradition, and I am very thankful that they have 
the opportunity to come to the floor.
  I do not want to stand here and say a number of negative things 
against their budget, because I think it reflects their priorities as 
they see them. We should study their budget and communicate with them; 
and perhaps at a later point we can improve on our priorities, we can 
have a better understanding of some of the priorities that they have. I 
hope that at some point, and maybe even in the conference committee, we 
can perhaps improve on our document.
  But, nevertheless, I think that we should not approve that budget; 
and I think we ought to stick to the Republican proposal that we have 
today. I think it will provide for a continued strong economy, more 
power for individuals, and a sense of fairness for families and small 
businesses and our senior citizens in the country.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) has 
14\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation for the remarks 
of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), our brilliant 
and distinguished budget chairman, and tell him that we welcome 
criticisms of our budget; and we certainly would criticize the other 
budgets. We very much would like to see some dialogue take place 
between the people who put forward these budgets.
  We think a $17 billion increase for defense over the President's 
already very generous increases shows that there is a basic 
misunderstanding as to what the world is all about and where America 
and the rest of the world is going.
  It is brain power, stupid. It is brain power. Brain power drives 
everything else. It drives the military. It drives the economy. And if 
we do not invest in education, we will have beautiful high-tech ships 
out there that nobody can operate.

[[Page H1344]]

                              {time}  1800

  We would like to see some dialogue. If you would agree to take part 
of that $17 billion and put about $10 billion of it into education, 
school construction, computers and wiring of schools, I think you would 
do far more for defense than you are doing with the kinds of increases 
that are there.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time for the management of 
our bill to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Clyburn), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus; and I ask 
unanimous consent that the gentleman control the time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from New York for his help in substituting for 
us as we got to the floor.
  Let me begin by thanking the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on the Budget for all of his hard work and to assure him that we, the 
members of the Congressional Black Caucus, are very, very aware of the 
work that he has put into this budget, and we commend him for the work. 
I would also like to thank the Committee on Rules for working with us 
and helping us to bring our budget to this floor, because we think that 
we have some things worth discussing.
  Mr. Chairman, if we fail to seize this moment to make investments 
that will allow our great Nation to surge forward in the creation of 
this new cyber-civilization, then our children and grandchildren will 
frown on us and will lament the fact that we failed not because we 
lacked fiscal resources but our failures, our very devastating blunder 
was due to a poverty of vision.
  Mr. Chairman, we are the custodians of unprecedented wealth in a 
giant economy. But we must not allow midget minds and tiny spirits to 
control our destiny. At a time when positive generosity is possible, 
such a proposal maximizes great selfishness.
  The preparation of this budget for maximum investment and growth was 
guided by a set of 10 principles and assumptions set forth below.
  Number one. We accept the general direction of the President's budget 
and the House Democratic Caucus. Families First is a motto we 
wholeheartedly endorse. However, more resources must be directed toward 
working families and the unique problems of African American families.
  Number two. We view the projection of a $1.9 trillion surplus over a 
10-year period as an overriding factor for the basic decisions to be 
made for fiscal year 2001. Common sense dictates that we approach this 
first year of the decade of budget surpluses with proposals for the 
most advantageous uses of one-tenth of the projected surplus.
  Number three. Investment in the CBC-designated priorities should be 
our number one concern. We support a moderate plan to pay down the 
national debt. However, the President's blueprint moves too far and too 
fast with debt reduction at the expense of investment.
  Number four. The protection of Social Security, Medicaid, and 
Medicare are among the highest priorities of the CBC.
  Number five. In budgeting for each function, the CBC accepts the 
principles of a balanced budget. However, increases in CBC priorities 
must not be inhibited by present budget caps and conventional 
assumptions.
  Number six. The CBC accepts the basic thrust of President Clinton's 
proposal for the distribution of the surplus. However, the CBC will 
insist that the emphasis in priorities must be shifted. At least 10 
percent of the surplus should be devoted to investments in programs for 
education and a second 10 percent should be allotted for investments 
which benefit working families and for the safety net programs.
  Number seven. Tax cuts, which must be taken from the 80 percent of 
the surplus which remains, are not a high priority of the CBC.
  Number eight. Within the priorities earmarked by the President's 
budget in each function, the CBC will strive to target some portion of 
the proposed allocations to the special needs of working families.
  Number nine. Budget allocations for necessary programs that currently 
do not exist are encouraged.
  And, number 10, the currently stated CBC fiscal year 2001 priorities 
are education, housing, health, economic development, and livable 
communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that serious consideration of this budget is 
called for at this time. We believe it provides a blueprint for the 
launching of this new millennium.

                         National Defense (050)

     Function in brief
       Function 050 funds the pay and benefits of military and 
     civilian personnel; operations and maintenance; research, 
     development, testing, evaluation, engineering, and 
     procurement of new weapons systems (including nuclear weapons 
     and research provided by the Department of Energy); and 
     military construction, including family housing; and other 
     military-related activities.
       The CBC believes that the Defense budget, with it current 
     estimates consumes more than one-half of the discretionary 
     spending of the Federal government's budget. While the Caucus 
     wants to ensure that our men and women in uniform enjoy 
     necessary and proper support from sufficient forces and the 
     right equipment, training, and housing, we do not want this 
     reality to prevail at the expense of our nation's other 
     priorities.


                     Function 050: National defense

                 [Fiscal years, in billions of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001..........................................................255.0
Outlays;
    2001..........................................................252.0
Budget Authority:
    2002..........................................................262.0
    2003..........................................................268.0
    2004..........................................................271.0
    2005..........................................................286.0
Outlays:
    2002..........................................................261.0
    2003..........................................................267.0
    2004..........................................................270.0
    2005..........................................................287.0

                      International Affairs (150)

     Function in brief
       Functions 150 funds the operation of the State Department, 
     embassies and consulate offices abroad, bilateral assistance 
     programs, democracy and free market economies education, 
     multilateral assistance programs, multilateral development 
     banks, and public diplomacy through educational and cultural 
     exchanges. It also funds libraries and broadcasting abroad as 
     well as international security through peacekeeping 
     assistance, non-proliferation and disarmament, foreign 
     military grants and loans, military education and training, 
     and refugee and disaster assistance: Some of the specific 
     programs it funds include: Development Fund for Africa, 
     African Development Fund, African Development Bank, Great 
     Lakes Initiative, Development Assistance, Peace Corps, Inter-
     American Development, Debt Restructuring, Debt Restructuring 
     (HIPC), Wye and Egypt Supplemental, UN Arrearage Payments, 
     Migration and Refugee Assistance, Peacekeeping Operation 
     (PKO), Child Survival and Disease Fund, Economic Support Fund 
     (ESF), International Development Association, National 
     Endowment for Democracy, World Health Organization, African 
     Crisis Response Force, International Disaster Assistance, 
     Trade and Development Agency and PL 480 Titles II and III.


                  Function 150: International affairs

                 [Fiscal years, in billions of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001...........................................................22.0
Outlays:
    2001...........................................................20.0
Budget Authority:
    2002...........................................................22.0
    2003...........................................................26.0
    2004...........................................................30.8
    2005...........................................................36.6
Outlays:
    2002...........................................................20.0
    2003...........................................................30.8
    2004...........................................................36.6
    2005...........................................................43.3

              General Science, Space, and Technology (250)

     Function in brief
       Function 250 provides funding for general science and basic 
     research, including the National Science Foundation; 
     Department of Energy general science programs, particularly 
     the high energy physics and nuclear physics programs; space 
     flight, research and supporting activities.
       The CBC maintains a significant overall Federal investment 
     in science and engineering research and development while 
     paring back support for those research initiatives which 
     offer minimal public benefits and would be more appropriately 
     financed by private industry.


                               highlights

       NASA--Funds the International Space Station at the level 
     proposed by the President which allows for space based 
     medical research and breakthroughs in medicine for diseases 
     that greatly affect the African American community.
       HBCU's--Provides additional funding for Historically Black 
     Colleges and Universities (HBCU's) Minority University 
     Research and Education Programs.
       NSF--Provides additional funding for the Next Generation 
     Internet initiative in order

[[Page H1345]]

     to connect HBCU's and other similarly situated educational 
     institutions to the Internet.
       Elementary, Secondary and information education--Provides 
     additional funding to the Elementary, Secondary and 
     Information Educational activity of the Educational and Human 
     Resources appropriation of the NSF.
       National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Provides 
     additional funding for the Global Learning and Observations 
     to Benefit the Environment Program (GLOBE).


          Function 250: General science, space and technology

                 [Fiscal years, in billions of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001...........................................................14.9
Budget Authority:
    2002...........................................................14.9
    2003...........................................................17.6
    2004...........................................................20.9
    2005...........................................................24.7
Outlays:
    2001...........................................................14.9
Outlays:
    2002...........................................................14.9
    2003...........................................................20.9
    2004...........................................................24.7
    2005...........................................................28.3

                              Energy (270)

     Function in Brief
       Function 250 provides funding for most of the programs for 
     the Department of Energy, including research and development 
     and energy conservation; the Power Marketing Administrations, 
     the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; uranium enrichment; funding 
     for electrification and telephone credit subsidies provided 
     through the Rural Utilities Service; the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority power program; the Nucelar Regulatory Commission 
     and other activities.


                          Function 270: Energy

                 [Fiscal years, in billions of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001............................................................3.3
Outlays:
    2001............................................................1.8
Budget Authority:
    2002............................................................2.0
    2003............................................................2.7
    2004............................................................2.4
    2005............................................................2.1
Outlays:
    2002............................................................1.5
    2003............................................................1.2
    2004............................................................2.4
    2005............................................................0.6

                Natural Resources and Environment (300)

     Function in brief
       Function 300 Funds water resources management; activities 
     of the Army Corps of Engineers; the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA); the National Park Service, including recreation 
     programs; the Department of the Interior; conservation and 
     land management; pollution control and abatement. Other 
     agencies under this function are the Bureau of Land 
     Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, certain agencies within the Department of 
     Agriculture, including the Forest Service and the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in the 
     Department of Commerce.


            Function 300: Natural resources and environment

                 [Fiscal years, in billions of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001...........................................................20.8
Outlays:
    2001...........................................................20.5
Budget Authority:
    2002...........................................................20.8
    2003...........................................................20.8
    2004...........................................................20.8
    2005...........................................................20.8
Outlays:
    2002...........................................................20.4
    2003...........................................................20.4
    2004...........................................................20.4
    2005...........................................................20.4

                           Agriculture (350)

     Function in brief
       Function 350 provides funding for agricultural programs, 
     including farm income stabilization, commodity price support 
     programs, crop insurance, export credit guarantee loans, the 
     emergency food assistance program, the Foreign Agricultural 
     Service, the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Cooperative 
     State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the 
     Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics 
     Service, animal and plant protection, and other agricultural 
     programs and agricultural export promotion.


                       Function 350: Agriculture

                 [Fiscal years, in billions of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001............................................................8.6
Outlays:
    2001............................................................7.1
Budget Authority:
    2002............................................................8.9
    2003...........................................................10.5
    2004...........................................................12.4
    2005...........................................................14.8
Outlays:
    2002............................................................6.9
    2003............................................................8.1
    2004............................................................9.6
    2005...........................................................11.4

                   Commerce and Housing Credit (370)

     Function in brief
       Function 370 includes funding for mortgage credit rural 
     housing programs, the Census Bureau, International trade and 
     export promotion programs, technology programs, and the 
     patent and trademark program of the Department of Commerce; 
     small business assistance; the U.S. Postal Service; and major 
     regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the 
     Federal Trade Commission.


               Function 370: Commerce and housing credit

                 [Fiscal years, in millions of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001...........................................................12.4
Outlays:
    2001............................................................7.6
Budget Authority:
    2002...........................................................12.7
    2003...........................................................13.0
    2004...........................................................13.3
    2005...........................................................13.6
Outlays:
    2002............................................................8.2
    2003............................................................8.8
    2004............................................................9.4
    2005...........................................................10.0

                          Transportation (400)

     Function in brief
       Function 400 includes ground transportation programs, such 
     as the federal-aid highway program, mass transit, rail 
     transportation, and the Interstate Commerce Commission; air 
     transportation through the Coast Guard and Maritime 
     Administration; and related transportation support 
     activities.
       Rather than cutting investment in the nation's 
     transportation infrastructure, the CBC Alternative Budget 
     maintains investment in these vital functions by funding them 
     at the level of current services through fiscal year 2000. 
     Public investment in transportation produces broad economic 
     benefits, and our nation must have a safe and efficient 
     transportation system for all people if the United States is 
     to compete successfully in the 21st Century.


                      Function 400: Transportation

                 [Fiscal years, in billions of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001...........................................................14.5
Outlays:
    2001...........................................................12.1
Budget Authority:
    2002...........................................................14.5
    2003...........................................................15.1
    2004...........................................................15.6
    2005...........................................................16.3
Outlays:
    2002...........................................................12.1
    2003...........................................................12.7
    2004...........................................................12.9
    2005...........................................................13.0

                Community and Regional Development: 450

     Function in brief
       The Community and Regional Development function provides 
     for a wide variety of urban and rural development programs, 
     including the Community Development Block Grant Program 
     (CDBG), the Economic Development Agency (EDA), the 
     Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC, numerous rural 
     development programs administered by the Rural Development 
     Administration (RDA) and the non-power programs of the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The function also includes 
     funding for most Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) programs.


            Function 450: Community and regional development

                 [Fiscal years, in billions of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001...........................................................13.7
Outlays:
    2001...........................................................13.1
Budget Authority:
    2002...........................................................13.7
    2003...........................................................13.9
    2004...........................................................14.1
    2005...........................................................14.3
Outlays:
    2002...........................................................13.3
    2003...........................................................14.1
    2004...........................................................14.3
    2005...........................................................14.5

           Education, Training and Employment Services (500)

     Function in brief
       The boldest and most vital proposal contained in the CBC 
     Budget is at the heart of this function: funding for school 
     construction. Responding to the fact that the American people 
     in numerous polls have indicated that their number one 
     priority for federal budget action is Education, each of the 
     budgets being presented offer increases in Education. But 
     only the CBC Budget has chosen to focus on the kingpin issue 
     of school physical infrastructure. While we applaud the 
     President's inclusion of 1.3 billion dollars for ``emergency 
     repairs,'' we deem it to be grossly inadequate. We support 
     school financing via the tax code; however, most of the Local 
     Education Agencies can not borrow money without a lengthy 
     taxpayer referendum procedure. This CBC Budget proposes a 10 
     billion dollar increase over the President's Budget for 
     school construction. This amount would be taken from the 200 
     billion dollar surplus. In addition to this five percent for 
     infrastructure-wiring, repair, security, and new 
     construction--the CBC Budget proposes another five percent, 
     10 billion dollars, to address other education, social 
     service, and employment initiatives. Only ten per cent of

[[Page H1346]]

     the overall surplus would be utilized for the all important 
     mission of investment in human resources.
       Other projected increases include additional funding for 
     Head Start, Summer Youth Employment, TRIO programs, 
     Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and Community 
     Technology Centers. We oppose the Department of Education's 
     elimination of vitally needed ongoing technical assistance 
     and research programs. OERI projects should not be dumped 
     into a general slush fund. The DOE's weak administration with 
     its bargain basement peer review procedures, is not in a 
     position to mount new programs on a timely basis. A better 
     utilization of existing programs would be more efficient and 
     more effective.
       For the critically important welfare to work programs 
     administered by the Department of Labor, the Year 2001 Budget 
     assumes a life and death importance. Infant mortality rates 
     in poor communities will continue to rise and families will 
     suffer needlessly unless there is an end to the current 
     federal permissive policy which allows states to pilfer funds 
     from the poor, and to use welfare contracts as political 
     patronage. The CBC proposes greater earmarking of funding 
     connected with the chaotic welfare reform ``measures.'' A 
     better funded and stronger Federal administration and 
     direction is needed to restrain the greed and neglect of 
     state governments.


       Function 500: Education, training and employment services

                 [Fiscal years, in billions of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001...........................................................88.8
Outlays:
    2001...........................................................76.8
Budget Authority:
    2002...........................................................89.8
    2003...........................................................77.8
    2004...........................................................89.2
    2005...........................................................90.7
Outlays:
    2002...........................................................85.0
    2003...........................................................84.9
    2004...........................................................88.7
    2005...........................................................89.9

                    Health (550) and Medicare (570)

     Function in brief
       Functions 550 and 570 include funds for health care 
     services, health research and training, consumer and 
     occupational health and safety, and Medicare. The major 
     agency budgets accounts include the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration, National Institutes of Health, 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration, Health Care Financing 
     Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health and the 
     Office of Minority Health.


                          Function 550: Health

                 [Fiscal years, in billions of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001..........................................................198.8
Outlays:
    2001..........................................................198.0
Budget Authority:
    2002..........................................................215.5
    2003..........................................................233.6
    2004..........................................................253.2
    2005..........................................................274.4
Outlays:
    2002..........................................................214.7
    2003..........................................................231.6
    2004..........................................................249.9
    2005..........................................................269.7

                         Function 570: Medicare

                 [Fiscal years, in billions of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001...........................................................14.5
Outlays:
    2001...........................................................14.5
Budget Authority:
    2002...........................................................15.4
    2003...........................................................12.5
    2004...........................................................13.2
    2005...........................................................14.0
Outlays:
    2002...........................................................15.4
    2003...........................................................12.6
    2004...........................................................13.1
    2005...........................................................14.0

                         Income Security (600)

     Function in briefs
       Function 600 contains programs which help meet the needs of 
     individuals by insuring against loss of income from 
     retirement, disability, death or unemployment of a wage 
     earner, and by assisting those whose incomes are inadequate 
     to meet minimum levels of nutrition, housing or other basic 
     necessities.
       Major programs within this function include: retirement and 
     disability programs for federal civilian and military 
     personnel; food stamps, school lunch, WIC and other nutrition 
     programs; unemployment insurance; family support payments 
     (AFDC); Supplemental Security Income (SSI); low-income home 
     energy assistance; foster care and child welfare programs; 
     child care; low-income and elderly housing assistance and 
     programs for the homeless; and the Earned Income Tax Credit 
     (EITC).


                     Function 600: Income security

                 [Fiscal years, in million of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001..........................................................241.3
Outlays:
    2001..........................................................217.2
Budget Authority:
    2002..........................................................241.3
    2003..........................................................241.8
    2004..........................................................242.9
    2005..........................................................243.8
Outlays:
    2002..........................................................229.7
    2003..........................................................240.9
    2004..........................................................221.1
    2005..........................................................234.3

                         Social Security (650)

     Function in brief
       Function 650 includes Social Security, Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance (OASI), and the Disability Insurance (DI) 
     programs. These programs provide monthly cash assistance to 
     more than 42 million beneficiaries.


                  Function 650: Social Security (650)

                 [Fiscal year, in billions of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001...........................................................14.5
Outlays:
    2001...........................................................14.5
Budget Authority:
    2002...........................................................15.4
    2003...........................................................12.5
    2004...........................................................13.2
    2005...........................................................14.0
Outlays:
    2002...........................................................15.4
    2003...........................................................12.6
    2004...........................................................13.1
    2005...........................................................16.1

                  Veterans Benefits and Services (700)

     Function in brief
       Function 700 includes compensation for veterans with 
     service-related disabilities; pensions for low-income wartime 
     veterans with non-service connected disabilities; education 
     and training; medical care; and housing loan guarantees.


              Function 700: Veterans benefits and services

                 [Fiscal years, in billions of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001...........................................................44.0
Outlays:
    2001...........................................................42.8
Budget Authority:
    2002...........................................................45.1
    2003...........................................................46.9
    2004...........................................................47.1
    2005...........................................................48.3
Outlays:
    2002...........................................................45.4
    2003...........................................................48.1
    2004...........................................................51.0
    2005...........................................................54.0

                    Administration of Justice (750)

     Function in brief
       Function 750 provides funding for the law enforcement and 
     anti-drug abuse activities of the Departments of Justice and 
     Treasury; federal judicial, litigation, and correctional 
     activities; criminal justice assistance grants to state and 
     local governments; and legal services for the poor.
       The CBC Caring Majority Budget understands the urgency of 
     addressing the rising rate of crime in the United States. All 
     credible research has shown that prevention and early 
     intervention initiatives, combined with a continuum of 
     services aimed at high-risk youth, best serve to reduced 
     crime when compared to incarceration and other punitive 
     approaches.
       A comprehensive prevention strategy includes an investment 
     in education and training resources as well as research and 
     evaluation of model programs that offer non-punitive methods 
     of crime reduction.


                Function 750: Administration of Justice

                 [Fiscal years, in billions of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001...........................................................24.7
Outlays:
    2001...........................................................25.6
Budget Authority:
    2002...........................................................24.1
    2003...........................................................24.6
    2004...........................................................25.0
    2005...........................................................25.5
Outlays:
    2002...........................................................25.6
    2003...........................................................25.4
    2004...........................................................25.8
    2005...........................................................26.3

                        General Government (800)

     Function in brief
       Function 800 provides funding for general overhead costs of 
     the federal government.


                    Function 800: General government

                  [Fiscal year, in million of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001...........................................................14.7
Outlays:
    2001...........................................................14.0
Budget Authority:
    2002...........................................................14.5
    2003...........................................................14.6
    2004...........................................................14.8
    2005...........................................................15.0
Outlays:
    2002...........................................................14.3
    2003...........................................................14.0
    2004...........................................................14.6
    2005...........................................................14.9

                           Net Interest (900)

     Function in brief
       Function 900 provides for interest payments on the national 
     debt. Net interest outlays are determined by the size of the 
     debt, market interest rates, and debt management practices.


                       Function 900: Net interest

                 [Fiscal years, in billions of dollars]

Outlays:
    2001..........................................................208.3

[[Page H1347]]

Outlays:
    2002..........................................................198.6
    2003..........................................................189.2
    2004..........................................................177.4
    2005..........................................................163.6

                            Allowances (920)

     Function in brief
       Function 920 reflects amounts of any budget increase or 
     reduction for which specific funding levels by program or 
     function have yet to be determined. It also includes amounts 
     for contingencies which may affect more than one function.


                        Function 920: Allowances

                 [Fiscal years, in billions of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001..........................................................200.0
Budget Authority:
    2002..........................................................200.0
    2003..........................................................300.0
    2004..........................................................300.0
    2005..........................................................300.0

                Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950)

     Function in brief
       Function 950 includes the employer's share of employee 
     retirement costs; government receipts (bonuses, rents, 
     royals) from the sale of oil and gas produced from the Outer 
     Continental Shelf (OCS); and receipts for the sale of assets 
     controlled or owned by the federal government.


            Function 950: Undistributed offsetting receipts

                 [Fiscal years, in billions of dollars]

Budget Authority:
    2001............................................................200
Outlays:
    2001...........................................................45.7
Budget Authority:
    2002............................................................200
    2003............................................................200
    2004............................................................200
    2005............................................................200
Outlays:
    2002...........................................................49.1
    2003...........................................................47.3
    2004...........................................................46.9
48.605...............................................................
                                  ____


 Principles and Assumptions for the Congressional Black Caucus Maximum 
               Opportunity and Investment Budget FY'2001


                       congressional black caucus

  [Congressman James Clyburn, Chairman; Congressman Bennie Thompson, 
 Chairperson--CBC Budget Task Force; Congressman Major R. Owens, Vice 
                  Chairperson, CBC Budget Task Force]

       The mission of the Congressional Black Caucus is advocacy 
     for those left out and forgotten: the poor in general and 
     more specifically African Americans and other neglected 
     minorities. To guide the budget preparation process and fully 
     accomplish our mission we shall begin by adopting the 
     following Principles and Assumptions:
       1. We accept the general direction of the President's 
     Budget and the House Democratic Caucus. ``Families First'' is 
     a motto we wholeheartedly endorse; however, more resources 
     must be directed toward working families and the unique 
     problems of African American families.
       2. We view the projection of a 1.9 trillion surplus over a 
     ten year period as an overriding factor for the basic 
     decisions to be made for the FY'2001 Budget. Common sense 
     dictates that we approach this first year of the decade of 
     budget surpluses with proposals for the most advantageous 
     uses of one-tenth of the projected surplus.
       3. Investment in the CBC designated priorities shall be our 
     number one concern. We support a moderate plan to pay the 
     national debt; however, the President's blueprint moves too 
     far and too fast with debt reduction at the expense of 
     investment.
       4. The protection of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare 
     are among the highest priorities of the CBC; however, 
     investments in the education and training of the present and 
     future workforce will provide greater guarantees for the 
     solvency of Social Security and the sound financing of health 
     care than any other policies or actions under consideration.
       5. In budgeting for each function, the CBC accepts the 
     principles of a balanced budget, however, increase in CBC 
     priorities must not be inhibited by present budget caps and 
     conventional assumptions. We assume that there is waste 
     in several key areas which may be transferred to enhance 
     better investments for the future. We also assume that 
     there are excessive revenue expenditures to continue 
     corporate welfare which may be eliminated to increase 
     funding for our designated priorities. And finally, we 
     assume that one-tenth of the projected ten year surplus 
     must be factored into the development of this budget for 
     maximum opportunity and investment.
       6. The CBC accepts the basic thrust of President Clinton's 
     proposal for the distribution of the surplus; however, the 
     CBC will insist that the emphasis in priorities must be 
     shifted. At least 10 percent of the surplus should be devoted 
     to investments in programs for education and a second 10 
     percent should be allotted for investments which benefit 
     working families and for safety net programs.
       7. Tax cuts, which must be taken from the 80 percent of the 
     surplus which remains, are not a high priority of the CBC; 
     however, since the current political power equation dictates 
     the inevitability of a White House approved tax cut, the CBC 
     must insist that the tax cuts not exceed the percentage of 
     the surplus which is allocated for CBC priorities.
       8. Within the priorities earmarked by the President's 
     budget, in each function, the CBC will strive to target some 
     portion of the proposed allocations to the special needs of 
     working families, the poor and the African American 
     Community. New market opportunities and minority contract 
     set-asides must apply across the board--and special units 
     should be funded to implement and facilitate the targeting of 
     CBC designated constituents.
       9. Budget allocations for necessary programs that currently 
     do not exist are encouraged. The proponents must also later 
     develop legislation for authorization as part of the process 
     to sell the ideas and convince the President to place the 
     item on his priority list at the time of the end-game 
     negotiations. Proposals for new methods of proposal 
     solicitation, peer review, technical assistance, etc. are 
     also in order.
       10. The currently stated CBC FY 2001 Priorities are: 
     Education, Housing, Health, Economic Development and Livable 
     Communities, Foreign Aid, Welfare and Low Income Assistance 
     and Juvenile Justice and Law Enforcement. Some additions or 
     subtractions from these categories are possible; however, 
     they will remain as the basic frame-work for CBC Budget and 
     Appropriations demands for the entire session of the 106th 
     Congress. Members preparing budget functions should also 
     consider promoting tactics and strategies which support the 
     CBC's ongoing advocacy of these dollar allocation positions.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, the health budget is a critical piece 
of our overall budget and agenda. It is defined by the glaring 
disparities in health status that exist for the African American 
community. HIV and AIDS have been our focus, but we also die from heart 
disease, cancer, diabetes, infant mortality, stroke, and other diseases 
in numbers greater than all other minority groups combined.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an emergency. Specifically, this budget will 
include a minimum of $500 million for the CBC Minority HIV/AIDS 
initiative. In addition to continuing the programs already started, the 
increase will allow us to address HIV and AIDS in correctional 
facilities, increase funding to more vulnerable groups, increase 
prevention and treatment activities for sexually transmitted diseases 
and substance abuse, expand research, increase Medicaid funding, bring 
our programs to smaller cities and rural areas, and greatly increase 
the technical assistance that will enable our community-based 
organizations to take advantage of this important resource.
  In the broader area of disparities, we will fund an expansion of the 
racial and ethnic approach to community health programs, to expand it 
beyond the existing 32 communities and enhance funding to the health 
careers opportunities program and National Health Service Corps to do 
better outreach and provide scholarships for young people of color to 
enter health profession schools. We would fully fund, also, the 
provisions of H.R. 1860, 2391, and 3250.
  Mr. Chairman, with regard to our children, the CBC funds the 
continuation and strengthening of the Healthy Start program in 
communities of color and also provides for increased child care at $917 
million. Mr. Chairman, the elimination of health disparities in African 
American communities and other communities of color is one of the most 
important challenges facing this country. For the sake of all of those 
who have been left behind in past centuries and for the sake of a 
fairer and healthier Nation, I ask my colleagues to support the CBC 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Clyburn for yielding me this time to 
present the CBC Health Budget.
  This is a critical piece of the overall Budget and Agenda. Our health 
is the necessary underpinning of everything else we aspire to 
accomplish to make our communities whole, and prepared to meet the 
challenges of the new Century and the Coming millennium.
  What defines our Health Agenda and thus this budget are the glaring 
disparities in health status, and services that exist for the African 
American community and other communities of color. HIV and AIDS has 
been our focus, and rightfully so because of our overwhelmingly 
disproportionate numbers, and the devastation it has wrought in our 
communities.
  But we also die and are disabled in far greater proportion than our 
representation in the population from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, 
infant mortality, stroke and other diseases in numbers greater than all 
other minority groups combined.
  Our budget not only includes funding to address prevention and 
treatment for HIV/AIDS

[[Page H1348]]

and related illnesses, and continue and expands capacity building 
within communities of color in this country for this disease, it will 
extend this effort to the international community. Beyond this it will 
better address some of the glaring infrastructure deficiencies that 
have caused the epidemic to take root, and the other diseases to have 
such adverse impact, severely reducing our life expectancy, in our 
communities in the first place.
  Mr. Chairman, responding to our health needs is nothing less than an 
emergency, and a matter of national security.
  We ask our colleagues to consider the CBC request in that light.
  More specifically, this budget will include a minimum of $500 million 
for the CBC Minority HIV/AIDS initiative.
  In addition to continuing the programs already started, the increase 
will allow us to address HIV and AIDS in correctional facilities, 
increase funding to more vulnerable and at-risk groups, such as women 
and youth, increase prevention and treatment activities for Syphilis, 
other sexually transmitted diseases and substance abuse which 
contribute greatly to this crisis, expand research, increase Medicaid 
funding to provide treatment at the earlier stages of HIV infection, 
bring our programs to smaller cities and rural areas, and greatly 
increase the technical assistance that limited many of our community 
based organizations from taking advantage of these important resources.
  In the broader area of the disparities, we are asking for $162.3 
million for REACH--Racial and Ethnic Approach to Community Health--to 
expand this program beyond the now 32 communities who have been 
provided the resources to improve their health outcomes. The CBC Budget 
will also enhance funding for the Health Careers Opportunities Program, 
and National Health Service Corps to do better outreach and provide 
scholarships for young people of color to enter health profession 
schools. We would fully fund the provisions of H.R. 1860, H.R. 2391, 
and H.R. 3250, to increase access for providers and patients of color 
into managed care, address the need for data, and diversity training in 
the health professions, and elevate the Office of Minority Health 
Research at NIH to a center.
  Mr. Chairman, in all this, we have grave concern for the welfare of 
our children, and are committed to giving them the best possible start 
in life. The CBC Budget therefore funds the continuation and 
strengthening of Healthy Start in communities of color and other 
disadvantaged communities, in the amount of $130 million. This measure 
also provides, among other things, for increased child care. In this 
regard our request is above that of the Department, at $917 million.
  Our communities are at great risk. The elimination of health 
disparities in African American communities and other communities of 
color is one of the most important challenges facing this country.
  For the sake of all of those who have been left behind in past 
centuries, and for the sake of a fairer and healthier nation, I ask my 
colleagues to support the CBC budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL of Montana. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have only had the privilege of serving in this House 
for 4 years. Over these 4 years we have had this annual budget debate. 
What I have noticed is that my Democratic colleagues have come to the 
floor every one of those 4 years, and they have predicted doom and 
gloom over the Republican budget. They are the most pessimistic group 
of people I have ever met in my life.
  When Republicans 4 years ago said that we wanted to balance the 
budget, this group cried crocodile tears saying that we were going to 
create great hardship in America. But they were wrong when they said 
that budget would threaten seniors. They were wrong when they said that 
budget would threaten Social Security. They were wrong when they said 
that budget would threaten the economy. The fact is the economy is now 
stronger, Social Security is more secure than ever, Medicare is more 
solvent than it has been in over a decade; and we are doing more to 
educate our children today than we ever have.
  Just last year when Republicans said we were going to set aside 100 
percent of Social Security for Social Security, they said that was 
impossible. But we did it. Some of those who were so strong in their 
opposition now cannot wait to stand in line to take credit for that 
effort. Two years ago, we said we could lower taxes and we could keep 
the economy growing. They said that tax cut was irresponsible, some 
said it was a risky scheme; and they said it would undermine 
government. They were wrong again.
  I asked my constituents what should we do with this surplus. Here is 
what they said. They said protect Social Security so that Congress 
cannot raid it ever again in the future. They said pay down the debt. 
This budget pays down $1 trillion of the debt in 5 years, and pays it 
off entirely by the year 2015. They said to me, let us modernize 
Medicare. We have made it solvent now till the middle of the next 
decade, but let us modernize it. This budget sets aside $40 billion to 
do that. And then they said, let us make the Tax Code fairer than it 
has been. Get rid of this marriage penalty and the unfair death tax 
that is out there.
  But bigger government and higher taxes were never on that list. But 
one or the other of every one of the Democrat alternatives either 
raises taxes or cuts Medicare or puts more IOUs in the Social Security 
Trust Fund, and that is wrong. They are wrong again. I say reject all 
of these Democrat plans and support the Republican budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  (Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, the budget we are trying to 
accomplish here has six very simple principles. We have been talking 
about these six principles today, but I want to talk about the Social 
Security portion of our budget, the most important aspect of this 
budget. This budget with Social Security starts on the work we tried to 
accomplish last year. If Members recall last year, Mr. Chairman, the 
President sent us a budget that said he would take 38 percent of the 
Social Security surplus out of Social Security to spend on the creation 
of other government programs, 120 to be specific, and keep 62 percent 
of the Social Security surplus in Social Security. Last year we said, 
no, that is not enough. One hundred percent of Social Security should 
go to Social Security. We, in fact, did that.
  But last year during consideration of this budget resolution, many 
Members from the other side of the aisle were actually saying we were 
raiding Social Security, we were taking money out of Social Security. 
So what actually happened last year? We heard the rhetoric, and we are 
hearing it again today. Let us dispense with the rhetoric and look at 
the results. The results are that for the first time in a generation, 
this Congress actually stopped the raid on Social Security. If we look 
at the year 1999, last year, we stopped raiding Social Security. This 
year, in the year 2000, we stopped raiding Social Security. What we are 
trying to accomplish is to forever stop the raid on the Social Security 
Trust Fund with this budget, make sure that every penny of Social 
Security taxes actually go to Social Security.
  I am going to be bringing a piece of legislation to the floor later 
with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, to pass a law to make sure that we never again 
go back to the days of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund and so 
that we take that money to pay back the debt we owe to Social Security 
and pay off the national public debt.
  If we take a look at the President's plan, the President tries to 
give the illusion that he is actually increasing the solvency of Social 
Security; but what the President's plan actually only does, and I would 
like to add the Spratt budget's plan as well, is take the Social 
Security government credit card and add more money to the credit card 
limit. They are putting more IOUs into the Social Security Trust Fund, 
not committing an additional penny to paying benefits to Social 
Security. But they are simply saying, put more IOUs, raise the credit 
card limit to Social Security and hope the problem goes away.
  Mr. Chairman, we need results. We need legislation that actually 
stops the raiding of Social Security. We need to pass this budget 
resolution.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to stand in strong support of the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget. This substitute shows that 
supporting good fiscal policy does not have to mean excluding low-wage 
workers, the poor,

[[Page H1349]]

communities of color and African Americans. This budget increases 
domestic spending by 50 percent and spends 25 percent less on defense 
by cutting waste, fraud and abuse.
  Let me highlight what we have proposed in the areas of housing and 
also in order to end the HIV/AIDS crisis abroad. First, the 
Congressional Black Caucus addresses these issues by investing $1 
billion more for section 8 housing, $100 million more for the community 
development block grant program, and $350 million more for the HOME 
program. We also invest over $1 billion over 5 years to stop the spread 
of HIV and AIDS in countries hardest hit in sub-Saharan Africa and the 
Caribbean.

                              {time}  1845

  It funds H.R. 3519, the World Bank AIDS Marshal Trust Fund Plan. And 
we passed that last week out of the House Banking Committee. I stand in 
strong support for the CBC alternative.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleagues for their vision and leadership 
in bringing this to the floor.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  I congratulate the caucus for a budget that very well represents what 
the priorities ought to be. We have a very wealthy Nation now. We have 
a greater degree of power disparity between the United States 
militarily and the rest of the world than we have ever seen in our 
history.
  What this budget does is to make a sensible, prudent reduction in the 
amount of money spent on the military so that we can deal with the real 
threats to America's security to the problems of health, poverty, 
inadequate education. We have a real deadlock in this country right 
now. We have people telling us that we ought to participate more 
enthusiastically in the international economy for the World Trade 
Organizations and elsewhere.
  As long as grave disparities persist within this country, as long as 
lower-income people, people working at the low end of the skill level 
feel threatened by it, we are not going to be able to go forward. This 
budget takes a very big set of steps forward towards creating within 
the United States by reducing the excess that the military has gotten 
the kind of social stability that we need as a framework for going 
forward.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I would first like to compliment the Congressional Black Caucus on 
their budget. Every year since I have been in Congress, the CBC has 
come forward with a budget. It is not easy to do; but every single 
year, you have in a very responsible way outlined your priorities.
  And, in fact, it has always amazed me that you have been able to do a 
better job than even, in some instances, over the last 7 years than our 
President has been able to do in outlining the priorities that you 
happen to believe in and putting real numbers with those priorities.
  Your numbers add up. The concern I have with the President's budget, 
and it is probably the reason why the Congressional Black Caucus and so 
many others are providing substitute amendments is they do not agree 
with the priorities that the President has laid out. We did not agree 
with that either.
  We felt it was important to protect 100 percent of the Social 
Security Trust Fund; to strengthen Medicare and provide a real 
prescription drug benefit within that; to retire the public debt 
entirely; to promote tax fairness for families, farmers, seniors; to 
restore America's defense, and to do it in a way that recognizes that 
people do come first; and strength for support for education and 
science.
  Let me just talk about Medicare, because I think this is the one that 
probably is the most different. We have heard so many folks run to the 
floor today to talk about how their plan looks exactly like the 
Republicans, and there is a reason, because when the Democrats or 
through the President provided their original proposal, what we found 
out is that the way they paid for a prescription drug benefit was by 
cutting Medicare.
  You cut Medicare in one side to pay for increases in another side, 
and those increases did not even take effect to the fourth year. So the 
President held this great Rose Garden ceremony and had a great 96-
minute State of the Union address; and he said how we were all going to 
have prescription drug benefit and then didn't fund it in the budget he 
proposed 2 weeks later.
  So I can understand why you would come forward with a substitute 
amendment, a substitute amendment that hopefully does not cut, as the 
President does, the kidney program, the hospital payments. As I said to 
a gentleman earlier today, you cannot close hospitals around this 
country and extend a prescription drug benefit and call that health 
care.
  If my hospital in my hometown of Manchester, Iowa, closes, that is a 
30-minute drive for everybody who lives in my town for every emergency 
that occurs in that town, and you can add up your own miles and minutes 
that that would occur. You cannot cut hospitals to give a prescription 
drug benefit. That is why we reject the President's budget, and I 
believe that is why you do, too.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, we all know that budgets really 
are about priorities. And this budget presented by the Congressional 
Black Caucus speaks to the needs of millions of Americans who, in many 
instances, are left behind and left out of the great economic expansion 
we are experiencing.
  It speaks to the needs of the 165,000 people in my congressional 
direct who live at or below the poverty line and millions of others 
throughout America. It speaks to the needs of individuals living in 
public housing and low-income communities. This budget is 
compassionate, comprehensive, and balanced.
  This budget would provide 250 million additional dollars for 
community and migrant health centers who do an outstanding job of 
providing health care for the poor.
  In reality, Mr. Chairman, this budget protects Medicare, Social 
Security, and small businesses and provides a prescription drug benefit 
for older Americans.
  It lifts a lot of those considered to be at the bottom of the 
economic ladder, the working poor, children, older Americans. I am 
proud to support it and urge its adoption.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, might I clarify, we do have the right to 
close, is that correct? We may end up having 1 minute or 1\1/2\ minutes 
that we will be able to yield over. We will go through our speakers and 
see how much time we do have.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct, he does have the 
right to close.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, the preceding speakers on this side talked 
a little bit about the vision and the values that are embodied in the 
Republican budget, setting aside every penny of Social Security, paying 
down debt. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) talked about the 
importance of setting aside $40 billion, not just to cover prescription 
drug benefits but to improve and strengthen the Medicare system as 
well.
  We have heard about the investments that we think are important to 
make in education and in defense and in basic science, and, of course, 
the tax relief that is in this budget, to make the Tax Code more fair 
and to reduce taxes for all Americans. And, unfortunately, that is one 
of the real shortcomings of the alternative being offered here, not 
only does it not lower taxes, it increases taxes, and that is just the 
wrong direction to take the country.
  Let us, in fact, look where we have come over the past few years, 
even

[[Page H1350]]

while cutting taxes. Under this Republican Congress, we have seen the 
public debt begin to decrease. We are actually making payments against 
the debt held by the public, reducing that debt and increasing 
America's financial security.
  We can see clearly the red, increases in debt year after year under a 
Democrat Congress. The tide was turned in 1998. Shortly after we had a 
Republican Congress, clearly the amount of debt was lower and lower in 
1996, 1997. And what has happened over the past 4 years? What a turn 
around. In 1998, we paid down over $50 billion in debt; 1999 paid down 
over $80 billion in debt; and in fact, with this Republican budget that 
is here on the floor today, we will reduce the debt held by the public 
$450 billion over just 4 years.
  It gets even better, because over the next 5 years we will pay down a 
trillion dollars in public debt, reducing the public debt, keeping 
interest rates low, even while making the Tax Code more fair, 
eliminating death tax provisions, giving health insurance deductibility 
for those that are self-employed.
  Those are the values that are embodied in the Republican budget, and 
that is why we should reject this alternative and support the 
resolution.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, we have 1\1/2\ 
minutes of our time we can yield to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Clyburn) and allow him to distribute it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, that means that according to my records we 
have 5 minutes left?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is we have 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Clyburn) for yielding, and I also recognize the hard work of the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in strong support of the CBC 
budget. The Congressional Black Caucus gives a progressive vision with 
an emphasis on education. We need to look to our future, and that means 
protecting education for our children. The CBC budget emphasizes an 
increase for Head Start to help our youngest children; an increase in 
Pell grants to help young people who are trying to go to college; and, 
critically, an increase in the 21st century schools programs that will 
enable us to provide care for young people after school to address the 
problem of crime and violence.
  This is a progressive vision of a budget that will work for all 
Americans. I urge support of the CBC budget.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, America's veterans are not just 
Function 700 of the budget. They are the men and women who put their 
lives on the line protecting our freedom, and they need to be made a 
priority now, when they need our help the most.
  I will never understand how Republicans can offer billions of dollars 
of tax cuts while our veterans are struggling for the services in 
health care that we promised them. The CBC budget offers our veterans 
the service that they have earned. It provides additional funds for 
medical research, nursing home construction, and the Montgomery GI 
bill, and the VA Center for Minority Veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, we talk about a surplus; but we cannot have a surplus 
when we have not paid our bills. We owe the veterans. We should make 
them a priority, and I urge the support of the CBC budget substitute.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, since we have such little time, we have 
heard about the domestic priorities which I support, I would just like 
to say that in light of the flooding in Mozambique we have requested 
$320 million to the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance to 
support in that emergency. Also we are asking for emergency 
supplemental of $1.6 billion for the HIPC countries hit by the floods, 
such as Mozambique, South Africa, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, and Zambia.
  We also ask to restore the Development Fund for Africa to $804 
million. This budget also provides an additional $100 million for the 
African Development Fund; $10 million for the Great Lakes Initiative, 
designed to build a credible and impartial system of justice in that 
region. We support an additional $200 million for AIDS through the 
World Bank; $60 million for economic development to support democratic 
institutions in Haiti; and $1 million to support bilateral/multilateral 
efforts in Papua New Guinea and to help the United Nations 
administration resolve the conflict on the island of Bougainville.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we are evaluating all of the budgets based 
on six basic principles. One is to protect Social Security surpluses. 
Another is to provide for prescription drugs. Another is to retire 
debt. Another is to promote tax fairness. Another is to restore 
America's defense and strengthen education, science and health care. 
That is why we oppose the budget that is coming before us.
  With regards to tax cuts, we want to provide an end to the marriage 
penalty tax, repeal Social Security earnings limits, reduce the death 
tax, expand educational savings accounts, increase health care 
deductibility, provide tax breaks for poor communities, and strengthen 
private pensions.
  The President regretfully came in with a gross tax increase of $96 
billion. Republicans have no tax increase. This tax increase results in 
the fact that next year the President would increase taxes $10 billion; 
we would cut taxes $10 billion.
  Finally, over 5 years, the President has a net tax cut of $5 billion. 
We have over $200 billion of tax relief.
  The reason we have that is we want a marriage penalty tax 
elimination. We want to eliminate and phase out the death tax. We have 
educational savings accounts. We would have health care deductibility. 
We had community renewal and we want pension reform.
  The bottom line for us is that we need to get our country's financial 
house in order. A tax cut is part of it. We are cutting down and 
reducing debt. We are saving Social Security. We are providing $200 
billion in the next 5 years for a tax cut.

                              {time}  1830

  It is only 2 percent of all revenues that are going to come in, $10 
trillion, and we are asking this Congress to accept the fact that the 
taxpayers deserve a break of $200 billion in the next 5 years.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair the time 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Each side has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support 
of this substitute, and especially call attention to the section 
dealing with the National Science Foundation and NASA, which is the 
area that will have the potential of closing the digital divide. I will 
point out that the President's recommendations clearly took care of 
this area.
  This is not a substitute for the President's proposal, it is a 
substitute for the Republican's proposal. If the President's proposal 
had been presented here today, we would have very little alteration to 
it.
  So I rise in support of this substitute, in lieu of the fact that we 
have to speak on behalf of the people.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus 
alternative budget is fiscally sound and family fair. It continues our 
stride towards debt elimination, one of those

[[Page H1351]]

principles, while making a stand against poverty. It protects Social 
Security and Medicare, while giving priority to our families and our 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, we are experiencing the longest economic expansion in 
the history of the United States. However, many people are left out of 
that. Housing is an example of that. In fact, The Washington Post said 
that people are sleeping in their cars making $60,000.
  Mr. Chairman, in our proposal there is a reasonable proposal in 
section 8, $100 million, and it could go into $1 billion, and you could 
buy homes. That is the way you accumulate wealth.
  Mr. Chairman, The Congressional Black Caucus Alternative Budget is 
fiscally sound and family fair.
  It continues our stride towards debt elimination, while making a 
stand against poverty.
  It protects Social Security and Medicare while giving priority to our 
families and our children.
  Mr. Chairman, we are experiencing the longest economic expansion in 
the history of the United States.
  However, despite this rosy economic picture, many are being left out.
  One sign of this dichotomy is in the area of housing.
  It should concern all of us that, according to a recent report in the 
Washington Post, a man earning Sixty Thousand Dollars a year can not 
afford housing in Silicon Valley.
  He sleeps in his car.
  The headline in a recent edition of the Christian Science Monitor is 
equally alarming, ``Hot economy, but more homelessness''.
  Housing is basic.
  Housing affects every person alive on this earth.
  Everyone has to live somewhere.
  The lack of adequate housing is a problem, but the lack of affordable 
housing is an even greater problem.
  A growing number of poor households have been left to compete for a 
shrinking supply of affordable housing.
  The Congressional Black Caucus Alternative Budget addresses this 
problem, and we do so without any new spending. No offsets are 
required.
  In our Budget, we shift $100 Million of Section 8 Voucher Funds to a 
cash assistance program.
  This program would be used to promote home ownership, and thereby, 
stabilize families, help create wealth and ultimately reduce the 
dependency on Section 8 funds.
  Moreover, when leveraged against private sector dollars, this program 
is valued at least ten times the amount of the investment.
  One Hundred Million Dollars multiplies to a Billion Dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, housing is the most important asset for wealth 
accumulation.
  Home ownership is a good way to ease ``Cost-burden.''
  Home ownership instills pride in a family.
  Home ownership provides dignity.
  When one owns a home, they are more likely to take care of it, 
maintain it and keep it clean and presentable.
  The Congressional Black Caucus Alternative Budget embodies prudent 
economic policies while putting people as priority. It deserves our 
support.


                     the nation's economy is robust

  The economy of the United States is strong and robust, however, the 
challenge of the Congressional Black Caucus to find ways to have more 
citizens benefit from the growth we are currently experiencing.
  We are experiencing the longest economic expansion in the history of 
the United States. We have gone from record federal deficits to record 
surpluses. 20 million new jobs have been created in the last eight 
years, and we currently have the highest overall home ownership rate 
ever, the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years and the lowest poverty 
rate in 20 years. Based upon current projections, we can expect to 
eliminate the federal debt in ten years. In 1992, when my Class entered 
Congress, we faced a $290 billion deficit that was on the rise and 
spiralling out of control. Today, we are anticipating a surplus in the 
unified budget of almost $3 trillion over the next ten years and to 
eliminating the federal debt by the year 2015.


                      yet, many are being left out

  For at least twenty years, however, there has been a troubling trend 
emerging--a trend that affects the quality of life for many Americans. 
Income and wealth inequality--the disparity in incomes and wealth due 
to wages, accumulated wealth, equity, investments and returns, etc.--
has increased in intensity. As a result of this trend, those who have 
more end up getting more, while those who have less end up merely 
treading water, or in some instances, getting less.
  This is a disturbing trend because, even in this time of prosperity, 
many Americans still cannot afford to purchase healthy meals for their 
families night after night or afford decent housing or health care. 
Many still cannot afford education expenses and other means needed to 
better their lives. This is a disturbing trend because slightly less 
than one-third of Americans remain poor; many remain hungry; many 
remain homeless.
  John C. Weicher, a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute notes that, 
``Wealth is much more concentrated than income.'' The top 1 percent of 
U.S. households own roughly one-third of total household net worth, yet 
receive roughly 10 percent of income. On the other hand, some 20 
percent of the poorest households have no net worth, and a few percent 
have negative net worth.
  But, the most troubling aspect of this trend is that income and 
wealth inequality is often influenced by Government Policy--what 
Government does and does not do. This has been documented by reliable 
sources--the Internal Revenue Service, the Census Bureau, the Center on 
Budget and Policy Priorities and the Federal Reserve Board, among 
others.


                           what is the trend?

     ``By 1997, one Man, Bill Gates, was worth about as much as 
         the 40 million American households at the bottom of the 
         wealth distribution!''
  According to Edward N. Wolff, a Professor of Economics at New York 
University and a leading authority on income and wealth inequality. 
``In the 1970s, the level of wealth inequality in the United States was 
comparable to that of other, developed, industrialized countries.'' 
Since 1983, however, those with incomes in top 5 percent have steadily 
accumulated wealth and grown income. Persons with incomes in the lower 
brackets, however, have steadily fallen behind in wealth accumulation 
and income growth. As a consequence, according to Professor Wolff, the 
United States has now become the most unequal society with respect to 
the distribution of wealth among industrialized nations.
  This inequality is reflected in the raw income and wealth data as 
well as by the inequity's apparent social impact. Recent Survey of 
Consumer Finances information assembled by the Federal Reserve Board, 
illustrates that the ``mean'' household net worth--adding together the 
net worth of the rich and poor alike, and then finding an average 
value--is close to $250,000. However, the ``median'' household net 
worth--ranking net worth values and finding the very middle value in 
the overall distribution--is slightly more than $60,000.
  To further illustrate, in 1983, the top 1 percent of our population 
held 34 percent of total net worth, while the bottom 40 percent held .9 
percent. Since then, the share of the top 1 percent has grown to nearly 
40 percent, while the share of the bottom 40 percent has declined, to 
.2 of one percent. In 1998 dollar values, mean net worth of the top 1 
percent was more than $7 million and has now grown to almost $8 
million. On the other hand, the mean net worth of the bottom 40 percent 
was $47,000 in 1983, and currently has declined to $10,000--a 
precipitous decline in net worth!
  Professor Edward Wolff in noting the trend toward the greater 
concentration of wealth, is mindful of the racial implications of this 
trend. More than 95 percent of the top one percent of wealth holders 
are White. Less than 1 percent are Black. Asians represent about 4 
percent of the top one percent of wealth holders. The wealthiest 20 
percent of households own 84 percent of the Nation's wealth. The top 
2.7 million Americans--mostly White Americans--have as much income as 
the bottom 100 million persons in the Nation, which encompasses a 
sizeable portion of Black Americans. This wealth gap will likely 
continue to grow, especially if our economy remains strong and 
prosperous. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has concluded 
that both the top 2 percent and the top 20 percent of households are 
projected to receive a larger share of the after-tax income in the 
United States than in any previous year since data began to be 
collected.


          wages are the most important factor affecting income

  There is a close association between wealth and income. Income, 
however, is largely driven by wages. Moreover, there is greater 
inequality in the distribution of wages than in the distribution of 
income generally. Yet, while employment has been growing and 
unemployment falling, hourly wages--taking inflation into account--have 
remained stagnant. Due to the fact that wages have remained relatively 
stagnant, the overall gap in income distribution has widened.


               whites earn more and have more than blacks

  More than one-fifth of Black households, about 21 percent, have 
incomes under $10,000 per year. Another 30 percent of Blacks have 
annual incomes above $10,000 but below $25,000. Thus, more than half of 
Black households have incomes below $25,000. On the other hand, only 11 
percent of all Americans have incomes under $10,000, while 22 percent 
of all Americans have incomes between $10,000 and $25,000. The per 
capita income of all White Americans is $20,425, while the per capita 
income of Black

[[Page H1352]]

Americans is $12,351. Asian Americans have a per capita income of 
$18,226, while Hispanics, the only group below Blacks, have a per 
capita income of $10,773.


     there is a relationship between education, income, and wealth

  More education generally means more income and more wealth. Those 
with more schooling generally experience fewer bouts with unemployment 
and have higher earnings. Male college graduates today earn 92 percent 
more, on average, than male high school graduates. This compares to 
thirty years ago, when male college graduates earned 50 percent more 
than their high school counterparts. Female college graduates have a 
similar earnings advantage over those females with only a high school 
diploma. This advantage grew from 41 percent in 1970 to 76 percent in 
1998.
  While education generally means higher earnings, Black men and women 
college graduates do not always fare as well as White men and women 
college graduates. And, for women, Black or White, income disparities 
remain between them and their male counterparts.


            housing an important asset for increasing wealth

  Owner-occupied housing is the single most important asset that 
increases wealth. Indeed, almost two-thirds of the wealth of the bottom 
eighty percent of households is invested in their home. Yet, in the 
past decade, the percentage of owner-occupied housing as it relates to 
all assets has declined from more than 30 percent in 1990 to less than 
24 percent in 1998. Mortgage debt has increased, from 21 percent of the 
value of homeowners' property in 1983, to 36 percent in 1995. This 
increase in debt relates to income and wealth inequality. Inasmuch as 
debt accounts for less than 10 percent of the assets of the top 1 
percent of the population, it accounts for 71.7 percent of the bottom 
80 percent of the population.


    what are some problems related to income and wealth inequality?

     Children are affected the most
  Until 1993, there had been a steady decline in the number of children 
in poverty. This decline however, has slowed markedly, and worse yet, 
the children who remain in poverty are becoming poorer. Changes in 
government policies and practices have had severe impacts on children. 
Food stamps and cash assistance to families have in the past, been a 
vital part of helping to reduce the stinging pain of poverty. However, 
according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in 1995, 88 
children received food stamps for every 100 who were poor, while 57 
children received cash assistance for every 100 such poor children. By 
1998, only 72 out of 100 poor children received food stamps, and only 
41 out of 100 poor children received cash assistance--the lowest 
proportion since 1970.
     Housing is often not affordable or available
  The lack of adequate housing is a problem, but the lack of affordable 
housing is an even greater problem. A growing number of poor households 
have been left to compete for a shrinking supply of affordable housing. 
Studies indicate that a dearth of some 4 million affordable housing 
units exists in the country.
  Also, unfortunately, substandard housing is a way of life for 
millions across the Nation. As unimaginable as it may seem, in the year 
2000, some 3 million renters and another 3 million owners of housing 
reside in homes without bathrooms or fully equipped kitchens, in homes 
with poor and dangerous electrical wiring, in homes with falling 
ceilings and peeling plaster and in homes that have little or no heat 
in the winter and little or no cooling in the summer. Overcrowding for 
many remains a harsh reality.
  Recently, there have been record lows in mortgage interest rates, 
leaving many to believe that housing in the United States is more 
affordable than ever. That is not true. Despite lower mortgage rates, 
many people are unable to afford to purchase homes. This is because 
income growth for the poor and working poor has been limited. This 
group of Americans are ``cost-burdened'' under H.U.D. standards. That 
is, they spend more than 40 percent of their income for housing. 
Therefore, many in the ranks of the poor and working poor find 
themselves on a treadmill to nowhere when it comes to breaking into the 
home ownership market.
  Much attention has been placed on low interest rates and 
``affordable'' mortgages, but the rising prices of rental housing have 
been ignored. Families locked into paying spiraling rental costs have a 
more difficult time of improving the quality of their lives, lifting 
themselves up, warding off poverty, main streaming and laying a solid 
foundation for the future.
     Homelessness is on the rise
  For too long in America, the homeless have been those we do not want 
to see. We believed that the homeless were those who wanted to be 
homeless--vagrants and derelicts who just did not want to work to 
improve their situations. We now know better. We know that the causes 
of homelessness are poverty, joblessness, declining incomes, changing 
family structures and the lack of affordable housing.
  While it is hard to obtain an accurate account of the homeless, some 
estimates suggest that there may be as many as one and a half million 
who are homeless in America on any given day. They are not vagrants and 
derelicts. According to a 1996 study by the Urban Institute, about one-
fifth of the homeless are families, with children. Many are women, 
single, female heads of households. The average age of homeless adults 
is mid to late thirties. Many of the homeless have been jobless longer 
than they have been homeless. The homeless, in urban areas primarily, 
are also disproportionately minority. According to one estimate, 54 
percent of the homeless are non-white persons.

  The average homeless person experienced a range of health 
difficulties. More than half had at least one major health problem. 
Lethal problems like HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis occur with uncommon 
frequency among the homeless. At least half have had a problem with the 
debilitating diseases of alcohol and drug abuse. It is no wonder then 
that more than half of the homeless have suffered from depression and 
demoralization, many have a history of mental hospitalization. Suicide 
attempts, far too many, is a way of life. Homeless women with children 
are five times more likely to attempt suicide than other adults. Almost 
half of the homeless have answered this Nation's call in the Armed 
Services of the United States. A large number of these veterans, who 
happen to be homeless, suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.


             what can the cbc do to address these concerns?

  While we cannot and must not rely solely on the Federal Government as 
the solution to our problems, we must be prepared to push our federal 
partners to provide more help with this problem. This pushing will not 
be easy, however, we know that the best way to stabilize our 
communities is by increasing home ownership and by providing a 
sufficient stock of affordable housing.
  In July of last year, we convened our first Regional Housing Summit. 
There in Charlotte, North Carolina, we pledged to try to help create a 
million new African American homeowners. Home ownership is a good 
fundamental way to generate equity and wealth. Home ownership instills 
a sense of pride and dignity in families and communities alike. When 
people own homes, they are more likely to establish strong ties and 
commitments to the community, and because of those ties, are more 
inclined to become civically engaged.
  One of the greatest barriers to home ownership, however, is credit. 
According to recent reports, a disproportionate number of African 
Americans are especially burdened by what the industry deems as ``bad 
credit.'' Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have exercised important 
leadership in dealing with credit problems many African Americans face. 
This is the kind of leadership we need as we begin this new millennium.
  So, what do we have to do? First, we need to join together and push 
the public and private sectors to help resolve the ``hurricane-like'' 
housing situations that African Americans face each and every day.
  Second, we have to fight to preserve Section 8 Housing and to 
increase funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program--the 
largest source of federal funding for housing. We need to protect the 
Community Reinvestment Act--an act that has played a critical role in 
improving housing. We need to be strong advocates for the full funding 
of the Shelter Plus Care Program. Let us push for improvement in the 
Section 202/811 GAP Funding Program. Let us ensure that Congress 
extends the HOPE Six Program. Let us vow that our elderly are properly 
housed. We must push for adequate funding for Empowerment Zones and 
Enterprise Communities. If we advocate and fight for the provisions 
listed above, we will have taken measurable steps toward bringing more 
African Americans into the fold of home ownership and decent housing.


 examples of related government policies and practices we can influence

  Increasing the minimum wage or restructuring tax rates are obvious 
ways to increase income for those who have less. There are, however, 
other actions we can seek, actions that in some cases may be more 
achievable. The mortgage deduction program in the United States is an 
$83 billion program. Again, however, the largest beneficiaries of this 
program are those with more income and wealth. Those with less income 
and wealth get fewer benefits from this program Some $53 billion of the 
mortgage deduction program benefit those in the higher income brackets. 
The other $30 billion benefits those in the remaining income brackets. 
Thus, persons earning $40,000 and below get minimal benefits from the 
program.
  Do persons like Bill Gates really need to participate in the mortgage 
deduction program? What harm would it do to the rich--

[[Page H1353]]

what good might it do the working class--if the mortgage deduction 
program were changed to exclude those with incomes of a quarter of a 
million dollars or more and to ensure substantive benefits for those 
with incomes of $40,000 or less? The answer is no harm, but a lot of 
good!
  Another example relates to how we spend money for housing programs. 
The President is seeking additional funds for Section 8 vouchers, and 
that, on its face, is a good thing. However, we have had generation 
upon generation of families, dislocated from the rest of society, 
isolated in public housing and, very often, dependent upon the 
government to provide them with a relatively decent place to live. Why 
not take some of those Section 8 funds and provide a suitable amount of 
cash assistance to these families--assistance that can be used to 
finance homes! If we do that, these families can begin the process of 
reducing their reliance on government and take the first step toward 
accumulating equity and wealth.
  Investing in education can produce similar results. Education is a 
major contributor to net worth. According to reports, the average 
wealth of college graduates is 2.5 times the wealth of those with only 
a high school diploma. Moreover, a better educated population means a 
stronger and better work force, well into the future. We must develop 
programs and policies that provide lower income and working families 
with affordable educational options for our children.
  For too long, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten 
poorer, and America is less well off because of that trend. We, in the 
Congressional Black Caucus must work to reverse this trend. This rising 
tide of economic prosperity must lift many more boats. That is why it 
is important that we present and push an Alternative Budget. In so 
doing, we can send a critical message and lay the foundation for the 
enactment of authorizing and appropriations language that will impact 
Government policies and practices that will begin to reverse the 
severity of existing income and wealth inequality trends. By presenting 
and pushing an Alternative Budget, we can force policies and measures 
that benefit all of society, not just those who are better off.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the only 
budget that has been submitted that will help the conscience of the 
American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Congressional Black Caucus' 
(CBC) substitute budget for FY 2001. Included in the CBC budget is an 
allocation for $150 million in support of lupus research and the 
delivery of lupus services. These funds will help to expand and 
intensify the research efforts of the NIH to diagnose, treat, and 
eventually cure lupus.
  Lupus attacks the immune system. A patient's immune system loses its 
ability to tell the difference between foreign substances and the 
patient's own cells. As a result, the patient's immune system makes 
antibodies which end up attacking the patient's immune system. This can 
result in debilitating pain and fatigue, making it difficult for lupus 
victims to maintain employment and lead normal lives. Lupus can be 
fatal if not detected and treated early.
  Thousands of women with lupus die each year. Lupus afflicts women 
nine times more than it does men, and has its most significant impact 
on women during the childbearing years. About 1.4 million Americans 
have some form of Lupus--one out of every 185 Americans. As estimated 1 
in 250 African American women between the ages of 15 and 65 develop 
lupus.
  Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of lupus for sufferers and 
family members is the fact that there is no cure. Lupus is devastating 
not only to the victim, but to family members as well. Research, 
treatment, education and financial support are essential so that we can 
help victims and their families cope until we are able to conquer this 
terrible disease.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in providing this essential support 
for persons suffering from lupus and vote in favor of the CBC budget.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
this fundamentally fair and morally principled budget.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Ms. Waters).
  (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute budget.
  I rise to support the alternative budget resolution presented by the 
Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). In particular, the CBC's alternative 
is significant for the funding allocated in the International Affairs 
portion of the budget resolution.
  Between the fiscal years 2001 and 2005, the CBC budget resolution 
would allocate $43 billion more to International Affairs compared to 
the Republican budget resolution. This would provide essential funding 
to institutions such as the African Development Bank, the African 
Development Fund, the Child Survival and Disease Fund, and the Peace 
Corps.
  This additional funding is critical particularly to ensure full 
funding for debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries.
  Today, I am introducing the Limpopo River Debt Relief and 
Reconstruction Act to provide assistance to Mozambique and other 
countries of southern Africa that have been devastated by recent 
floods.
  The Limpopo River Debt Relief and Reconstruction Act would completely 
cancel the debts owed by these countries to the United States and 
provide assistance for the repair and reconstruction of damaged 
infrastructure in these countries. Limpopo River Debt Relief and 
Reconstruction funding is essential to enable Mozambique and other 
southern African countries to provide for the needs of their people, 
repair their damaged infrastructure and rebuild their economies.
  Debt relief is desperately needed by many other heavily indebted poor 
countries as well. The governments of these countries have been forced 
to make drastic cuts in basic services such as health and education in 
order to make payments on their debts.
  Nigeria, for example, is a deeply impoverished country that would 
receive tremendous benefits from debt relief. Nigeria's per capita 
income is only $300 per year and the country spends no more than $5 per 
person per year on health services. Without debt relief, Nigeria's 
fragile democracy is in danger of collapse. Debt cancellation will give 
Nigeria a fresh start and a sound basis for a democratic future.
  For these and many other important reasons, I urge my colleagues to 
support the Congressional Black Caucuses' alternative budget.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the other side for being so 
generous with their time this afternoon.
  Mr. Chairman, to close this debate, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), who sort of put this whole 
thing together for us.
  (Mr. THOMPSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for his leadership in 
directing the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) and myself to prepare 
this budget. This budget, as you have heard, clearly reflects the 
priorities of the Congressional Black Caucus. Those priorities reflect 
our district.
  For too long this economic upswing has missed a lot of the people we 
represent. So our budget, offered in the nature of a substitute, 
clearly directs the resources of this country to those individuals who 
have been left out.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget will increase the education budget over $10 
billion. We have to do something about educating our children.
  In addition to this, we have to work on housing. The gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) talked about a housing initiative for 
home ownership. We support that home ownership initiative.
  More than that, Mr. Chairman, this budget is a balanced budget. 
Unlike many budgets of the past, we understand fiscal integrity. So 
what we have offered, in addition to this balanced budget, is one that 
also provides modest tax cuts for working Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, we also protect Social Security, Medicare, and, yes, we 
pay down on the national debt.
  Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus budget is a reasonable

[[Page H1354]]

budget, and one I urge all my colleagues to support.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the vice chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to take a minute to commend 
the Black Caucus for putting this budget together and setting their 
priorities right. I have an historic black college in my district, Fort 
Valley State University, which I am very proud to represent and work 
very closely with those folks individually as well as through the 
university system to ensure their priorities are addressed. I have any 
number of good friends who are members of this caucus, and we 
appreciate the hard work that you all have done.
  I want to talk for just a minute and remind folks again why we deem 
our budget to be the best. First of all, we are going to save and 
continue to protect Social Security by setting aside 100 percent of the 
Social Security surplus to pay the beneficiaries of Social Security. We 
are going to strengthen Medicare to include a prescription drug 
provision. We are going to retire the public debt. We are going to set 
it on course to be retired by 2013. In this budget, over the next 5 
years we are going to retire $1 trillion worth of debt.
  We are going to promote tax fairness for families, for small business 
people, for farmers, and for seniors. We are going to restore America's 
defense, and we are going to strengthen support for education and 
science.
  I want to take just a minute to refer back to the defense budget that 
the President has submitted and show again what we have done with 
respect to plussing up the President's defense budget over the last 5 
years. The red line represents the President's proposed budget. The 
blue line represents what we in this Congress have passed. The majority 
has made a real commitment to the defense of this country, and we 
continue to do so in this budget.
  There is one particular provision that I want to make reference to 
that has an effect on everybody in this room, and it is the provision 
on impact aid. If you live near a military reservation, a military base 
of any sort, and you do not get the appropriate impact aid for your 
school system, then the ad valorem taxpayers in that jurisdiction wind 
up paying a penalty.
  So what the President has done every year that this majority has been 
in Congress is to come in with a reduction in his budget for impact 
aid. What that is is a hidden tax on the landowners or everybody who 
resides close to a military base. We have got to have impact aid going 
to the school districts where our children are educated if they are 
going to get the quality education that we demand.
  So what we have done over the last 5 years, what we again do in our 
budget this year, is to plus up the President's budget from an impact 
aid standpoint, so that we can ensure that all children, irrespective 
of whether their parents are in the military or not, will be able to 
get the quality of education that we dictate and demand.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Black Caucus budget and a ``yes'' vote on 
the Republican budget.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the substitute 
amendment to H. Con. Res. 290 offered by Representative Clyburn.
  In particular, I offer my enthusiastic support for the $225.5 million 
in funding the substitute provides to the National Telecommunications 
and Information Agency (NTIA). NTIA administers many important programs 
designed to begin closing the Digital Divide--the gap between those 
with access to the Internet and information technologies and those 
without. NTIA will also be active next year in encouraging meaningful 
improvements to the Nation's telecommunications infrastructure by 
giving directed research and program grants.
   Mr. Chairman, I am encouraged that the Clyburn substitute allocates 
$97.5 million to NTIA's Digital Divide cluster of programs. The 
centerpiece of this cluster of programs is the allocation of $45.1 
million to fund grants for the Technology Opportunities Program. The 
Technology Opportunities Program matches private contributions with 
government funds to promote the widespread availability of advanced 
telecommunications technologies. Dollars allocated through this program 
would be used to purchase equipment for building networks and linking 
networks to one another, connect communications networks such as the 
Internet, train people in the use of equipment and software, and 
purchase telephone links and access to commercial on-line services. 
With these projects, rural and low-income communities that may not 
otherwise have the means or opportunity, are able to tap into the 
wealth of information that is accessible via advanced 
telecommunications technologies and use this technology to improve the 
delivery of health care, public safety efforts and other services.
  Another important allocation for part of the NTIA's Digital Divide 
cluster of programs is $50.0 million for the Home Internet Access 
Program. This new program would provide low-income individuals and 
families with the connections, training, and support necessary for full 
participation in today's information economy. The goal of the Home 
Internet Access program is to bridge the digital divide by providing 
targeted investments to bring these at-risk populations online.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition to closing the Digital Divide, the Clyburn 
substitute would support NTIA's programs to support critical 
infrastructure projects. Specifically, the Clyburn substitute allocates 
$110.1 million for Public Telecommunications Facilities, Planning, and 
Construction. Grants funded by this allocation would assist communities 
in purchasing the equipment needed by local public broadcasting 
organizations to meet the 2003 FCC deadline for public broadcasting 
organizations to convert to digital transmission.
  Mr. Chairman, the Digital Divide is a major socio-economic problem 
facing our nation today, and it threatens future opportunities for 
large segments of the population that lack access to the Internet and 
other new technologies. In the new digital age, it is vital that all 
Americans have access to the new telecommunications and information 
technologies, and the Clyburn substitute provides essential funding to 
meet this challenge.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Owens) as the designee of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Clyburn).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 70, 
noes 348, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 70]

                                AYES--70

     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Larson
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Markey
     Martinez
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Scott
     Serrano
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--348

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham

[[Page H1355]]


     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Ackerman
     Archer
     Bonilla
     Crane
     Dixon
     Greenwood
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Largent
     Lowey
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHugh
     Quinn
     Royce
     Schakowsky
     Vento

                              {time}  1900

  Ms. DeGETTE and Messrs. PALLONE, ADERHOLT and BEREUTER changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. KUCINICH, FARR of California, JACKSON of Illinois, and Mrs. 
NAPOLITANO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 2 printed in Part B of House Report 106-535.


  Amendment No. 2 In The Nature Of A Substitute Offered By Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Part B Amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute 
     offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2001.

       The Congress declares that concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2001 and that the appropriate 
     budgetary levels for fiscal years 2002 through 2005 are 
     hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2005:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,533,703,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,582,252,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,634,316,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,702,913,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,766,406,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $0.
       Fiscal year 2002: $4,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $10,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $17,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $24,000,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,558,245,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,595,233,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,640,506,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,706,914,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,775,092,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,502,313,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,566,294,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,616,960,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,682,278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,752,016,000,000.
       (4) Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $31,390,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $15,958,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $17,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $20,636,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $14,390,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $________________.
       Fiscal year 2002: $________________.
       Fiscal year 2003: $________________.
       Fiscal year 2004: $________________.
       Fiscal year 2005: $________________.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 2001 through 2005 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $276,216,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $274,507,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $279,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $276,447,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $284,794,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $283,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $291,766,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $287,368,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $299,355,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,317,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,710,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,306,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,691,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,615,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,617,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,120,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,998,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,777,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,284,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,527,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,857,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,883,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,508,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,141,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,727,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,732,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,129,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,573,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,238,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $197,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,310,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,186,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-83,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,265,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-131,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,297,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-31,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,862,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,926,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,621,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,619,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,325,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,416,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,004,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,626,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,518,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,851,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,697,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,923,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,848,000,000.

[[Page H1356]]

       (B) Outlays, $18,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,093,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,633,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,944,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,642,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,827,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,656,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,089,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,711,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,016,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,144,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,099,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,150,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,076,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,756,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,537,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,580,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,270,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,017,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,439,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,403,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,077,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,326,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,048,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,279,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,420,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,144,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,780,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,710,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,723,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,944,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,542,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,855,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,882,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,635,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,645,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,788,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,645,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,453,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,708,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,570,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $89,757,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $171,749,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $166,795,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $184,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $181,297,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $197,553,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $194,924,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $213,097,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $211,383,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $231,207,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $230,061,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $218,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $214,711,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $227,226,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $225,737,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $243,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $242,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,454,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,253,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $289,877,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $289,519,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,819,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $260,890,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $276,396,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $287,353,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $289,509,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $299,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $301,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $313,203,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $316,095,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,723,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,723,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,567,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,567,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,266,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,266,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,013,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,013,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,833,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,833,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,791,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,703,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,428,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,125,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,903,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,606,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,248,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,906,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,651,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,285,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,392,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,814,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,869,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,297,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,655,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,866,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,077,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,579,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,503,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,924,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,190,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,053,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,512,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,131,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,816,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,392,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,465,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,619,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,512,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $287,910,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $287,910,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,957,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $288,956,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $284,821,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $284,821,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $280,128,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $280,128,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,160,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $275,160,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $-38,073,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-38,073,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $-41,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-41,230,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $-40,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-40,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $-37,629,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-37,629,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $-38,652,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-38,652,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report to the 
     House a reconciliation bill not later than May 26, 2000, that 
     consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to increase the total level of revenues by 
     $9,345,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $151,574,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 446, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a debate about values and priorities. We are 
setting the scene for the entire spending of the budget of the United 
States of America, all the billions of dollars in taxes collected from 
our citizens. We want to see a change in the priorities.

[[Page H1357]]

  Today, the United States ranks first in military spending. We spend 
five times as much as our strongest potential adversary, the Russians, 
who are pretty pathetic. Yet, the United States is tenth, tenth in per 
capita education spending. If we addressed what the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Kasich) of the Committee on the Budget referred to earlier as 
sloppy management at the Pentagon with the 10 percent cut in exotic 
weapons procurement, keeping whole the readiness budget, keeping whole 
the housing, personnel, and other budgets, supporting our troops, we 
could be number one in the world in military spending by four and a 
half times instead of five times our next adversary.
  But we could move from tenth to first in education. We could invest 
more in health care; in our veterans, fulfilling our obligations to 
them; infrastructure; schools; clean waters; sewers; transportation; 
housing. The list goes on.
  The Republican budget assumes that all of those things I listed, 
except for the Pentagon, will be reduced by $19 billion below current 
levels of spending. Our budget, instead, would raise the levels of 
spending on education by more than $20 billion over the Republican 
levels. Health care would be dramatically increased. We would increase 
veterans over $2 billion over the Republican budget. Infrastructure, 
schools, clean water, sewers, housing, the list goes on.
  This is about priorities, and it is about values, and it is about how 
we spend our people's money. We are proposing a budget that would spend 
the money more in line with the values of a majority of the American 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the most important thing that we compare this 
budget to the budget that the Republicans have proposed is that the 
Republicans have proposed a balanced, common sense approach.
  What will this mean to the average American family? It means that we 
will have a debt-free Nation for our children. We have balanced the 
budget. The Republican budget will pay down the $3.6 trillion debt over 
the next 13 years. It means a more secure future for our seniors. We 
stop the 30-year raid on Social Security, and we preserve the Social 
Security surplus into the future.
  It means a stronger effort to find cures for cancer and Alzheimer's. 
We are making a significant commitment to further research in the 
health area.
  It means a safer world and fulfilling our pledge to those who made it 
that way. We are going to keep our commitment to our veterans.
  We increase funding for education. What we do in education is we 
target those dollars so that, when the Federal dollars get down to the 
local level, it gives the local entities a maximum amount of 
flexibility to design the programs that best fit the needs of that 
community, that school, and the children in that area.
  We increase funding for IDEA, the Individuals With Disabilities 
Education. We increase funding for title VI. This is innovative 
education programs. This is the most flexible dollars that come to a 
local school district.
  We keep our commitment to defense by ensuring that those communities 
that have defense installations will get the Federal assistance that 
they need.
  What does this mean? It means that we give local communities maximum 
flexibility. It is a very different approach than what the President is 
taking. The President's approach, the Democratic approach, is to 
develop more programs and run them through a bureaucracy in Washington 
and force local communities to accept programs that do not necessarily 
work, in many cases that do not work at all. We are running them 
through a bureaucracy that for 2 years has failed its audits and has 
told us that for 2 more years we can expect failed audits. It means 
that we are running $35 billion through this agency each and every 
year, and they cannot tell us where the dollars are going.
  The Republican budget says and the Republican program says let us get 
these dollars back to a local community, let us give these dollars to 
local administrators, to parents and teachers that know the names of 
our kids.
  It is not an issue of spending. It is an issue of getting maximum 
effectiveness for each and every dollar that we have committed to 
education.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Progressive 
Caucus budget. Unlike the Republicans, progressives understand and have 
developed a budget which addresses the reality that millions of 
Americans today are working longer hours for lower wages; that this 
country has, by far, the most unfair distribution of wealth and income 
in the industrialized world; and that, while the wealthiest people have 
never had it so good, 20 percent of our children live in poverty, 44 
million Americans lack health insurance, and millions more are unable 
to afford the prescription drugs they need.
  This budget understands that many in the middle class are going 
deeply into debt to be able to send their kids to college and that we 
must significantly increase funding for education so that every child 
has the opportunity to succeed.
  This budget understands that we do not need to give tax breaks to 
billionaires, spend huge sums of money on wasteful and unneeded weapons 
systems, or provide multinational corporations with $125 billion a year 
in corporate welfare.
  Mr. Chairman, the progressive budget addresses two particular 
outrages that this Congress must deal with. First, we significantly 
increase funding for the veterans of this country who have put their 
lives on the line to defend this Nation, and we are proud to do that.
  Secondly, this budget in a meaningful way begins to address the 
horrific Medicare cuts brought about by the so-called Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997, cuts which have caused terrible reductions in services for 
the elderly, in hospitals, home health care agencies, and nursing 
homes.
  The bottom line is that when we talk about priorities, we do not give 
tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and turn our backs on the 
elderly, the children, or the veterans. The Progressive Caucus budget 
is a sensible budget that meets the needs of the middle class and 
working families of this country and must be passed.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), a member of the Committee 
on the Budget and also a member of the House Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of rhetoric regarding 
this progressive budget. But let me say this, as I was listening, if 
Ronald Reagan had paid attention to this sort of rhetoric and allowed 
our national security to slip as much as what this progressive budget 
would be, I could imagine we would still have the Soviet Union, we 
would still have the Iron Curtain.
  But let me talk about what our budget does. It protects 100 percent 
of the Social Security surplus, strengthens Medicare with prescription 
drugs, $40 billion for that. It retires the publicly held debt by the 
year 2013. It strengthens education and science, and I want to talk 
specifically about science. It promotes tax fairness. Eliminating the 
marriage penalty tax is not to the wealthy, it is a fairness issue. It 
gets to the very values that we have in eliminating the earnings limit 
and decreasing the inheritance tax and allow farmers to pass on their 
farm from one generation to the next. It restores America's defense.
  I want to talk a little bit about NIH funding, the National 
Institutes of Health. As we can see from this chart, we clearly show 
that the Republican priority over the Clinton-Gore priority and the 
Democratic priority has been to fund basic research, the kind of 
research that provides the cures to diseases that affect every family 
in this country.
  Let me read a statement from the NIH: In these final years of the 
20th century, we have seen an explosion of progress against cancer. We 
have begun

[[Page H1358]]

to gather significant information from programs launched only 2 or 3 
years ago, right during the time we increased the funding. With our 
recent funding increase, we have been able to launch innovative new 
programs that will have far-reaching effects into the next century.
  I think about results from the breast cancer prevention trial, 
showing that we had a 49 percent reduction in the incident of primary 
breast cancer during the treatment period in women of high risk for the 
disease. Things like this that affect every single family in America.
  Is there anybody out there that has not been affected by Alzheimer's 
disease?
  We have one of the major centers at the University of Kentucky, the 
Sanders Brown Center for Aging that does a lot of research on 
Alzheimer's disease. NIH is very important to that institution 
providing money to back basic research. One day my hope is that we do 
not have any family affected by this disease that has such tragic 
effects.
  Because of the increased funding, I am hopeful that one day, because 
of the Republican priorities, which stand for the values of making sure 
that we provide the health care for this Nation, that we are going to 
cure diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease.
  So I encourage my colleagues to vote against this progressive budget, 
vote for the Republican budget. It provides the necessary basic dollars 
for science, education, national defense, paying down the debt, 
providing real tax relief and fairness, and protecting Social Security.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Owens).
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I begin by congratulating the Progressive 
Caucus budget for going a long way toward strengthening our defense and 
our security because they recognize that education is the most 
important priority of our government.
  It is brainpower that will carry us forward in the military sector, 
the economic sector, whatever. Brainpower. Viewing our schools and our 
education system as a giant mobilization for whatever the future 
brings.
  In our Republican budget, and even to some degree in the President's 
budget, we are still making the same error that the Russians made. They 
were building tanks, millions and millions of tanks, for a war theater 
that had long ago left tanks behind. We are increasing defense by $17 
billion in the Republican budget and increasing it by too much in the 
President's budget; and we are neglecting the place where we should 
mobilize for all kinds of contingencies, and that is education.
  I want to congratulate the Progressive Caucus budget. I want to say 
the Blue Dogs' budget is impressive in the area of education. They have 
increased education in their budget. It is only the Democratic 
substitute that lags behind and the President that lags behind in terms 
of understanding that it is brainpower that is going to drive our 
future.
  As we go into a cyber-civilization, where digitalization is the key 
to all activities, it is ``dot com'' all over the place. We need 
smarter and smarter people to run our economy.
  Social Security is jeopardized if we have a workforce that cannot get 
out there and generate the income and we have to contract all our 
income-generating activities to foreign countries which have the people 
who can run our high-tech society.
  We are way behind in our thinking. This was a golden opportunity. I 
think that we should look at education, defense, and economics as being 
inextricably interwoven. We cannot separate education out from the rest 
and education comes first.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry), a member of the Committee on the Budget and the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, anytime we have to try to put together a Federal 
budget, we have a number of priorities and demands, and we have to try 
to find the appropriate balance among those different demands and 
priorities. I think that the budget which the Committee on the Budget 
has recommended is a far superior budget to the substitute now being 
offered.
  It starts out by making sure that we set aside 100 percent of the 
money we take from people in social security taxes and not let that 
money be spent for any other government program. It then goes on to 
strengthen Medicare and trying to set aside $40 billion so that we can 
modernize and improve Medicare to include a prescription drug benefit. 
I think all of us recognize that a system born in the 1960s needs to 
try to keep up with the changes of health care and this will allow us 
to do that.
  It goes further to retire a billion dollars of debt over the next 5 
years, and it will strengthen and increase support for education and 
science, including vital medical research.
  It then has two other important priorities, I think, that are missing 
from the substitute now before us. The budget recommended by the 
Committee on the Budget has important provisions to have tax relief for 
American taxpayers. And I think it is very easy for those of us in 
Washington to forget whose money it is that we are talking about. We 
have got to remember that the Federal Government reaches into the 
pockets of hard-working Americans and takes away from them part of the 
money that they work hard each day to earn. We have to be sure that if 
we are going to do that, and take their money out of their pockets, 
that we spend that money better than they. I think that is a very 
difficult test for us to meet.
  Federal taxes are now higher than they have been at any time since 
World War II, and one of the priorities of this budget is to allow 
people to keep more of the money that they earn.
  Finally, this budget also has a priority to restore America's 
defenses. I believe that the first function, really, of the Federal 
Government, is to defend the country. So we have a 6 percent increase 
in defense spending, $1 billion more than the President.
  Our armed forces are committed all around the world. Some of us would 
not choose to have those same commitments, but the fact is they are 
there. Texas National Guard people are today on station in Bosnia. And 
while I wish they were not there, it is essential that we provide them 
everything that they need to do their job.
  But in addition to making sure we keep the commitments we have today 
around the world, we have to prepare for the future, and that means 
some investment; that means research; that means developing new kinds 
of systems to help protect us from incoming ballistic missiles, to help 
fight against the spreading of nuclear, chemical, biological and 
radiological weapons that are going all across the world.
  It means we have to be prepared to deal with new kinds of threats, 
threats with computers and threats to our vital national 
infrastructure. New things are threatening our country, and we have to 
be prepared to defend against them.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, how this Congress chooses to spend our 
Federal funds says a lot about who we are as people and as a Nation.
  So what are we saying today? The Republican budget, which will cause 
40,000 children to lose Head Start services by the year 2005, says that 
preschool services for low-income children just is not very important. 
On the other hand, the Progressive Caucus budget is the only budget 
resolution being offered today that will fully fund Head Start.
  And should this Nation not increase funds for child care subsidies by 
$4 billion, as the Progressive Caucus budget does, instead of causing 
over 12,000 low-income children and their families to lose their child 
care subsidies, as the Republican budget does?
  What priorities are being reflected when the Republican budget 
freezes funding for higher education, for training and employment 
programs? The progressive budget increases funding

[[Page H1359]]

for education at every level, including education technology and after-
school programs.
  The Republican budget, which increases defense spending, while making 
deep cuts in domestic spending, says loud and clear that weapons are 
more important than people. Is that what this Nation is really about? 
Is that who we are as people? I am not, and I say that this Nation's 
national security should be measured by how we invest in our children, 
not weapons.
  Our true national security depends on how well our children are 
educated. That is why I will be voting against the Republican budget 
resolution, and I will be voting for the progressive budget. I urge all 
of my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
the 8th District of North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time to speak about what is an excellent Republican budget.
  This is a good budget. Maybe it is not a perfect budget, but it has 
balance. It meets critical needs. It addresses crucial policy issues. 
It saves every penny of Social Security for our seniors.
  This budget provides generously for education, while stressing local 
decisions, local control, assuring opportunities for our public school 
system and for our children.
  This budget wipes out the national debt in the very near future.
  This budget restores our national defense and begins to mend broken 
promises made to our veterans and active duty personnel by this 
administration.
  This budget addresses vital health care needs, strengthens Medicare, 
and provides assistance for seniors with prescription drugs.
  Last but not least, the theme of my friends on the left is that 
Washington is more wise than the taxpayers are; Washington can spend 
taxpayers' money more wisely than they can. I respectfully disagree 
with this position. It is my belief that Americans can make better 
decisions than Washington can about how they spend their own money. 
Americans, and my folks in the 8th District, deserve tax fairness, and 
they deserve more of their own money to spend on their own needs.
  This budget is good for North Carolina's 8th District and it is good 
for America. I recommend a ``yes'' vote for this fine Republican 
budget.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the House 
Republican budget and in support of the Progressive Caucus budget.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when our Nation is experiencing the most 
unprecedented economic expansion ever, more than 35 million Americans 
still live below the poverty level and have yet to experience benefits 
of this historic boom. Never in our Nation's history have so many had 
so much, and still the gap widens between this country's haves and 
have-nots. As the greatest industrial Nation in the world, this is a 
travesty; and changing this should be our top priority.
  Instead of addressing this issue head on, the Republican budget fails 
to help those across ethnic communities that need the most help. It 
fails our seniors by providing nothing to strengthen Social Security or 
Medicare. It fails more than 300,000 low-income women dependent on 
programs like WIC and Head Start. It fails our youth by cutting student 
loans. And it fails our urban communities who want to help themselves 
by cutting funding for empowerment zones.
  Republicans have sacrificed this Nation's working families all to 
fund another reckless scheme to benefit a wealthy few. My colleagues, 
the American people have been clear. They want Social Security fixed, 
they want better schools for their children, and they want all 
Americans to benefit from this current economic prosperity, not just 
the wealthy few who the Republicans carve out a special tax break for.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this irresponsible budget that 
includes a risky tax proposal which leaves working families, American 
families, behind.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green), an outstanding freshman member of the Committee 
on the Budget.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Right now we are talking about the so-called progressive substitute 
amendment. That term, progressive, actually means something very 
specifically to me, because I come from the State of Wisconsin, where 
the Progressive Party perhaps reached its greatest heights. Our two 
statutes, our contribution to Statuary Hall, include Fighting Bob La 
Follette, really the father of the Progressive Party.
  I would also say that that progressive tradition is alive and well in 
Wisconsin today. All of my colleagues know about what we are doing in 
the area of education reform and welfare reform. Well, it seems to me, 
from the Wisconsin perspective, if we want to talk about progressive 
themes and a progressive budget, the budget that we should be 
supporting, quite frankly, is not the so-called progressive substitute, 
but is, instead, this budget, the Republican budget plan. Because in my 
view that is the true Republican progressive plan.
  Number one, it strengthens retirement security. It protects 100 
percent of the Social Security surplus. It sets aside $40 billion to 
provide for prescription drug coverage. That is progressive, to me.
  It promotes tax fairness, attacking some of the absurdities, some of 
the injustices in our Tax Code. It provides for reducing the marriage 
penalty. It provides for small business tax relief. And thanks to a 
sense of the Congress resolution that we added in the Committee on the 
Budget, it also takes care of one of the great problems that our 
farmers are facing in income averaging.
  My colleagues may not be aware, but as the IRS is looking to 
implement the income averaging plan from the 1997 balanced budget 
agreement, they will not let farmers take into account years in which 
they lose money. Well, I have news for the IRS. Coming from the 
Midwest, I know that we have lots of family farms who are losing money.

                              {time}  1930

  That to me is a progressive plan. Our budget plan strengthens support 
for science and education. We increase education funding by 9.4 percent 
over last year; that is progressive. A difference between our budget 
and the so-called progressive plan is that our education funding is 
student centered, not bureaucracy centered.
  Under our plan, we ensure that money leaves Washington, leaves the 
bureaucracy and gets in the hands of classrooms and communities all 
across the Nation. We believe that our budget plan is the true 
progressive plan, because it seeks to make sure that every American 
will have the tools and the opportunity to pursue the American dream; 
that is progressive.
  Let us take a look quickly at the progressive budget plan. It is 
well-intentioned; however, it cuts $30 billion out of defense. How is 
that progressive? How is that progressive? How can you worry about 
progressive values if you are not secure? How can you worry about 
progressive values if your Nation is at risk?
  The progressive plan also raises taxes by about $151 billion over 5 
years. How is that progressive? As we all know, the tax burden that we 
are facing right now is the highest that we faced since World War II. 
We are paying wartime taxes at a time when we are supposedly at peace.
  More and more families have to have two wage earners, not by choice, 
they have to have two wage earners just to make ends meet. And, yet, 
the progressive plan would increase their tax burden.
  My friends, I do not believe it is progressive. I am afraid I believe 
it is regressive. It is going backwards. It is going back to the days 
of tax and spend. Look carefully at what our budget does. It 
strengthens the retirement security system by locking away 100 percent 
of the Social Security surplus and providing for prescription drug 
coverage; that is progressive.
  It retires the debt by the year 2013 to hopefully keep interest rates 
down and

[[Page H1360]]

keep the economy growing and keep those good jobs coming; that is 
progressive. It strengthens dramatically our investment in education 
and science; that is progressive. It promotes tax fairness for families 
and farmers and seniors, and, yes, it provides for defense. My friends, 
this is the progressive budget plan.
  I urge you all to vote for it. I urge you all to reject the well-
intentioned, but, I am afraid, regressive progressive budget plan.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Chambliss) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  If it is progressive to cut taxes for the wealthy and continue huge 
corporate tax loopholes while taking the money out of the pockets and 
cutting the programs for middle-income and lower-income Americans, 
then, yes, your version of a budget is progressive. Our version of a 
budget puts money in the pockets of middle-income and working families, 
funds programs that are important to them. Yes, it does raise taxes on 
the largest corporations in the world that are skating on their taxes 
today and those who are the most wealthy who are doing very well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Progressive Caucus Budget. I want to talk about one of the most 
important pieces of this budget, housing. As we all know, home is where 
the heart is, but if we leave America's current housing crisis in the 
hands of our Republican counterparts, a lot of hearts and families will 
be broken.
  Do not ever forget that in 1994 the Republicans wanted to abolish the 
Department of Housing in their Contract on America. At a time when we 
have seen economic expansions throughout the Nation, the Republican 
budget makes significant decreases in critical housing programs.
  Our housing and development programs are some of the most important 
things that we do to help communities and working people help 
themselves. The progressive budget increases funding for community 
development, grants empowerment zones, and economic development.
  This budget would help our cities develop sewer systems and help our 
local government rebuild schools and water treatment plants. This 
budget would make a real difference for the Americans who need it the 
most.
  I want to make it clear that I will be voting for the progressive 
budget and against the Republican continual reverse Robin Hood, robbing 
from the poor and working people to give a tax break to their rich 
friends.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair tell us the remaining 
time, please?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has 
7\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) 
has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I believe we have the right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has the right to 
close.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who was here just a few 
moments ago mischaracterizes the tax portion of the progressive budget. 
I think that ought to be noted. During the Eisenhower administration, 
corporations in this country paid about one-third of the taxes that are 
collected by the Federal Government, under the Republican-run Congress, 
that number has declined to one-eighth, therefore, all of that tax 
obligation has been transferred to working Americans.
  The working Americans that he was complaining about are bearing a 
higher share of the burden, as a result of the tax policies that are 
contained within the Republican budget.
  The progressive budget would create a much fairer system, a system 
which recognizes that working people ought to get tax relief, and that 
is what that budget does. Among the other deficiencies in the 
Republican budget, it fails to recognize the fact that we live in 
community and community obligations and responsibilities.
  The progressive budget would help rebuild America by providing a 
rebuild America infrastructure program which would provide tens of 
billions of dollars to communities across our country to rebuild 
schools, highways, bridges, and to fund water supply and sewer 
treatment facilities, all of which are desperately needed in every 
community across America.
  Furthermore, the progressive budget recognizes our responsibility to 
education. For the first time, it fully funds Head Start. Head Start is 
recognized as the most effective educational program ever devised. It 
gives little children an opportunity to get a head start with their 
education. The progressive budget does many things that are good for 
our communities. Let us support it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me the time, and I thank him for introducing the 
progressive budget substitute.
  There are many reasons to support this budget substitute: education, 
Head Start, the commitment to working people. But I would like to 
comment on fulfilling the long overdue commitment on public lands 
resources in this country.
  Over 300 Members of the House have cosponsored legislation in this 
session which would reverse the shameful record of recent Congresses in 
severely underfunding programs to protect the public lands to promote 
recreation and resource protection.
  The House Committee on Resources has reported out the Conservation 
Reinvestment Act by a 3-1 margin, and we are waiting for the Republican 
leadership to allow the full House to work its will on this historic 
bill.
  In the meantime, the Republican budget perpetuates the failure of 
recent Congresses to protect threatened resources on behalf of future 
generations.
  Congress made a promise to the American people 35 years ago: when we 
develop our offshore energy reserves, we will dedicate a small portion 
of the proceeds to the permanent protection of America's parks, 
wilderness, forests and other public lands.
  So what happened? The leasing, exploration and development of the 
Outer Continental Shelf has proceeded for four decades, but the 
taxpayers and the Lands and Water Conservation Fund have been cheated. 
The money has been credited to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 
but the Congress has refused to spend it year after year. And now the 
leaders of the Republican Party in this House are telling the American 
people that they want more offshore oil drilling off of California, off 
of New Jersey, off of Alaska, off of Florida, but still no willingness 
to live up to the promise they made in 1965 to protect our natural 
resources.
  The Republican budget resolution that is before this House today 
perpetuates this larceny against the American public and American 
environment. Because the Republican budget ignores the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, it ignores the current bill and it ignores what the 
American people said they want.
  Eighty to 90 percent of the American people want the full funding of 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. They want it in the North and the 
South, in the East and the West, and even in the Rocky Mountain West. 
These people want their resources protected, and the way that can be 
done is by fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  The substitute introduced by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
on behalf of the Progressive Caucus is a substitute that does that, and 
this Congress ought to support that effort tonight.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the alternative 
budget presented by the Progressive Caucus.
  This resolution is a significant alternative for many reasons. 
Particularly, it is significant for the funding allocated to education, 
training, employment services, housing, and community development 
programs.

[[Page H1361]]

  For Fiscal Year 2001, the progressive budget resolution will provide 
$9.13 billion more to education, training, and employment services and 
$15 billion more to community and regional development programs 
compared to the Republican budget resolution. This would provide 
essential funding to programs and institutions such as the Community 
Development Block Grant, the Economic Development Agency, the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, historically black colleges and universities, summer 
youth employment, community technology centers, Head Start, and Pell 
Grants.
  These programs are essential to enable America's most vulnerable 
citizens to improve their economic, educational, and housing 
circumstances.
  Conversely, the Republican's budget resolution would cut those 
programs and other essential services such as Women, Infants and 
Children's nutrition program, known as WIC; the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, the Child Care Block Grant, and Section 8 Housing.
  The Republicans intend to cut these important programs in order to 
give unreasonable and massive tax cuts.
  Unlike the Republicans' plan, the Progressive Caucus's alternative 
budget puts America's most vulnerable citizens first.
  For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support the Progressive 
Caucus's alternative budget.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, it is not enough around here to be against 
something. We have to be for something.
  What we have laid out here is our marker. It is what we believe in. 
The President told us what he believed in in his budget. Nobody around 
here wanted it, which is why we have all these alternative budgets.
  The alternative budget in front of us right now is different from the 
press's but, in a lot of respects, it is the same. It increases 
spending and raises taxes, cuts defense. That is what they are for.
  What we are saying what we are for in this budget is protecting 100 
percent of the Social Security surplus, strengthening Medicare, 
providing $40 billion, and making possible a prescription drug program, 
retiring the public debt by the year 2013, paying it down, 
strengthening support for education, increasing spending on special-ed 
by $2 billion, and promoting tax fairness for families, farmers and 
seniors, getting rid of the marriage penalty, earnings limit for 
seniors, and also dealing with small business tax relief. These are the 
things that we believe in. And, also, making investment and rebuilding 
the defense system in this country, which has been badly neglected for 
the past several years.
  That is what this debate is about. We all get to vote. Everybody has 
their day. Everybody gets to talk about what they believe in. We have 
heard what they believe in. This is what we believe in. This is our 
budget. This is our statement of priorities. This is our vision for the 
future: Paying down debt, locking up Social Security for our seniors, 
strengthening support for education, promoting tax fairness, and 
helping our families and farmers, and also making investment in 
agriculture.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) for his leadership and his vision and thank the Progressive 
Caucus for putting forth this vision for a better America. I want to 
stand today in strong support of this budget.
  Like the Congressional Black Caucus, the Progressive Caucus budget 
balances the budget, saves Social Security and Medicare, without 
excluding low-wage workers, the poor, and communities of color.

                              {time}  1945

  While poverty and unemployment have gone down, there are still 
millions of Americans who are not able to take advantage of this great 
economic boom. As a member of the Subcommittee on Housing and from 
northern California, I am particularly concerned about the rising cost 
of housing and access to affordable housing. The Joint Center for 
Housing Studies at Harvard University reports that because of the cost 
of housing, because it has actually outpaced wages, some renters are 
paying more for their housing today than they did for comparable units 
in the 1970s.
  According to a February 12 Washington Post article which I will 
submit for the Record, the cost of housing is so high in northern 
California that software executives making over $53,000 a year are 
homeless and living out of their cars. In fact, the article cites one 
individual making $80,000 a year forced to live in a shelter. This is 
outrageous. The Progressive Caucus budget invests more in section 8 
housing, homeless assistance, senior housing, housing for the disabled 
and other important housing programs.
  This budget shows that during significant economic growth, we can 
invest where it is most needed, for education, for housing, the 
environment, foreign assistance, health care and violence prevention. 
This budget shows that sound fiscal policy does not have to leave out 
the poor, low-wage workers, communities of color, the disabled, our 
senior citizens, and our veterans. Let us make our peace dividend work 
here in America by ensuring our national security interest from within 
our own country as well as ensuring a safe and secure world. We must 
defend our country, not only from outside threats but from the threats 
of poverty and unemployment and income inequality and inadequate 
education and the growing gap between the rich and the poor.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following article for the Record:

   The High-Tech Homeless; in Silicon Valley, A Dark Side To Booming 
                                Economy

                          (By Mark Leibovich)

       Cupertino, Calif.--Each night, on the floor of a church 
     that sits a few hundred yards from the campus of Apple 
     Computer Inc., software executive Gordon Seybold unfurls a 
     bedroll and attempts to sleep. It rarely comes. He often 
     spends hours staring into blackness, wondering how Silicon 
     Valley's wealth stampede could keep rushing past a man with 
     his resume.
       Last January, Seybold lost his job as a corporate sales 
     manager for Oakland-based C2Net Software Inc., where he said 
     he was on track to earn $125,000 last year, including 
     commissions. He tried to find a new job, came close a few 
     times, but ultimately turned up nothing after several months. 
     In August, he was evicted from his $1,600-a-month apartment 
     in West San Jose.
       Since then Seybold, who holds three degrees and speaks five 
     languages, has landed on the Silicon Skids, joining a fast-
     growing homeless population that might be the best 
     credentialed in the nation.
       They are marked by the same runs of bad luck, bad habits 
     and bad decisions that lead to shelter doors anywhere. But 
     Silicon Valley's homeless also provide a starkly different 
     perspective on the giddy high-tech world, one that mocks 
     every common mythology about this place. They are, in many 
     cases, victims of the same aura of promise that keeps 
     technology workers flooding here. Largely hidden and 
     ignored--in shelters, on floors, in cars--their plights 
     define this boom era just as aptly as any overnight geek 
     tycoon.
       If this were another place, at another time, it might be 
     easier to reduce expectations, forget stock options and move 
     to a place where tiny rooms don't rent for $1,200 a month. 
     But it's hard not to wish big here. New millionaires get 
     spawned in bull market litters--64 a day, by one count--and 
     it imbues even homeless shelters with a gambler's sense of 
     possibility.
       ``There's so much sudden wealth here, it's creating a Vegas 
     mentality,'' said Barry Del Buono, executive director of the 
     Emergency Housing Consortium, which operates seven shelters 
     in Silicon Valley. ``A lot of our homeless are living on the 
     hope this economy is creating. But people don't realize how 
     brutal it can be here if you lose your footing.''
       Or how the downward spiral can spin just as fast as the 
     sudden-wealth machine. Seybold, 56 said he lost his job at 
     C2Net in a mass layoff, though a company spokesman cited 
     ``other factors.'' Whatever the reason, it caused him to 
     become depressed, which hurt his employment prospects. So did 
     his advancing age, an unspoken liability in a high-tech 
     industry obsessed with the new and young. He spent last fall 
     living in a 1984 Chevrolet van.
       Today, Seybold is in a program for homeless men run by 
     Cupertino Community Services. It provides career guidance, 
     shelter and donated meals at a network of Silicon Valley 
     churches, many of them nestled in neighborhoods of million-
     dollar homes. At night, his floormates keep him awake with 
     their somnolent gunts and moans, which echo through the 
     sanctuary in a chorus of unconscious unease.
       ``One of the drawbacks of sleeping in a big church room is 
     that they have perfect acoustics.'' Seybold said. He stays in 
     Silicon Valley because he has worked in technology for 25 
     years. ``There is 10 times more opportunity here than 
     anywhere else for someone like me,'' he said, but added that 
     he is thinking about leaving to join the Peace Corps. He

[[Page H1362]]

     recently took a job as a salesclerk at a drugstore in 
     Cupertino. It pays $8.50 an hour.


                     rethinking failure as success

       Here, as elsewhere, accounts of becoming homeless often 
     involve a unique, precipitating circumstance: a fire or a big 
     rent increase; some physical or mental hardship. It is rare 
     to find a homeless person who has had plenty of breaks and 
     has done everything right.
       But the pioneer's mentality of Silicon Valley can impose 
     perverse interpretations on personal failure. In 
     entrepreneurial circles, failure is said to be a valuable 
     experience, laudable even. It can be the source of vital 
     business lessons and proof of a pioneer's willingness to take 
     chances. And in the strange calculus of the dot-com world, 
     failure is success, as revealed by the stock prices of 
     Internet companies that have never made a profit.
       But that's a santized notion of failure, describing an 
     entrepreneur's ability to make large amounts of money vanish, 
     often someone else's. Technology workers who wind up homeless 
     represent a baser notion of failure.
       ``This is the kind of failure that no one in Silicon Valley 
     likes to think about,'' said Ray Allen, who runs the 
     Community Technology Alliance, a San Jose organization that 
     provides voice-mail service to local homeless people and 
     online resources to community aid groups. ``The fact is, the 
     technology industry is creating incredible wealth, and it's 
     also creating incredible poverty.''
       At its crux, this poverty is born of simple economics. The 
     prosperity has sent the cost of housing soaring and pushed 
     lower-income people, many of them employed, onto the * * 
     * margins of society.
       ``We all have perceptions of what a homeless person is 
     supposed to be like, and I'm not it,'' said Tom McCormack, 
     38, who works as a system engineer at CompuNet Systems 
     Solutions Inc., a network-software firm in San Jose. He wears 
     crisp blue dress shirts and earns $52,000 a year, which 
     should be enough to pay for a low-rent place, but isn't when 
     it's added to child-support payments and past credit-card 
     debts.
       McCormack faced desperate circumstances last spring when a 
     roommate moved out of his San Jose apartment and his landlord 
     doubled the rent to $1,600. ``I'm a workaholic and I didn't 
     have much of a social network,'' he said. ``I had nowhere to 
     go.'' He moved into his 1982 Subaru.
       Until a few days ago McCormack lived at Inn-Vision, a beige 
     concrete shelter tucked between the San Jose Arena and a 
     cluster of auto body shops. His quarters were a 4-by-7-foot 
     cubicle separated from 88 roommates by curtain walls, as in a 
     military hospital ward. Rules are strict. Last week one of 
     his shelter mates, Randall Condon, 46, a computer-networking 
     expert, said he was written up by a shelter manager for 
     leaving a book about non-Euclidian geometry on his bunk bed.
       Last weekend McCormack reached his six-month limit at Inn-
     Vision and is back living in his Subaru. He spends hours at 
     night lying in the back seat, reading books on computer 
     programming by flashlight.
       The question recurs: Why does he stay in Silicon Valley?
       The answer recurs: ``This place is just full of 
     opportunity,'' he said. ``This is where my brain food is.''
       And prospective Cyber Cinderellas keep coming: ``This place 
     has this incredible mystique,'' said Cathy Erickson, who runs 
     the Georgia Travis Center, a drop-in office for homeless 
     people in San Jose. ``People come from all over the world to 
     expect instant success, instant hope. But there's only so 
     long you can afford to stay in a hotel.'' She frequently 
     tells them to go back where they came from.


                        high-tech helping hands

       Cisco Systems Inc., the San Jose-based computer-networking 
     giant, comes to the main Emergency Housing Consortium shelter 
     to train prospective technology workers. And Mary Ellen 
     Chell, the executive director of Cupertino Community 
     Services, said one large technology company, the name of 
     which she can't divulge, has inquired about housing new-to-
     town employees in its shelters. This symbiosis between 
     Silicon Valley's wealth centers and its fringes underscores a 
     precarious separation between the two.
       While homeless populations are notoriously difficult to 
     track and quantify, Silicon Valley's has risen steadily in 
     recent years, local social service workers said. Nearly 
     20,000 people will experience a ``homeless episode'' this 
     year in Santa Clara County, which covers most of Silicon 
     Valley, up from about 16,000 five years ago.
       But what's most striking is the increasing percentage of 
     working people who now live in homeless shelters, a 
     nationwide phenomenon that is poignantly evident in Silicon 
     Valley. Since 1992, 250,000 new jobs have been created here 
     and only about 40,000 new housing units have been built.
       ``If they were somewhere else, there's a good chance they'd 
     be living in the suburbs,'' the Emergency Housing 
     Consortium's Del Buono said. ``We turn out people every day 
     who are making $60,000 a year.'' He said that about half of 
     the consortium's 1,100 clients are employed. The biggest 
     shelter, a converted office building that houses 250 people 
     next to a San Jose industrial park, is open 24 hours, but is 
     nearly empty at midday.
       Many of Silicon Valley's shelter dwellers fit the 
     conventional shopping cart prototype: hard-luck veterans, 
     unemployed single mothers, the mentally or criminally 
     deinstitutionalized. But talk to enough homeless people and a 
     theme resonates--it doesn't take a lot of misfortune here to 
     start a rapid descent.
       ``I have a good job and I can't believe I wound up without 
     a place to live,'' said Tracy Ramirez, a customer service 
     representative at Cyantek, which makes chemicals for the 
     semiconductor industry. She lives half a mile from the main 
     runway of San Jose Airport in a one-room, Emergency Housing 
     Consortium ``transitional home,'' where she shares a bed with 
     her 3- and 9-year-old daughters.
       Ramirez, 35, earns $16.90 an hour, about $34,000 a year. 
     She pays $600 a month in day-care costs, $300 a month in car 
     payments. She also has a litany of other bills, expenses and 
     debts trailing from her past, many accrued during a since-
     ended marriage. A bad credit history, a bankruptcy and an 
     eviction last September inevitably kill her chances with 
     landlords, aside from the fact that the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development considers $47,800 a year to be ``low 
     income'' for a three-person household in Silicon Valley. She 
     started getting anxiety attacks last summer.
       Her mother, Carolyn Cabral, earns $14,80 an hour working on 
     an assembly line at 3COM Corp. but can't afford a place 
     closer than Mantica, a two-hour drive to her office in Santa 
     Clara. Cabral, 59, who has worked 16 years at 3COM, wakes up 
     at 3:15 a.m. to come to work in the valley. (The commute can 
     reach three hours with traffic.) She could get a job closer 
     to home, but says it would cut her pay by half.
       ``Silicon Valley is a victim of its own success,'' said 
     Carl Guardino, chief executive of the Silicon Valley 
     Manufacturers Group, the area's biggest high-tech industry 
     trade organization. With an unemployment rate of 2.7 percent 
     and average annual wages that are nearly $20,000 higher than 
     the national average, it's impossible to deny the success.
       It's of some consolation that shelters receive donations 
     from tech zillionaires, especially during the holidays. In 
     December, for example, a Yahoo Inc. employee gave $100,000 in 
     stock to 10 social service agencies, said Maury Kendall, 
     communications manager at the Emergency Housing Consortium. 
     Last month, after local news outlets reported that pets 
     belonging to homeless people could not stay in shelters, 
     donations poured in, Kendall said. ``We just got $15,000 to 
     start a kennel.''
       But the housing crisis is clearly exacting a toll on 
     humans, A study revealed this week that for the first time in 
     five years, more people are leaving Santa Clara County than 
     are arriving. While the difference was negligible--1,284 more 
     people moved out than in--the lack of affordable housing has 
     become the biggest obstacle that valley companies face in 
     keeping and recruiting employees, Guardino said.
       ``We would like technology workers to drive their cars, not 
     live in them.''


                            a fast free-fall

       ``There's a very thin line in Silicon Valley between being 
     a director and being a derelict,'' said Randall Condon, the 
     computer-networking expert encamped at San Jose's Inn-Vision. 
     ``Everything here is accelerated--business cycles, wealth 
     creation, and certainly the rate at which your life can fall 
     apart.''
       Condon was living in Olympia, Wash., where he had moved to 
     be with a girlfriend and work at an Internet service 
     provider. In November, as the relationship was ending, he 
     lost everything in an apartment fire. He came to Silicon 
     Valley because he had worked in technology for 20 years.
       After a brief and futile search for a rental, Condon came 
     to Inn-Vision. He sleeps--or tries to--in a large room with 
     43 other men, whom he collectively refers to as ``the snoring 
     symphony.'' Condon, who has sad blue eyes and oily chestnut 
     hair, said he tries to stay busy and positive.
       On a rainy Monday in mid-January, he calls his existence 
     ``tortuous.'' Libraries were closed for Martin Luther King 
     Jr. Day, which denied him access to his prime job-seeking 
     tool, the Internet. ``I'm a total cyber-cripple in here,'' he 
     said.
       But a postscript: Condon got a job last week, at a San Jose 
     Internet start-up company where he says he will earn more 
     than $80,000 a year, plus stock options. He won't name his 
     new employer because he doesn't want people there to see this 
     article. They don't know that he lives in a shelter.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), a member of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Minnesota 
is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in opposition to the 
Progressive budget and in favor of the common sense Republican budget. 
I do want to at least congratulate the progressives for their 
intellectual honesty. I may disagree with their conclusions, but at 
least I think they have been intellectually honest in bringing this 
budget forward. In fairness, what this budget does that they are 
proposing would cut $30 billion from defense. That is at a time when we 
have 265,000 troops in 132 different countries. Some of us do not 
believe that is the right thing to do. They increase spending by

[[Page H1363]]

$38 billion in fiscal year 2001, and they raise taxes by about $9 
billion this year and $151 billion over 5 years. That is their 
conclusion. That is the plan that they are offering. We respect that.
  But let me talk a little bit about where we are. I told the story 
earlier about the little red hen. That was that little red hen that had 
the chicks and she found some wheat, she planted the wheat, she asked 
how many of her barnyard friends would help her grow the wheat. Not I, 
said the cow; not I, said the pig; not I, said the cat. No one wanted 
to help her grow the wheat. Then when it was time to harvest the wheat 
she asked for help. Not I, said the cow; not I, said the pig; not I, 
said the cat. When it was time to bake the bread, nobody wanted to 
help. Not I, said the cow; not I, said the pig; not I, said the cat. 
But when it was time to eat the bread, everybody wanted to be there.
  Over the last several years, we have built up a surplus. We have done 
it by making some of those tough decisions. Now everybody wants to get 
in on the act and decide how we will divide that surplus. This is a 
common sense budget, but let us look at where we have been. If we would 
have stuck just to the spending levels that we were left when we came 
here as a majority in 1995, we would have spent an additional $625 
billion. That is not my numbers, that is the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  Let us compare where we are compared to what the President proposed. 
What the President proposed this year in additional discretionary 
spending was a 6.6 percent increase. We are proposing only 1.8 percent. 
You can see the inflation line. We are making tremendous progress. But 
I think this is the most important chart of all. For the first time in 
my adult lifetime, the Federal budget is going to grow at a slower rate 
than the average family budget over the next 5 years.
  The average family budget according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
is going to grow by 4.6 percent annually and our total Federal budget 
is going to increase by 2.9 percent. What will happen? We will create 
enormous surpluses and we are saying, $1 trillion over the next 5 years 
ought to go to pay down debt, debt held by the public, about another 
third of it ought to go to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and 
yes, make room for a prescription drug benefit. But the final third 
ought to go back to the people who pay the taxes.
  Here is one other area where we differ. We do not believe that 
married couples just because they are married are rich. We do not think 
businesspeople and farmers just because they are farmers are rich. We 
believe this is a fair budget. We hope that you will support us in the 
common sense Republican budget and oppose the so-called Progressive 
budget.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 61, 
noes 351, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 71]

                                AYES--61

     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Markey
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--351

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Ackerman
     Archer
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Crane
     Davis (VA)
     Delahunt
     Dixon
     Greenwood
     Hinchey
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lowey
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHugh
     Moran (VA)
     Quinn
     Royce
     Schakowsky
     Taylor (NC)
     Vento

                              {time}  2012

  Messrs. RADANOVICH, PASTOR, PALLONE and HOLT changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. SLAUGHTER changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 3 printed in part B of House Report 106-535.


 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 3 Offered by Mr. Stenholm

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.

[[Page H1364]]

  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 3 offered by 
     Mr. Stenholm:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2001.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2000 is hereby revised and replaced 
     and that this is the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2001 and that the appropriate budgetary levels 
     for fiscal years 2002 through 2005 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2005:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,405,500,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,509,718,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,557,246,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,610,844,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,610,757,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,738,810,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       Fiscal year 2001: $5,082,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,254,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $7,556,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $8,281,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $9,919,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,475,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,527,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,569,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,619,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,704,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,753,000,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,465,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,504,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,507,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,551,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,603,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,737,000,000,000.
       (4) Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $8,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $14,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $16,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $19,112,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $16,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $20,103,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $5,640,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $5,710,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $5,766,007,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $5,866,788,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $5,947,471,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $6,018,197,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2005 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $287,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $308,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $298,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $311,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $317,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $311,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $327,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $320,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $336,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $332,400,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,510,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,640,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,080,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,990,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,480,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,840,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,280,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,460,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,670,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,260,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,740,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,150,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,840,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,240,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,240,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,640,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,150,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $-1,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,328,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $167,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $-140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,728,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $-110,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,730,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $-120,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,817,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $3,850,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,160,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,010,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,780,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,080,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,070,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,150,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,220,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,280,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,170,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,070,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,830,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,910,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,130,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,090,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,150,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,180,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,770,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,820,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,580,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,960,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,260,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,060,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,520,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,360,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,860,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,760,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,030,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,220,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,870,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,340,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,040,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,180,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,490,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,480,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,740,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,380,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,650,000,000.

[[Page H1365]]

       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,380,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,820,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,050,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,920,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,660,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,420,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,220,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,640,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $159,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $152,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $170,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $167,172,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $181,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $181,272,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $193,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $191,572,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $207,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $206,372,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $224,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $222,172,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $199,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $199,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $218,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $218,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $227,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $227,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $247,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $246,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $269,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $269,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $295,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $295,700,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $238,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $247,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $252,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $255,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $263,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $272,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $274,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $294,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $295,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $297,200,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,180,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,760,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,160,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,070,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,670,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,520,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,720,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,340,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,330,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,290,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,010,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,940,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,080,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,760,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,850,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,550,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,680,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,640,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,240,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,570,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,740,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,530,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,520,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $284,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $284,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $288,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $290,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $290,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $286,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $281,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $278,700,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,732,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,730,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $-3,430,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-7,270,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $-1,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-3,130,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $-1,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-1,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $-2,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-2,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $-2,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-2,500,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $-41,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-41,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $-46,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-46,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $-50,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-50,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $-50,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-50,020,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $-48,210,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-48,210,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $-50,130,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-50,130,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Submissions Regarding Revenues.--The House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report to the House a reconciliation 
     bill--
       (1) not later than May 26, 2000;
       (2) not later than June 23, 2000;
       (3) not later than July 28, 2000; and
       (4) not later than September 22, 2000;
     that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the total level of revenues by not more 
     than: $5,082,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and 
     $35,680,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2001 through 
     2005.
       (b) Submissions Regarding Debt Held by the Public.--The 
     House Committee on Ways and Means shall report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill--
       (1) not later than May 26, 2000; and
       (2) not later than September 22, 2000;
     that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the debt held by the public by not more 
     than $8,189,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $80,580,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

     SEC. 5. USE OF CBO ESTIMATES IN ENFORCEMENT OF RESOLUTION.

       For purposes of enforcing the budgetary aggregates and 
     allocations under this resolution, the Chairman of the House 
     Committee on the Budget shall, in advising the presiding 
     officer on the cost of any piece of legislation, rely 
     exclusively on estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget 
     Office or the Joint Tax Committee, in a form certified by 
     that agency to be consistent with its own economic and 
     technical estimates, unless in each case he first receives 
     the approval of the Committee on the Budget by recorded vote 
     to use a different estimate.

     SEC. 6. TAX CUTS AND NEW SPENDING CONTINGENT ON DEBT 
                   REDUCTION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, it 
     shall not be in order to consider a reconciliation bill 
     pursuant to Section 4 of this resolution or any legislation 
     reducing revenues for the period of fiscal years 2001 to 2005 
     or increasing outlays for mandatory spending programs unless 
     there is a certification by Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office that the House has approved legislation which:
       (1) ensures that a sufficient portion of the on-budget 
     surplus is reserved for debt retirement to put the government 
     on a path to eliminate the publicly held debt by 2013 under 
     current economic and technical projections;
       (2) legislation has been enacted which establishes points 
     of order or other protections

[[Page H1366]]

     to ensure that funds reserved for debt retirement may not be 
     used for any other purpose, except for adjustments to reflect 
     economic and technical changes in budget projections.

     SEC. 7. RESERVE FUND FOR AUGUST UPDATE REVISION OF BUDGET 
                   SURPLUSES.

       (a) Allocation of Increased Surplus Projections.--If the 
     Congressional Budget Office report referred to in subsection 
     (b) projects an increase in the surplus for fiscal year 2000, 
     fiscal year 2001, and the period of fiscal years 2001 through 
     2005 over the corresponding levels set forth in its economic 
     and budget forecast for 2001 submitted pursuant to section 
     202(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House shall 
     make the adjustments as provided in subsection (c).
       (b) Congressional Budget Office Updated Budget Forecast for 
     Fiscal Year 2001.--The report referred to in subsection (a) 
     is the Congressional Budget Office updated budget forecast 
     for fiscal year 2001.
       (c) Adjustments.--If the Committee on Ways and Means 
     reports any reconciliation legislation or other legislation 
     reducing revenues exceeding the revenue aggregates in section 
     2(1)(B), reduce the revenue aggregates in section 2(1)(A) and 
     increase the amounts the revenues can be reduced by in 
     section 2(1)(B) by an amount not to exceed one-quarter of the 
     increased surplus. If the Committees on Agriculture, 
     Appropriations, Commerce, National Security, or Ways and 
     Means report legislation increasing spending above the 
     allocation for that committee, increase the allocation for 
     that committee and the aggregates set forth in sections 2(2) 
     and 2(3) by an amount not to exceed one-quarter of the 
     increased surplus.
       (d) Application.--Any adjustments made pursuant to 
     subsection (c) for any measure shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.

     SEC. 8. SAFE DEPOSIT BOX FOR SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the social 
     security trust funds are off-budget for purposes of the 
     President's budget submission and the concurrent resolution 
     on the budget;
       (2) the social security trust funds have been running 
     surpluses for 17 years;
       (3) these surpluses have been used to implicitly finance 
     the general operations of the Federal Government;
       (4) in fiscal year 2001, the social security surplus will 
     exceed $166 billion;
       (5) for the first time, a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget balances the Federal budget without counting the 
     social security surpluses;
       (6) the only way to ensure that social security surpluses 
     are not diverted for other purposes is to balance the budget 
     exclusive of such surpluses; and
       (7) Congress and the President should take such steps as 
     are necessary to ensure that future budgets are balanced 
     excluding the surpluses generated by the social security 
     trust funds.
       (b) Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any revision to 
     this resolution or a concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2002, or any amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, that sets forth a deficit for any fiscal 
     year.
       (2) Deficit levels.--For purposes of this subsection, a 
     deficit shall be the level (if any) set forth in the most 
     recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     that fiscal year pursuant to section 301(a)(3) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

     SEC. 9. DEBT REDUCTION LOCK-BOX.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives or the Senate to consider any reported 
     bill or joint resolution, or any amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon, that would cause a surplus for 
     fiscal year 2001 to be less than the level (as adjusted 
     pursuant to section 7) set forth in section 2(4) for that 
     fiscal year.
       (b) Special Rule.--The level of the surplus for purposes of 
     subsection (a) shall not take into account any adjustment 
     made under section 314(a)(2)(C) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974.

     SEC. 10. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE.

       If the Committee on Ways and Means or Committee on Commerce 
     of the House reports a bill or joint resolution, or an 
     amendment thereto is offered (in the House), or a conference 
     report thereon is submitted that reforms medicare, provides 
     coverage for medicare prescription drugs, or adjusts medicare 
     reimbursement for health care providers, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may increase the aggregates and 
     allocations of new budget authority (and outlays resulting 
     therefrom) by the amount provided by that measure for that 
     purpose, but not to exceed $2,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $2,000,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2001 
     and $40,000,00,000 in new budget authority and 
     $40,000,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2005 (and make all other appropriate conforming 
     adjustments).

     SEC. 11. RESERVE FUND FOR AGRICULTURE.

       (a) Fiscal Year 2000.--If the Committee on Agriculture of 
     the House reports a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment 
     thereto is offered (in the House), or a conference report 
     thereon is submitted that provides income support to owners 
     and producers of farms, the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may increase the allocation of new budget authority 
     and outlays to that committee for fiscal year 2000 by the 
     amount of new budget authority (and the outlays resulting 
     therefrom) provided by that measure for that purpose not to 
     exceed $6,000,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $6,000,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2000, $0 in new 
     budget authority and outlays for the period of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2004, and $6,000,000,000 in new budget authority 
     and $6,000,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 
     2000 through 2004 (and make all other appropriate conforming 
     adjustments).
       (b) Fiscal Year 2001.--If the Committee on Agriculture of 
     the House reports a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment 
     thereto is offered (in the House), or a conference report 
     thereon is submitted that provides risk management or income 
     support or other assistance for agricultural producers, the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget may increase the 
     allocation of new budget authority and outlays to that 
     committee by the amount of new budget authority (and the 
     outlays resulting therefrom) if such legislation does not 
     exceed $4,998,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $4,354,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2001 and 
     $24,761,000,000 in new budget authority and $23,610,000,000 
     in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005 
     (and make all other appropriate conforming adjustments).

     SEC. 13. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND 
                   AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and 
     aggregates made pursuant to section 10, 11, or 12 for any 
     measure shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this 
     resolution--
       (1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct 
     spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and 
     surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee 
     on the Budget of the House of Representatives or the Senate, 
     as applicable; and
       (2) such chairman, as applicable, may make any other 
     necessary adjustments to such levels to carry out this 
     resolution.

     SEC. 14. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

       It is the sense of Congress that legislation should be 
     enacting enforcing this resolution by--
       (1) establishing a plan to eliminate the publicly held debt 
     by 2012;
       (2) setting discretionary spending limits for budget 
     authority and outlays at the levels set forth in this 
     resolution for each of the next five years; and
       (3) extending the pay as you go rules set forth in Section 
     252 of the BBEDCA for the next ten years.

     SEC. 15. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE STABILIZATION OF 
                   CERTAIN FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO STATES, COUNTIES, 
                   AND BOROUGHS.

       It is the sense of the House that Federal revenue-sharing 
     payments to States, counties, and boroughs pursuant to the 
     Act of May 23, 1908 (35 Stat. 260; 16 U.S.C. 500), the Act of 
     March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. 963; 16 U.S.C. 500), the Act of 
     August 28, 1937 (chapter 876; 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. 1181f), 
     the Act of May 24, 1939 (chapter 144; 53 Stat. 753; 43 U.S.C. 
     1181f-1 et seq.), and sections 13982 and 13983 of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66; 16 
     U.S.C. 500 note; 43 U.S.C. 1181f note) should be stabilized 
     and maintained for the long-term benefit of schools, roads, 
     public services, and communities, and that providing such 
     permanent, stable funding is a priority of the 106th 
     Congress.

     SEC. 16. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON DIRECTING THE INTERNAL REVENUE 
                   SERVICE TO ACCEPT NEGATIVE NUMBERS IN FARM 
                   INCOME AVERAGING.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) farmers' and ranchers' income vary widely from year to 
     year due to uncontrollable markets and unpredictable weather;
       (2) in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Congress enacted 3-
     year farm income averaging to protect agricultural producers 
     from excessive tax rates in profitable years;
       (3) last year, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) proposed 
     final regulations for averaging farm income which fail to 
     make clear that taxable income in a given year may be a 
     negative number; and
       (4) this IRS interpretation can result in farmers having to 
     pay additional taxes during years in which they experience a 
     loss in income.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     during this session of the 106th Congress, legislation should 
     be considered to direct the Internal Revenue Service to count 
     any net loss of income in determining the proper rate of 
     taxation.

[[Page H1367]]

     SEC. 17. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON ESTIMATES OF THE IMPACT OF 
                   REGULATIONS ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) the Federal regulatory system sometimes adversely 
     affects many Americans and businesses by imposing financial 
     burdens with little corresponding public benefit;
       (2) currently, Congress has no general mechanism for 
     assessing the financial impact of regulatory activities on 
     the private sector;
       (3) congress is ultimately responsible for making sure 
     agencies act in accordance with congressional intent and 
     while the executive branch is responsible for promulgating 
     regulations, Congress ultimately can and should curb 
     ineffective regulations by using its oversight and regulatory 
     powers; and
       (4) a variety of reforms have been suggested to increase 
     congressional oversight over regulatory activity, including 
     directing the President to prepare an annual accounting 
     statement containing several cost/benefit analyses, 
     recommendations to reform inefficient regulatory programs, 
     and an identification and analysis of duplications and 
     inconsistencies among such programs.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     the House should reclaim its role as reformer and take the 
     first step toward curbing inefficient regulatory activity by 
     passing legislation authorizing the Congressional Budget 
     Office to prepare regular estimates on the impact of proposed 
     Federal regulations on the private sector.

     SEC. 18. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EDUCATION REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) strengthening America's public schools while respecting 
     State and local control is critically important to the future 
     of our children and our Nation;
       (2) education is a local responsibility, a State priority, 
     and a national concern;
       (3) a partnership with the Nation's governors, parents, 
     teachers, and principals must take place in order to 
     strengthen public schools and foster educational excellence;
       (4) the consolidation of various Federal education programs 
     will benefit our Nation's children, parents, and teachers by 
     sending more dollars directly to the classroom;
       (5) our Nation's children deserve an educational system 
     that will provide opportunities to excel; and
       (6) our children and society will benefit from States and 
     local educators working together with the Federal Government 
     to raise standards and improve educational opportunities, 
     particularly for America's poorest children.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Federal funding should be increased to States and local 
     schools, with funds targeted to the poorest schools;
       (2) the role of Federal education policy is to raise 
     standards for all children, and close the achievement gap 
     between groups of students;
       (3) legislation should be enacted which gives States and 
     local schools flexibility with Federal funds coupled with 
     increased accountability for performance and results, 
     including the requirement that states to ensure that all 
     students have fully qualified teachers; and
       (4) the Federal Government should demand increased student 
     performance, with consequences for schools and school 
     districts that continuously fail.

     SEC. 19. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON SPECIAL EDUCATION.

       (a) Congress finds that--
       (1) all children deserve a quality education, including 
     children with disabilities;
       (2) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     provides that the Federal, State, and local governments are 
     to share in the expense of educating children with 
     disabilities and commits the Federal Government to pay up to 
     40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for 
     children with disabilities;
       (3) the high cost of educating children with disabilities 
     and the Federal Government's failure to fully meet its 
     obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act stretches limited State and local education funds, 
     creating difficulty in providing a quality education to all 
     students, including children with disabilities;
       (4) the current level of Federal funding to States and 
     localities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act is contrary to the goal of ensuring that children with 
     disabilities receive a quality education;
       (5) the Federal Government has failed to appropriate 40 
     percent of the national average per pupil expenditure per 
     child with a disability as required under the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Act to assist States and localities to 
     educate children with disabilities; and
       (6) the levels in function 500 (Education) for fiscal year 
     2001 assume sufficient discretionary budget authority to 
     accommodate fiscal year 2001 appropriations for IDEA at least 
     $2,000,000,000 above such funding levels appropriated in 
     fiscal year 2000.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Congress and the President should increase function 500 
     (Education) fiscal year 2001 funding for programs under the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Act by at least $2,000,000,000 
     above fiscal year 2000 appropriated levels;
       (2) Congress and the President should give programs under 
     the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act the highest 
     priority among Federal elementary and secondary education 
     programs by meeting the commitment to fund the maximum State 
     grant allocation for educating children with disabilities 
     under such Act prior to authorizing or appropriating funds 
     for any new education initiative;
       (3) Congress and the President should, if new or increased 
     funding is authorized or appropriated for any education 
     initiative, provide the flexibility in such authorization or 
     appropriation necessary to allow local educational agencies 
     the authority to use such funds for programs under the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; and
       (4) if a local educational agency chooses to utilize the 
     authority under section 613(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act to treat as local funds up to 
     20 percent of the amount of funds the agency receives under 
     part B of such Act that exceeds the amount it received under 
     that part for the previous fiscal year, then the agency 
     should use those local funds to provide additional funding 
     for any Federal, State, or local education program.

     SEC. 20. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON ACCESS TO HEALTH INSURANCE 
                   AND PRESERVING HOME HEALTH SERVICES FOR ALL 
                   MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.

       (a) Access to Health Insurance.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) 43.4 million Americans are currently without health 
     insurance, and that this number is expected to rise to nearly 
     60 million people in the next 10 years;
       (B) the cost of health insurance continues to rise, a key 
     factor in increasing the number of uninsured; and
       (C) there is a consensus that working Americans and their 
     families and children will suffer from reduced access to 
     health insurance.
       (2) Sense of Congress on Improving Access to Health Care 
     Insurance.--It is the sense of Congress that access to 
     affordable health care coverage for all Americans is a 
     priority of the 106th Congress.
       (b) Preserving Home Health Service For All Medicare 
     Beneficiaries.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 reformed Medicare home 
     health care spending by instructing the Health Care Financing 
     Administration to implement a prospective payment system and 
     instituted an interim payment system to achieve savings;
       (B) the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999, reformed the interim payment system 
     to increase reimbursements to low-cost providers, added $900 
     million in funding, and delayed the automatic 15 percent 
     payment reduction for one year, to October 1, 2000; and
       (C) patients whose care is more extensive and expensive 
     than the typical Medicare patient do not receive supplemental 
     payments in the interim payment system but will receive 
     special protection in the home health care prospective 
     payment system.
       (2) Sense of congress on access to home health care.--It is 
     the sense of Congress that--
       (A) Congress recognizes the importance of home health care 
     for seniors and disabled citizens;
       (B) Congress and the Administration should work together to 
     maintain quality care for patients whose care is more 
     extensive and expensive than the typical Medicare patient, 
     including the sickest and frailest Medicare beneficiaries, 
     while home health care agencies operate in the interim 
     payment system; and
       (C) Congress and the Administration should work together to 
     avoid the implementation of the 15 percent reduction in the 
     interim payment system and ensure timely implementation of 
     the prospective payment system.

     SEC. 21. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON EMERGENCY SPENDING.

       It is the sense of Congress that as a part of a 
     comprehensive reform of the budget process the Committees on 
     the Budget should develop a definition of and a process for, 
     funding emergencies consistent with the applicable proviso of 
     H.R. 853, the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act of 1999 
     that could be incorporated into the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives and the Standing Rules of the Senate.

     SEC. 22. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MEDICARE+CHOICE PROGRAMS/
                   REIMBURSEMENT RATES.

       It is the sense of Congress that Medicare+Choice regional 
     disparity among reimbursement rates are unfair; and that full 
     funding of the Medicare+Choice program is a priority as 
     Congress deals with any medicare reform legislation.

     SEC. 23. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Medicare Payment 
     Advisory Commission continue to carefully monitor the 
     medicare skilled nursing benefit to determine if payment 
     rates are sufficient to provide quality care, and that if 
     reform is recommended, Congress pass legislation as quickly 
     as possible to assure quality skilled nursing care.


 Modification of Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 3 Offered 
                            by Mr. Stenholm

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute be modified.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:


[[Page H1368]]


       Modification of amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 
     3 offered by Mr. Stenholm:
  Page 11, line 5, in the matter proposed to be inserted, strike 
$51,820,000,000. Insert $54,320,000;
  Line 9, strike $55,960,000,000 and insert $55,020,000;
  Line 13, strike $54,060,000,000 and insert $57,360,000;
  Line 17, strike $55,360,000,000 and insert $58,760,000;
  Line 21, strike $56,300,000,000 and insert $58,800,000;
  Line 25, strike $56,330,000,000 and insert $58,800,000.

                              {time}  2015

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 446, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and a Member opposed each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, for 4 years, the Blue Dogs have offered an honest, 
fiscally responsible budget. We were the first to talk about balanced 
budgets without counting Social Security surpluses. We are the folks 
who consistently have hounded our colleagues about debt reduction. Why 
have we obsessed on this one topic? Because, just as tax dollars are 
your money, as is so often said by Members on this floor and at home, 
so is the $5.6 trillion debt your debt, and it is unconscionable to 
continue to pass that burden on to our children and grandchildren.
  In a release just delivered to my office, the highly respected 
Concord Coalition says, ``We believe the Blue Dog alternative provides 
the best overall budgetary framework for the next 5 years.''
  Last year the Blue Dog budget established the 50-25-25 rule in 
dealing with any non-Social Security surpluses: 50 percent to debt 
reduction, 25 percent to tax cuts, 25 percent to spending priorities. 
This substitute we now consider continues that philosophy.
  We retire the debt by 2012, 1 year earlier than any other proposal 
considered in the House today. We reject all budget gimmicks, like 
unrealistic caps or baselines, insecure lockboxes, backloading, and 
directed scorekeeping. We protect 10 percent of the Social Security 
trust funds. We provide for fiscally responsible tax cuts. We also 
respond to critical program needs in agriculture, in defense, for 
veterans and military retirees, in education and health care, including 
Medicare.
  We are proud of this budget, and we are proud of the influence which 
we think our small band of relentless true believers have had on this 
body over the past number of years. We encourage Members on both sides 
of the aisle, regardless of your label, to listen seriously to the next 
40 minutes of debate to see if you do not agree with us, and with the 
Concord Coalition, that this is the most reasonable and responsible and 
doable budget on the floor today.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my good 
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, balanced budget security for America's 
future, a GOP plan. I would like to go down this, if I could, to 
outline the six points of the Republican plan.
  Number one, protects 100 percent of Social Security surplus. All of 
the $166 billion Social Security surplus is off limits to Clinton-Gore 
spending. This will be the second year in a row that Republicans will 
be protecting the Social Security surplus.
  Secondly, we strengthen Medicare with prescription drugs. It sets 
aside $40 billion to help needy seniors afford their prescription 
drugs, and it rejects the $18.2 billion Clinton-Gore Medicare cuts.
  Point three, it retires the public debt by 2013. It pays off more 
than $1 trillion of public debt over the next 5 years. Our budget has 
already repaid $302 billion since 1998.
  Our next point, it promotes tax fairness for families, farmers, and 
seniors. It provides for the House-passed marriage penalty an average 
of $1,400 per married couple and small business tax relief, education 
and health care assistance amounting to $150 billion, and it rejects 
the $96 billion gross tax increase over 5 years in the Clinton-Gore 
budget.
  Number five, it restores American defense, 6 percent more than last 
year's for overdeployed Armed Forces. The GOP defense budget provides 
$1 billion more than the Clinton-Gore plan.
  Finally, number six, it strengthens support for education and 
science, 9.4 percent for elementary and secondary education, IDEA 
increases of nearly $2 billion. It fights cancer, AIDS and diabetes and 
other diseases with $1 billion more for NIH, and also $1 billion for 
basic research into biology, science, engineering, and math.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, our Federal public debt stands now at $3.6 
trillion. This equates to $56,000 for the average family of four. This 
year nearly $1,000 in taxes from every man, woman, and child in the 
United States will be used just to pay the interest on the debt.
  The Republican budget resolution sends our Nation on the path towards 
eliminating public debt by paying off $1 trillion over the next 5 
years. Paying off public debt makes good sense. It makes more money 
available in the private sector and saving and for investment in 
health.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds to respond in 
saying that this was great rhetoric we just heard, but it has nothing 
to do with the budget we are now discussing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, the critical question this evening as we 
debate the budget is how much are we doing to reduce our Nation's debt?
  The budget that is before us, the Blue Dog Coalition budget, clearly 
comes out ahead. To understand this, we have to begin by understanding 
the size of the Nation's debt. It now stands at about $5.7 trillion. My 
good friend from California, the previous speaker, talked about the 
debt that is held by Federal trust funds. Well, that is all very 
interesting, and he is talking about limiting the debt to Social 
Security.
  Well, that is interesting. But that does not mean it is not debt. If 
you look at the Republican budget that is under consideration tonight, 
you will find that at the end of 5 years the debt that we owe, that is 
that the United States of America owes, is up to $5.9 trillion. We are 
not reducing debt. All we are doing is what we are supposed to do with 
the Social Security trust fund, we are not invading it.
  Now, the Blue Dog Coalition budget is going to reduce the Nation's 
debt in a significant way. Over a 10-year projected period of time it 
would reduce the debt, and this includes the debt owed to Social 
Security, by $428 billion. We are also doing the same things that our 
colleagues on the Republican side talk about, prescription drugs and so 
on. We are not neglecting that. But we are reducing our debt by $428 
billion, whereas the Republican proposal is increasing that debt by $84 
billion over that 10-year period of time.
  I believe that this is a stinging indictment of the budget that the 
majority is trying to pull over our eyes. This is not a budget that 
they proposed that meets the demands of the American people, that we 
protect our children and grandchildren from this enormous $5.9 trillion 
debt that has been accumulated.
  I would like to ask my colleagues how they can explain that, when 
they are done, the debt will be $5.9 trillion over 5 years.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to quickly reiterate and correct the 
math from the past speaker. If you look at the debt at the end of the 
5-year window, the debt by the Republican budget resolution, the total 
debt subject to limit is actually lower than the debt in the Blue Dog 
budget, subject to limit, at the end of the 5 year window.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Bass).

[[Page H1369]]

  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in support of the 
Committee on the Budget budget and in opposition to the Blue Dog 
budget, with all due respect to what I think is a good effort to deal 
with the issue of debt retirement. However, as is the case in all 
budgets, we need to achieve balance. I just want to reiterate that what 
our budget does, most importantly, is to set aside 100 percent of the 
entire surplus in Social Security for Social Security. That will result 
in the reduction in the national debt of over $1 trillion over 5 years.
  Now, we need to talk apples and apples here. I think, unfortunately, 
we had a 10-year budget cycle last year. We are back to 5 years this 
year. We should stick with 5 years, because it is as easy to predict 
the budget 5 years from now or 6 years from now as it is to predict the 
weather 6 or 7 days from now. We know with our budget we will 
strengthen Medicare and provide a prescription drug coverage for 
seniors; and, if we fail to do it, those resources will go into debt 
reduction as well.
  Our budget will retire the entire public debt, if you believe in 
projections that go way out, by the year 2013, and our budget balances 
the issues of debt reduction and a stronger defense with the need to 
promote tax relief for working Americans. Never have taxes been higher 
than they are today. As we strive to deal with making a balance in a 
budget surplus environment, some portion of that budget surplus has to 
go to tax relief, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, to eliminate 
the Social Security earnings limit, just to name a couple of them.
  Lastly, what our budget does, and it is so important, is to 
strengthen support for education and science, most notably to increase 
funding for IDEA by over $2 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect the Blue Dog budget, but I think that our 
budget is a more balanced budget that will meet the needs of the 
American people.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of the Blue Dog 
substitute and in opposition to the Republican budget resolution.
  The Republican budget is plain and simple, it is irresponsible. 
Basically their budget adds up to $800 billion in tax cuts that they 
pay for at the expense of everything else in the budget, especially at 
the expense of future generations and our Nation's seniors. It puts 
Social Security and Medicare at risk.
  The Blue Dog budget protects our Nation's seniors. It increases 
funding for discretionary health care programs by $4.6 billion over the 
Republican budget. This higher funding level will allow for increased 
funding for rural health care programs, health research, and other 
programs to expand access to health care.
  The Blue Dog budget establishes a Medicare reserve of $40 billion 
over the next 5 years and $150 billion over the next 10 years. This 
reserve could be used to extend the solvency of Medicare, create a 
prescription drug benefit and provide provider relief that is 
desperately needed by our hospitals.

                              {time}  2030

  The Blue Dog budget allocates 25 percent of the debt reduction 
dividend of the savings and interest on the debt held by the public to 
provide additional resources for Medicare reform after 2010. We need to 
do what is right for our Nation's seniors and for our Nation's children 
and pass the Blue Dog budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller).
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of 
debate today. Our budget clearly protects 100 percent of the Social 
Security surplus. Our budget strengthens Medicare and prescription 
drugs. I am going to save retiring the debt to last because I think 
that is an important issue here. Our budget promotes tax fairness, our 
budget restores America's defense where it should be, and our budget 
strengthens and supports education.
  The reason we are here today with our debt is because the Democrats 
controlled this Congress from 1962 to 1994, and every dollar they took 
in, they spent $1.20. Since Republicans took over Congress, since 1994, 
for every new dollar we took in, we only spent 50 cents.
  But that is not the main issue today. I rise to draw attention as to 
why we should not pass this amendment, and that is because this 
amendment puts the Federal budget on auto pilot again. We need to 
reform government; we need to get rid of the waste.
  Let me show my colleagues one agency we could attack to get rid of 
much of the waste, and that is HUD. HUD is losing taxpayer dollars in 
huge amounts by keeping large inventories of foreclosed FHA houses. 
Just let me list a few of the statistics that we have.
  The Federal Housing Administration, FHA mortgage insurance paid out 
almost 77,000 claims, or $6 billion, in 1998. There is no reform for 
that. That cost is passed on to consumers in higher premiums. In 1997, 
single-family homes stayed in Federal inventory on an average of 5.4 
months; in 1998 it was 6.6 months; and in 1996, they had 25,000 single-
family homes in inventory; and in 1998 it increased to 40,000; and in 
1999, it was 50,000.
  The HUD single-family inventory was valued at $1.9 billion in 1996, 
and it increased in value to $3.3 billion in 1998. Fifteen percent of 
HUD inventory properties are held longer than 12 months. The industry 
average out there has about 3 months in inventory for 12 months. In 
1996, the average loss for property was $28,000. In 1998, the average 
loss had increased to $31,700. The average loss in 1999 was $32,470. If 
we multiply 50,000 properties in inventory by an average loss of 
$32,470, it is $1.6 billion.
  This is a bad proposal. Let us take government off auto pilot. Let us 
give people their money back. Let us give people tax cuts. Let us not 
say that we are going to take the money that belongs to taxpayers and 
we are going to continue to invest it in programs that do not work. Let 
us change the Federal Government, and the best way to change the 
Federal Government is get the money out of Washington. We can do it two 
ways. Are we going to continue to have government on auto pilot, or are 
we going to give hard-working people their money back to do what they 
think they should do with it? This is a bad proposal.
  The focus on paying down debt by 2012 compared to our proposal, 
paying it down by 2013 only changes the focus from the issue of putting 
government on auto pilot. We need to take it off auto pilot, we need to 
reform government, we need to get the waste and abuse out of 
government.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, American families deserve an honest budget 
based on realistic and conservative estimates of the surplus, a budget 
that takes a responsible approach to protecting Social Security and to 
ensuring that our children will not inherent a big national debt.
  The Blue Dog Democrat budget protects 100 percent of the Social 
Security surplus for Social Security. It commits the projected surplus 
50 percent to paying down the national debt, 25 percent to saving 
Social Security and Medicare, and 25 percent to tax relief. It is not 
fancy, it is not gimmicky, and it does not make promises that it cannot 
deliver. Most importantly, it is an honest budget that is good for our 
future.
  The Blue Dog budget contrasts sharply with the Republican budget. The 
Blue Dog budget adopts a more conservative estimate of the surplus. 
After all, this good economy may not go on forever. The Blue Dog budget 
makes a stronger commitment to paying off our $5 trillion national 
debt, rather than risking our historic opportunity to give our children 
a debt-free America. The Blue Dog budget is stronger on national 
defense and veterans' health care.
  The Blue Dog budget offers a realistic promise that not only will we 
keep our hands out of the Social Security Trust Fund, but that we will 
be prepared to put more in it when the baby boom generation retires and 
those deficits begin to mount in the trust fund. Finally, the Blue Dog 
budget guarantees that the tax relief we grant will be targeted to 
working, middle-income families who deserve to have their fair share of 
the prosperity of this new economy.

[[Page H1370]]

  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, do the right thing and support 
the Blue Dog Democrat budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. I would just like to say I have the greatest respect for the 
Blue Dogs; I think they honestly approach things in a straightforward 
fashion. I just think they are a little shy when it comes to the amount 
of money that they are getting back to the taxpayer.
  With taxes at an all-time high and non-Social Security surpluses 
growing, we need to provide tax relief to the hard-working Americans 
who earned it. The Blue Dog budget, as I understand it, would provide a 
net tax cut of only $36 billion over the next 5 years. That will not 
even begin to pay for the marriage penalty relief; it will not pay for 
the Social Security earnings limit or the small business tax relief 
bills that have been demanded by the American people.
  The Republican budget provides tax relief of at least $150 billion 
over the next 5 years, and an additional $60 billion for tax relief or 
debt reduction. The Republican budget is a responsible plan for all 
Americans. We have set our Nation on a course to pay down the public 
debt, to protect Social Security, to provide needed funds for Medicare 
reform and with prescription drug coverage. With these priorities met, 
how can we not justify providing tax relief for the American worker?
  Mr. Chairman, this is not our money. It does not belong to Washington 
bureaucrats; it does not belong to Members of Congress. This budget is 
paid for by the hard work and the sweat of the American worker. 
Americans know how better to spend their money than a micromanaging 
Washington bureaucrat.
  By lowering taxes, we will be telling the American people they are 
more important than bloated government bureaucracy. The Federal tax 
burden is at an all-time high, as I have said; and taxpayers frankly 
have overpaid. If we cannot give them their money back now, with the 
Government in the black and taxes at an all-time high, when the economy 
is strong, when can we do it?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on this amendment so that we can give 
the taxpayers what they rightly deserve.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas for yielding me this time.
  I rise today to speak to the agriculture part of the Blue Dog budget. 
Those of us from farm country, and I think we all ought to listen up 
and look at what is in this budget for agriculture. As we all know, we 
have a big problem out in farm country. Farmers are having a tough 
time. The Blue Dog budget increases the baseline for mandatory 
agriculture programs by $23.6 billion over the next 5 years, in 
addition to the $6 billion that is in the Republican budget, as well as 
ours. The increase in the agriculture baseline will provide funding for 
crop insurance legislation, initiatives to provide long-term 
agricultural safety net and income support programs, including dairy.
  I would point out to my good friend from Wisconsin, this budget has 
money to extend the price supports for the program for dairy, and the 
Republican budget does not. We also have money for agriculture 
research, expanded conservation research programs. So we have the money 
to do the kinds of things that we need to do in agriculture.
  The Republican budget does not provide any increase in the 
agriculture baseline beyond the increase necessary to fund crop 
insurance reform. I want to repeat that. There is no increase in the 
Republican budget for the baseline, which is going to be very important 
to us when we move out into doing something meaningful for agriculture 
in the future. There are no funds in the Republican budget to improve 
the agriculture safety net by providing any kind of income support 
program, which we all know we are going to need.
  So support the Blue Dog budget, because we provide a greater 
commitment to agriculture with over $16 billion more than the 
Republican version over the next 5 years.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the vice chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, a gentleman who has worked long and hard on 
agriculture issues.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say, as I said last night, 
that this budget is not a bad budget. It has a lot of provisions in it 
that I really like, particularly when it comes to agriculture and 
defense, two issues which I have a very keen interest in.
  But there is a problem here. There are a couple of problems with this 
budget that need to be addressed; and if those were addressed, it would 
certainly make it a much better budget.
  First of all, there is too much spending. The budget that the 
Republicans have put forward, really we had hoped would not spend as 
much money as we do, but we spend $595 billion. The Blue Dog budget 
spends $606 billion over the next 5 years, and those are uncontrollable 
expenses out there.
  From an agricultural perspective, I agree with the gentleman that we 
have to work towards a safety net. I am not sure we know what the 
answer to it is, but some of the things that are in your budget I think 
do head us down that direction.
  But there is one other problem with the agricultural portion in your 
budget that really ought to be addressed, that is, my farmers want a 
balance. They want a balance between some sort of income security and 
some sort of tax relief. The number one issue with my farmers outside 
of income is estate tax relief, and there is not enough room in the 
Blue Dog budget to provide for real meaningful estate tax relief.
  Now, we are going to get there eventually. I think we are going to 
wind up working together to get there because I know my colleagues' 
feelings on that; and I think it is something that ultimately we are 
going to be able to get together on that is going to be extremely 
beneficial for farmers. But unless my Democratic colleagues address 
those major issues in the budget, it simply does not provide for the 
things that we provide for in the Republican budget that create that 
balance in agriculture country.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds.
  I would remind my friend from Georgia that our budget provides a 
better death tax than the budget that our Republican colleagues are 
supporting. Our budget does.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Boyd).
  (Mr. BOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stenholm 
substitute, better known as the Blue Dog budget.
  Mr. Chairman, the cornerstone of this budget is debt reduction, and 
the Republican budget guarantees only $8 billion of their own budget 
surplus for debt reduction over 5 years. The Blue Dog budget, in 
contrast, provides $85 billion of their own budget surplus for debt 
reduction. The Blue Dog budget pays down 30 percent of the publicly 
held debt over the next 5 years. The Republican budget, in contrast, 
has most of its debt reduction after 2005.
  Secondly, the Blue Dog budget provides realistic domestic 
discretionary spending levels. The Republican budget calls for a $20 
billion inflation-adjusted cut in domestic spending. I say to my 
colleagues, the 5 years that the Republicans have been in control of 
this Congress, the average nondefense discretionary spending has 
increased by 2\1/2\ percent. We all know that a $20 billion inflation-
adjusted cut is unreasonable. The Blue Dog budget recognizes this and 
provides for realistic budget-spending levels.
  Thirdly, the Blue Dog has five spending-priority areas. Number one is 
defense, and it provides $15 billion more than the Republican budget in 
defense.
  Fourthly, veterans. It provides over $3 billion more; agriculture, 
over $2 billion more; education, over $15 billion more; and health 
care, over $4 billion more than the Republican budget.
  In addition to all of this, the Blue Dog budget provides over $36 
billion over the next 5 years in tax relief. I say to my colleagues to 
support the Blue

[[Page H1371]]

Dog budget, support realistic spending levels that will not require 
gimmicks in the appropriations process later this year. This is a 
fiscally-responsible budget, and it provides responsible tax relief.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much 
time is remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Ryan) has 8 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  The Republican budget as we have heard tonight has six key features, 
and I want to take a moment to talk about one of them, which is tax 
relief for hard-working Americans. When we talk about Federal taxes, it 
is useful to consider the overall context of the Federal budget here.
  Let us remember, Federal spending is higher than it has ever been. 
Federal taxes are higher than any peacetime in our Nation's history. As 
we heard earlier, about 21 percent of our entire economic output goes 
to the Federal Government.
  What the Republican budget does is it says after we set aside all of 
the Social Security funds for Social Security and to retire debt and 
after we pay down $1 trillion in debt over the next 5 years and after 
we set aside $40 billion of additional funding for Medicare over the 
next 5 years, and after rebuilding our national defense and 
reprioritizing funding for elementary and secondary education; after 
all of that, there is still an unprecedented surplus projected as far 
as the eye can see.

                              {time}  2045

  When taxpayers are paying more money than it takes to fund all of 
that, then it is obvious to me that taxes are just too high. So the 
Republican budget offers a modest but a meaningful measure of tax 
relief and tax fairness. We need to lower taxes and restore to working 
Americans some more of their freedom to decide how they want to spend 
their own money.
  Our colleagues with this amendment are offering a tiny, little, 
merely symbolic, but not a real meaningful tax cut. It is just not 
enough.
  Let us remember, when the Federal Government takes people's money 
away from them, it is taking part of their freedom away. This is money 
that the government takes from hardworking Americans that they will 
never be free to spend for themselves as they see fit. It is money that 
takes time to earn and that means time taken away that folks could 
spend doing other things like maybe spending more time with their 
children, maybe caring for an elderly family member, maybe volunteering 
in their community, or just enjoying some leisure time.
  At a time of already huge government spending, record high Federal 
taxes, it is unconscionable at this point not to provide the American 
people with the opportunity to keep a little bit more of the money that 
they earn.
  The Republican budget strikes the right balance. No more raiding of 
the Social Security surplus for the second consecutive year. Funding 
America's priorities like national defense and education, retiring a 
trillion dollars of debt over 5 years in tax relief for an overtaxed 
Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment with its 
puny, little tax cut and, instead, support the Republican budget.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. John).
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, truly a budget debate is strictly over 
priorities, priorities on what one does with one's money. The 
indisputable champion of debt reduction is the Blue Dog budget, $5.7 
trillion, $21,000 for every man, woman, and child to pay off our 
national debt, $354 billion in interest.
  Let me give my colleagues an idea of what that means. That is 100 
times more than we spend on cancer research. It is six times more than 
we pay for salaries for the military, 15 times the size of the 
veterans' budget. The debt simply should be the priority.
  The Republicans say that they pay off the debt by 2013. But their 
plan allots $50 billion over 5 years towards debt reduction, but it 
provides a loophole that says that they can use it for tax cuts. I do 
not understand that.
  Let us give a true tax cut. Pay down the debt, keep interest rates 
low. The Blue Dog plan is the champion.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, when I sent out my legislative questionnaire, my 
constituents wanted me to protect Social Security and not spend the 
surplus. My constituents wanted prescription drug assistance. They 
wanted us to pay down the debt, and they wanted tax fairness. They 
wanted a tax cut. That is what our budget does. That is why we see 
absolutely no reason at all to have any other budget but the one we 
have.
  What have we done? In the year 1999, the last year, we do not spend 
Social Security. We are not spending it in this year's budget, and we 
are not spending it in next year's budget. That is in our budget plan.
  When we were elected in 1994 and took office in 1995, we were looking 
at public debt going up $34 billion, $48 billion, $67 billion. That is 
what we were looking at. Our plan changed that so it goes down rather 
than up. Public debt is going down.
  In fact, what happened is, not only is it going down, it would have 
continued to go up but we are actually reducing public debt 
significantly.
  What have we paid back? We paid back $51 billion in 1998, $88 billion 
in 1999, $163 billion in the year we are in now, for $332 billion of 
debt payment down, and in our budget another $170 billion in the budget 
to come. That has left us as well the opportunity, out of $10 trillion, 
to have a $200 billion tax cut.
  I am absolutely amazed that we cannot cut 2 percent of our revenue in 
the next 5 years. We get $10 trillion, and we cannot cut $200 billion? 
We can, and we do.
  We have a marriage penalty tax elimination. We reduce the death tax. 
We have educational savings account. We have health care deductibility, 
community renewal, and pension reform. Not a tax cut for the wealthy, 
as my colleagues would imply, but a tax cut for the middle class.
  Then we make sure that, if we get additional surplus, we do not allow 
Democrats, frankly, to spend it. We set it aside for further debt 
reduction and more tax cuts. This is a sensible budget. We do not need 
another one.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hill), the newest member of the Indiana Basketball Hall of 
Fame.
  (Mr. HILL of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, for many years, people in 
Washington, Democrats and Republicans, have not been writing budgets 
that use real numbers. The majority's budget we are considering today 
is more of the same old song and dance, spend money the government does 
not have and make promises Congress cannot keep.
  The budget we are asked to vote on today sets spending levels that we 
all know will not address our national priorities and forces us to take 
money from Social Security and increase the national debt.
  I am a fiscal conservative Democrat who believes we should write a 
budget that uses real numbers and makes promises Congress can actually 
keep. The Blue Dog budget does this. It proves we can write a realistic 
budget that addresses the national priorities both parties share.
  For example, the Blue Dog proposal makes a serious commitment to our 
national defense and to the men and women who serve in the military. It 
provides $15 billion more than the Republicans do and the 
administration's plan and $10 billion for veterans. The Blue Dog budget 
also calls for a $40 billion tax relief. The American people need it, 
and we can afford this. It gives families, farms, and small business 
owners much needed tax relief but within a framework of fiscal 
responsibility.
  The organizing principle behind this Blue Dog budget is restoring 
fiscal responsibility to a government that has

[[Page H1372]]

been spending more than it has taken in over the years. It pays off the 
national debt faster than any other budget proposal the House will 
consider today.
  The moral thing to do is to relieve our children and our 
grandchildren of this debt. I urge my colleagues to support this Blue 
Dog budget resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Ryan) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, article 1, section 8 of the 
United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to provide for 
the common defense. It goes on to say that no money can be drawn from 
the Treasury except by appropriation by Congress.
  For more than a decade, the budget for national defense has 
decreased. In particular, for the past 6 years, a Democratic President 
has asked for far too little, and the Republican Congress has achieved 
almost all of the debt reduction at the expense of our Nation's 
defense.
  The result is its shrinking Navy fleet, almost 300 ships, aging 
weapons systems, the shortchanging of our men and women in uniform, the 
delay of their paychecks so that it will go on next year's bill instead 
of this.
  In human terms, it means people like Harry Schein, a Marine Corps 
lance corporal has to work two part-time jobs to make ends meet and to 
take care of his son. It means that people like Lisa Joles, the wife of 
a United States Marine, has to pick up used furniture on the side of 
the road to take care of her and other Marine families.
  But do my colleagues know, it gets worse. Our military retirees who 
were promised a lifetime of free health care if they served our country 
honorably for 20 years are being told they cannot come to the base 
hospital anymore.
  The Blue Dog budget increases defense spending over the Republican 
proposal by over $4 billion a year. One billion dollars of that would 
fulfill the promise of lifetime health care to our military retirees. 
That proposal has been endorsed by over 24 veterans organizations.
  The other $3 billion can go to address the pay problems. It can go to 
address the aging weapons systems. It can go to take care of readiness.
  The promise that was made to our service members and military 
retirees are more important than the promises that were made over a 
steak dinner and cocktails to some big contributor for a tax break.
  Tonight my colleagues get to decide which they think are more 
important.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I support the Blue Dog budget very simply 
because it provides debt reduction with savings to Social Security and 
Medicare, priority spending for education, veterans, agriculture, 
defense, health care and prescription drugs, and provides responsible 
tax relief from the death tax, the marriage penalty, and it gives 
deductions for health care to the self-employed. It is a good budget. 
It is fiscally responsible, and we just ought to pass it.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the caps are right. The budget we will consider next 
recognizes the gimmicks in the budget that we are considering at the 
base bill.
  The reason my colleagues can claim all of the things that they claim 
regarding debt is they are back end loading. They are in fact double 
counting in areas in which many of them who have been speaking do not 
truly appreciate what their committee has done. They are back end 
loading.
  It is true when we talk about Social Security and our tax cuts, it is 
true, ours are puny compared to theirs. The problem is that theirs 
explodes in 2014 when the Social Security drain will become real. When 
the baby boomers become retirees and begin drawing Social Security, 
that is when their tax cut will become a problem that the Blue Dogs 
wish to avoid. I wish they would recognize that.
  We have been criticized for too much spending, but at the same time 
folks on this side have said we agree with your military spending. We 
agree with your defense spending. We agree with your spending for 
veterans. They cannot have it both ways. Ours is the most responsible.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds to 
rebut.
  The difference between the Blue Dog budget and the Republican budget 
is that the Blue Dog budget cuts less taxes and spends more money.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Sununu).
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, one of the previous speakers, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), described very clearly what the 
fundamental difference is between these two budgets.
  The Republican budget, after we set aside every single penny of the 
Social Security surplus, and after we set aside $40 billion for medical 
care reforms and prescription drug coverage, and after we pay down $1 
trillion in debt over 5 years, and after we fund critical needs and 
defense, $2 billion more for the unfunded mandate of special education 
costs, after we invest in veterans' health care, only then do we 
recognize the importance of letting Americans keep a little bit more of 
their own money.
  The Blue Dog budget just does not understand this. It is a minuscule 
tax cut over 5 years.
  Let us look at the difference, the difference in values here. This is 
the tax relief in the Republican budget and the marriage penalty. Now, 
we could pay down a little bit more debt if we wanted to keep 
penalizing married couples simply because they chose to get married, 
but that would be wrong.
  Repeal the Social Security earnings limit. We could pay down a little 
bit more debt if we wanted to keep punishing those seniors that want to 
be a productive part of the workforce, but that would be terribly 
wrong.
  We could keep taxing family farms and small businesses, send them to 
the IRS and the undertaker on the same day, but that would be wrong.
  We could decide not to give individuals health insurance 
deductibilities just like we give to big corporations, but that would 
be wrong.

                              {time}  2100

  Sure, we could pay down a little bit more debt in addition to the 
trillion dollars in debt over 5 years, but that would be wrong.
  We fundamentally recognize that what we need to do is not just reduce 
the tax burden on citizens in this country, which is at an all-time 
high, but we need to make the Tax Code more fair through health 
insurance deductibility, eliminating the death tax, repealing the 
earnings limit, and expanding the opportunity to invest in IRAs and 
education savings accounts. The Republican proposal does just that.
  Reject this amendment that does not treat the American taxpayer 
fairly and support the Republican resolution.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
  (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I didn't now whether I was going to get 
into this debate or not. But after listening to everything that has 
been said today, I think I have to. Make no mistake about it: I support 
the Blue Dog Budget.
  The Blue Dog Budget is the most balanced plan of any before us. It 
eliminates the public debt more quickly than any other plan. It makes 
room for responsible tax cuts. It provides realistic discretionary 
spending. It makes Medicare work better. It saves 100% of the Social 
Security surplus.
  It addresses many other problems, ranging from agriculture to health 
care for military retirees, in better ways than any other option.
  But what is of major importance to me is--over the next five years, 
it increases defense discretionary spending by $32 billion over the 
inflated baseline.
  What's good about that is that it's $15 billion more than the 
Republican budget.
  What's problematic is that it still doesn't meet unfunded 
requirements submitted by the service chiefs. To do that, you would 
need to add at least $15 billion a year for the next five years. And 
while not going that far, the Blue Dog Budget clearly moves us closer 
to meeting our requirements. And let me tell you why that's important.

[[Page H1373]]

  Our fleet admirals say they need more than 350 ships to carry out the 
missions assigned today. But we're not building enough ships.
  The Army is trying to build a force that is both more maneuverable 
and more lethal--in order to respond to current contingencies.
  But we're forcing them to achieve that goal by canceling systems and 
undercutting current capabilities. There's not enough money. And the 
future of the Air Force depends on whether we can afford the 
development of two new planes, the F-22 and joint strike fighter.
  You know what's so great about those two planes? They have the 
capabilities and characteristics to ensure that their pilots always 
come home. You only have to think back to Kosovo, where we lost two 
aircraft and no pilots, to see how important that is.
  Nevertheless, with money so tight, I'm afraid we may postpone one of 
the programs simply to harvest the money for other defense programs. I 
hope it doesn't come to that, but that's how desperate the situation 
really is.
  Not only are we short of money, we're short of people. We've negated 
our commitments to health care.
  The net result is that veterans and military retirees--from families 
who have served this country for many generations--are telling their 
sons and daughters: ``Don't go into the service, they don't keep their 
promises.'' That's a very sad state of affairs.
  It's a state of affairs that the Blue Dog budget tries to remedy, in 
part, by adding nearly $7 billion more for military retiree health 
care, and $10 billion more for veterans programs, than the Republican 
plan. I could go on and on. There are so many constructive solutions in 
the Blue Dog budget.
  Unless you have a political agenda that carries you off in some other 
direction, this should be the easiest budget to vote for.
  I ask you to support responsible, constructive solutions that will 
strengthen our nation at home and abroad. Vote ``yes'' on the Blue Dog 
budget.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, it has been a long day, and I think almost 
everything has been said, just not everyone has had a chance to say it.
  I think it would be wise to remind ourselves that a budget and a 
budget resolution is merely a forecast of future economic events with 
an attending set of priorities based thereon.
  It has been very well pointed out by the speakers before me that this 
country is right now laboring with a 13 percent mortgage on us. Over 
$300 billion a year. Now, my colleagues, no rational businessperson on 
earth, with a 13 percent mortgage on his business, would not make it a 
priority, when he came into some extra money, to reduce that staggering 
overhead.
  My colleagues say the American people are overtaxed. We agree. And 
the reason they are overtaxed is because they are lugging around a 13 
percent mortgage on themselves and their country.
  Now, President Eisenhower said one time that he considered no money 
here in Washington a surplus as long as the Nation's children had a 
debt. And I know that all my colleagues have a priority of tax relief 
for the here and now, but the Blue Dog budget has a priority for tax 
relief for the then and there.
  It is simply wrong to leave this country to our children, our 
posterity, with water so dirty that fish cannot live in it, air so 
polluted people cannot breathe it, and a 13 percent mortgage on it that 
they are going to have to strain and struggle and pay for eternity. 
That is simply wrong.
  Our priority is debt reduction first, funding the programs we need to 
for the military; for the agriculture sector; for veterans; for 
education and for health care. It is a balanced budget. Tax relief for 
some; but more importantly, tax relief for those who follow.
  This country will be stronger if we adopt the Blue Dog budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the Committee 
on the Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all pay tribute to the Blue 
Dogs, because I think what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) said 
early on is right. I think the Blue Dogs have made an enormous 
contribution in this House towards the effort of being able to balance 
a budget and pay down debt.
  I am, however, a little bit mystified with this budget because I have 
always felt that the Blue Dogs did not like the tax cuts because they 
wanted to pay down more debt. And in this budget they do not have the 
tax cuts, and they do not even pay down as much debt as we do. They 
went into the spending mode. We actually pay down $25 billion more than 
the Blue Dogs do.
  But I want to pose a challenge to the Blue Dogs, because I am hopeful 
that we are going to beat their budget, and I am hopeful ours will 
pass. I think my colleagues ought to like our budget. It does cut a lot 
of taxes, but it pays down a trillion dollars in debt; and it does 
restrain spending, and it does protect Social Security. So I would ask 
my colleagues to think about it when we get to final passage.
  But I also want my colleagues to know that today we unveiled, I think 
it was 170,000 general accounting reports today on waste, fraud and 
abuse in the Federal Government. And the Committee on the Budget is 
going to start an effort to try to root out that waste in order to make 
this government more efficient. And we need the Blue Dogs. We need all 
my colleagues to participate with us, and we invite them to participate 
with us through the Committee on the Budget. If Members want to come 
and sit with us, we would like to deputize them.
  I think on a bipartisan basis we ought to attack the waste and the 
fraud and the abuse, and set our priorities. And the things that touch 
my colleagues' hearts, the poverty, they touch all our hearts too. So 
let us prioritize; but at the same time, let us clean it up and let us 
do it together.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blue Dog budget 
which balances fiscal responsibility with the need to adequately fund 
programs addressing our national priorities and needs. The Blue Dog 
budget is a responsible plan that balances the budget and retires 
public debt without tapping into the Social Security trust fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased the Blue Dog budget provides 
needed funding to expand the Montgomery G.I. bill. The Armed Forces 
face serious recruiting problems. In order to meet our defense needs, 
the Armed Forces must have the tools it needs to draw men and women 
into uniform. The Montgomery G.I. bill has proven to be the military's 
most valuable recruiting tool. Unfortunately, the combination of a 
substantially devalued G.I. bill, which now pays only 36 percent of the 
cost of receiving a 4-year college education, and expanded Federal 
financial assistance to college-bound students without military service 
has crippled the G.I. bill's effectiveness.
  Recent recruiting gimmicks such as psychedelic humvees, Spike Lee 
advertisements, drag racers, or desperate cash giveaways are not the 
answer to these problems. Nor is conscription. Congress would best help 
our Armed Forces by improving the G.I. bill. Providing access to higher 
education in exchange for national service is the right thing to do. A 
strong G.I. bill helps veterans and their families, aids our national 
defense, and strengthens the economy.
  Last year, my colleague, Lane Evans and I introduced the Montgomery 
GI Bill Expansion Act (H.R. 1071) to ensure that our All-Volunteer 
Armed Forces had the ability to attract recruits, and, at the same 
time, provide veterans with the skills they need to better our economy 
and their lives. The Blue Dog budget wisely provides funding to expand 
the G.I. bill in line with H.R. 1071 and will restore the MGIB's value 
both as a meaningful readjustment benefit and an effective recruiting 
incentive.
  Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog budget is good for America's veterans and 
soldiers and is a solid blueprint for our Nation's future. Unlike the 
Republican budget that would foolishly squander the surplus, the 
responsible Blue Dog budget pays down the national debt. It will put 
the nation on a course to eliminate the publicly held debt by 2012 with 
a strong, immediate commitment to debt reduction. In addition to this, 
it provides for needed investments in our Nation's health, establishing 
a $40 billion Medicare reserve fund that can be used to fund Medicare 
reform and a prescription drug benefit for our seniors.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for 
veterans, soldiers and our nation's future. Vote for the Blue Dog 
budget.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
conservative Blue Dog substitute to H. Con. Res. 290, the fiscal year 
2001 budget resolution, because it establishes a responsible fiscal 
framework for Congress to maintain a true balanced budget and to 
eliminate our national debt.
  The majority's budget resolution calls for $596.5 billion in 
discretionary spending for fiscal year 2001, which is 2 percent more 
than

[[Page H1374]]

the current levels. This budget protects funding for some education 
programs, veterans, and the NIH; however, it does so at the expense of 
other domestic priorities--most of which would be cut by the majority, 
on average, by nearly 10 percent. While I commend the majority's 
discipline on setting spending levels and prioritizing funding for some 
of our most pressing domestic needs, I am disappointed about the 
insistence on passing huge tax cuts that jeopardize our efforts to save 
Social Security, protect Medicare, and pay down the national debt.
  Additionally, the majority plan sets no funding aside to extend the 
solvency of Social Security one single day. While the majority plan 
creates a ``reserve'' that could be used to fund Medicare reform or 
provide a prescription drug benefit; however, how these funds might be 
used are undefined. Finally, the majority plan provides little, if any 
room for debt reduction; they allow for a $150 billion tax cut that 
could explode to almost $250 billion if the majority uses its $40 
billion Medicare ``reserve'' for tax cuts and the additional $50 
billion reserve for tax cuts. Worse, if both reserves are used, all on-
budget surpluses would be wiped out and there would be a $7 billion on-
budget deficit in fiscal year 2004.
  The majority's budget resolution clearly guides us down the wrong 
fiscal path by proposing risky tax cuts that will return us to an era 
of fiscal deficits and exploding national debt, without extending 
Social Security solvency, protecting Medicare, or reducing any of our 
national debt.
  Similarly, the Democratic alternative does not do enough to focus on 
this nation's most pressing needs. While this substitute preserves 
Social Security and Medicare for the long run, begins paying down our 
national debt and provides targeted tax relief, it forsakes immediate 
attention to these needs by unnecessarily increasing discretionary 
spending levels by calling for $19.2 billion in spending increases for 
fiscal year 2001 and $118.3 billion more in discretionary budget 
authority than the majority's plan over five years. Like the majority 
budget resolution, the Democratic alternative directs our fiscal 
resources away from Social Security away from Medicare and away from 
debt reduction.
  The conservative Blue Dog budget, by contrast, sets out responsible 
budgetary policy that achieves and maintains a true balanced budget 
raiding Social Security. The Blue Dog budget reserve half of the on-
budget surpluses for debt reduction rather than spending it on tax cuts 
or new programs. This will allow the budget to remain balanced without 
dipping into the Social Security trust fund even if optimistic budget 
projections don't materialize. The Blue Dog budget divides the 
remaining half on the on-budge surplus between tax reduction and 
shoring up our nation's commitment to our other domestic priorities--
education, veterans, health care and a strong national defense.
  Mr. Chairman, the conservative Blue Dog budget, by prudently and 
responsibly allocating our resources, will allow this nation to 
maintain our unprecedented economic growth. This budget gets back to 
basic and common sense principles that most American families follow in 
their daily lives: Paying our debts; don't spend money we don't have; 
and provide for basic needs.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the conservative Blue 
Dog budget substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
modified, offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 243, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 72]

                               AYES--171

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coburn
     Condit
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frost
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     John
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--243

     Allen
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Biggert
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Bateman
       

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Ackerman
     Archer
     Bonilla
     Crane
     Dixon
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lowey
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHugh
     Porter
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Royce
     Schakowsky
     Vento

                              {time}  2125

  Mr. GALLEGLY and Mr. HOEKSTRA changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Ms. GRANGER, Ms. BROWN of Florida and Messrs. WELDON of Pennsylvania, 
GILMAN, and GREEN of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. BATEMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``present.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). It is now in order to consider

[[Page H1375]]

Amendment Number 4, printed in part B of House Report 106-535.


  Amendment in the Nature of A Substitute No. 4 Offered by Mr. Sununu

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 4 offered by 
     Mr. Sununu:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2001.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2000 is hereby revised and replaced 
     and that this is the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2001 and that the appropriate budgetary levels 
     for fiscal years 2002 through 2005 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     the fiscal years 2000 through 2005:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,945,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $2,016,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $2,096,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $2,177,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $2,263,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,361,000,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $0.
       Fiscal year 2001: $13,207,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $40,337,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $54,528,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $67,518,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $95,497,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,799,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,839,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,877,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,933,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,991,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,059,700,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,784,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,809,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,860,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,914,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,968,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,037,000,000,000.
       (4) Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $  .
       Fiscal year 2001: $  .
       Fiscal year 2002: $  .
       Fiscal year 2003: $  .
       Fiscal year 2004: $  .
       Fiscal year 2005: $  .
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $  .
       Fiscal year 2001: $  .
       Fiscal year 2002: $  .
       Fiscal year 2003: $  .
       Fiscal year 2004: $  .
       Fiscal year 2005: $  .

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2005 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,500,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $309,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $299,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $317,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $307,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $326,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $319,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $335,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $328,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $344,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $340,500,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.,
       (B) Outlays, $12,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,000,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $0:
       (B) Outlays, -$1,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,500,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,800,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,200,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,400,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,100,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.

[[Page H1376]]

       (B) Outlays, $7,800,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,300,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $159,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $152,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $168,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $166,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $127,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $177,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $189,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $189,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $202,700,000.
       (B) Outlays, $203,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $218,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $217,800,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $199,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $199,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $215,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $216,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $221,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $221,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $239,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $255,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $278,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $278,200,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $238,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $248,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $251,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $255,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $273,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $276,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $278,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $290,500,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $405,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $405,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $422,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $422,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $443,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $443,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $463,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $463,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $486,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $485,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $510,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $510,100,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,900,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,800,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,000,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $  .
       (B) Outlays, $  .
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $  .
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $  .
       (B) Outlays, $  .
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $  .
       (B) Outlays, $  .
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $  .
       (B) Outlays, $  .
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $  .
       (B) Outlays, $  .
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$8,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,500,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$41,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$46,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$46,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$50,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$50,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$50,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$50,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$48,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$48,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$50,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$50,100,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Submissions Regarding Revenues.--In addition to changes 
     in revenues included the House Committee on Ways and Means 
     shall report to the House a reconciliation bill--
       (1) not later than May 19, 2000 that consists of changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the total 
     level of revenues by not more than: $4,100,000,000 for Fiscal 
     Year 2001, and $50,700,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2005;
       (2) not later than May 19, 2000 that consists of changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the total 
     level of revenues by not more than: $578,000,000 for Fiscal 
     Year 2001, and $12,984,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2005;
       (3) not later than May 19, 2000 that consists of changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the total 
     level of revenues by not more than: $2,353,000,000 for Fiscal 
     Year 2001, and $45,750,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2005;
       (4) not later than May 26, 2000 that consists of changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the total 
     level of revenues by not more than: $5,200,000,000 for Fiscal 
     Year 2001, and $26,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2005;
       (5) not later than June 23, 2000 that consists of changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the 
     total level of revenues by not more than: $500,000,000 for 
     Fiscal Year 2001, and $15,600,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2005;
       (6) not later than July 28, 2000 that consists of changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the 
     total level of revenues by not more than: $476,000,000 for 
     Fiscal Year 2001, and $7,718,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2001 through 2005; and
       (7) not later than September 22, 2000 that consists of 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the total level of revenues by not more than: $0 for Fiscal 
     Year 2001, and $113,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2001 through 2005;
       (b) Submissions Regarding Debt Held by the Public.--The 
     House Committee on Ways and Means shall report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill--
       (1) not later than May 26, 2000 that consists of changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the debt 
     held by the public

[[Page H1377]]

     by not more than $10,000,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2001; and
       (2) not later than September 22, 2000 that consists of 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the debt held by the public by not more than $40,000,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2005.
       (c) Submissions Regarding Medicare.--The House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report to the House a reconciliation 
     bill not later than September 22, 2000 that reforms the 
     medicare program and provides coverage for prescription 
     drugs, but not to exceed $4 billion in new budget authority 
     and $4,000,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2001 and 
     -$2,000,000,000 in new budget authority and -$2,000,000,000 
     in outlays for the period fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

     SEC. 5. SPECIAL PROCEDURES TO SAFEGUARD TAX RELIEF.

       (a) Adjustments.--
       (1) Upon the reporting of a reconciliation bill by the 
     Committee on Ways and Means pursuant to section 4(a) or, the 
     offering of an amendment to, or the submission of a 
     conference report on, H.R. 3081, H.R. 6, or H.R. 2990, 
     whichever occurs first, the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the House shall reduce to zero the revenue 
     aggregates set forth in section 2(1)(B) (and make all other 
     appropriate conforming adjustments).
       (2) After making the adjustments referred to in paragraph 
     (1), and whenever the Committee on Ways and Means reports any 
     reconciliation bill pursuant to section 4(a) (or an amendment 
     thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted or an amendment to H.R. 3081, H.R. 6, or H.R. 2990 
     is offered or a conference report thereon is submitted after 
     the date of adoption of this resolution, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House shall increase the 
     levels by which Federal revenues should be reduced by the 
     amount of revenue loss caused by such measure for each 
     applicable year or period, but not to exceed, after taking 
     into account any other bill or joint resolution enacted 
     during this session of the One Hundred Sixth Congress that 
     causes a reduction in revenues for such year or period, $     
     in fiscal year 2001 and $     for the period of fiscal year 
     2001 through 2005 (and make all other appropriate conforming 
     adjustments).
       (b) Application.--Any adjustments made pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(1) for any measure shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.

     SEC. 6. RESERVE FUND FOR AUGUST UPDATE REVISION OF BUDGET 
                   SURPLUSES.

       (a) Reporting a Surplus.--If the Congressional Budget 
     Office report referred to in subsection (b) projects an 
     increase in the surplus for fiscal year 2000, fiscal year 
     2001, and the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005 over 
     the corresponding levels set forth in its economic and budget 
     forecast for 2001 submitted pursuant to section 202(c)(1) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House may make the adjustments 
     as provided in subsection (c).
       (b) Congressional Budget Office Updated Budget Forecast for 
     Fiscal Year 2001.--The report referred to in subsection (a) 
     is the Congressional Budget Office updated budget forecast 
     for fiscal year 2001.
       (c) Adjustments.--If the Committee on Ways and Means 
     reports any reconciliation bill pursuant to section 4(a) (or 
     an amendment thereto is offered or a conference report 
     thereon is submitted), or an amendment to H.R. 3081, H.R. 6, 
     or H.R. 2990 is offered or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted after the date of adoption of this resolution that, 
     after taking into account any other bill or joint resolution 
     enacted during this session of the One Hundred Sixth Congress 
     that causes a reduction in revenues for such year or period, 
     would cause the level by which Federal revenues should be 
     reduced, as set forth in section 2(1)(B) for fiscal year 2001 
     or for the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005, to be 
     exceeded, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     House may increase the levels by which Federal revenues 
     should be reduced by the amount exceeding such level 
     resulting from such measure for each applicable year or 
     period, but not to exceed the increase in the surplus for 
     such year or period in the report referred to in subsection 
     (a).
       (d) Application.--Any adjustments made pursuant to 
     subsection (c) for any measure shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.

     SEC. 7. SAFE DEPOSIT BOX FOR SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the social 
     security trust funds are off-budget for purposes of the 
     President's budget submission and the concurrent resolution 
     on the budget;
       (2) the social security trust funds have been running 
     surpluses for 17 years;
       (3) these surpluses have been used to implicitly finance 
     the general operations of the Federal Government;
       (4) in fiscal year 2001, the social security surplus will 
     exceed $166 billion;
       (5) for the first time, a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget balances the Federal budget without counting the 
     social security surpluses;
       (6) the only way to ensure that social security surpluses 
     are not diverted for other purposes is to balance the budget 
     exclusive of such surpluses; and
       (7) Congress and the President should take such steps as 
     are necessary to ensure that future budgets are balanced 
     excluding the surpluses generated by the social security 
     trust funds.
       (b) Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any revision to 
     this resolution or a concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2002, or any amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, that sets forth a deficit for any fiscal 
     year.
       (2) Deficit levels.--For purposes of this subsection, a 
     deficit shall be the level (if any) set forth in the most 
     recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     that fiscal year pursuant to section 301(a)(3) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

     SEC. 8. DEBT REDUCTION LOCK-BOX.

       Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any reported bill 
     or joint resolution, or any amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, that would cause a surplus for fiscal year 
     2001 to be less than the level (as adjusted) set forth in 
     section 2(4) for that fiscal year.
       (b) Special Rule.--The level of the surplus for purposes of 
     subsection (a) shall not take into account any adjustment 
     made under section 314(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974.

     SEC. 9. RESERVE FUND FOR AGRICULTURE IN FISCAL YEAR 2001.

       If the Committee on Agriculture of the House reports a bill 
     or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto is offered (in 
     the House), or a conference report thereon is submitted that 
     provides risk management or income assistance for 
     agricultural producers, the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may increase the allocation of new budget authority 
     and outlays to that committee by the amount of new budget 
     authority (and the outlays resulting therefrom) if such 
     legislation does not exceed $   in new budget authority and $ 
       in outlays for fiscal year 2001 and $   in new budget 
     authority and $   in outlays for the period of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2005 (and make all other appropriate conforming 
     adjustments).

     SEC. 10. RESERVE FUND FOR RETIREMENT SECURITY

       Whenever the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
     reports a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto 
     is offered (in the House), or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted that enhances retirement security through 
     structural programmatic reform and the creation of personal 
     retirement accounts, the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may--
       (1) increase the appropriate allocations and aggregates of 
     new budget authority and outlays by the amount of new budget 
     authority provided by such measure (and outlays flowing 
     therefrom) for that purpose;
       (2) reduce the revenue aggregates by the amount of the 
     revenue loss resulting from that measure for that purpose; 
     and
       (3) make all other appropriate conforming adjustments.

     SEC. 11. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND 
                   AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocation and 
     aggregates made pursuant to section 9 or 10 for any measure 
     shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this 
     resolution--
       (1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct 
     spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and 
     surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee 
     on the Budget of the House of Representatives or the Senate, 
     as applicable; and
       (2) such chairman, as applicable, may make any other 
     necessary adjustments to such levels to carry out this 
     resolution.

     SEC. 12. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE STABILIZATION OF 
                   CERTAIN FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO STATES, COUNTIES, 
                   AND BOROUGHS.

       It is the sense of the House that Federal revenue-sharing 
     payments to States, countries, and boroughs pursuant to the 
     Act of May 23, 1908 (35 Stat. 260; 16 U.S.C. 500), the Act of 
     March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. 963; 16 U.S.C. 500), the Act of 
     August 8, 1937 (chapter 876; 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. 1181f), 
     the Act of May 24, 1939 (chapter 144; 53 Stat. 753, 43 U.S.C. 
     1181f-1 et seq.), and sections 13982 and 13983 of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66; 16 
     U.S.C. 500 note; 43 U.S.C. 1181f note) should be stabilized 
     and maintained for the long-term benefit of schools, roads, 
     public services, and communities, and that providing such 
     permanent, stable funding is a priority of the 106th 
     Congress.

[[Page H1378]]

     SEC. 13. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON DIRECTING THE INTERNAL REVENUE 
                   SERVICE TO ACCEPT NEGATIVE NUMBERS IN FARM 
                   INCOME AVERAGING.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) farmers' and ranchers' income vary widely from year to 
     year due to uncontrollable markets and unpredictable weather;
       (2) in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Congress enacted 3-
     year farm income averaging to protect agricultural producers 
     from excessive tax rates in profitable years;
       (3) last year, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) proposed 
     final regulations for averaging farm income which fail to 
     make clear that taxable income in a given year may be a 
     negative number; and
       (4) this IRS interpretation can result in farmers having to 
     pay additional taxes during years in which they experience a 
     loss in income.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     during this session of the 106th Congress, legislation should 
     be considered to direct the Internal Revenue Service to count 
     any net loss of income in determining the proper rate of 
     taxation.

     SEC. 14. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON ESTIMATES OF THE IMPACT OF 
                   REGULATIONS ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) the Federal regulatory system sometimes adversely 
     affects many Americans and businesses by imposing financial 
     burdens with little corresponding public benefit:
       (2) currently, Congress has no general mechanism for 
     assessing the financial impact of regulatory activities on 
     the private sector;
       (3) Congress is ultimately responsible for making sure 
     agencies act in accordance with congressional intent and 
     while the executive branch is responsible for promulgating 
     regulations, Congress ultimately can and should curb 
     ineffective regulations by using its oversight and regulatory 
     powers; and
       (4) a variety of reforms have been suggested to increase 
     congressional oversight over regulatory activity, including 
     directing the President to prepare an annual accounting 
     statement containing several cost/benefit analyses, 
     recommendations to reform inefficient regulatory programs, 
     and an identification and analysis of duplications and 
     inconsistencies among such programs.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     the House should reclaim its role as reformer and take the 
     first step toward curbing inefficient regulatory activity by 
     passing legislation authorizing the Congressional Budget 
     Office to prepare regular estimates on the impact of proposed 
     Federal regulations on the private sector.

     SEC. 15. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DOLLARS TO 
                   THE CLASSROOM.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) strengthening America's public schools while respecting 
     State and local control is critically important to the future 
     of our children and our Nation;
       (2) education is a local responsibility, a State priority, 
     and a national concern;
       (3) a partnership with the Nation's governors, parents, 
     teachers, and principals must take place in order to 
     strengthen public schools and foster educational excellence;
       (4) the consideration of various Federal education programs 
     will benefit our Nation's children, parents, and teachers by 
     sending more dollars directly to the classroom; and
       (5) our Nation's children deserve an educational system 
     that will provide opportunities to excel.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Congress should enact legislation that would 
     consolidate thirty-one Federal K–12 education programs; 
     and
       (2) the Department of Education, the States, and local 
     educational agencies should work together to ensure that not 
     less than 95 percent of all funds appropriated for the 
     purpose of carrying out elementary and secondary education 
     programs administered by the Department of Education is spent 
     for our children in their classrooms.

     SEC. 16. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING TAX RELIEF.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that this concurrent 
     resolution dedicates $272,800,000 over 5 years to reduce the 
     tax burden on American families.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     these funds should be used to--
       (1) eliminate the marriage penalty by enacting into law the 
     provisions of H.R. 6;
       (2) increase access to health care by enacting into law the 
     revenue provisions of H.R. 2990;
       (3) provide tax relief to small business owners by enacting 
     into law the revenue provisions of H.R. 3832;
       (4) repeal the 1993 tax increase on Social Security 
     benefits;
       (5) expand educational opportunities by expanding Education 
     Savings Accounts;
       (6) repeal the 1993 4.3 cent tax increase on motor fuels;
       (7) repeal the ``death tax''.

     SEC. 17. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) For more than 30 years, the Social Security Trust Fund 
     has been used to mask on-budget deficits and this year the 
     debt to the Social Security Trust Fund will exceed $1 
     trillion,
       (2) While the debt held by the public will decrease over 
     the next 10 years, the debt owed to the Social Security Trust 
     Fund will continue to increase and the national debt is 
     projected, by the Congressional Budget Office, to increase to 
     more than $6 trillion by Fiscal Year 2006.
       (3) By 2014, in order to pay benefits, the Social Security 
     Trust Fund will begin redeeming the certificates of debt that 
     are currently held and if nothing is done to reform the 
     system before then, Congress will be forced to implement 
     emergency provisions that either raise taxes, increase 
     publicly held debt, or cut benefits,
       (4) Although the Social Security Trust Fund has been taken 
     off-budget, the only true way to prohibit Congress and the 
     President from borrowing from the surpluses of the Social 
     Security Trust Fund is to return those surpluses to workers 
     today in the form of rebates to be used solely for the 
     purposes of personal retirement accounts,
       (5) Personal Retirement Accounts are the key to true 
     retirement security and wealth creation that is owned and 
     controlled by the worker, not the government.
       (6) Only through Personal Retirement Accounts can this 
     country achieve a fully-funded retirement program, and not 
     one dependent on the taxation of the next generation.
       (7) Sec. 10 of this concurrent resolution provides the 
     necessary authority to accommodate structural Social Security 
     reform that includes personal retirement accounts within the 
     Fiscal Year 2001 budget.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     prior to the adjournment of the 106th Congress that Congress 
     should enact structural Social Security reform that includes 
     personal retirement accounts.

     SEC. 18. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE MODERNIZATION AND 
                   IMPROVEMENT OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The health insurance coverage provided under the 
     Medicare Program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) is an integral part of the financial 
     security for retired and disabled individuals, as such 
     coverage protects those individuals against the financially 
     ruinous costs of a major illness.
       (2) During the nearly 35 years since the Medicare Program 
     was established, the Nation's health care delivery and 
     financing system has undergone major transformations. 
     However, the Medicare Program has not kept pace with such 
     transformations.
       (3) Former Congressional Budget Office Director Robert 
     Reischauer has described the Medicare Program as it exists 
     today as failing on the following four key dimensions (known 
     as the ``Four I's''):
       (A) The program is inefficient.
       (B) The program is inequitable.
       (C) The program is inadequate.
       (D) The program is insolvent.
       (4) The recommendations by Senator John Breaux and 
     Representative William Thomas received the bipartisan support 
     of a majority of members on the National Bipartisan 
     Commission on the Future of Medicare.
       (5) The Breaux-Thomas recommendations provide for new 
     prescription drug coverage for the neediest beneficiaries 
     within a plan that substantially improves the solvency of the 
     Medicare Program without transferring new IOUs to the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund that must be redeemed later by 
     raising taxes, cutting benefits, or borrowing more from the 
     public.
       (6) Sec. 4 of this concurrent resolution provides the 
     necessary authority to accommodate structural Medicare reform 
     within the Fiscal Year 2001 budget.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that:
       (1) Congress should work in a bipartisan fashion to extend 
     the solvency of the Medicare Program and to ensure that 
     benefits under that program will be available to 
     beneficiaries in the future.
       (2) The recommendations by Senator Breaux and Congressman 
     Thomas provide for new prescription drug coverage for the 
     neediest beneficiaries within a plan that substantially 
     improves the solvency of the Medicare Program without 
     transferring to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund new 
     IOUs that must be redeemed later by raising taxes, cutting 
     benefits, or borrowing more from the public.
       (3) Congress should move expeditiously to consider the 
     bipartisan recommendations of the Chairmen of the National 
     Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.

     SEC. 19. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING FOREIGN AID.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The nation of Israel has been a reliable and dependable 
     ally to the United States.
       (2) The United States' support for Israel is vital to 
     achieving peace in the Middle East.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     aid to Israel should not be reduced.

     SEC. 20. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY 
                   AUDITS AND WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Each branch of government and every department and 
     agency has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that tax 
     dollars are spent in the most efficient and effective manner 
     possible and to eliminate mismanagement, waste, fraud, and 
     abuse.
       (2) A minimal measure of whether a department or agency is 
     upholding its fiduciary responsibility is its ability to pass 
     an audit.

[[Page H1379]]

       (3) The most recent audits, for Fiscal Year 1998, revealed 
     that six major agencies--the Department of Agriculture, 
     Defense, Education, Justice, and Transportation, and the 
     Agency for International Development--could not provide 
     financial statements that could be independently audited.
       (4) Mismanagement, waste, fraud, and abuse cost American 
     taxpayers billions of dollars.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     no agency or department which has failed its most recent 
     audit should receive an increase in their budget over the 
     previous year, unless the availability of the increased funds 
     is contingent upon the completion of a complete and 
     successful financial audit.

     SEC. 21. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING TITLE X FUNDING.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The title X of the Public Health Service Act family 
     planning program provides contraceptives, treatment for 
     sexually transmitted diseases, and sexual counseling to 
     minors without parental consent or notification.
       (2) Almost 1,500,000 American minors receive title X family 
     planning services each year.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     organizations or businesses which receive funds through 
     Federal programs should obtain parental consent or 
     confirmation of parental notification before contraceptives 
     are provided to a minor.

     SEC. 22. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING INTERNATIONAL 
                   POPULATION CONTROL PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) There is international consensus that under no 
     circumstances should abortion be promoted as a method of 
     family planning.
       (2) The United States provides the largest percentage of 
     population control assistance among donor nations.
       (3) The activities of private organizations supported by 
     United States taxpayers are a reflection of United States 
     priorities in developing countries, and United States funds 
     allow these organizations to expand their programs and 
     influence.
       (4) The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has signed 
     contracts with the People's Republic of China (PRC) which 
     persists in coercing its people to obtain abortions and 
     undergo involuntary sterilizations.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House 
     that--
       (1) United States taxpayers should not be forced to support 
     international family planning programs;
       (2) if the Congress is unwilling to stop supporting 
     international family planning programs with taxpayer dollars, 
     the Congress should limit such support to organizations that 
     certify they will not perform, or lobby for the legalization 
     of, abortions in other countries; and
       (3) United States taxpayers should not be forced to support 
     the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA) if it is 
     conducting activities in the People's Republic of China (PRC) 
     and the PRC's population control program continues to utilize 
     coercive abortion.

     SEC. 23. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Human life is a precious resource which should not be 
     created or destroyed simply for scientific experiments.
       (2) A human embryo is a human being that must be accorded 
     the moral status of a person from the time of fertilization.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     Congress should prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars for the 
     creation of human embryos for research purposes and research 
     in which human embryos are knowingly destroyed, a prohibition 
     which also excludes support for stem cell research which 
     depends upon the intentional killing of a living human 
     embryo.

     SEC. 24. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING FUNDING OF UNAUTHORIZED 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) The House finds that--
       (1) Each year, the House Appropriations Committee provides 
     funding to hundreds of programs whose authorization has 
     expired or were never authorized by an Act of Congress.
       (2) For Fiscal Year 2000, there were 247 programs funded in 
     137 laws totaling over $120 billion whose authorization had 
     expired.
       (3) Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
     prohibits the funding of an appropriation which has not been 
     authorized by law.
       (4) The House Rules Committee typically waives Rule XXI 
     when considering general appropriation bills.
       (5) The respective authorizing committees have not made 
     reauthorization of unauthorized programs a priority.
       (6) The lack of congressional oversight over the years, 
     some as late as 1979, has led to the deterioration of the 
     power of the respective authorizing Committees and thus the 
     loss of congressional oversight and fiscal responsibility, 
     which is a blow to the voters of America and their role in 
     the process.
       (7) The lack of congressional oversight over the years has 
     led to the shift of power away from the Legislative Branch 
     toward the Executive Branch and unelected federal 
     bureaucrats.
       (b) It is the sense of the House that--
       (1) Congress should pass, and the President should sign 
     into law, legislation to amend the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 to require Congress to fund programs that are 
     currently unauthorized at 90 percent of prior fiscal year 
     levels.
       (2) Congress should pass, and the President should sign 
     into law, legislation to require the Congressional Budget 
     Office to prepare budget baselines based on the figures where 
     unauthorized programs are frozen and funded at 90 percent of 
     current levels.

     SEC. 25. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FULLY FUNDING OF SPECIAL 
                   EDUCATION.

       (a) Congress finds that--
       (1) all children deserve a quality education, including 
     children with disabilities;
       (2) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     provides that the Federal, State and local governments are to 
     share in the expense of educating children with disabilities 
     and commits the Federal Government to pay up to 40 percent of 
     the national average per pupil expenditure for children with 
     disabilities;
       (3) the high cost of educating children with disabilities 
     and the Federal Government's failure to fully meet its 
     obligation under the Individual with Disabilities Education 
     Act stretches limited State and local education funds, 
     creating difficulty in providing a quality education to all 
     students, including children with disabilities;
       (4) the current level of Federal funding to States and 
     localities under the Individual with Disabilities Act is 
     contrary to the goal of ensuring that children with 
     disabilities receive a quality education;
       (5) the Federal Government has failed to fully fund the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and appropriate 
     40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure per 
     child with a disability as required under the Individual with 
     Disabilities Act to assist States and localities to educate 
     children with disabilities;
       (6) the levels in function 500 (Education) for fiscal year 
     2001 assume sufficient discretionary budget authority to 
     accommodate fiscal year 2001 appropriations for IDEA at least 
     $11 billion above such funding levels appropriated in fiscal 
     year 2000, thus, fully funding the Federal Government's 
     commitment to special education;
       (7) the levels in function 500 (Education) to accommodate 
     the fiscal year 2001 appropriation for fully funding IDEA may 
     be reached by eliminating inefficient, ineffective and 
     unauthorized education programs.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Congress and the President should increase function 500 
     (Education) fiscal year 2001 funding for programs under the 
     Individual with Disabilities Act by at least $11 billion 
     above fiscal year 2000 appropriated levels, thus fully 
     funding the Federal Government's commitment;
       (2) Congress and the President can accomplish the goal by 
     eliminating inefficient, ineffective and unauthorized 
     education programs.

     SEC. 26. ACTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(B)(1) OF THE 
                   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT.

       (a) Compliance.--When complying Section 302(b)(1) of 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee on 
     Appropriations of each House shall consult with the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the other House to ensure that the 
     allocation of budget outlays and new budget authority among 
     each Committee's subcommittees are identical.
       (b) Report.--The Committee on Appropriations of each House 
     shall report to its House when it determines that the report 
     made by the Committee pursuant to Section 301(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the report made by the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the other House pursuant to 
     the same provision contain identical allocations of budget 
     outlays and new budget authority among each Committee's 
     subcommittees.
       (c) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report providing 
     new discretionary budget authority for Fiscal Year 2001 
     allocated to the Committee on Appropriations unless and until 
     the Committee on Appropriations of that House has made the 
     report required under paragraph (b) of this Section.

     SEC. 27. CHANGES TO HOUSE RULES.

       (a) Rule XIII(f)(1)(B) of the Rules of the House 
     Representatives is amended by striking the section and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) a list of all appropriations contained in the bill 
     for expenditures not currently authorized by law along with 
     the last year for which the expenditure was authorized, the 
     level of expenditures authorized that year, the actual level 
     of expenditure that year, and the level of expenditure 
     contained in the accompanying bill (This provision shall not 
     apply to classified intelligence or national security 
     programs, projects or activities).''
       (b) Rule X 2.(d) of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by adding at the end of section 
     (b) the following and redesignating (C) as (D):
       ``(C) give priority consideration to including in its plan 
     the review of those laws which are currently unauthorized and 
     outline how the Committee intends to authorize currently 
     unauthorized programs under its jurisdiction.''

     SEC. 28 SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON ACCESS TO HEALTH INSURANCE 
                   AND PRESERVING HOME HEALTH SERVICES FOR ALL 
                   MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.

       (a) Access to Health Insurance.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (B) the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act,

[[Page H1380]]

     1999, reformed the interim payment system to increase 
     reimbursements to low-cost providers, added $900 million in 
     funding, and delayed the automatic 15 percent payment 
     reduction for one year, to October 1, 2000; and
       (C) patients whose care is more extensive and expensive 
     than the typical Medicare patient do not receive supplemental 
     payments in the interim payment system but will receive 
     special protection in the home health care prospective 
     payment system.
       (2) Sense of Congress on Access to Home Health Care.--It is 
     the sense of Congress that--
       (A) Congress recognizes the importance of home health care 
     for seniors and disabled citizens;
       (B) Congress and the Administration should work together to 
     maintain quality care for patients whose care is more 
     extensive and expensive than the typical Medicare patient, 
     including the sickest and frailest Medicare beneficiaries, 
     while home health care agencies operate in the interim 
     payment system; and
       (C) Congress and the Administration should work together to 
     avoid the implementation of the 15 percent reduction in the 
     interim payment system and ensure timely implementation of 
     the prospective payment system.

     SEC. 29. REDUCTION OF PUBLICLY-HELD DEBT.

       (a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to ensure 
     that the fiscal year 2000 on-budget surplus is used to reduce 
     publicly-held debt.
       (b) Reduction of Publicly-held Debt.--
       (1) Point of order against certain legislation.--Except as 
     provided by paragraph (2), it shall not be in order in the 
     House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, 
     joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report 
     if--
       (A) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;
       (B) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
       (C) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the form 
     recommended in that conference report.

     would cause a decrease in the on-budget surplus for fiscal 
     year 2000.
       (2) Exception.--The point of order set forth in paragraph 
     (1) shall not apply to a bill, joint resolution, amendment, 
     motion of conference report if it--
       (A) reduces revenues;
       (B) implements structural social security reform; or
       (C) implements structural medicare reform.
       (3) Waivers and appeals in the senate.--
       (A) Waivers.--Paragraph (1) may be waived or suspended in 
     the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of 
     the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (B) Appeals.--(i) Appeals in the Senate from the decisions 
     of the Chair relating to paragraph (1) shall be limited to 1 
     hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the 
     mover and the manager of the bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report, as the case may be.
       (ii) An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, 
     duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to 
     sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of 
     order raised under paragraph (1).
       (c) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall 
     cease to have any force or effect on October 1, 2000.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 446, the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  This is a budget proposal that highlights the vision and the 
priorities of the conservative Members of the House. It establishes a 
clear benchmark for fiscal responsibility, for commitment to our 
national security, and for lowering the tax burden on the American 
people.
  We pay down over a trillion dollars in Federal debt over the next 5 
years. We offer tax relief for all Americans that makes our Tax Code 
more fair.
  We have a commitment to a strong defense that meets the priorities 
that have been outlined by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and we do not 
just set aside funds for Medicare or talk about Social Security.
  We make a commitment to real reform of these programs, to strengthen 
them, not just for today's beneficiaries, but for future retirees and 
our children as well.

                              {time}  2130

  We set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus, and this is 
an idea that while it seems somewhat new was first offered in the 
conservative budget 2 years ago. But we go further than that. We 
endorse proposals to let employees control a portion of their own 
payroll taxes, empower the individual to invest in their own retirement 
security, and give them the peace of mind that comes from knowing that 
that savings will be there for them when they retire. We invest in 
priorities. As I mentioned, national defense, which over 15 years has 
been allowed to decay year on year. We saw our first real increase in 
defense spending last year. This budget increases our defense 
priorities up to a higher level than any other budget offered in this 
session. We make a commitment to veterans' health care, $1 billion 
above last year's spending. And we make a greater commitment to special 
education, the largest unfunded mandate on the books today, than any 
other budget that has been offered before us today, over $2.4 billion 
in immediate additional funding for special education, and make clear 
that this is our number one education priority to fully fund the 
special education mandate.
  And once we fund these priorities, once we set aside the entire 
Social Security surplus, once we set aside funds to honestly reform and 
strengthen Medicare and provide prescription drug coverage, then we 
reduce taxes in a way that makes the Tax Code more fair for every 
American. We eliminate the marriage penalty entirely. We eliminate 
death taxes entirely, not because we are concerned about one income 
group or another but because we recognize that it is unfair to take 55 
percent of what anyone in America wants to leave to their descendants 
whether they are rich or poor or otherwise.
  We eliminate not just the Social Security earnings limit, but we 
repeal the 1993 increase on the taxes on Social Security beneficiaries. 
We expand IRA savings opportunities, educational savings opportunities, 
and cut the gasoline tax, the tax increase imposed as part of the 
biggest tax increase in this country's history that raised the price of 
gasoline at the pump. We roll back that tax as well.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a budget that is committed not just to fiscal 
responsibility and lower taxes, not just to a real commitment to 
national defense; but it is committed to reform, reforming and 
strengthening Social Security and Medicare in a way that we recognize 
needs to be done on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think we have finally reached 
the point in this debate where we are getting to the facts. And I think 
we need to start off with the central fact that has finally been 
established tonight and that is the size over 10 years with respect to 
the tax cut. Let me start by reminding everyone about a statement that 
was made during the presidential campaign that we need to honor, both 
Democrats and Republicans, or it will come back to haunt us. It is a 
statement by Senator John McCain. He said,

       It's fiscally irresponsible to promise a huge tax cut that 
     is based on a surplus that we may not have. To bank it all on 
     unending surpluses at the possible risk of the Social 
     Security trust fund is our fundamental disagreement.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will suspend.
  Members are reminded that the rules of the House do not permit such 
quoting of Senators.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, that concludes the quote with 
respect to a presidential candidate, but here is the point. There has 
been no even attempt tonight to rebut the statement that the tax cut 
that we are dealing with here over 10 years exceeds $1 trillion. This 
exceeds the tax cut that we adopted here last year and ultimately 
failed, and it will fail again ultimately. The reason it will fail is 
because what the American public expects us to do is to use the lion's 
share of this projected surplus to pay down the Federal debt, to 
preserve Social Security and Medicare for the future, to contribute to 
lower interest rates; and because it is simply the right thing to do, 
we should not pass this enormous Federal debt on to our children and 
grandchildren.
  We can do a responsible tax cut, we can do responsible spending, we 
can invest in education and defense; but we need to take the lion's 
share of the projected surplus and pay down the Federal debt. That is 
why this particular

[[Page H1381]]

proposal should be defeated. It is why the underlying budget resolution 
should be defeated.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the CATs budget for 
many reasons, but in particular I would like to emphasize the principal 
statement that this budget makes regarding true, meaningful Social 
Security reform by acknowledging the need to create personal savings 
accounts. What we are talking about in this budget is first of all that 
the CATs budget sets aside every penny of Social Security surplus 
dollars for Social Security, not to be spent on other programs. We do 
that because we recognize we have got a sacred obligation to honor the 
promise we have made to senior citizens, those who are at or near 
retirement. They need to have this program ensured for their benefit.
  But we also acknowledge that that alone does not solve the problems 
facing our Social Security system. But one way to solve that problem is 
to allow younger workers the opportunity to take a portion of the 
payroll tax they already pay and put that into accounts that they would 
own and control. They could invest and that savings would grow and 
provide the basis for their future benefits and their retirement, 
giving them more security and a better retirement than the current 
system promises and cannot deliver. This would be a permanent solution 
to the unfunded liability problem of Social Security. It would grant 
unprecedented freedom to working people who currently do not have the 
opportunity to make this kind of savings because the payroll tax takes 
it away from them.
  We know this will cost money. This CATs budget is honest enough to 
acknowledge that it will cost money and create a mechanism that would 
provide the flexibility to fund that transition of one of our most 
important programs in the history of this government to one that would 
have long-term financial stability and provide enormous freedom to the 
working people of America.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman has explained that his resolution, which we are trying 
to understand over here because there is a huge paucity of information 
about it, but he said that it provides more for defense; but I think it 
probably forgets an essential element. There is something in the 
Democratic resolution that we will bring up shortly that distinguishes 
it sharply from what is being proposed here and, that is, we have 
specifically included in our resolution $16.3 billion over 10 years 
specifically for health care initiatives for military retirees who are 
over the age of 65. We have not forgotten defense, and in particular we 
have not forgotten the men and women who fought to make this country 
free. We provide for them. We keep the promises that were made to them 
by military health care. We put the money in function 550 and function 
570. We provide $5.4 billion for a prescription drug initiative, $10.9 
billion to allow Medicare eligible military retirees simply to go to a 
military treatment facility and use their Medicare benefits to gain 
admission. Today most of those over the age of 65 are not able to be 
treated there.
  I would like to ask the gentleman if he makes any provision anywhere 
in his resolution for these men and women who are military retirees.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, we have a number of Members that are going 
to talk about the defense provisions, the increase for funding of 
defense that is in this bill, the billion additional dollars for 
veterans' health care that is in this bill, and the fact that it 
represents $187 billion in real increases, in investment in the men and 
women serving in our armed services over 5 years. That is an 
unprecedented investment as compared to any of the budgets on this 
floor, whether it is yours or any other budget.
  So I think that the commitment is there, it is delineated clearly in 
the resolution, and it is a substantial increase. And it is based on 
the recommendations of President Clinton's own Joint Chiefs that 
pointed out that there is an enormous unfunded mandate in operations 
and maintenance and in materiel and in procurement. That is where we 
are focused, on the technology and the resources necessary to provide 
adequate defense when we are deploying more military than ever before. 
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SPRATT. Reclaiming my time, the point still remains, you have put 
all this additional money into defense and forgotten the men and women 
who fought to defend this country. We in our resolution, everybody 
should know this, have included $16.3 billion, $5.4 billion for a 
prescription drug initiative for Medicare retirees and another $10.9 so 
that they can use their Medicare benefits at military treatment 
facilities. We are doing something about subvention. We have put it in 
a budget that is balanced and pays down the debt and also provides a 
modest tax cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. This is not a bidding war for the veterans. As a matter 
of fact, right now for every veteran we spend $4,000 more per veteran 
than we spend on the average Medicare patient in this country. So if we 
are going to spend more money into the VA system we have now that is 
not offering them the care, not giving them equivalent care, not 
offering them quality care that they could get in the private sector, 
you are throwing money down a rat hole. The fact is we spend $4,000 per 
year per veteran more than we do for the same person in Medicare. So 
yes, we may not direct it the way that your budget directs it; but the 
fact is we recognize that there is not an efficient system out there 
and that needs to be changed. Every veteran in this country needs to be 
given a card. Go get your health care wherever you want because we have 
an obligation to you. And if we did that, we can deliver the same 
health care for about 30 percent less than we are doing in the VA 
system now.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond to the gentleman on my 
own time, this is not about the Veterans' Administration health care 
system. This is about retiree health care at military treatment 
facilities, base hospitals, not VA hospitals. However, I would add, if 
I can continue on my own time, that we do better in our resolution by 
veterans who have a claim, I think, on the Federal Government for the 
services they have rendered and the promises we have made. We have more 
than a billion dollars provided over 5 years than they have provided in 
their resolution for veterans' health care. We have an additional $16.5 
billion for retiree health care.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) who understands probably better than anyone 
else in Congress the scope and the nature of the unmet needs of our men 
and women serving in the armed forces.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his compliment 
which is undeserved, but let me tell my friend from South Carolina 
where we really have an obligation to those men and women and those 
service veterans of World War II who are departing at the rate of about 
30,000 a month. Most of those folks now have young people, sons and 
daughters, serving in our armed forces around the world. I will tell 
him the best way to serve them, and I will tell him how this budget 
serves them.
  We are short on ammunition. We are short on spare parts. We have so 
few precision munitions for our pilots, most of them do not even get a 
chance to train with one before they are sent into battle. We have a 
shortage on shipbuilding. We are building to a 200-ship Navy. We are 
short on military construction. I have got one of those veterans that 
the gentleman from South Carolina talked about. He is my uncle. But one 
thing he has got in his house is an old picture on the wall. That 
picture is of my cousin, Son Stillwell, who was killed in Korea along 
with 50,000 other people because the United States was not ready to 
fight.

[[Page H1382]]

  The budgets that President Clinton has been presenting to the United 
States have taken us into a state of unreadiness where we cannot win a 
major war without massive casualties on our side. The best service we 
can give to those senior veterans is to make sure that their children 
have the ammo, the spare parts and all the other things that they do 
not have right now to be able to fight effectively and to survive and 
come home. With the $45 billion in extra money that this budget 
provides on defense, which the Democrat budget does not provide, of 
course you have got the head space for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Buyer), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel, to work a 
beautiful health care plan along with having something called 
ammunition.
  The tragedy of the Democrat budget is it makes the service choose 
between having ammunition for the young people who are out there 
defending the country and having health care for the senior retired 
people.

                              {time}  2145

  That is a choice that we should not make them have to come to.
  I thought the gentleman was going to come with a Democrat budget that 
would offer $40 billion, maybe $50 billion above this baseline Clinton 
budget on national defense, and he did not do it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thought the gentleman in the well, who is 
one of the strongest proponents and advocates of defense in this House, 
and I sit on the same committee with him, week after week he has 
bemoaned how much the President had sought in defense for next year and 
the next 5 years. I thought surely the gentleman would persuade his 
conference, the Republicans, to come forward with a resolution that 
provided more for defense.
  What do we get? One-tenth of 1 percent over the next 5 years. That is 
all the increase the gentleman could muster.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, over the last 5 years 
we have provided $45 billion above the President's budget.
  The commandant of the Marine Corps said it best. He said if we had 
not provided it, the Marines would be the 9-1 force instead of the 911 
force for this Nation.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend the CATs. I guess that is 
permissible for a dog to do because their budget enforcement mechanisms 
are something that I totally support. I think they are right on target 
and I think their criticisms of the base bill are right on target and 
we agree with them.
  We look at their defense numbers. They are making a move in the right 
direction there, and I appreciate the fact that they are talking about 
Social Security in a much more honest and realistic way than most folks 
have talked about it today.
  My concerns with their budget stem from their funding for agriculture 
at the committee level. I believe that is totally inadequate, given the 
problems of rural America and agriculture, and I happen to disagree 
with that.
  I also disagree in the area of veterans. As the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) so eloquently explained the Blue Dog position 
on military retirees and veterans, I happen to believe the CATs are 
inadequate in that area, but there again we can do as we have been 
doing all day. We can nitpick around.
  That is not nitpicking. That is serious. My primary opposition to 
their budget stems again in the area of the tax cut and the size of it. 
Here again, I commend them because they are honest in saying that 
theirs is $270 billion over the next 5 years, which amounts to 
something like over a trillion dollars over 10, and that is an honest 
presentation and they are very honest in coming forward with that and 
they believe in that.
  I happen to not believe in that, for a fundamental reason and it goes 
back to Social Security. I have joined with the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Sanford), I have joined with the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe) and others in working in a bipartisan way on a long-term 
Social Security reform bill, and anyone that has spent any amount of 
time whatsoever knows that every year we delay in fixing Social 
Security for the long-term, every day we delay it makes it that much 
more difficult. 2014 is the magic day. That is when the surpluses we 
are all wanting to give away tonight, that is when they no longer are 
surpluses and that is when somebody in the Congress in 2014 is going to 
have to deal with it.
  That is why I think it is fiscally irresponsible. With all due 
respect to those that believe otherwise, it is fiscally irresponsible 
to give back money today that we are going to need in the Social 
Security system in 2014, particularly since we are talking about 
projected surpluses.
  How many times have we heard it, both sides of the aisle tonight, 
people talking about these surpluses like they are real? They are 
projected. They may or may not occur in 2006.
  If they pass their budget and it becomes law and we do have a tax cut 
that benefits today, the people today that we are now in the longest 
peacetime economic expansion in the history of our country, people are 
doing well, they are paying taxes, but what if that stops in 2006?
  More importantly, I ask all of my colleagues to start looking at the 
numbers of 2014. My primary opposition tonight to their bill is the 
2014 problem that comes with tax cuts in the area of a trillion dollars 
over the next 10 years, which they advocate.
  Anyone that has spent any time looking at the long-term problems of 
Social Security know we really cannot afford that. That is why with all 
due respect, I say to those who advocate tax cuts in this area that we 
are talking about tonight, in my judgment it is the most fiscally 
irresponsible thing that we could be doing.
  They disagree. I respect that. I commend them for the things in their 
budget. They are honest. They are going at it. I just cannot bring 
myself to vote for this kind of a tax cut for two reasons. Their names 
are Chase and Cole, mine and Cindy's 4\1/2\ year old and 2\1/2\ year 
old grandsons. I resolved four and a half years ago that I did not want 
them to look back 65 years from tonight and say if only my granddad 
would have done what in his heart he knew he should have done when he 
was in the Congress we would not be in the mess we are in today.
  That is why I would strongly oppose the CATs resolution on that one 
issue. I commend them on the other areas where they are very honest, 
and am offering some potential bipartisan support.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the gentleman for his 
supportive words about many elements in our budget, and I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, tonight we will talk about this and we 
will vote a little after midnight. A lot of my colleagues have their 
minds made up. So what can I say tonight to perhaps change their minds 
and have a realistic picture of this budget?
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), Mr. Davis, and others on 
this side talk about these huge tax cuts. Let us get real. This is $270 
billion over 5 years. What is that, 20-some-billion a year? And we are 
spending $2 trillion a year.
  The spending alone is going up at 9 percent. Last year, between 1999 
and the year 2000 budget we spent 9 percent with emergency 
supplementals. The people in this House should be embarrassed that 
spending is increasing at 9 and 10 percent a year, with emergency 
supplementals, and we are talking about a tax cut, a tax cut of $24 
billion a year.
  Let us look at what Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan said, 
appointed FBI Clinton administration, ``My first priority would be to 
allow as much of the surplus to flow through into a reduction of debt 
to the public. If that proves politically infeasible, I would opt for 
cutting taxes. And under no condition do I see any room in the

[[Page H1383]]

longer term outlook for major changes in expenditures.''
  ``I would opt for cutting taxes.'' This is an objective individual 
who is trying to say reduce spending.
  Now this budget by the CATs is the only budget that we are going to 
vote on tonight that has 302(B) allocations restraint. It actually puts 
restraints. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) was kind enough to 
acknowledge that.
  I hope everybody in the House realizes that the CATs budget is going 
to restrain spending. If spending is not restrained around here, it is 
going to continue at 9 percent; 9 and 10 percent means that in 7 years 
this budget is going to double. Instead of $2 trillion we are talking 
about $4 trillion.
  The other last point I want to make is our Nation's seniors would 
benefit because it repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security. So 
those who are going to vote against the CATs budget are going to vote 
with the Clinton administration on the tax increase on Social Security.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, what concerns me, and I think many on my side of the 
aisle, about this proposal is that it looks a lot like 1981.
  First of all, what we have is an enormous tax cut, $270 billion over 
5 years, bigger than anybody has yet proposed for this period of time.
  We have shown earlier today how if one tries to fit a $200 billion 
tax cut over 5 years into the other numbers assumed in the Republican 
budget resolution, the base bill, it goes into deficit. In 2003, the 
surplus vanishes. In 2004 and 2005, the budget is in the red. This 
would go even deeper.
  It avoids the deficit only by having enormous cuts in nondefense 
discretionary spending. Right out of the box, this particular 
resolution, the CATs resolution, proposes an immediate cut of $16 
billion; $16 billion between this year and next year in nondefense 
discretionary spending.
  Look at last year and ask if that is realistic. Look at 1998 and ask 
if that is realistic. Look at the entire period of the 1990s. Just 
1996, since the Republicans have been in control of the House, we have 
had an annual rate of increase in nondefense discretionary spending of 
2.5 percent real increase.
  So what is being assumed here is an abrupt, radical about face, a cut 
of a magnitude in one year we have not been able to achieve in any 
recent year that I can recall. The whole surplus is being bet. All of 
this that we have worked to accomplish and achieve and have finally 
been able to succeed on, it is all going to be bet on a big tax cut and 
very unrealistic discretionary spending cuts.
  If those discretionary spending cuts are not attained politically 
here on the House Floor in the Congress, because of presidential vetoes 
or for whatever reason, we are in the red again, big time and in a 
hurry. That is what is scary about this resolution.
  It promises a lot, sure. I would like to go home and talk about $270 
billion in tax relief over the next 5 years, but I could not 
realistically tell my people that we could make those cuts when I have 
been here 18 years and I have not seen the Congress, Democrat or 
Republican Congress, muster the will to make cuts of that magnitude.
  I think this is a very risky venture. I think extremely thin ice is 
being skated on, and I think the budget that we have worked so hard to 
get in the black is being put back in the danger zone, back in the zone 
where we are likely to be in deficit. Once we go into deficit, we are 
right back into the Social Security trust fund. That is where this 
resolution leads us.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), who understands that only in Washington 
and only in a Democrat budget is repealing taxes on Social Security 
beneficiaries called spending.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, with that lead-in, I will simply pick up 
on the Social Security portion and I would say to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) in 
particular has been magnificent in his leadership on Social Security. 
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) touched on just a moment 
ago the issue of Social Security and personal accounts, and that is 
what personally gravitates me towards the CATs budget, what it does to 
get us off dead center, a dead center that the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm), I will not say on the left by any means, but on the 
Democratic side has been what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey) and others have been on the Republican side, and that is how do 
we get off dead center on Social Security?
  To this budget's credit, it moves us forward because it begins this 
process of personal accounts. It is a sense of Congress, which is a 
small start, and it is a point of order for personal accounts but that 
is, again, a step in the right direction that we very, very much need.
  Last year Washington borrowed $100 billion from Social Security and 
they did it without a lot of fanfare. Most of the folks back home I 
talked to do not even know that it happened and those that did, at most 
they wrote a letter to their Congressman or their Senator but they did 
not march on Washington. We had truckers in town last week. We had 
farmers in town last week, all protesting different things going on in 
Washington and yet this is sort of the quiet secret that is kept under 
the rug. It is something that I think would be brought about with 
simple private property rights.
  The only thing that will in the long run protect Social Security 
balances are private property rights. So what this budget does is it 
sets up for the first time a move toward a system of personal accounts 
wherein, for instance, Social Security money, surplus Social Security 
money, would be rebated back to the people paying Social Security taxes 
to begin their own personal Social Security savings account, and by 
doing so would protect it because it would be out of Washington.
  I think that that is a very small step but important step that we 
have to take in this debate.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, you will recall that two years 
ago this House failed to adopt a concurrent budget resolution. It was 
the first time in the 26-year history of the Budget Act that Congress 
failed to adopt a budget.
  It disrupted the appropriations process and made it much more 
difficult for the entire House to complete any of its legislative 
business in an orderly way.
  Then again last year we adopted a budget but it was an unrealistic 
budget. It was shot full of holes with gimmicks and blue smoke and 
mirrors. It treated things like the decennial census, that has been 
going on since 1790, as an emergency. We did not complete action on the 
appropriations bills until well after the fiscal year had begun. We 
failed the American people again.
  Now again this budget resolution is equally unrealistic.

                              {time}  2200

  It is so filled with assumptions that we know will not be met that it 
is not fair to the American people to even propose it, never mind pass 
it, on the floor of the House.
  We know it is not a real budget. We know that what this is is not 
serious legislation, but political expediency. We would probably be 
better off doing what we did in 1998 without a budget resolution; 
whether it be the Republican leadership budget or the CATs budget, 
which are not all that substantively different. These Republican 
budgets start with the wholly unrealistic assumption that we will be 
able to hold non-defense discretionary outlays to $114 billion below 
inflation over the next 5 years. That is not going to happen.
  Next year alone, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
suggested, we will have to cut nearly $20 billion below the level 
needed just to keep level with inflation. Yet we know that the Congress 
has increased non-defense appropriations faster than inflation every 
year since 1996. Who are we kidding?
  If we were honest with the American people, we would admit that we 
have no intention of cutting Federal law enforcement or education or 
environmental programs, or veterans care. You name it, we are not going 
to cut it. We are going to do what our constituents demand that we do, 
and at least keep these programs level with inflation.

[[Page H1384]]

  Who are we kidding? Ourselves? Why are we proposing a budget that we 
know we are not going to hold to? Maybe we are planning on putting all 
this money into the supplemental, hiding it, shifting it from fiscal 
year 2001 to fiscal year 2000. Maybe that will be this year's gimmick. 
But it is not right to the American people to be deceiving them in this 
way. The main problem is that to accommodate a tax cut in the range of 
$200 billion, whether it be the Republican leadership budget or the 
CATs budget, we know that we are putting in place a situation where we 
are going to be cutting revenue by almost $1 trillion over 10 years.
  Those tax cuts are not fair. They are not fair to the American 
people. But, most importantly, they are not fair to our children. We 
have an opportunity today to pay off the debt that we incurred in the 
1980s, to pay down that debt, to eliminate that debt by the year 2013. 
As well as the quarter of a trillion dollars in interest we have to pay 
every year on that debt. If we do not, our children have to pay off 
that debt. What could be more immoral than to pass that debt on to our 
children? What could be worse than to say to our children that they are 
going to have to pay for our retirement and our health care when we 
retire? We would not do that to our own children. Let us not do it to 
America's children. Oppose this budget.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to emphasize that 
only in Washington do people fail to realize that improving performance 
by 1, 2 or 3 percent per year is not just realistic, but it is 
expected, year after year after year. Those that say it is unrealistic 
to achieve any reduction at all in overall government spending are the 
same ones that said we could not balance the budget in 1994, the same 
ones that said we could not pass welfare reform in 1996, the same ones 
that said it was unrealistic and unattainable to set aside every penny 
of the Social Security surplus. They have been proved wrong time and 
again.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a member of the 
Committee on the Budget who believes we can meet not only spending 
caps, but we can pay down public debt, and we can do better for our 
defense as well as provide for tax relief to our working families.
  This substitute provides enough tax relief to eliminate the marriage 
penalty, to provide greater access to health care, to expand choice in 
education, to give seniors relief by repealing the 1993 tax increase on 
Social Security benefits, and to give small businesses tax relief to 
keep our economy moving forward and to end the unfair death tax that 
penalizes savings.
  Unfortunately, there are those on the other side that would like to 
call this risky and irresponsible. I ask them to talk to the hard-
working people of my district in Kansas who believe that they should 
have relief, and ask them also to tell this to the hard-working people 
in their district who deserve to have some additional tax relief.
  As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I have also seen the 
effects on morale caused by the years of neglect of our fine military 
personnel by this present administration. We have military families 
that are on food stamps; one family member is often deployed throughout 
the world on endless peacekeeping missions, with little time to spend 
at home. And there has been a failure to provide new equipment and 
spare parts as well as quality health services. This resulted in a 
dangerously low readiness, as well as serious problems with regard to 
recruiting and retention. We should never, never forget that providing 
for the common defense of our country is our first duty.
  For those who say this substitute cannot be done, I say you have not 
tried hard enough. I urge my colleagues to support the CATs substitute.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from South Carolina for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, my friends who offer this budget have done a great 
public service, because I think they have shed some light upon the 
underlying dilution of the majority's Republican resolution that is the 
base bill. The base bill says that we are going to bring in $171 
billion more over the next 5 years than we take in. Then it proceeds to 
spend $268 billion more than we take in, a $97 billion gap.
  What they say to the American public is we can reduce your taxes by 
$200 billion and provide a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, 
and we can increase defense spending and increase some other spending, 
all to the tune of $268 billion. So, see, your surplus is $171 billion, 
but your additional giveaways are $268 billion.
  To the credit of the alternative of the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Sununu), you do not do that. The Sununu alternative tells the 
truth. It says in order to do those things, to have the prescription 
drug benefit and pay down the debt and cut taxes, one has to make very 
significant cuts in the budget. That is an honest proposition with 
which I disagree.
  The proposition of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and 
the proposition of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) are honest. 
They say that to pay down the debt you basically have to leave taxes 
alone and leave spending alone and that will work.
  The underlying bill is a repetition of the dilution of 1981. It says 
you can have your cake and eat it too; you can have your cake and bake 
it too; you can have your cake and give it away too, that you can 
increase Medicare, increase defense, cut taxes, and spend more money 
than you bring in. I think the priorities of this resolution are wrong 
in the CATs budget, but they are internally consistent.
  The truth is the way to pay down the debt is to essentially leave 
spending alone, the way the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
does, to leave taxes alone, the way the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) does, not rely upon rosy scenarios, and pay down the 
national debt. I oppose this, but support the alternative of the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), who understands leaving spending on 
autopilot and taxing at a higher level than ever in the history of our 
country is no way to run the Federal Government.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, among the many other positive aspects of 
the Conservative Action Team budget that I am up here to applaud and 
support is something that is a little less sexy perhaps than tax cuts, 
a little less easy to understand perhaps than increases in defense 
appropriations or anything else; but it is something, nonetheless, that 
we need to address, and this CATs budget does, in fact, address it for 
the first time in a long time, the first time, as far as I know, ever, 
and that is the practice of providing funds, authorizing every single 
year, year in and year out, money for unauthorized programs.
  There is a process in this House that we are supposed to go through. 
The rule says that we cannot fund programs that are not authorized. 
Yet, year after year after year this has happened. Republicans, 
Democrats, it does not matter. This is not the way to provide fiscal 
responsibility. It is shirking our responsibility, if anything.
  For example, of the programs that we have been appropriating for but 
are not authorized, I just bring these few to your attention. The 
National Endowment for the Arts, $98 million funding received this 
year. It has not been authorized for 7 years. The National Endowment 
for Humanities has not been authorized for 7 years. The Federal 
Communications Commission, for 9 years. Family planning programs have 
not been authorized for 15 years. Power Marketing Administration, 16 
years.
  Some of these are wonderful programs. They may be the most important 
things we do. But the fact is, unless we let the authorizing committees 
review what they are supposed to do, review them every few years, and 
unless we allow them to do it, we will never know.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

[[Page H1385]]

  (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, once again, we are debating a budget that 
does not strengthen social security or Medicare. In fact, none of the 
non-Social Security surplus is earmarked specifically for Medicare. The 
American people have made themselves heard loud and clear: they want 
Congress to save Social Security and Medicare, add a voluntary 
prescription drug program to Medicare, help our schools and help our 
children. Instead, we once again are seeing a bill that will provide 
tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts spending for programs that help our 
children.
  How can Republicans claim to be pro-education when they will 
eliminate Head Start for more than 40,000 children and their families 
by 2005? We already have a long waiting list for families wanting to 
get their children into Head Start and this budget will only lengthen 
that list. Additionally, this budget would deny college access to 
316,000 low-income students by 2005. In my district, Pell Grants are 
what enable many students to continue on to college.
  Another area of concern to me in the Republican Budget is the cut to 
the LIHEAP program. As we all know, it has been a cold winter and with 
oil prices rapidly increasing, many families and especially senior 
citizens, are being forced to choose between heat and food.
  In my district, one building that house senior citizens had no heat 
for 3 days before they contacted my office and we had the heat turned 
back on. At a time when oil prices are climbing higher, we must not cut 
LIHEAP assistance, as the Republican budget does, to 164,000 low-income 
families.
  There are several Democratic substitutes that not only pay down the 
debt and shore up Social Security, but also increase funding for 
education programs.
  My colleagues highlight their commitment to fully funding special 
education, yet when Democrats offered an amendment to provide full 
funding of the federal governments maximum authorized contribution for 
special education, Republicans diluted it to only a Sense of the 
Congress Amendment that Congress should provide this funding. If we 
should, why did they not vote to put it in the budget?
  The Democratic Substitutes all provide a voluntary prescription drug 
benefit for seniors, provides targeted tax cuts to hard working 
families, and maintains or increases funding for non-defense 
discretionary programs. I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
Republican budget and support the democratic alternatives.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we talked about the Republican 
majority's budget resolution and some of the risks that it would pose. 
Their $200 billion tax cut in the first 5 years would take us into the 
red by 2004.
  Well, if you are worried about that risky venture, just look at this 
CATs budget. It proposes a $270 billion tax cut in the first 5 years. 
Still not as much, I must say, as George W. Bush's proposed tax cut, 
which our Republican friends refused to vote on, but still $270 billion 
in the first 5 years, enough to eat up the entire non-Social Security 
surplus and to require renewed borrowing from the Social Security 
surplus. So the proposed tax cut is reckless. It bets the store on 
doubtful projections, which I think are simply not risks that our 
country ought to take.
  Secondly, we talked this afternoon about the unrealistic assumptions 
about our domestic obligations and how the Republican budget assumes 
devastating and unrealistic declines in domestic investments, in 
education, in law enforcement, across the board.
  Well, if you are worried about that set of cuts, look at this CATs 
budget. It goes even deeper. In fact, $16.5 billion deeper in 2001 
alone.
  I invite my colleagues to contrast the Democratic budget substitute, 
which is reasonable, which is balanced. It will provide a targeted, 
affordable tax cut. But it will also extend the solvency of both the 
Medicare and the Social Security trust funds. It will mandate the 
addition of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. And it will use 
not only the entire Social Security surplus to buy down the publicly-
held debt, but in fact will apply over $300 billion of the non-Social 
Security surplus to that same critical purpose.
  Support the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time. I want to thank my colleague from New Hampshire for his hard work 
on the CATs budget. He has put in tremendous effort and drawn up what I 
believe is by far the best budget presented here tonight.
  But I also want to begin by addressing this notion that appears to 
exist in Washington, D.C., and nowhere else in the world. Every single 
business in America and every single business in the world understands 
that each year you must do more with less. They also understand that 
the way you can do that is through improvements in efficiency and 
productivity. Indeed, every single report which now analyzes 
productivity in America shows that we as a society are becoming more 
productive, year after year after year.
  In the last 2 years alone, we have grown more productive by 3 percent 
per year. That means that Ford Motor Company or General Motors or 
Motorola produces a better product year after year at a lower cost. Yet 
in government, nowhere else in all of the world do we say Oh, no, we 
can't do more with less, we have to do less with more. So you hear our 
colleagues on the other side decry the budget and say it cannot be 
done.
  I would again compliment my friend from New Hampshire for pointing 
out that the people who say this cannot be done, that we can never 
deliver more government services because of improvements in efficiency 
or productivity, are the same people who said we could not balance the 
budget, the same people who said we could not accomplish welfare 
reform, and the same people who say the American people do not deserve 
a penny of tax relief.
  Let us talk about what this budget does. Number one, it protects 100 
percent of the Social Security surplus.
  Number two, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) just 
pointed out, it provides the reform for Medicare by providing 
individual retirement accounts.
  Let us talk about what it does for defense, since that is the number 
one priority of the government. It provides the strongest national 
defense of any of the budgets.
  But, most importantly, and I want to compliment my friend the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), it does what is critically 
important: It contains real budget enforcement. We cannot continue to 
pass budgets which are a fraud.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have before us a conservative budget that sets the 
right priorities, represents a vision of a good number, a very large 
portion of the Members of this House. It starts by setting aside every 
single penny of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus, a vision that 
was criticized when it was first offered 2 years ago in a conservative 
budget. It pays down $1 trillion in debt over 5 years. That is four 
times more than this budget contains in tax relief. It strengthens the 
national defense, and it provides support for real bipartisan reform of 
both Social Security and Medicare. Finally, it offers unprecedented 
support for paying for the unfunded mandate of special education that 
burdens cities and towns at the local level all over this country; 
unprecedented, meant to fully fund that special education mandate.
  After we have done all of these things, after we have paid down $1 
trillion in debt, set aside for Social Security and done real reform on 
Medicare and Social Security, then we do cut taxes. We could pay down 
more in debt if we decided not to lift the tax increase on Social 
Security beneficiaries. Sure, we could pay down a little more debt if 
we did that; but if we did that, it would be wrong. We could pay down a 
little bit more debt if we did not think we should eliminate the 
marriage penalty, but penalizing a couple simply because they choose to 
get married is wrong.
  In the Democrat budget and in the Blue Dog budget, there was no real 
effort to deal with that serious problem. We could pay down a little 
bit more debt if we decided that individuals should not get to deduct 
their health

[[Page H1386]]

insurance costs, like big businesses can.
  The final question I ask my colleagues is what hoops do the American 
people have to jump through to get a Tax Code that treats them a little 
bit more fair. I think we should support this resolution, and we should 
reject the notion that the American people cannot deal with their own 
money.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 78, 
noes 339, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 73]

                                AYES--78

     Aderholt
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Boehner
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cox
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dreier
     Ewing
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Hansen
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hunter
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kingston
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Paul
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--339

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Ackerman
     Archer
     Bonilla
     Crane
     Dixon
     Greenwood
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lowey
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHugh
     Porter
     Quinn
     Royce
     Schakowsky
     Vento

                              {time}  2239

  Mr. KASICH and Mr. SMITH of New Jersey changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. STUMP and Mr. GRAHAM changed their vote from ``no'' and ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 5 printed in Part B of House Report 106-535.


  Amendment No. 5 In The Nature Of A Substitute Offered By Mr. Spratt

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Part B Amendment No. 5 in the nature of a substitute 
     offered by Mr. Spratt:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sec. 1. Table of contents.
Sec. 2. Special rule.

                     TITLE I--BUDGETARY PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. Concurrent resolution on the budget for 2001 and covering 
              2000-2010.
Sec. 102. Recommended aggregate levels and amounts.
Sec. 103. Major functional categories.
Sec. 104. Reconciliation directives; social security and medicare 
              solvency.
Sec. 105. Social security lockbox.
Sec. 106. Allocations to the Committee on Appropriations.
Sec. 107. Applicability of adjustments.

                 TITLE II--SENSE OF CONGRESS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Sense of Congress on discretionary caps.
Sec. 202. Sense of Congress on asset building for the working poor.
Sec. 203. Sense of Congress on access to health insurance and 
              preserving home health services for all medicare 
              beneficiaries.
Sec. 204. Sense of Congress regarding medicare+choice programs/
              reimbursement rates.
Sec. 205. Sense of the Congress regarding the stabilization of certain 
              Federal payments to States, counties, and boroughs.
Sec. 206. Sense of Congress on the importance of the national science 
              foundation.
Sec. 207. Sense of Congress regarding skilled nursing facilities.
Sec. 208. Sense of Congress on the importance of special education.
Sec. 209. Sense of Congress on a Federal employee pay raise.
Sec. 210. Sense of Congress regarding HCFA draft guidelines.
Sec. 211. Sense of Congress on corporate welfare.

      SEC. 2. SPECIAL RULE.

       In this resolution, all references to years are fiscal 
     years and all amounts are expressed in billions.
                     TITLE I--BUDGETARY PROVISIONS

     SEC. 101. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR 2001 AND 
                   COVERING 2000-2010.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for 2000 is hereby revised and that the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for 2001, including the appropriate 
     budgetary levels for 2002 through 2010, is hereby set forth.

      SEC. 102. RECOMMENDED AGGREGATE LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       (a) On-Budget Levels (Excluding Social Security and the 
     Postal Service Fund).--
  


[[Page H1387]]

  

     For purposes of enforcement of this resolution, the following 
     budgetary levels are appropriate for each year 2000 through 
     2010:

                                            [In billions of dollars]
 
                                             2000        2001        2002        2003        2004        2005
 
New budget authority....................    $1,475.2    $1,541.9    $1,578.2    $1,634.3    $1,696.2    $1,762.4
Outlays.................................     1,459.2     1,496.5     1,555.9     1,610.4     1,672.2     1,739.2
Revenues................................     1,465.5     1,512.3     1,564.8     1,620.4     1,680.0     1,744.9
Revenue change..........................         0.0        -2.6        -6.5        -9.1       -12.6       -19.2
Surpluses...............................         6.3        15.8         8.9        10.0         7.8         5.7
Publicly held debt......................     3,472.3     3,312.1     3,131.3     2,942.0     2,740.8     2,524.0
 



 
                                                         2006        2007        2008        2009        2010
 
New budget authority................................    $1,815.1    $1,873.4    $1,947.4    $2,022.0    $2,102.4
Outlays.............................................     1,786.8     1,841.6     1,920.4     1,995.4     2,077.9
Revenues............................................     1,819.5     1,896.9     1,980.7     2,072.5     2,169.3
Revenue change......................................       -23.0       -25.7       -29.3       -34.0       -39.0
Surpluses...........................................        32.7        55.3        60.3        77.1        91.4
Publicly held debt..................................     2,265.2     1,967.7     1,650.2     3,102.2       926.8
 


       (b) Unified Budget Surpluses and Reduction in the Publicly 
     Held Debt.--Congress declares that on-budget surpluses and 
     the surpluses in the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Trust 
     Funds (Social Security trust funds) shall be devoted 
     exclusively to reducing the debt held by the public. The 
     cumulative ten-year on-budget surpluses of $365.0 billion set 
     forth in subsection (a), combined with the estimated 
     cumulative ten-year off-budget (Social Security) surpluses of 
     $2,265.8 billion, will retire 73 percent of the publicly held 
     debt by 2010 and all of it by 2013.

      SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the following are 
     the appropriate levels of new budget authority and budget 
     outlays for each major functional category for each year 2000 
     through 2010:
       (a) National Defense (050):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................    $288.9     $305.3     $309.0     $315.4     $323.1     $331.4
Outlays.......................................    $282.5     $297.2     $301.6     $309.1     $317.3     $327.8
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................    $340.1     $349.0     $358.2     $367.6     $377.3
Outlays..................................................    $332.4     $338.2     $351.7     $361.4     $371.0
 


       (b) International Affairs (150):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................     $20.1      $20.3      $20.2      $20.3      $20.6      $21.3
Outlays.......................................     $15.5      $17.6     $1`6.6      $16.7      $17.0      $17.2
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................     $21.7      $22.2      $22.5      $22.9      $23.2
Outlays..................................................     $17.4      $17.9      $18.4      $18.9      $19.4
 


       (c) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................     $19.3      $20.8      $20.4      $20.6      $20.8      $21.1
Outlays.......................................     $18.4      $19.6      $20.1      $20.3      $20.8      $20.8
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................     $21.5      $21.9      $22.3      $22.8      $23.2
Outlays..................................................     $21.1      $21.5      $21.9      $22.3      $22.8
 


       (d) Energy (270):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................      $1.1       $1.7       $1.3       $1.5       $1.5       $1.5
Outlays.......................................      $0.6       $0.2       $0.2       $0.2       $0.1       $0.2
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................      $1.6       $1.4       $1.8       $2.0       $2.0
Outlays..................................................      $0.1       $0.1       $0.2       $0.4       $0.5
 


       (e) Natural Resources and Environment (300):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................     $24.3      $25.8      $26.2      $26.8      $27.4      $28.0
Outlays.......................................     $24.2      $25.3      $26.0      $26.6      $27.0      $27.4
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................     $28.7      $29.4      $30.1      $31.3      $32.1
Outlays..................................................     $28.0      $28.7      $29.3      $30.5      $31.3
 


       (f) Agriculture (350):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................     $36.7      $19.3      $18.8      $18.0      $17.4      $16.4
Outlays.......................................     $34.3      $17.2      $17.0      $16.3      $16.0      $14.8
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................     $15.7      $15.1      $15.1      $15.3      $15.6
Outlays..................................................     $14.1      $13.5      $13.4      $13.8      $14.2
 


       (g) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................      $7.5       $6.6       $8.8       $9.5      $13.7      $13.8
Outlays.......................................      $3.1       $2.4       $4.9       $4.8       $8.7       $9.7
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................     $13.7      $12.3      $12.4      $12.8      $17.3

[[Page H1388]]

 
Outlays..................................................      $9.3       $8.0       $8.0       $8.3      $12.0
 


       (h) Transportation (400):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................     $54.3      $59.5      $57.8      $59.5      $59.7      $59.9
Outlays.......................................     $46.6      $51.1      $52.9      $54.6      $54.9      $55.4
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................     $60.8      $61.3      $61.8      $62.3      $62.8
Outlays..................................................     $56.8      $57.6      $58.6      $60.0      $61.4
 


       (i) Community and Regional Development (450):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................     $11.2      $11.9      $12.0      $12.2      $12.4      $12.7
Outlays.......................................     $10.7      $11.1      $11.4      $11.3      $11.5      $11.6
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................     $13.0      $13.2      $13.4      $13.7      $13.8
Outlays..................................................     $12.0      $12.2      $12.5      $12.7      $12.9
 


       (j) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................     $57.7      $76.7      $77.8      $78.8      $80.0      $81.8
Outlays.......................................     $61.4      $69.7      $77.2      $78.4      $79.4      $81.0
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................     $83.5      $85.4      $87.2      $89.2      $91.1
Outlays..................................................     $82.6      $84.3      $86.2      $88.1      $90.5
 


       (k) Health (550):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................    $159.3     $171.0     $182.0     $194.6     $210.2     $228.4
Outlays.......................................    $152.4     $168.2     $180.8     $194.0     $209.8     $227.3
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................    $247.7     $266.8     $286.8     $309.2     $333.0
Outlays..................................................    $246.4     $264.7     $284.8     $307.3     $331.7
 


       (l) Medicare (570):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................    $199.6     $217.7     $225.0     $247.5     $267.5     $293.9
Outlays.......................................    $199.5     $218.0     $224.9     $247.2     $267.7     $293.9
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................    $303.6     $332.0     $356.6     $384.6     $413.7
Outlays..................................................    $303.4     $332.2     $356.5     $384.3     $413.9
 


       (m) Income Security (600):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................    $238.4     $254.8     $265.8     $276.4     $287.5     $298.0
Outlays.......................................    $248.0     $255.6     $267.2     $277.7     $288.4     $298.9
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................    $312.0     $316.1     $331.1     $341.8     $353.4
Outlays..................................................    $312.9     $316.9     $331.8     $342.2     $353.6
 


       (n) Social Security (650):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................     $11.5       $9.7      $11.6      $12.3      $13.0      $13.8
Outlays.......................................     $11.5       $9.7      $11.6      $12.3      $13.0      $13.8
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................     $14.7      $15.7      $16.8      $18.0      $19.2
Outlays..................................................     $14.7      $15.7      $16.8      $18.0      $19.2
 


       (o) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................     $46.0      $48.2      $49.4      $51.0      $52.2      $55.6
Outlays.......................................     $45.1      $47.7      $49.2      $50.9      $52.0      $55.3
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................     $55.3      $54.8      $58.1      $59.6      $61.1
Outlays..................................................     $54.9      $54.2      $57.8      $59.2      $60.7
 


       (p) Administration of Justice (750):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................     $27.4      $29.1      $29.4      $30.2      $31.0      $31.7
Outlays.......................................     $28.0      $28.7      $29.5      $30.0      $30.6      $31.4
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................     $32.5      $33.3      $34.2      $35.1      $35.9
Outlays..................................................     $32.2      $33.0      $33.8      $34.7      $35.5
 


       (q) General Government (800):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................     $13.9      $13.4      $13.6      $13.8      $13.9      $14.1
Outlays.......................................     $14.7      $14.0      $13.7      $13.8      $13.8      $13.7
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................     $14.6      $15.0      $15.5      $16.1      $16.5
Outlays..................................................     $14.1      $14.6      $15.2      $15.6      $16.1
 


       (r) Net Interest (900):

[[Page H1389]]


 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................    $284.6     $288.6     $290.4     $286.6     $282.4     $278.2
Outlays.......................................    $284.6     $288.6     $290.4     $286.6     $282.4     $278.2
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................    $274.6     $270.1     $266.0     $261.1     $256.0
Outlays..................................................    $274.6     $270.1     $266.0     $261.1     $256.0
 


       (s) Allowances (920):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................      $8.5       $0.4       $0.0       $0.0       $0.0       $0.0
Outlays.......................................     $13.4      $-7.0       $2.0       $0.3       $0.1       $0.0
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................      $0.0       $0.0       $0.0       $0.0       $0.0
Outlays..................................................      $0.0       $0.0       $0.0       $0.0       $0.0
 


       (t) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):

 
                                                   2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005
 
New budget authority..........................    $-34.1     $-38.4     $-41.3     $-40.7     $-38.1     $-39.2
Outlays.......................................    $-34.1     $-38.4     $-41.3     $-40.7     $-38.1     $-39.2
 


 
                                                              2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
 
New budget authority.....................................    $-40.2     $-41.6     $-42.5     $-43.4     $-44.8
Outlays..................................................    $-40.2     $-41.6     $-42.5     $-43.4     $-44.8
 

     SEC. 104. RECONCILIATION DIRECTIVES; SOCIAL SECURITY AND 
                   MEDICARE SOLVENCY.

       (a) Submission of Budgetary Recommendations.--Not later 
     than June 22, 2000, the following House committees shall 
     submit legislation changing current law within their 
     jurisdictions to the House Committee on the Budget in the 
     specified manner and amounts.

 
 
                                                                     2000        2001      2001-2005   2001-2010
 
Agriculture--increase outlays...................................      $6.000      $0.676      $9.015     $23.365
Armed Services--increase outlays................................       0.000       0.437       5.400      16.324
Banking and Financial Services--decrease outlays................       0.000       0.367       1.035       1.170
Commerce--increase outlays......................................       0.000       2.270      48.983     193.696
Education and Welfare--decrease outlays.........................       0.000      -0.001       0.040       0.128
Government Reform and Oversight--decrease revenues..............       0.000       0.071       0.473       1.157
Resources--decrease outlays.....................................       0.000      -0.026       0.057       0.230
Transportation and Infrastructure--decrease outlays.............       0.000       0.065       0.001      -0.159
Veterans' Affairs--increase outlays.............................       0.000       0.259       0.548       0.568
Ways and Means--increase outlays................................       0.000       2.174      40.441     156.022
Ways and Means--decrease revenues...............................       0.000       0.012       1.413       4.412
 


       (b) Policy Assumptions.--(1) Within the framework of this 
     budget resolution, which provides for the extension of the 
     solvency of the social security and medicare trust funds, the 
     policy of this resolution is that there shall be gross tax 
     relief of $5.6 billion and net tax relief of $2.6 billion in 
     2001, gross tax relief of $77.8 billion and net tax relief of 
     $50.0 billion over fiscal years 2001 through 2005, and gross 
     tax relief of $263.3 billion and net tax relief of $201.0 
     billion over fiscal years 2001 through 2010, including by 
     illustration and not limitation provisions that--
       (A) mitigate the marriage penalty on middle-income families 
     and the application of the individual alternative minimum tax 
     to middle-income taxpayers;
       (B) expand the earned income credit to mitigate the 
     marriage penalty on low-income households and to increase the 
     credit for families with three or more children;
       (C) facilitate financing of school construction and 
     renovation;
       (D) increase credits and deductions of tuition for post-
     secondary education;
       (E) expand deductions and credits for medical insurance and 
     the cost of long-term care;
       (F) provide patient protections contained in the Dingell-
     Norwood Patient's Bill of Rights Act;
       (G) foster community redevelopment and combat urban sprawl;
       (H) reduce estate taxes, especially on decedents owning 
     small businesses and family farms;
       (I) encourage and expand retirement savings accounts; and
       (J) extend credits that promote employment opportunities 
     for welfare beneficiaries and low-income workers.
       (2) The resolution assumes that $7.0 billion over fiscal 
     years 2001 through 2005 and $14.6 billion over fiscal years 
     2001 through 2010 of the revenues forgone as a result of 
     these new tax provisions may be offset by reinstating 
     Superfund taxes; $9.8 billion over fiscal years 2001 through 
     2005 and $24.2 billion over fiscal years 2001 through 2010 
     may be offset by repealing or restricting some of the 
     unwarranted deductions, credits, exemptions, and exclusions 
     whose repeal or restriction were proposed by the President in 
     submission of his budget for fiscal year 2001; and $11.0 
     billion over fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and $23.5 billion 
     over fiscal years 2001 through 2010 may be offset by 
     provisions restricting abusive tax shelters and other 
     provisions proposed by Mr. Rangel in the motion to recommit 
     H.R. 3832.
       (3) The resolution also assumes $40 billion over fiscal 
     years 2001 through 2005 and $155 billion through fiscal year 
     2010 for a medicare prescription drug benefit and cost-
     sharing protections. The resolution assumes voluntary 
     prescription drug coverage for all Americans age 65 or older, 
     in which not less than 50 percent of the cost of the benefit, 
     based on the price of the prescription drugs, is borne by the 
     Government. Beneficiaries also will pay monthly premiums. 
     Beneficiaries with annual incomes below 150 percent of 
     poverty ($12,525 for a single person; $16,875 for a couple) 
     will not pay premiums, and those with annual incomes below 
     135 percent of poverty ($11,273 for a single person; $15,188 
     for a couple) are protected from the plan's cost-sharing 
     requirements.
       (c) Flexibility for the Committee on Ways and Means.--If 
     the reconciliation submission by the Committee on Ways and 
     Means alters the Internal Revenue Code in ways that are 
     scored by the Joint Committee on Taxation as outlay changes, 
     as through legislation affecting refundable tax credits, the 
     submission shall be considered to meet the revenue 
     requirements of the reconciliation directive if the net cost 
     of the revenue and outlay changes does not exceed the revenue 
     amount set forth for that committee in subsection (a). Upon 
     the submission of such legislation, the chairman of the House 
     Committee on the Budget shall adjust the budget aggregates in 
     this resolution and allocations made under this resolution 
     accordingly.
       (d) Extending the Solvency of the Social Security and 
     Medicare Trust Funds.--
       (1) The purpose of this subsection is to extend the 
     solvency of Social Security by at least 15 years and to 
     extend the solvency of Medicare by at least ten years.
       (2) Not later than June 22, 2000, the Committee on Ways and 
     Means shall submit legislation to the House Committee on the 
     Budget providing for the annual transfer from the General 
     Fund of the Treasury to the Hospital Insurance (Medicare Part 
     A) Trust Fund of an amount equal to $300 billion from 2001 to 
     2010. Such funds shall be derived from the on-budget surplus 
     over that ten-year period.
       (3) Not later than June 22, 2000, the Committee on Ways and 
     Means shall submit legislation to the House Committee on the 
     Budget providing for the annual transfer from the General 
     Fund of the Treasury to Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust 
     Fund, starting in 2011, of an amount equal to the reduction 
     in unified budget Net Interest outlays in 2010 below the 
     level of unified budget Net Interest outlays in 2000. Under 
     this resolution, that reduction is expected to equal $148.9 
     billion.
       (4) Provisions of legislation that only carry out the 
     requirements of paragraphs (2) or (3) shall not be considered 
     extraneous to a reconciliation bill under section 313 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (e) Reporting of Reconciliation Bill.--After receiving the 
     legislation submitted under subsections (a), (b), and (d), 
     the House Committee on the Budget shall report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations 
     without any substantive revision.

     SEC. 105. SOCIAL SECURITY LOCKBOX.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the social 
     security trust funds are off budget for purposes of the 
     President's budget

[[Page H1390]]

     submission and the concurrent resolution on the budget;
       (2) the social security trust funds have been running 
     surpluses each year for seventeen years, and until this year, 
     these surpluses have been borrowed to fund the operations of 
     the Federal Government;
       (3) this resolution balances the Federal budget without 
     including the social security surpluses in each year from 
     2000 through 2010;
       (4) balancing the Federal budget exclusive of the social 
     security surplus will strengthen the Nation's financial 
     condition so that it is better prepared to ensure the long-
     term solvency of the social security program.
       (b) Point of Order.--It shall not in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any revision to 
     this resolution or a concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     any fiscal year between 2001 and 2010, or any amendment 
     thereto, or conference report thereto, or any reported bill 
     or joint resolution or any amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon that sets forth or causes an on-budget deficit 
     for any fiscal year.

     SEC. 106. ALLOCATIONS TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Treatment of OASDI Administrative Expenses.--In 
     addition to amounts in this resolution, allocations to the 
     Committee on Appropriations shall include the following 
     amounts, which are assumed to be used for the administrative 
     expenses of the Social Security Administration, and those 
     allocations shall be considered to be allocations made under 
     section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

 
                                              2000             2001
 
New budget authority..................          $3.175           $3.400
Outlays...............................          $3.202           $3.370
 


       (b) Special Allocation for Lands Legacy Initiative.--
       (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), $1.4 billion in 
     discretionary new budget authority and $1.0 billion in 
     discretionary outlays included in this resolution shall not 
     be allocated to the Appropriations Committee for 2001.
       (2) Prior to consideration by the House of Representatives 
     or the Committee of the Whole of any appropriations measure, 
     amendment, or motion providing $1.4 billion in new budget 
     authority for 2001 for: Federal land acquisitions; 
     conservation-related grants to states, tribes, and 
     localities; and ocean and coastal conservation programs, the 
     chairman of the House Committee on the Budget shall increase 
     the allocation for 2001 of the House Committee on 
     Appropriations by $1.4 billion in new budget authority and by 
     the outlays flowing therefrom.

     SEC. 107. APPLICABILITY OF ADJUSTMENTS.

       Section 314(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     shall apply as though the adjustments described in sections 
     104(c) and 106(b) were adjustments under section 314(a) of 
     that Act.
                 TITLE II--SENSE OF CONGRESS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT AGREE 
                   ON DISCRETIONARY CAPS BASED ON REALISTIC 
                   LEVELS.

       It is the sense of Congress that Congress and the President 
     adopt discretionary caps based on the levels set forth in 
     this resolution in order to control spending, establish sound 
     budgeting projections and policies, and avoid budgeting 
     gimmicks.

     SEC. 202. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ASSET BUILDING FOR THE WORKING 
                   POOR.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) 33 percent of all American households and 60 percent of 
     African American households have no or negative financial 
     assets;
       (2) 46.9 percent of all children in America live in 
     households with no financial assets, including 40 percent of 
     Caucasian children and 75 percent of African American 
     children;
       (3) in order to provide low-income families with more tools 
     for empowerment, incentives which encourage asset-building 
     should be established;
       (4) middle and upper income Americans currently benefit 
     from tax incentives for building assets; and
       (5) the Federal Government should utilize the Federal tax 
     code to provide low-income Americans with incentives to work 
     and build assets in order to escape poverty permanently.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the provisions of this concurrent resolution assume that 
     Congress should modify the Federal tax law to include 
     provisions which encourage low-income workers and their 
     families to save for buying a first home, starting a 
     business, obtaining an education, or taking other measures to 
     prepare for the future.

     SEC. 203. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ACCESS TO HEALTH INSURANCE AND 
                   PRESERVING HOME HEALTH SERVICES FOR ALL 
                   MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.

       (a) Access to Health Insurance.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) 44.4 million Americans are currently without health 
     insurance, and that this number is expected to rise to nearly 
     60 million people in the next 10 years;
       (B) the cost of health insurance continues to rise, a key 
     factor in increasing the number of uninsured; and
       (C) there is a consensus that working Americans and their 
     families will suffer from reduced access to health insurance.
       (2) Sense of Congress on Improving Access to Health Care 
     Insurance.--It is the sense of Congress that access to 
     affordable health care coverage for all Americans is a 
     priority of the 106th Congress.
       (b) Preserving Home Health Service For All Medicare 
     Beneficiaries.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 reformed Medicare home 
     health care spending by instructing the Health Care Financing 
     Administration to implement a prospective payment system and 
     instituted an interim payment system to achieve savings;
       (B) the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget 
     Refinement Act, 1999, reformed the interim payment system to 
     increase reimbursements to low-cost providers and delayed the 
     automatic 15 percent payment reduction until after the first 
     year of the implementation of the prospective payment system; 
     and
       (C) patients whose care is more extensive and expensive 
     than the typical Medicare patient do not receive supplemental 
     payments in the interim payment system but will receive 
     special protection in the home health care prospective 
     payment system.
       (2) Sense of congress on access to home health care.--It is 
     the sense of Congress that--
       (A) home health care for seniors and disabled citizens is 
     vitally important;
       (B) Congress and the Administration should work together to 
     maintain quality care for patients whose care is more 
     extensive and expensive than the typical Medicare patient, 
     including the sickest and frailest Medicare beneficiaries, 
     while home health care agencies operate in the interim 
     payment system; and
       (C) Congress and the Administration should work together to 
     avoid the imposition of the 15 percent reduction in the 
     prospective payment system and ensure timely implementation 
     of that system.

     SEC. 204. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING MEDICARE+CHOICE 
                   PROGRAMS/REIMBURSEMENT RATES.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Medicare+Choice 
     regional disparity among reimbursement rates is unfair, and 
     that full funding of the Medicare+Choice program is a 
     priority as Congress deals with any medicare reform 
     legislation.

     SEC. 205. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE STABILIZATION OF 
                   CERTAIN FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO STATES, COUNTIES, 
                   AND BOROUGHS.

       It is the sense of Congress that Federal revenue-sharing 
     payments to States, counties, and boroughs pursuant to the 
     Act of May 23, 1908 (35 Stat. 260; 16 U.S.C. 500), the Act of 
     March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. 963; 16 U.S.C. 500), the Act of 
     August 28, 1937 (chapter 876; 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. 1181f), 
     the Act of May 24, 1939 (chapter 144; 53 Stat. 753; 43 U.S.C. 
     1181f-1 et seq.), and sections 13982 and 13983 of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66; 16 
     U.S.C. 500 note; 43 U.S.C. 1181f note) should be stabilized 
     and maintained for the long-term benefit of schools, roads, 
     public services, and communities, and that providing such 
     permanent, stable funding is a priority of the 106th 
     Congress.

     SEC. 206. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NATIONAL 
                   SCIENCE FOUNDATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress Finds that--
       (1) Recognizing the importance of the National Science 
     Foundation, during the Budget Committee markup, the Holt 
     amendment was offered which would have increased budget 
     authority by $675 million in fiscal year 2001 and by $3.9 
     billion over five years and increased outlays by $170 million 
     in fiscal year 2001 and by $2.8 billion over five years in 
     Function 250 (General Science, Space and Technology) to 
     reflect greater funding for the National Science Foundation;
       (2) recognizing the National Science Foundation's 
     importance during the markup, the Committee accepted a 
     modified Holt amendment which succeeded in increasing the 
     Chairman's mark for Function 250 by $100,000,000 in budget 
     authority for 2001;
       (3) further recognizing the National Science Foundation's 
     importance and the wisdom of the original Holt amendment, the 
     Rules Committee approved a substitute which changed the 
     budget resolution, as approved by the Budget Committee, to 
     increase budget authority for the National Science Foundation 
     by an additional $.5 billion in 2001 and $3.0 billion over 
     five years and to increase outlays by $0.1 billion in fiscal 
     year 2001 and by $2.2 billion over five years to reflect 
     increased funding for the National Science Foundation;
       (4) even with the increases approved in the Rules Committee 
     substitute for function 250, the outlays levels in this 
     Democratic concurrent budget resolution are still above the 
     levels in the House Republican budget resolution, as modified 
     by the Rules Committee substitute, by $200 million for fiscal 
     year 2001 and $1.3 billion over five years (2001-2005);
       (5) the National Science Foundation is the largest 
     supporter of basic research in the Federal Government;
       (6) the National Science Foundation is the second largest 
     supporter of university-based research;
       (7) research conducted by the grantees of the National 
     Science Foundation has led to innovations that have 
     dramatically improved the quality of life of all Americans;
       (8) because basic research funded by the National Science 
     Foundation is high-risk, cutting edge, fundamental, and may 
     not produce tangible benefits for over a decade, the Federal 
     Government is uniquely suited to support such research; and

[[Page H1391]]

       (9) the National Science Foundation's focus on peer-
     reviewed, merit-based grants represents a model for research 
     agencies across the Federal Government.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the function 250 discretionary levels assume an increase for 
     National Science Foundation that is sufficient for it to 
     continue its critical role in funding basic research, 
     cultivating America's intellectual infrastructure, and 
     leading to innovations that assure the Nation's economic 
     future.

     SEC. 207. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SKILLED NURSING 
                   FACILITIES.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Medicare Payment 
     Advisory Commission should devote particular attention to the 
     medicare skilled nursing benefit to determine if payment 
     rates are sufficient to provide quality care and to determine 
     if reforms in payment are required. If reforms are 
     recommended, Congress should pass legislation expeditiously 
     to assure quality skilled nursing care.

     SEC. 208. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF SPECIAL 
                   EDUCATION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) all children deserve a high quality education, 
     including children with disabilities;
       (2) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     provides that the Federal, State, and local governments are 
     to share in the expense of educating children with 
     disabilities and commits the Federal Government to pay up to 
     40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for 
     children with disabilities; and
       (3) the discretionary levels in this concurrent resolution 
     for function 500 (Education) are above the levels in the 
     House Republic Budget Resolution by $4,800,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2001 and by $20,600,000,000 over five years (fiscal 
     years 2001 to 2005).
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the higher discretionary levels for function 500 (Education) 
     in this budget resolution compared with the Republican 
     resolution recognize the importance of special education by 
     allowing Congress to provide sufficient increases for special 
     education while also funding the President's other top 
     educational priorities.

     SEC. 209. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PAY RAISE.

       It is the sense of Congress that the pay increase for 
     Federal employees in January 2001 should be at least 3.7 
     percent.

     SEC. 210. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING HCFA DRAFT GUIDELINES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) on February 15, 2000, the Health Care Financing 
     Administration in the Department of Health and Human Services 
     issued a draft Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming 
     (MAC) Guide; and
       (2) in its introduction, the stated purpose of the draft 
     MAC guide is to provide information for schools, State 
     medicaid agencies, HCFA staff, and other interested parties 
     on the existing requirements for claiming Federal funds under 
     the medicaid program for the costs of administrative 
     activities, such as medicaid outreach, that are performed in 
     the school setting associated with school-based health 
     services programs.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) many school-based health programs provide a broad range 
     of services that are covered by medicaid, affording access to 
     care for children who otherwise might well go without needed 
     services;
       (2) such programs also can play a powerful role in 
     identifying and enrolling children who are eligible for 
     medicaid or for the State Children's Health Insurance 
     programs;
       (3) undue administrative burdens may be placed on school 
     districts and States and deter timely application approval;
       (4) the Health Care Financing Administration should 
     substantially revise or abandon the current draft MAC guide 
     because it appears to promulgate new rules that place 
     excessive administrative burdens on participating school 
     districts;
       (5) the goal of the revised guide should be to encourage 
     the appropriate use of Medicaid school-based services without 
     undue administrative burdens; and
       (6) the best way to ensure the continued viability of 
     medicaid school-based services is to guarantee that the 
     guidelines are fair and responsible.

     SEC. 211. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CORPORATE WELFARE.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Committees on the 
     Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate should 
     hold hearings on H.R. 3221, the Corporate Welfare Commission 
     Act of 1999.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 446, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and a Member opposed each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we have considered a number of budget resolutions 
today. Naturally I think the one we are now presenting is the best of 
the lot. I want to give the Members of the House five strong reasons 
that this resolution is the best of the lot.
  First of all, prescription drug coverage, a gaping hole in Medicare 
for many years, we need to close it. We provide reconciliation 
instructions and $40 billion to the Committee on Ways and Means with 
the directive to do it. We provide seniors with prescription drug 
coverage.
  Education, the difference between our resolution and the base 
resolution is clear and distinct, $20.5 billion more for education over 
the next 5 years.
  Debt reduction. Our resolution would lead to debt reduction 
cumulative surpluses of $48 billion over the next 5 years, $364 billion 
over the next 10 years.
  Social Security and Medicare solvency, the two are directly related. 
We extend the solvency of Social Security, and we extend the solvency 
of Medicare. The base bill does not.
  Finally, the clear distinct and very important distinction, civilian 
and military retirement. We provide $16.5 billion to keep the promises 
we have made to military retirees, particularly those reaching the age 
of 65 who have not been able to use their Medicare benefits at military 
treatment facilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Weygand), going to the first aid that I mentioned, prescription 
drugs, a distinct difference between us and the base bill.
  (Mr. WEYGAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, Paul and Judy came to me about a year and a half ago. 
They were both retired. He was 70. She was 66. About 4 years ago, when 
they retired, they thought their small pension and their Social 
Security check would be enough for them. They both had open heart 
surgery. They both had high blood pressure problems.
  Now, after 4 years of retirement, Paul is going back to work part 
time, and his wife is going back to work part time to pay for their 
$8,350 a year of prescription drugs. They need relief now.
  There are seniors that are in New Jersey, California, Washington, 
Rhode Island, wherever it may be. There are seniors across this country 
that want relief now for prescription drugs.

                              {time}  2245

  Our plan clearly does that. We reconcile it. We direct Ways and Means 
to come up with a plan. We put aside, truly, $40 billion over the next 
5 years for prescription drug coverage. The Republican plan does not do 
that. It is elusive, it is smoke and mirrors, it puts it in a reserve 
fund that is dwindling as we speak today because of a $20 billion error 
in the way they reconciled their own bill.
  Paul and Judy need that relief now, not smoke and mirrors. They need 
the Democrat alternative that truly addresses the problem, sets aside 
the money, and comes up with a solution now for Medicare. This takes 
leadership. This takes courage. This takes bringing us into the 21st 
century, rather than keeping us in the 20th century.
  If we are to make a difference for our seniors, this is the way we 
can start today. This is a budget proposal that has teeth, has 
leadership, and will provide the seniors the kind of relief they need. 
If we are serious about this, no matter what side of the aisle we are 
on, this is the alternative and this is the plan that will get us to 
that solution.
  I implore my colleagues, forget about the bias between one plan or 
the other, think about the people in our districts that are truly like 
Paul and Judy and resolve the prescription drug plan today with our 
alternative.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) on putting together a budget, but I 
want to talk about what the base budget does, the goals we are 
accomplishing here.
  First, we are protecting 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. 
We protected Social Security last year, we are going to do it again, 
and we are going to do it ad infinitum. We are strengthening Medicare 
by adding a prescription drug benefit to it; $40 billion to Medicare. 
We are retiring the entire public debt by the year 2013. We are 
promoting tax fairness for families, farmers and seniors. We are 
restoring

[[Page H1392]]

America's defense capabilities. And we are strengthening support for 
education and science.
  But I want to talk about Social Security. What are we doing on Social 
Security? Well, last year the President said on Social Security, let us 
take 38 percent out of the trust fund and spend it on other government 
programs and dedicate just 62 percent to Social Security. That was not 
good enough. And we countered last year by saying lock away 100 percent 
of Social Security funds for Social Security.
  Guess what? That is what we achieved this year. This Congress 
achieved the stop on the raid of the Social Security Trust Fund for the 
first time in 30 years. That is what we are accomplishing here. The 
reforms in the underlying bill, in the budget resolution on Social 
Security are real reforms.

  The reforms in the Spratt budget on Social Security, and on Medicare, 
for that matter, are phony reforms. They are simply nothing more than 
adding more paper IOUs to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. 
It is kind of like having a credit card, but our income does not 
change. We do not get more money on our FICA taxes, we do not get more 
money on our paycheck; but our credit card limit goes up.
  That is what the Spratt budget does for Social Security. It simply 
says increase the limit on the credit card, but do not increase the 
income to the beneficiary. It does not add one extra penny to Social 
Security or Medicare. It just transfers IOUs to the two programs to 
give us the illusion that we are reforming Social Security and 
Medicare. It lulls us into thinking we are actually making a difference 
in Social Security and Medicare. My fear is that it will delay the 
important reforms to Social Security and Medicare that we so dearly 
need.
  Mr. Chairman, the underlying budget, the Republican budget 
resolution, is the serious plan. It is the plan that locks away Social 
Security for now and future generations. It is the plan that pays off 
the entire national public debt in 13 years, a trillion over the next 5 
years. It is the plan that lets people continue to keep more of their 
hard-earned money if they still overpay their taxes. It is a plan that 
fixes our problems in education and science. It is the plan that puts 
money back into our vital national defense interests. It is the plan 
for America's future for the 21st century.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, no challenge faces our country like the challenge of 
education. We, in our budget resolution, rise to that challenge. We pay 
down the debt, we provide for tax cuts, but we also provide for 
priority spending on things like education, which we believe the 
American people want.
  What is the difference between our resolution and the base bill? 
$20.5 billion more in our resolution for education.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who was a college professor at Duke 
University before coming here; and to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley), who was a high school teacher before coming here, to talk 
about the difference between our resolution and the base bill.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and the gentleman is certainly correct that 
there is no greater area of contrast in these two budgets than in the 
area of education.
  This is a time when we need to be renewing our commitment to public 
education, our investments in public education so it becomes an engine 
of opportunity for all of our people. And what do our Republican 
friends do? Well, they freeze most education programs for a period of 5 
years in this budget. They have a small increase for special education, 
which is mainly budget authority that cannot be spent. It is a kind of 
a hollow promise. And then the rest of the education budget is 
basically frozen.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, one of the things we talk about 
all the time is how important education is. And what this budget does, 
the Democratic substitute, is actually put money where our mouths are. 
That is the most important investment we can make, is in our children.
  One of the things I find ironic about the Republican budget is that 
they cut 40,000 children out of Head Start, for example. And yet all 
the research shows us that that is the vital age for children to learn, 
and it is so important for them to have a good start.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman is 
absolutely correct.
  If there were ever a successful program in getting children ready to 
learn it is Head Start. Why over the next 5 years we would want to 
actually cut that program escapes me.
  Then we look at the other end of the educational spectrum, Pell 
grants, these cuts would require that 316,000 fewer students receive 
Pell grants.
  Ms. HOOLEY or Oregon. If the gentleman will continue to yield, again 
this is one of those areas where we say that to succeed with the new 
technologies and the new kind of markets that we have, it is vitally 
important that we provide a higher education and some training, and yet 
again the Republican budget cuts 316,000 students out of the 
opportunity to go to college.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Again reclaiming my time, I would point 
out that, by contrast, our Democratic alternative makes room for as 
much or more for special education, that is, education for disabled and 
handicapped children. It lets us get going on school construction in 
low-income and high-growth areas with an innovative tax plan, and it 
lets us proceed to hire these 100,000 new teachers, skilled teachers to 
get class size down in the early grades.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. And the reason it is so important to hire 
100,000 new teachers is because they are for kindergarten through third 
grade. And we know if children have smaller classroom sizes, they learn 
better and it follows them all the way through.
  So let us put our money where our mouths are and vote for a budget 
that funds education.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  It is interesting. I would like to focus on this prescription drug 
benefit and Medicare benefit that the Democrats are now rushing in at 
the last minute and providing. Interestingly enough, Paul and Judy, 
just a few months ago, I would say to my friend, did not get squat from 
the President. Did not get squat. In fact, when the President came 
here, Paul and Judy did not get a prescription drug benefit.
  The President promised that, but it did not start until the fourth 
year. And the ultimate is that Paul and Judy's hospital probably had to 
close because of the provider cuts that went in order to fund this so-
called prescription drug benefit that the President put into his 
budget.
  So what did the Democrats do at the last minute, last night? They 
rushed in and said, oh no, we cannot do that. So, me too, $40 billion, 
just like the Republicans put into their plan. And now they come in and 
say, but we have a reconciliation protection.
  Do my colleagues know what that means? That means that the committee 
is instructed to do the work. But if it is not done, the Democrats can 
spend that $40 billion anywhere they want. The Republicans have a 
reserve fund for their $40 billion. It has to be spent for Medicare 
reform with a prescription drug benefit.
  Those are the facts. They can run as fast as they want from the 
President's budget, but the President did not provide a prescription 
drug benefit that was real. It included provider cuts that were real. 
And now they run from that, but they run in here with a weaker 
proposal.
  Let us support the Republican plan that gives Paul and Judy and the 
people across this country the opportunity to have a real prescription 
drug benefit and a real Medicare reform that not only makes sure that 
prescription drug benefits are available but makes sure that our 
hospitals and our doctors and our health care providers are able to 
keep giving them quality health care.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to

[[Page H1393]]

tell my colleagues that the third thing we would emphasize about our 
budget is debt reduction; that we provide for a Medicare prescription 
drug benefit; that we provide $20.5 billion more for education, but we 
also reduce spending and we save $48 billion in cumulative surpluses 
over the next 5 years. $364 billion.
  This side has said repeatedly they are paying the debt down by $1 
trillion. So are we. We are all going to use the Social Security 
surplus, $976 million over the next 5 years, to pay down debt held by 
the public. But we have $48 billion more in debt reduction over the 
next 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bentsen) to talk about the difference between our budget and the base 
budget when it comes to debt reduction.
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a big difference between the Republican and 
the Democratic budgets, and one of those big differences is the amount 
of debt that is paid down. The Republican budget does not use one cent 
of the on-budget surplus to pay down the national debt, whereas the 
Democratic budget uses 40 percent of the projected on-budget surplus to 
pay down the national debt, on top of the Social Security surplus, 
which both budgets, to be honest, propose paying down the debt.
  But then there is a key difference as well, and that is that the 
Republican budget is predicated on unsustainable cuts in domestic 
discretionary spending that the Republican Congresses themselves, since 
1995, have failed to make.
  The Congressional Budget Office, in its most recent report, found 
that the Republican Congresses had increased nondefense discretionary 
spending above the rate of inflation, which is contrary to what they 
have in their budget. Therefore, combined with the trillion dollar tax 
cut that is in here, the Republican budget would end up not only eating 
through the on-budget surplus but would also go into the Social 
Security surplus. So, actually, they are paying down far less debt than 
what we propose in the Democratic budget.
  I am glad, quite frankly, that the Republicans have come around to 
this way. When we had the budget markup last year, I proposed we 
dedicate all the surplus, both on-budget and off-budget to paying down 
the debt, and I was told that was not a good idea. And in 1998, the 
Republicans proposed using, I think it was either 10 or 20 percent of 
the Social Security surplus for a tax cut and then dedicating the rest 
of it.
  It is a little bit like a tent meeting and everybody has gone and 
gotten religion now and they have come back and they want to pay down 
the debt. But the bottom line, when we compare the two, the Democrats 
pay down far more than the Republicans in debt.

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Sununu).
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, let us be clear about where we really were 
a year ago and who was making statements about setting aside the 
surplus, setting aside 100 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund 
surplus. It cannot possibly be more clear.
  The President's budget, which we had a vote on on this very House 
floor, only received two votes because he was spending 38 percent of 
the Social Security surplus. And it was the Republican budget that, for 
the first time ever set aside every penny of the Social Security 
surplus. This year we are going to do it again for a historic third 
year in a row, set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus, 
create a reserve fund for Medicare, not just prescription drug 
coverage, but honest reforms, as well.
  We are going to retire a historic level of the public debt, a 
trillion dollars over 5 years; promote a much fairer Tax Code; and make 
essential investments in defense, in veterans' health care, and in 
education.
  But the previous speaker spoke a little bit about retiring debt, and 
they are talking about this budget being reckless. Well, let us take a 
look and see how reckless this budget is and how reckless Republican 
budgets of the past several years have been, paying down over $50 
billion in debt 2 years ago, 1998; in 1999, paying down over $80 
billion of the public debt.
  Fiscal Year 2000, we are in the midst of it, we will pay down over 
$160 billion in debt. And in the budget we have brought to the floor 
here today, we are paying down over $170 billion in debt. $450 billion 
in debt retirement. And this is what the other side would term 
``reckless''?
  I do not think this is reckless. This is historic. This is an 
unprecedented commitment to paying down debt. A trillion dollars in 
debt relief over 5 years in this very budget. This is reckless? I do 
not think this is reckless. This is an historic commitment to reducing 
public debt. And that means lower interest rates for every American on 
home mortgages and car loans and student loans.
  One to two percent lower interest rates on $100,000 home mortgage is 
$10,000 or $20,000 over a 20-year mortgage, $30,000 over a 30-year 
mortgage, money that never has to get sent to Washington, that the 
electorate never has to ask for us to return it back to them because we 
are in a charitable mood.
  Lowering interest rates, tens of thousands of dollars of savings for 
average American families. I do not think this is reckless at all.
  I think, instead, it is reckless to oppose tax fairness as the 
Democrat proposal has done; to oppose eliminating the marriage penalty; 
to oppose giving individuals health insurance deductibilities so that 
they can have a fair playing field with large corporations, that is 
reckless; to oppose repealing the Social Security earnings limit; to 
oppose expanding opportunities for retirement savings or education 
savings. That is reckless when we want to trap a family into leaving 
their child in a family school.
  This is a budget of responsibility. It sets the right tone on debt 
retirement and it strengthens our country.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a very significant difference between our bill 
and the base bill. We have something in our bill that there is no 
semblance of in the base bill, and that is $16.3 billion to provide for 
military retirees' health care at military treatment facilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, there are two groups I want to 
talk about. It is easy to beat up on Federal employees. After all, we 
are their bosses and they really cannot fight back. And maybe that is 
why they have had to contribute over $200 billion in the last few years 
toward deficit reduction. But at 3 a.m. last night, it was decided to 
require Federal employees to pay another $1.2 billion toward their 
retirement costs.
  But worse than the way we treat Federal employees is the way we treat 
military retirees in this bill. It is wrong. We have brochures that are 
as current as 1991 that promise free lifetime quality health care if 
they will contribute 20 years of their life serving their country, 
defending their country.
  And they took that promise. And now when they turn 65, they are out 
in the cold, no health care coverage, they get at the back of the line.
  Well, the Democratic budget brings them in from the cold, provides 
full Medicare coverage, provides the same kind of prescription drug 
coverage that we provide enlisted personnel and their families.
  I have got to tell my colleagues, if they vote for the Republican 
budget, they had better be willing to look in the face of our military 
retirees and explain why a politically appealing tax cut was more 
important than keeping their promise to them.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am a combat veteran and a veteran. I 
support the Republican budget, and so do other veterans.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut 
for yielding me the time.

[[Page H1394]]

  Mr. Chairman, we have heard all throughout the day and actually for 
several years now this recurring theme from the people on the other 
side about reckless, exploding, risky tax cuts for the rich.
  Well, let us talk about the tax relief that is in our bill and let us 
let the American people decide just how risky or reckless and how much 
this really is for the rich.
  We are talking about ending the marriage penalty tax. We believe 
fundamentally it is wrong to say they ought to pay extra taxes just 
because they have a marriage license. We think that is wrong.
  We think it is wrong that Social Security recipients have this 
earnings limit and have to pay among the highest tax rates of any 
working people in America.
  We think it is wrong that families have to visit the IRS and the 
undertaker in the same week.
  We think it is wrong that we have a confiscatory tax of 55 percent on 
estates we have been paying taxes every year.
  We think it is wrong that we are not making it easier for expanded 
education savings accounts. We want to increase the health care 
deductibility for self-employed for farmers, small business people.
  We want to provide tax relief and breaks for poor communities. And we 
want to strengthen private pension plans.
  Now, if those are tax cuts for the rich, if those are risky schemes, 
well, then let us have more of it.
  Let us compare our plan to the Clinton-Gore plan. In the first year, 
the Clinton-Gore plan actually increases net taxes by $10 billion. We 
provide $10 billion of tax relief.
  If we look at over 5 years, we are talking at least $200 billion in 
tax relief. We hope to increase that as additional surpluses go up. The 
President provides $5 billion in tax relief for the first 5 years.
  This is not a risky plan. This is a common sense plan. But it is 
really a debate between those who believe in tax relief for working 
families; and ultimately, at the end of the day, it is a debate between 
two world views. It is a debate between those who believe that we know 
best and can spend the people's money smarter than they can and those 
of us who believe that they know best and they can spend their own 
money smarter than we can.
  This is a common sense budget. The tax relief that is contained in 
this budget is really common sense. I think once the American people 
understand it is not just about numbers, it is about basic fairness.
  I would ask my colleagues on the other side which of these tax relief 
provisions do they want to take away, the marriage penalty tax, the 
death tax, education savings accounts, health care deductibility, 
community renewal, or pension reform? Which of those is so unfair? How 
do they benefit the rich?
  They are going to have to answer those questions if they vote against 
this budget. Because it is a common sense budget and the tax relief 
that is contained in here is common sense.
  I think once the American people understand what we have put into 
this bill, they will demand the Republican budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the fifth point that we would make about our budget as 
opposed to the base budget deals with Social Security and Medicare.
  There is a distinct difference, indeed there is a chronic difference, 
between the way we deal with Social Security and Medicare and the way 
they deal with it.
  First of all, our budget protects, preserves, and defends the Social 
Security Trust Fund. Over the next 5 years, we are going to rack up $48 
billion in surpluses under our budget. What do these ensure? They 
ensure that the Social Security Trust Fund will remain intact and 
untouched.
  The Republican resolution, on the other hand, puts the budget back in 
the danger zone, on thin ice, close to the edge.
  We have been talking about this chart all day long. The numbers can 
be argued over, but we have run the numbers different ways and the 
chart stands uncontradicted.

                              {time}  2310

  To begin with, to do what they propose, to achieve this surplus that 
they claim of $17 billion, $110 billion over the next 5 years, they 
have got to do $117 billion in real reduction in discretionary spending 
over the next 5 years. That has not been done over the last 10 when we 
had deficits. It is not likely to be done over the next 5. And if it is 
not done, if that assumption is not met, the budget is back in the red 
again. It is that simple.
  Secondly, even if that unlikely assumption were somehow met, if you 
claim a drug benefit for Medicare which you have got on all your 
posters, if you claim it, you have got to count the cost of it. That is 
$40 billion. And if you claim that you are going to do a $200 billion 
tax cut, then you have got to calculate in your calculation of the 
surplus the $200 billion tax cut.
  And when you put the $40 billion for Medicare prescription drugs and 
the $200 billion tax cut over 5 years into this budget, the surplus is 
wiped out in 2003 and you are in the red, back into Social Security in 
2004 and 2005. Our budget stays out of Social Security, it stays in the 
black; it has a $48 billion cushion over that 5-year period of time. 
That is the first reason ours is better for Social Security.
  By the way, we would also buy back Treasury bonds. With the surplus 
built up in Social Security, we would pay down debt held by the public. 
We will pay down $976 million of debt just as you will with your 
proposal, so long as you stay out of Social Security; and over 10 years 
we will pay down $2.3 trillion in debt, and by the year 2013 we will 
wipe out the public debt if we abide by the budget that we are 
proposing.
  Now, there is a second, more important, reason that our budget is 
better for Social Security, Medicare and distinctly different from the 
base budget. The Republican budget does not add a dime to Social 
Security or Medicare over the next 5 years or 1 day to the solvency of 
either program. Over the next 10 years, our budget contributes $300 
billion out of the surpluses that we will accumulate. It takes $300 
billion from the general fund and puts that money into the Medicare 
trust fund.
  I have heard this talk over here about IOUs. If anybody has a 
government bond lying around that is an IOU and he would like to put it 
somewhere, I will be glad to receive it. It has a lot of value to it. 
It gives you secured status. We are going to put $300 billion in 
government bonds into the Medicare trust fund paid for, a net addition 
to national savings out of the general fund. And in 2011, we propose to 
calculate how much we have saved in the way of debt service on the last 
year and take that amount of money and transfer it into the Social 
Security Trust Fund. As a result, we extend the solvency of Medicare by 
10 years and the solvency of Social Security by 15 years. These are 
profound differences and good reasons to vote for our substitute over 
the base bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to point out that 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle had 40 years to spend the 
Social Security surplus and this side of the aisle ended that practice. 
In the very footnotes of the chart just referred to, Democrats admitted 
they interpolated and they extrapolated to get their figures. In other 
words, they guessed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) from the Committee on Armed Services.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the base budget bill. As one of the few classroom teachers in this 
body, who ran a chapter 1 program for 3 years in an urban school 
district, I am strongly in favor of this budget because of what it does 
for education. We focus on teachers. We focus on kids. We do not focus 
on bureaucracy. I am proud of what this budget does in terms of Social 
Security and Medicare, what it does to pay down the public debt. But I 
am most proud of what this budget and what this part of the Congress 
and the House has done for our defense.
  The other side talks about rebuilding our defense. Over the past 5 
years, Mr.

[[Page H1395]]

Chairman, it has been this side who has increased defense spending by 
$43.1 billion over the President's request. Even the former Clinton 
Secretary of Defense, Bill Perry, just 2 months ago acknowledged if we 
had not done that, we would be in a devastating position right now as 
this President tries to recapture a $15 billion increase and that is 
not enough.
  This President has committed our troops to deployments 34 times in 8 
years, versus 10 times in the previous 40 years. None of those 34 
deployments were budgeted for. All the money for those deployments came 
out of an already decreasing defense budget. Our morale has never been 
lower. Our retention rates for pilots in the Air Force and Navy is 
hovering at 15 percent. Our ability to recruit young people, except for 
the Marine Corps, is going unmet by all the services. We are sending 
aircraft carriers into harm's way with five and 600 sailors short.
  We have military personnel on food stamps. That is the legacy of this 
administration even though we have increased defense spending by $43 
billion over the past 5 years. This budget reinvests in defense and 
makes a commitment to our military. But it does something else, Mr. 
Chairman, that no one has talked about tonight in any of the budgets 
and is not even mentioned in the budget that my good friend and 
colleague is offering tonight on behalf of the minority.
  We talk about police and both budgets spend billions of dollars on 
law enforcement. We buy vests for police. We talk about teachers; 
100,000 new teachers. What does your budget do for the 1.2 million men 
and women who are domestic defenders, our fire and emergency services 
personnel? What statement does your budget make about the 32,000 fire 
and EMS departments that have responded to every flood, every tornado, 
every earthquake, every disaster our country has? Your budget has 
zilch, zero, nada, nothing. Our budget for the first time ever 
recognizes the brave heroes of America who respond to our domestic 
problems, the 1.2 million men and women, 85 percent of whom are 
volunteers, in every one of your congressional districts, that day in 
and day out supports the job of protecting our American people. Even 
though we lose 100 of these people a year, you say nothing. We provide 
support for them.
  For that reason, I say vote for the Republican base budget bill.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself enough time to answer one 
question the gentleman put to me with respect to fire personnel and 
emergency personnel. This budget, the base budget, cuts FEMA, the 
account in which FEMA is included, function 450, by $2.8 billion 
between this year and next year, and over 5 years by $18.3 billion. 
That is what you are cutting out of function Community and Regional 
Development.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would know 
anything about FEMA, none of that money goes to local fire and 
emergency response. None of it. Not one dime of it. The gentleman needs 
to get his facts straight.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget does many things. 
It is both prudent and caring. Certainly it pays down the debt by the 
year 2013 and certainly it protects Medicare, it protects Social 
Security; and yes, it does a sufficient amount of investment in our 
military and our retirees who have served our country well. But in 
addition to that, it invests in education. It also does something that 
the Republican budget does not do. It cares about its most vulnerable 
people, those people who are left out of the bountiful plenty of 
prosperity that we are enjoying. It cares about legal immigrants. It 
cares about the poorest of the poor trying to get day care going to 
work. It invests in after-school programs. It invests and brings up the 
shelter and provision caps for food stamps. It makes it even for all 
States.
  Not only is the Democratic budget a prudent one, but it says American 
prosperity should be for everyone. I invite my colleagues to make sure 
that everybody is included in this prosperity. The Democratic budget 
does that.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my great friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, what does the Republican budget mean for you and your 
family? It means a debt-free Nation for our children. In education it 
means more dollars for our classrooms and more dollars for our children 
instead of dollars for bureaucracy and redtape.

                              {time}  2320

  The distinction could not be more clear. The Democratic alternative 
wants to force on our local schools programs and mandates that do not 
work. They want to build our schools, hire our teachers, buy the 
technology, feed our kids breakfast, dictate the curriculum, teach our 
kids about sex, teach them about drugs, teach them about art, feed our 
kids lunch, and then they want to test them. Other than that, they 
believe in local control.
  And then they are going to move all of those programs and move those 
decisions for each one of those areas into a department in Washington 
that for 2 years has failed its financial audits, has told the American 
people give us $35 billion per year, but we are not going to take the 
time or the energy to be able to account where that money is spent. 
That is wrong.
  The alternative is providing resources to local schools to tailor 
solutions to meet the needs of our local school districts, to meet 
their particular needs, a vision that gives decision-making and 
discretion to local administrators, to parents and teachers, the people 
that know our kids' names and know their needs. The differences could 
not be clearer.
  Are we going to move decision-making to the Department of Education 
here in Washington, or are we going to leave the decision-making at the 
local level? It is time to support the Republican budget. It increases 
spending and investment in education, but it preserves and builds 
educational excellence through local decision-making, not through 
decision-making based here in Washington.
  Support this budget. It is the right thing to do. It builds on what 
we know works and walks away from that which we know that does not 
work.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) if I could borrow one of 
his charts.
  This is the chart I wanted to hold and borrow, because I think 
throughout this debate the gentleman sort of indirectly unwittingly 
complimented us. The only thing the gentleman got wrong on this whole 
chart is a GOP plan, because if the gentleman goes down the items on 
this chart, the gentleman will see that our budget resolution does 
everything the gentleman says, except we do it better.
  It protects 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. I just 
explained that. We have a $48 billion cushion that keeps you out of 
Social Security, strengthens Medicare with prescription drugs. We have 
reconciliation. We do not say report a bill that has structure reforms 
and then you can have the $40 billion. We say just do prescription 
drugs, get it done. Retire the public debt by 2013, we do it. Promote 
tax fairness, give us a break. We have got a $50 billion net tax cut. 
Read the language of it.
  We have the AMT correction in it. We have mitigation of the marital 
penalty in it. We have deductibility of college tuition in it. We have 
tax fairness and tax relief for families. Restore America's defense? 
Come on. There is one-tenth of 1 percent over the 5 years difference 
between what the gentleman is providing for defense than what we are 
providing for defense.
  Add in the $16.3 billion that we are providing for retiree health 
care, and we are way ahead of the gentleman. Finally, strength and 
support for education and science. We match you in science. And we are 
$20.5 billion ahead of you in education. You ought to vote for us.
  I rest my case and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Ohio has 3 
minutes remaining to close.

[[Page H1396]]

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to make sure we 
have another one of these charts made so we can present it to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) tomorrow.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp) for his closing comments.
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding 
the time. It is an honor to come and close this debate today. I know 
later tonight as we close up this great debate on the budget this year 
that we are going to give proper recognition to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Kasich), but I think over the last 15 years, as many have 
labored in the fields for a more responsible approach on the Federal 
level, there is not a person in the United States Congress that 
deserves more credit for bringing us to a balanced budget than the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
  He is a genuine man, and everyone in this institution I think 
respects and appreciates the gentleman. Do not take too much of my 
time. We are going to do this again a little later on. We are going to 
do that again.
  I admire the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), but I have 
to tell you, I spent the first half of my life as a Democrat for 20 
years. And I spent the second half of my life as a Republican, and I 
joined the Republican party in 1980 because I felt like the Federal 
Government was growing too big and out of control in some respects, and 
we needed to restore more accountability to Washington, D.C.
  I would say as a member of the Committee on the Budget and the 
Committee on Appropriations that this majority has hit its stride in 
balance, fairness. And I think this budget is the best product that we 
have come up with in the 5\1/2\ years that we have had an opportunity 
to present our way.
  My 13-year-old son is in the Chamber tonight. He will be 13 Sunday. 
And I really believe that this issue, I have heard reckless tax cuts 
all night long, but let me tell you when I was in born in 1957, the 
American people paid less than 10 percent to the Government at all 
level combined. And today it is almost half.
  When my son is at my age, at the current pace, three-fourths of what 
he makes is going to go to the Government at some level, and that is 
reckless. That is the truth.
  We need to bring more accountability to this process of where we are 
going to restrain government growth. That is what this budget does. 
Greenspan knows it. He says it, the economy is the goose laying its 
golden egg. And we have to restrain the growth of spending.
  The Democratic substitute here actually grows discretionary spending 
at twice inflation. We cannot continue to do that. Tax fairness, ladies 
and gentlemen, time has come, and Democrats and Republicans are 
agreeing that we need to reduce the tax burden on working families in 
this country. And I am proud of this budget, because it is fair and 
reasonable.
  I come from sort of the center here to say that it is time that we 
all come together around this budget, live within our means, fuel the 
economy, save Social Security, protect 100 percent of it, strengthen 
Medicare, do all we can with that prescription drug benefit, retire 
that public debt in a bipartisan way, give some tax relief to the 
American families while we can. If we do not do it now, with 
unprecedented surpluses, we will never do it. We have to do it now. Let 
us come together.
  Yes, we are not restoring America's defense. We need to do more, I 
say to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). We need do a lot 
more, because we got people spread all over the world overdeployed, 
underpaid, ill-equipped. We need to do more, but a billion dollars is 
at least a step in the right direction and invest in education and 
science.
  Let us pass this budget tonight.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Democratic substitute to the budget resolution.
  I want to commend the ranking member, Mr. Spratt for working to make 
the Democratic substitute a plan that pays down the debt, protects the 
future of Social Security and Medicare, and helps our low-income 
families.
  During this period of economic good times, it may be difficult to 
comprehend that across America, 28 percent of families with three or 
more children are living in poverty.
  But the fact is, poverty rates for families with three or more 
children are much higher than for smaller families.
  By providing them with an increased tax credit, this expansion of the 
EITC for families with three or more children recognizes the economic 
difficulties of raising a large family today.
  Expanding the earned income tax credit for these larger families is a 
common-sense tax policy; a policy that will directly benefit 7.7 
million kids whose hard-working parents are struggling to climb the 
economic ladder out of poverty.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, today we have a choice between the 
Republican budget, which gambles away the surplus on risky tax cuts and 
jeopardizes crucial programs such as Social Security and Medicare, or 
the Democratic substitute, which protects these programs and gives a 
boost to millions of hard-working American families.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute and invest 
in the future of all Americans.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, as the Ranking Democrat on the House 
Veterans' Affairs Committee, I rise to express my strong support for 
the substitute budget resolution offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina, Mr. Spratt, the Ranking Democratic Member of our House Budget 
Committee. The Spratt budget resolution for fiscal year 2001 is a 
strong pro-veteran proposal. It deserves the support of every Member of 
the House.
  The budget authored by Congressman Spratt provides more discretionary 
spending in fiscal year 2001 for the Department of Veterans Affairs 
(VA) than either the budget proposed by the President or the budget 
resolution reported by the Committee. With these additional funds, VA 
can better meet the medical care needs of our nation's aging veterans 
population. Specifically for fiscal year 2001, the Spratt alternative 
provides $22.3 billion in appropriations for veterans' programs, $100 
million more than the Republican plan and $200 million more than the 
President's request. Over five years (2001-2005), the Spratt 
alternative provides $1 billion more than the Republican proposal.
  Significantly, the Spratt proposal also increases the basic monthly 
education benefit veterans will receive under the Montgomery GI Bill 
(MGIB). Educational benefits provided under the MGIB are mandatory 
spending. This increase in the basic monthly education benefit for 
veterans who have honorably served our nation in uniform and then 
pursue post-secondary education is an important first step in restoring 
our commitment to provide veterans a readjustment benefit for education 
which is worthy of their service to our nation.
  Under the Spratt proposal the basic educational benefit for veterans 
will increase from the current $536 per month for 36 months to nearly 
$700 per month. This is a well-deserved and much needed 25 percent 
increase in MGIB education readjustment benefit for veterans. As the 
gentleman from South Carolina knows, I believe the MGIB benefit should 
be increased more than has been proposed in the resolution which he has 
authored. This proposed increase, however, is a strong, positive step 
to achieving the goal of providing a more meaningful education benefit 
for our nation's veterans than is provided today.
  MIGB enhancements are long overdue. I strongly agree with the report 
of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans 
Transition Assistance, which concluded ``. . . an opportunity to obtain 
the best education for which they qualify is the most valuable benefit 
our Nation can offer the men and women whose military service preserves 
our liberty.'' I applaud the Commission's bold, new plan for the MGIB. 
This proposal, however, must be further strengthened and enhanced if 
the MGIB is to fulfill its purposes as a meaningful readjustment 
benefit and as an effective recruitment incentive for our Armed Forces. 
Since the implementation of the Montgomery GI Bill on July 1, 1985, 
there have been significant economic and societal changes in America 
that mandate revisions in the structure and benefit level of this 
program.

  In the House, MGIB legislation has been introduced by Mr. Stump, 
Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and together with 
Mr. Dingell, I introduced my own bill, H.R. 1071, the Montgomery GI 
Bill Improvements Act of 1999, to provide benefits for two tiers of 
service members, those who enlist for a minimum of 4 years (Tier I) and 
those who enlist for less than 4 years (Tier II). Benefits for Tier I 
would pay for full cost of tuition, fees, books and supplies, plus 
provide a subsistence allowance of $800 per month of full-time college 
studies for up to 36 months. Tier II would increase the basic benefit 
under the MGIB to $900 per month.
  According to an analysis performed by the Congressional Research 
Service last year, the

[[Page H1397]]

mean earnings of workers 18 years or older in 1998 were $23,320 for 
high school graduates, $27,618 for those with some college or an 
Associate's degree and $43,255 for those with a Bachelor's degree. The 
analysis then calculated the average federal income tax for these 
workers, using 1999 tax rates for single taxpayers, and using the 
standard deduction of $4,300 and the personal exemption of $2,750. 
These figures are listed in the table below.
  This information confirms our common sense understanding of the 
importance of education. Education is of benefit to individual 
servicemembers and veterans and to American society in general. 
Servicemembers and veterans who have earned through their honorable 
military service a meaningful readjustment benefit which provides the 
opportunity to obtain a higher education will be more productive, earn 
more and based on their increased earnings pay higher taxes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Some
                                         High     college or  Bachelor's
                                        school   associate's    degree
                                       graduate     degree       only
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual Earnings..............   $23,320     $27,618     $43,255
Average Federal Income Tax...........     2,441       3,086       6,796
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The economic impacts are compelling. Servicemembers and veterans who 
attain a Bachelor's degree pay back 36 percent more in federal tax 
revenues each year. If the policy rationale for an MGIB benefit 
increase is not a strong enough argument on its own, it is obvious that 
an increase would, in essence, be self-funded as well. These 
calculations, unfortunately, are not given commensurate weight when 
Congress evaluates cost under pay-as-you-go requirements.
  As illustrated by the Congressional Research Service, the amount of 
education that individuals receive has an important influence on their 
experience in the labor market. For example, those who have completed 
more years of schooling typically experience less unemployment than 
other workers do. In addition, workers' earnings generally increase as 
their level of education increases. These relationships have held up 
over time, and in some instances, have intensified. Workers with a 
bachelor's degree are much better off today, compared to less-educated 
workers, than they were some two decades ago. The average male college 
graduate earned about 50 percent more than the average male high school 
graduate during the latter half of the 1970s. In contrast, the premium 
paid to males with college degrees in 1998 was 92 percent. The average 
wage advantage of female college graduates over female high school 
graduates grew from about 41 to 76 percent.

  Of immediate concern is the ineffectiveness of the MGIB as a 
readjustment program for servicemembers making the transition from 
military service to a civilian society and workforce. While costs of 
higher education have soared, nearly doubling since 1980. GI Bill 
benefits have not kept pace. In fact, during the 1995-96 school year, 
the basic benefit paid under the MGIB offset only a paltry 36 percent 
of average total education costs. A disappointingly low usage rate of 
51 percent for 1998 confirms the inadequacy of the current program's 
benefit levels.
  Young men and women who serve in our Armed Forces have the option of 
enrolling in the MGIB when they enter the military. This includes their 
agreement to a $100 per month pay reduction during the first twelve 
months of service, for a total contribution of $1,200. Once their 
initial term of service has been honorably served, a veteran is 
eligible to receive the basic monthly educational benefit of $536 each 
month he or she is enrolled in full-time college study. The benefit 
continues for up to 36 months. Assuming he or she is enrolled for a 
typical nine-month academic year, the veteran's total benefit for that 
year is $4,824. With this modest amount he or she is expected to pay 
for tuition, fees, room and board.
  The average annual cost of tuition and basic expenses at a four-year 
public college is $8,774 for commuter students and $10,909 for students 
who live on campus according to the College Board. Not surprisingly, 
the same annual costs for four-year private colleges are even higher: 
$20,500 for commuter students and $23,651 for residents. The disparity 
between these ever-increasing costs and a veteran's ability to pay for 
them is clear. This disparity recently prompted key military and 
veteran organizations to join together with organizations representing 
colleges to form the ``Partnership for Veterans' Education.'' The 
coalition launched an energetic campaign calling for Congress to at 
least increase the basic benefit under the MGIB to $975 per month, 
enough to cover the $8,774 average annual cost of attending a four-year 
public college as a commuter student.

                              HIGHER EDUCATION ANNUAL COSTS: 1999-2000 SCHOOL YEAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        4 year private     4 year private     4 year public      4 year public
                                         institutions       institutions       institution        institution
                                      resident students  commuter students  resident students  commuter students
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuition and Fees....................            $15,380            $15,380             $3,356             $3,356
Books and Supplies..................                700                700                681                681
Room and Board......................              5,959  .................              4,730  .................
Board Only..........................  .................              2,324  .................              2,213
Transportation......................                558                907                658              1,005
Other...............................              1,054              1,189              1,484              1,519
Annual Cost.........................             23,651             20,500             10,909              8,774
Per Month Cost for Nine Months......              2,628              2,278              1,212                975
Four Year Cost (36 months)..........             94,604             82,000             43,636             35,096
Current Benefit (36 months).........             19,296             19,296             19,296             19,296
Current Benefit Percent of Cost.....            0.20397            0.23532             0.4422          0.5498062
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Trends in College Pricing, The College Board, 1999.

  In addition to inadequate benefit levels, the unsatisfactory usage 
rate is also a result of the inflexible structure of the present 
program. Under today's law, benefits are generally paid only on a 
monthly basis and may not be used for specialized courses, such as 
computer training; provided by for-profit and nonprofit entities that 
do not meet the current definition of ``educational institution.'' As a 
result, veterans' education and training choices are limited, and they 
are not permitted to use their GI Bill benefits if they want to take 
advantage of the many excellent technology-related courses sponsored by 
companies like Microsoft or Novell. This is precisely the type of 
training that is important now and will be even more important in the 
future.
  The current structure of the MGIB served the veterans during the 
second half of the 20th century very well. However, the MGIB must now 
be re-examined in the context of a January, 1999 report by the 
Departments of Commerce, Labor, and Education, the Small Business 
Administration, and the National Institute for Literacy. This report, 
entitled ``21st Century Skills for 21st Century Jobs,'' has important 
implications for veterans entering the civilian workforce. Emphasizing 
the importance to the nation of investing in education and training, 
the report concluded changes in the economy and workplace are requiring 
greater levels of skill and education than ever before. It predicted 
eight of the ten fastest growing jobs in the next decade will require 
college education or moderate to long-term training, and jobs requiring 
a bachelor's degree will increase by 25 percent. The report also noted 
workers with more education enjoy greater benefits, experience less 
unemployment and, if dislocated, re-enter the labor force far more 
quickly than individuals with less education. It also reports that, on 
average, college graduates earn 77 percent more than individuals with 
only a high school diploma. If America's veterans are to successfully 
compete in the challenging 21st century workforce, they simply have to 
have the ability to obtain the education and training critical to their 
success. As noted by the Transition Commission, ``. . . education will 
be the key to employment in the information age.'' Although the current 
GI Bill provides some degree of assistance, it is a key that opens very 
few doors, and it is my belief that all the doors of educational 
opportunity must be open to our veterans.

  According to the 1997 Department of Defense report entitled 
``Population Representation in the Military Services,'' 20 percent of 
the new enlisted recruits for that year were African American, 10 
percent were Hispanic, 6 percent were other minorities, including 
Native Americans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders, and 18 percent were 
women. The report further notes that, although members of the military 
come from backgrounds somewhat lower in socioeconomic status than the 
U.S. average, these young men and women have higher levels of 
education, measured aptitudes, and reading skills than their civilian 
counterparts. These young people, most of whom do not enter military 
service with financial or socioeconomic advantages, have enormous 
potential, and it is in the best interests of the nation they be given 
every opportunity to achieve their highest potential. Access to 
education is the key to achieving that potential. It is also

[[Page H1398]]

important to remember that, through the sacrifices required of them 
through their military service, this group of young Americans--more 
than any other--earns the benefits provided for them by a grateful 
nation.
  Of equal concern to me as a member of the Armed Services Committee is 
the MGIB's failure to fulfill its purpose as a recruitment incentive 
for the Armed Forces. Findings of the 1998 Youth Attitude Tracking 
Study (YATS) confirm that recruiters are faced with serious challenges, 
and these challenges are likely to continue. This survey of young men 
and women, conducted annually by the Department of Defense, provides 
information on the propensity, attitudes and motivations of young 
people toward military service. The latest YATS shows the propensity to 
enlist among young males has fallen from 34 percent in 1991 to 26 
percent in 1998, in spite of a generally favorable view of the 
military. In addition to a thriving civilian economy, which inevitably 
results in recruiting challenges, the percentage of American youth 
going to college is increasing and the young people most likely to go 
to college express little interest in joining our Armed Forces. 
Interestingly, these same youth note that if they were to serve in the 
military, their primary reason for enlisting would be to earn 
educational assistance benefits.
  The study concluded the propensity to enlist is substantially below 
pre-drawdown levels and, as result, the services would probably not 
succeed in recruiting the number of young, high-ability young men and 
women they needed in FY 1999. High-ability youth, defined as those who 
have a high school diploma and who have at least average scores on 
tests measuring mathematical and verbal skills. The Department of 
Defense tells us about 80 percent of these recruits will complete their 
first three years of active duty while only 50 percent of recruits with 
a GED will complete their enlistment. GAO notes that it costs at least 
$35,000 to replace a recruit who leaves the service prematurely. The 
report states these findings underscore the need for education benefits 
that will attract college-bound youth who need money for school, a 
segment of American young people we conclude are now opting to take 
advantage of the many other sources of federal education assistance. 
The current structure and benefit level of the MGIB must be 
significantly amended if these high quality young men and women are to 
be attracted to service in our Armed Forces.
  The Army missed its enlistment goals in FY 1998 and 1999. 
Additionally, for the first time since 1979, the Air Force missed its 
goal in FY 1999, and will likely miss again this year. Although the 
Navy and Marine Corps are currently meeting their objectives, it is 
getting more difficult each year. The continuing recruiting and 
retention challenges necessitate our taking quick and effective action. 
Even though the Army and Navy are recruiting more GED holders than in 
the early 1990s, all Services are meeting or exceeding the DoD recruit 
quality benchmarks of 90 percent high school diploma graduates and 60 
percent scoring above average on the enlistment test. But this quality 
does not come inexpensively. The Services have increased their 
enlistment bonus and advertising budgets and added additional 
recruiters to meet the challenge. The cost to recruit has grown by over 
50 percent in just the last five years.

                                              Percent of Objective
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     1998                                   1999
              Service              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Actual     Objective     Percent       Actual     Objective     Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army..............................         71.8         72.6           99         68.2         74.5           92
Navy..............................         48.4         55.3           88         52.6         52.5          100
Marine Corps......................         34.3         34.3          100         33.7         33.7          100
Air Force.........................         31.7         30.2          105         32.7         34.4           94
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      DoD Total...................        186.2        192.3           97        187.2        195.1           96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Many factors have come together to create what may soon become a 
recruiting emergency. First, our thriving national economy is 
generating employment opportunities for our young people. Additionally, 
young Americans increasingly understand a college education as the key 
to success and prosperity. In 1980, 74 percent of high school graduates 
went to college but, by 1992, that percentage has risen to 81 percent 
and is increasing. As a result, the military must compete head-to-head 
with colleges for high-ability youth. As I have mentioned already, the 
percentage of young Americans who are interested in serving in the 
Armed Forces is also shrinking. Make no mistake about it--the strength 
of our Armed Forces begins and ends with the men and women who serve 
our nation. Just as education is the key to a society's success or 
failure, it is also key to the quality and effectiveness of our 
military forces--and the MGIB increases included in this substitute 
budget resolution are a step in the right direction toward providing 
that key.
  Veterans are not using the MGIB benefits they have earned through 
honorable military service, and high-ability, college-bound young 
Americans are choosing not to serve in the Armed Forces. Significant 
changes in the MGIB readjustment program will increase program usage 
and will enable the military services to recruit the smart young people 
they need. Accordingly, several bills have been introduced in both the 
House and the Senate during the 106th Congress that would significantly 
improve the MGIB. The Senate has twice passed legislation that included 
numerous changes designed to enhance educational opportunities under 
the MGIB. In the House, MGIB legislation has been introduced by Mr. 
Stump, Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. Together with 
Mr. Dingell, I introduced H.R. 1071, the Montgomery GI Bill 
Improvements Act of 1999.
  The brave men and women who serve in America's Armed Forces deserve, 
and have indeed earned, far better than the inadequate educational 
assistance program now available to them. I strongly urge my fellow 
colleagues to support this substitute budget resolution and the policy 
it represents of demonstrating a continued national commitment to our 
veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic Substitute to 
the Budget Resolution for FY 2001.
  Once again, the Republicans have presented a budget that would betray 
middle-class working families. Instead of supporting our communities, 
their proposal would make deep cuts in investments in education, 
healthcare and veterans programs. They even fail to include a Medicare 
prescription drug plan for all seniors.
  At a time when America's farm economy is suffering, the Republicans 
have cut discretionary spending for agriculture, making the agriculture 
programs impossible to administer. If the field office staff cannot do 
their jobs, farmers do not get their money. The Republican plan, if 
adopted, could mean that fewer and fewer farmers will actually get the 
help they need and that Congress has approved in a timely fashion. The 
Democratic Substitute does not forget the farmers who work so hard to 
keep America prosperous.
  The Democratic Substitute also extends Social Security and Medicare 
solvency while paying down the national debt. We care about the future 
of these important programs not just for the present, well into the 
future. Instead of ignoring a growing need in our country, Democrats 
also include a prescription drug benefit for all Medicare recipients 
beginning in FY 2001.
  The Republican proposal would provide Pell Grants to 316,000 fewer 
low-income students by 2005 and eliminate Head Start for 40,000 
children and their families by 2005. Why are the Republicans giving tax 
breaks to the wealthy and penalizing families who need help the most?
  As the Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am 
appalled that the Republican resolution does not provide any funding 
over the next five years to improve health care for military retirees 
over the age of 65, not even funds to pay for prescription drug 
coverage. However, the Democratic Substitute provides funds to improve 
health care for military retirees and directs the Armed Services 
Committee to provide prescription drug coverage and better access to 
the DoD health system for Medicare-eligible military retirees. It also 
includes a well deserved increase in funding for the Montgomery G.I. 
Bill, which will help us recruit and retain high quality personnel for 
our armed forces. I applaud Ranking Member Spratt for including this at 
my urging.
  I ask my colleagues to reject the misguided Republican proposal. Vote 
for the substitute that helps working families--vote for the Democratic 
substitute.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, just about a month ago, the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Henry Shelton, testified that guaranteeing 
life-time health care is not only important to keeping the promises 
made to those who have dedicated their careers to military service, but 
also to attract and retain quality personnel today. This issue is tied 
to the readiness of our Armed Forces, and will be one of the top 
defense issues Congress will have to address this year. In truth, I was

[[Page H1399]]

surprised to see that the Republican budget resolution does not provide 
any funding over the next five years to improve health care for 
military retirees over the age of 65, not even funds to pay for 
prescription drug coverage. The Democratic alternative budget, however, 
does not dodge this issue.
  Currently, military retirees 65 or older lose guaranteed access to 
the Department of Defense (DOD) health care system. The Democratic 
budget funds two major initiatives the Republican resolution ignores: a 
permanent and nationwide expansion of Medicare Subvention, and a 
guarantee that these retirees have access to the Department of 
Defense's prescription drug plans. These are the major provisions of 
H.R. 3655 that are geared to Medicare-eligible military retirees. H.R. 
3655 is a comprehensive military health care bill introduced by 
Representatives Neil Abercrombie, Ike Skelton, and Gene Taylor.
  The Democratic alternative directs the Armed Services Committee to 
write legislation to improve health care benefits for Medicare-eligible 
military retirees, and includes mandatory funding for both initiatives: 
$10.9 billion over ten years for Medicare Subvention, and $5.4 billion 
over ten years for prescription drug coverage. The prescription drug 
initiative is treated as an entitlement so it will not have to compete 
every year with other defense priorities for discretionary funds.
  The Military Coalition, which represents many different uniformed 
services and veterans' organizations and more than 5.5 million current 
and former members of the Armed Forces and their families, supports 
H.R. 3655 and has commended the Democratic budget for including this 
funding. The Military Coalition states that the military retiree health 
care provisions of the Democratic Alternative ``are important steps 
toward fulfilling the commitment of health care for life that was 
promised uniformed services retirees as an inducement to dedicate 
themselves to careers in uniforms.'' The entire text of their letter is 
included for the record.
  If the Democratic budget resolution is passed by the House, the 
following is the report language which will accompany our 
reconciliation directive to the Armed Services Committee:

  Report Language to Accompany Sec. 104 of The Democratic Alternative 
                           Budget Resolution

       Section 104 issues a reconciliation directive to the Armed 
     Services Committee for $16.3 billion for the 2001-2010 
     period. The Budget Committee assumes that the additional 
     funding made available will be used to extend and improve the 
     Department of Defense health care system to Medicare-
     eligible retirees. The year by year amounts are as 
     follows:
       For fiscal year 2001, $437,000,000;
       For fiscal year 2002, $699,000,000;
       For fiscal year 2003, $990,000,000;
       For fiscal year 2004, $1,426,000,000;
       For fiscal year 2005, $1,848,000,000;
       For fiscal year 2006, $2,069,000,000;
       For fiscal year 2007, $2,126,000,000;
       For fiscal year 2008, $2,184,000,000;
       For fiscal year 2009, $2,243,000,000; and
       For fiscal year 2010, $2,301,000,000.
       The Budget Committee believes these amounts are consistent 
     with the provisions of H.R. 3655 that apply to Medicare-
     eligible military retirees. H.R. 3655, which was introduced 
     by Reps. Neil Abercrombie, Ike Skelton, and Gene Taylor, is a 
     comprehensive bill that addresses the health care needs of 
     active duty personnel, military retirees, and their families. 
     The active-duty provisions of this legislation that are 
     funded within the President's budget are also accommodated 
     within the budget resolution. Specifically, $10.9 billion is 
     consistent with the funding required to meet the bill's 
     provision to extend Medicare Subvention nationwide by January 
     1, 2006. In addition, $5.4 billion is to meet the bill's 
     provision to provide access to the Department Defense's 
     prescription drug programs for all retirees, including 
     Medicare-eligible retirees. All of the funds are mandatory 
     expenditures.
       The $10.9 billion is displayed in Function 570 (Medicare) 
     and the $5.4 billion is displayed in Function 550 (Health). 
     While the amounts provided by the Budget Committee conform 
     with the major provisions of H.R. 3655, the Armed Services 
     Committee has sole jurisdiction over this legislation, and 
     may provide the benefits in the manner and function(s) it 
     thinks best.

  Last year, even though the Democratic alternative did not pass, it 
provided the impetus to increase funding for veterans' health care by 
$1.7 billion. Win or lose, the Democratic alternative is a strong 
message to retirees and a strong step forward for the Abercrombie-
Skelton-Taylor legislation. As a cosponsor of H.R. 3655, I hope the 
Democratic alternative will spur Congress to pass this important 
legislation.


                                               Alexandria, VA.

                                                   March 23, 2000.
     Hon. John Spratt,
     Ranking Minority Member, House Budget Committee, O'Neill 
         House Office Building, Washington DC.
       Dear Representative Spratt: The Military Coalition, a 
     consortium of nationally prominent uniformed services and 
     veterans organizations, representing more than 5.5 million 
     current and former members of the seven uniformed services, 
     plus their families and survivors, would like to express its 
     gratitude for the proposed budget alternative that you 
     introduced this week. We appreciate your leadership in 
     proposing an additional $16.3 billion over the next ten years 
     to improve access to military health care for the most 
     aggrieved group--Medicare-eligible uniformed services 
     beneficiaries.
       Although the Coalition would have preferred the House 
     Budget to completely fund health care for life for retirees 
     as provided for in H.R. 2966, we recognize that your budget 
     proposal will provide for immediate and demonstrable progress 
     toward this goal by providing funding for the TRICARE Senior 
     Prime program and making the military BRAC pharmacy benefit 
     available to all Medicare-eligible retirees. These are 
     important steps toward fulfilling the commitment of health 
     care for life that was promised uniformed services retirees 
     as an inducement to dedicate themselves to careers in 
     uniform.
       Again, thank you for your strong support, for which we are 
     most grateful. It's our hope that you and other members of 
     Congress will not stop with these first, substantial steps, 
     but will continue to address this issue next year, and every 
     year thereafter, until full equity is achieved for those 
     retired members who have done so much to protect the 
     democracy that their countrymen enjoy.
           Sincerely,
                                           The Military Coalition.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
alternative budget resolution offered by the Ranking Member of the 
Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt, and in opposition to H. Con. Res. 290. 
The Spratt alternative, in contrast to the majority plan, extends the 
solvency of Social Security and Medicare; pays down more publicly held 
debt; provides targeted tax relief for working families; and makes a 
real commitment to providing prescription drug coverage for senior 
citizens. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt 
alternative and to oppose H. Con. Res. 290.
  The Spratt alternative saves 100 percent of the surplus generated by 
Social Security for Social Security. The majority plan, if you assume 
that the so-called reserve funds for additional tax cuts and Medicare 
are spent, actually drains more than $60 billion of the Social Security 
surplus over the next ten years. Even if you assume that the reserve 
funds are not spent and that Social Security surplus is not tapped, the 
Republican budget still fails to extend the life of either Social 
Security or Medicare by even one day. In contrast, the Spratt 
alternative extends Social Security by 15 years by crediting the trust 
fund with the interest savings generated by the Social Security 
surplus. With regard to Medicare, the Republican resolution adds 
nothing to the solvency of the program while the Spratt alternative 
adds ten years by reserving $300 billion of the on-budget surplus for 
Medicare.
  The Spratt alternative makes debt reduction the top fiscal priority 
rather than exploding tax cuts. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve and 
countless other economists have advised Congress that paying down the 
debt is the best thing we can do to maintain our strong economy. 
Eliminating the debt and lowering interest rates is also the best thing 
Congress can do for working families. Lower interest rates cut mortgage 
payments by $2,000 for families with a $100,000 mortgage. The cost of 
care loans and student loans would also be reduced. Paying down the 
debt is effectively a large tax cut that also lifts a financial burden 
from our children and grandchildren.
  In addition paying down the debt and extending the life of Social 
Security and Medicare, the Spratt alternative provides targeted tax 
relief for working families. The Spratt budget allocates more than $210 
billion for tax cuts that would allow Congress to enact marriage 
penalty relief, estate tax relief for family farmers and small business 
people, full deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed, 
and tax credits for higher education. By targeting resources to 
families trying to make ends meet, the Spratt alternative is able to 
deliver significant tax relief while protecting other key priorities.
  When it comes to prescription drugs, the Spratt alternative makes a 
hard commitment of $40 billion over the next five years to provide 
Medicare prescription drug coverage for all senior citizens. The Spratt 
alternative will not only allow prescription drug coverage for all 
senior citizens, it will protect low-income seniors from any cost-
sharing requirements. The majority plan, on the other hand, does not 
actually dedicate resources for a new prescription drug benefit. 
Rather, the resolution creates a $40 billion reserve fund that depends 
on improved future budget projections.
  Finally, the agriculture function in the Spratt alternative is 
superior to the majority plan. The Spratt budget provides $6 billion in 
farmer income assistance for fiscal year 2000 and $7.2 billion to 
reflect the House-passed crop insurance. Unlike the GOP resolution, 
which freezes discretionary agriculture spending for the next five 
years, the Spratt budget provides a responsible increase so that 
critical agriculture research, trade development and marketing programs 
may continue. The Spratt

[[Page H1400]]

budget also ensures that USDA will have sufficient administrative 
resources to deliver key farm programs such as crop insurance as well 
as income and disaster assistance.
  In summary, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt 
alternative and oppose H. Con. Res. 290.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 233, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 74]

                               AYES--184

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     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
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     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
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--233

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     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
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Ackerman
     Archer
     Bonilla
     Crane
     Dixon
     Greenwood
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lowey
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHugh
     Porter
     Quinn
     Royce
     Schakowsky
     Vento

                              {time}  2348

  Mr. PHELPS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GEORGE MILLER of California, SANDLIN, and BORSKI changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.

                              {time}  2350

  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)


         Last Budget Resolution For Representative John Kasich

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, this is the last budget resolution that the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) will bring to the House floor after 
many years. As he leaves the House, he leaves a large void.
  I came here with him in 1983. I can speak from personal experience 
because I served on the same committee with him from the day we first 
arrived here. As a matter of fact, the reason I am on the Committee on 
Armed Services is that, when the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) did 
not get on it, he went to Bob Michael, raised hell, they went to Tip 
O'Neill, and Tip and Bob Michael agreed to enlarge the committee by two 
people. I got one seat. The gentleman from Ohio got the other.
  I have enjoyed his company. I have enjoyed his friendship. I have 
admired his commitment to public service, his energy, his 
effervescence, that infectious boyish smile that, after all these 
years, has not gone away. In fact, with the addition of twins, it has 
really blossomed back again. We are going to miss him on the floor, in 
the gym, committee room, and everywhere.
  I can say this genuinely, no one that I know of in the 18 years I 
have been here brought more fervor to the support of an issue and yet 
less spite than the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). No one in my 
recollection has been better in the well of the House, somebody one 
always wanted to have on one's side, better on his feet particularly 
extemporaneously than the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). Nobody has 
been better liked in the 18 years I have been here on both sides of the 
aisle.
  He has made a great contribution to this House, one of the great 
institutions of the republic, and to this country. I am sorry to see 
him leave after this term. He is not gone yet. I do not want to write 
his obituary too soon.
  I am sorry to see him leave, and I am assuaged to some extent by the 
feeling I do not think I have seen the last of him in public office.
  It has been a pleasure working with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kasich) and serving with him, and we are going to miss him.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the hour is late. But on this side of the 
aisle, there are some of us who remember 1989 and the first budget of 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). He had 29 Members who supported 
him. But he never gave up. He never gave up. He did it in such a fresh 
way.
  This is the last budget of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). What 
a

[[Page H1401]]

legacy he has left us. What a legacy he has left his wife and his 
daughters, Emma and Reese. The gentleman from Ohio dealt with a lot of 
numbers, but numbers were never important to him. It was people, the 
friends he has here, the people he cares about in this country.
  I know the gentleman from Ohio has a dream to transfer the power and 
the money and the influence out of Washington back home to local 
communities. I think he set us on our way. We love the gentleman from 
Ohio a lot.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). A final period of general 
debate is now in order. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I would waive my time, but I will save 30 
seconds just in case I have to answer something that the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) may have to say. I have no purpose in using the 5 
minutes time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is with a fond memory that I do look back to 1989 
when I first announced to my staff, after sitting through one of those 
contentious budget fights that, yes, I think we have got to write our 
own budget. We came here to the floor and I offered the budget and we 
got 30 votes.
  I remember walking back to my office, and everybody had their heads 
down. I walked in, and I said, Can you believe how great we did? We had 
29 other people in this House think that we had a budget worth voting 
for.
  Every year, we fought; and we got more and more support. All we were 
trying to do then was to reduce the deficits, something everybody in 
this House was concerned about, because we all care about what is going 
to happen to our children. We want our children to have a great 
opportunity to have the kind of life that we have.
  Tonight is pretty amazing. We spent, what, I guess almost 12 hours 
fighting. We were fighting about a lot of detail. We should be doing a 
little bit more celebrating for what we have been able to achieve as 
Republicans and Democrats alike.
  I mean, we are going to bring up a budget tonight, and we are going 
to pay down over the next 5 years about a trillion dollars of the 
publicly held debt. That is a trillion dollars that we are not going to 
have on the backs of our children when we all leave here. It is 
astounding when we think about it.
  Working together, we decided we were going to keep our hands off of 
Social Security. We struggled to get there. The President laid out his 
plan. We laid out ours. We fought with one another a little bit. At the 
end of the day, where are we? We are not raiding Social Security.
  I want to give a number of my colleagues on the Democrat side of the 
aisle some credit for their fight on Medicare prescription drugs. But I 
also want to give people on my side of the aisle the credit for also 
developing innovative and creative and imaginative programs on 
Medicare.
  What is going to happen by the end of this year, we will have a 
prescription drug program for the neediest of our seniors. No senior 
citizen should be so poor as they get older in life to not be able to 
get the magic of modern medicine today to extend their lives and so 
that their children can celebrate their life as they get older. We all 
deserve a quality life at the end, and we are going to be able to do 
that.
  As much as we squabble about tax cuts, we did pass the earnings test 
on this floor unanimously, I believe, where we said that seniors should 
not be punished for working extra hours and trying to have some 
independence.
  I think, frankly, our seniors are perhaps our greatest untapped 
resource because they have the wisdom. Many of them have the energy to 
use the wisdom to make for a better country.
  Would it not be great to combine our seniors with our young children 
who are often neglected? We need to think about a program like that.
  At the same time, we are also going to make an effort with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and his efforts with the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) to try to cut the penalty on 
people who have small businesses and family farms. It is the right 
thing to do.
  At the same time, we are going to spend more money on education and 
try to rebuild our Nation's defense.
  But I hope that all of us will work to better define America's 
interest throughout the world. The Cold War is over. We have got to be 
more innovative and creative in foreign policy and with our national 
defense.
  For the future, we are going to have a new President very soon. It is 
going to be a new President in a new millennium. What an opportunity.
  I think we ought to take the opportunity to put aside a lot of our 
partisan differences for this reason. We have a generational problem, 
do we not, so many baby boomers getting to retire and not enough 
children to work to pay all the bills.
  We have health care crisis in this country. I believe that we have 
got to adopt more market-oriented solutions to the problems of health 
care and Social Security.
  I also think we have got to make this government more effective, more 
efficient so that we can have respect and regard for it so that what it 
does it can do well, like our National Institutes of Health which are a 
real gem, and not just in the United States but, frankly, for the whole 
world.

                              {time}  2400

  I also believe that the greatest civil rights issue of the 21st 
century is the education of our children, and I think we have to search 
our hearts to make sure that our children are set free. No child should 
have to walk through a bunch of drug dealers in this country to get a 
decent education and to be safe, and we have to do it together.
  Then, finally, finally, my colleagues, we have to continue to provide 
the incentives for savings and investment. And I say to my colleagues 
that we are on the edge of an incredible revolution, and I hope we will 
embrace the new economy, not inhibit it.
  One final word, my colleagues, and that is this: if you are a Member 
here and you believe something, and we have a lot of dreamers, we could 
start with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who we just saw not 
long ago when he recelebrated walking across that bridge in Selma, 
Alabama, that was his dream. But we are all dreamers here. That is why 
we are here. I just leave you with one thought. If you dream, if you 
believe, if you have passion, if you have to stand alone, so be it. If 
your cause is just, a crowd will form and you can change the world. Go 
for it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Under the rule, the Committee 
rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, 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, pursuant to House Resolution 446, he reported 
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the concurrent 
resolution.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211, 
nays 207, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 75]

                               YEAS--211

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

[[Page H1402]]


     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     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
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     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
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     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
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--207

     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)
     Callahan
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     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)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     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)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     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
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Ackerman
     Archer
     Bonilla
     Crane
     Dixon
     Greenwood
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lowey
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHugh
     Porter
     Quinn
     Royce
     Schakowsky
     Vento

                              {time}  0019

  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded:

                          ____________________