[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 47 (Thursday, April 13, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H2242-H2258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1030
CONFERENCE REPORT ON HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 290, CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2001
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 474 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 474
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of order against the conference
report and against its consideration are waived. The
conference report shall be considered as read. The conference
report shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Budget.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 474 is a straightforward typical rule providing
for the consideration of the annual budget resolution conference
report. The rule waives all points of order against the conference
report and against its consideration and provides that the conference
report be considered as read. The rule further provides for 1 hour of
debate, equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking
member of the Committee on the Budget.
The two Chambers have come to a speedy agreement on the fiscal year
2001 budget resolution, sorting out differences between the Houses in a
responsible manner. I am pleased to note that the conference report to
be considered today adheres to the six major principles that we
outlined when this process began, including continuing our historic
achievement of paying down the national debt, protecting 100 percent of
the Social Security trust fund, boosting our national defense,
providing for prescription drug coverage and Medicare reform, offering
tax relief, and supporting our localities in the all-important arena of
education of our youth.
[[Page H2243]]
In each of these areas, the budget package we have before us today
keeps the faith with our pledge to the American people. We are
delivering on our promise to make the government work better for
taxpayers, while managing this extraordinarily blue sky fiscal period
in a very responsible manner.
In this budget we are reaffirming our commitment to maintaining
fiscal discipline, something that can prove even harder to do when
times are good than when times are bad. Yet, in this budget we have
provided for $1 trillion, $1 trillion, in payment on the national debt.
That is something that we are doing that will benefit every American
today and, of course, all of our children and grandchildren for years
to come.
$1 trillion in debt reduction. That is a concept that was totally
unimaginable for most of us just a few short years ago when deficits
were soaring and the debt was mounting at a terrifying pace. What a
long way we have come.
Mr. Speaker, this budget document outlines an important set of
priorities that highlight preservation of the programs Americans count
on most; reinforcement of our ability to defend the national security
in today's ever more dangerous world and the necessity of enhancing tax
fairness for families and businesses.
I would like to emphasize the importance of the defense and security
component of this budget which would, of course, include intelligence.
Last night in the Committee on Rules, we discussed the significance of
the investment this budget makes in our defense, not for fancy or high-
priced or untested projects, but rather for the core capabilities that
have been so underfunded and so severely tested in recent years.
I applaud those who fought for and won the increase in funding, and I
stand ready to work to make sure we put those resources where they will
matter the most in our personnel, in our readiness, in our basic
equipment, in our eyes and ears, that is our intelligence, and in our
training to make sure our military folks are the best trained in the
world and can take the best possible care of themselves.
Unlike the budget presented to us by the President, we have here
today a budget that realistically meets the needs and the challenges of
the coming year, without returning to the bad old days of spending for
today without any eye to the future at all.
I am proud of our Committee on the Budget Members and the leadership
for their efforts in this budget blueprint. Specifically I would like
to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), our courageous Committee
on the Budget chairman, for all his work, not just this year, but
throughout his distinguished tenure in the House. I know there will be
many accolades to come for the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich),
as this is the final act of his official House budget career, all of
them well deserved.
Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this
budget, and, in the meantime supporting this fair and appropriate rule,
so we can get to the debate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because I oppose the
hasty process that this rule embraces. This resolution waives the rule
that requires the availability of conference reports for 3 days before
their consideration. This House rule, an important rule, allows Members
time to read and study the report before they cast their votes. Since
this conference report has been available to most Members for less than
12 hours, I have grave doubts that most Members have any real knowledge
of about what it includes.
From what I can tell, the conference report once again repeats the
follies of the leadership's continued obsession with large tax cuts. It
does little to extend the solvency of Social Security or Medicare and
cuts funding for critical education and housing programs.
I wish my colleagues would drop the charade and reflect for a moment.
These surpluses on our horizon, if they materialize, offer an
extraordinary opportunity. They allow us to pay down the large public
debt, thereby providing the ultimate tax cut for our constituents in
the form of lower interest rates.
The surpluses allow us to make Social Security and Medicare sound and
solvent for future generations. They mean that we can close the gaping
hole in the Medicare coverage and provide a true prescription drug
benefit. They make it possible for us to do more for education at all
levels. But this document squanders that opportunity and instead we
continue to pass billion dollar tax breaks for wealthy special
interests.
The conference agreement suffers from the same fundamental flaws as
the House-passed resolution. The $170 billion tax cut is so large that
it pushes aside Social Security and Medicare solvency, debt reduction,
education, and all other national priorities.
The conference agreement is a political gesture, rather than a
credible budget plan that would provide a meaningful guide for
subsequent budget legislation. The spending cuts are so deep and
unrealistic and the tax cuts so large that the resolution puts us on a
track for another appropriations train wreck in September.
Like the House-passed resolution, the conference agreement puts the
budget on course to spend the Social Security surplus. Even taking at
face value this budget's implausible cuts in non-defense programs, it
skates along the edge of on-budget deficits for the first 5 years and
invades the Social Security surplus after 2008, if not sooner.
Moreover, the conference report puts funds for education and training
on hold. In 2001, the conference agreement provides $4.8 billion less
than the Democratic alternative budget, and $4.7 billion less than the
President's budget for appropriations for education, training, and
social services. This low funding level will require the majority to
cut current education programs or to eliminate the President's
proposals to renovate the crumbling schools, to hire and train more
teachers, to add $1 billion to Head Start and to double the amount for
after-school programs. Outlays for 2001 actually are $400 million below
a freeze at last year's level.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to focus for a moment on how the
measure came up short on Medicare prescription drugs. The conference
agreement allows a prescription drug benefit of up to $40 billion over
5 years, but only if accompanied by unspecified Medicare reforms. By
contrast, the Democratic alternative budget required that a full $40
billion be devoted to a prescription drug benefit, with or without
other changes in Medicare.
In both 1998 and 1999, the American people rejected these same
unrealistic cuts in essential Federal spending and excessive tax cuts.
Why on Earth would anyone believe that the American people will
suddenly change their minds and reject essential government services
like Social Security and Medicare in favor of tax cuts?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, my friend and colleague.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, if you care about building America, this is
a rule and budget resolution that one can support. In fact, it is one
of the best budget resolutions that we have seen in many a day.
I want to commend the leadership of the Committees on the Budget of
both the House and Senate for honoring their commitments to fully fund
transportation. The conference report allocates sufficient
transportation function funds so that we can fully fund TEA 21, the
highway and transit legislation, including the adjustments resulting
from the increased revenues going into the gas tax collections into the
Highway Trust Fund.
It also fully funds AIR 21 capital programs and it fully funds the
President's request for FAA operations, which is at the full AIR 21
level. In addition, there are no cuts in Coast Guard or in Amtrak,
despite the predictions of the critics during our debate and
consideration over AIR 21. So
[[Page H2244]]
those predictions simply have not come to pass in this budget
resolution.
The conference report keeps faith with the American people. The taxes
collected for highways and transit improvements will go into the
Highway Trust Fund for highway and transit improvements. The taxes
collected for aviation will go to aviation improvements. Gone are the
days of using trust funds to mask the size of the deficit.
The budget resolution restores honesty to the budget process. This is
a budget resolution which we can be proud to support, because it is a
budget resolution which helps build America.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, this is another rule that was passed late at night to
bring to the floor a conference report that, in all due respect, does
not deserve the name. It is hard to call this a conference report when
nobody has conferred. We have had no consultation. There is no
mutuality in the process, so it is not hard to believe that there will
be no mutuality, no common ground, in the final result.
I am not just saying this because I am miffed at being left out of
the process. If you cannot take rejection, you better not be in
politics. But we set a model 3 years ago for how to do this. We sat
down and tried to negotiate a common agreement, given the fact that we
have a divided government, and, when we got to the end, it was a pretty
good product. We called it the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. We
have not had such mutuality, such collegiality, since, and certainly
not in this result here.
As I said, I am not miffed, but we have meritorious arguments to
make. We made them on the House floor, we made them in the committee
markup. I am not sure they were heard in either place, but if we could
have made them in conference, I think we could have improved this
product, because in conference if we had had a conference, we would
have said you are asking for $121.5 billion now in real reduction and
budget authority for non-defense programs over the next 5 years. Is
this realistic?
Let us look at the last 5 years that have gotten the attention in
conference. Let us look at the last 5 years. The reduction in the
increase in the last 5 years was 2.5 percent.
{time} 1045
That was a time when we had caps, spending caps. That was a time when
we were coping with the deficit and trying to reduce the deficit.
Now we have surpluses and no spending caps, because that is one of
the omissions of this bill, it does not reset the spending caps at all.
It simply assumes, with no enforcement mechanism, that we can achieve
what we have not achieved over the last 10 years, $121.5 billion in
real reduction in our defense spending. Too bad we did not have an
opportunity to look at that argument realistically in conference.
This bill calls for $175 billion in tax reduction. We showed on the
House floor how if we do $40 billion for Medicare and a $200 billion
tax cut, we will wipe out the surplus in 1 year and thereafter have a
zero balance, no cushion whatsoever. In case there is a downturn we are
back in deficit. We are back into the social security count, putting
the budget on thin ice, perilously close to deficit for the next 5
years.
They have mitigated that. I think they maybe after all read our
chart, and mitigated that to the tune of $25 billion. They say they
want to pay down the national debt. That means over 5 years we will pay
it down by $12 billion by our calculation, over 10 years by $1 billion.
Why is that? What looks like a more moderate tax cut than last year,
what looks like a moderate tax cut, a tax cut of $175 billion, over a
10-year period of time works out to a tax cut of $929 billion, by our
calculation.
Last year the tax cut was $156 billion over 5 years, and $792 billion
over 10. This year, if we do $176 billion, the outyear implications are
$929 billion of revenue reduction plus debt service adjustment. It
literally puts us back in deficit.
But they conveniently did not run the budget out 10 years, in this
case. That is another thing we could have done in conference, give us a
10-year run-out of the budget, not a 5-year run-out, because in the
second 5 years it becomes harder to defend.
These are some major issues we did not touch on. We certainly did not
touch on Medicare and prescription drugs. There is a time-honored tool
that is put in the Budget Act in 1974 that the Committee on the Budget
uniquely can use. If it wants to see something done, it can say to the
committee of jurisdiction, you have the authority and the obligation,
and here is the money to report out a prescription drug benefit by a
date certain so that the House can vote on it.
But every time we mention that, they dodge. This bill right here not
only dodges again, because it does not have reconciliation mandates in
it. This particular resolution does not even resolve the issue. There
is $40 billion for Medicare reform and prescription drugs if the
Committee on Ways and Means gets around reporting such a bill, and then
in the Senate, there is a totally different prescription.
The idea of a conference report is to bring the two bodies together.
On this most critical issue, which is at the top of the chart, they
fail to do it. We do not have a clear course and we do not have a
mandate to get it done.
I know what we will hear today is the budget resolution is on time,
we are going to pass it by April 15. I am going to tell the Members
what I said last year, it is on time for a train wreck that will be
coming in September. That is what this budget resolution will do for
us.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I have been on the Committee on
the Budget for a full 7 years. This is my eighth year. This will be
only the second budget that we have passed on time by April 15 during
that time. In fact, in the total history of the Committee on the
Budget, this will only be the third time that we have passed a timely
budget resolution.
So I would like to compliment the Committee on Rules, certainly the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) on the Committee on the Budget. If we
look at where we were 7 years ago, we were looking at deficits as far
as the eye could see, between $200 billion and $300 billion a year. We
have come a long ways.
We made the decision last year that we are not going to spend any of
the social security trust fund surpluses on anything except social
security. This has been a huge change, huge progress. We have agonized
as we have tried to hold down spending to make sure ultimately that our
kids and grandkids are not going to be saddled with a huge burden of
Medicare and social security.
If there is one disappointment in this budget, and I met and talked
to John Podesta this morning from the White House, it is that we could
not get leadership from the White House to move ahead on social
security reform. It is going to come up and be a tremendous
disadvantage to our kids and our grandkids if we do not attack and face
up to the huge problems of resolving the unfunded liability of social
security and Medicare and the entitlement programs.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this budget resolution sort of reminds me
of one of those good news-bad news jokes. The good news is that this
law says that we should pass a budget resolution by April 15. We are
going to do that. That is the good news. The bad news is that it is a
joke.
If we look at this and listen to what the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said, the gentleman is one of the most
thoughtful, one of the most intelligent people. He actually was a
banker once. He knows about money. He gave a very erudite explanation
of this budget.
[[Page H2245]]
If we listen to the gentleman, the most important thing he said was
that this resolution puts us on record for the train wreck in
September. We are right on track. We are going to do it all over again
this year what we did last year.
We could talk about Medicare, Medicaid, and all those issues, social
security and education, all the issues that are not dealt with here.
But this budget resolution contains $100 billion more in cuts. We did
not do that last year, we added, and we are heading right down the same
track.
I know people's eyes kind of glaze over when we talk about the budget
resolution. What is this? This is an outline for what is going to
happen in this country in this Congress.
One of the issues on $1.9 trillion, that is a figure that is sort of
out of the reach of most of us, but let us just take one issue. That is
the issue of pharmaceutical prescription drugs; how people, how seniors
are going to get that paid for. Everybody says it is a good idea. But
when we look at this budget resolution, I have brought this chart here
because it really points out what is all about this budget resolution.
The Democratic proposal was for $40 billion locked in for the drug
benefit. The Republican budget says, if the Committee on Ways and Means
gets around to it, we could spend up to $40 billion. Which would we
rather have, have it locked in, or if they happen to get around to it?
Does it require action this year? The Democrats say yes. The
Republicans say no. There is no requirement in this budget.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) talked about
reconciliation and all those fancy words. What that means is that the
Committee on Ways and Means must do something, and it is not in this
bill.
Who is covered? In the Democrats' proposal, every senior citizen is
covered. In the Republicans' budget, they have to be poor. So we are
going to turn this into a welfare program, it is not a Medicare
program.
Mr. Speaker, this turns this program, the Republicans', into a
welfare program. Senior citizens are not entitled to it, they have to
go down and prove at the welfare office that they are poor enough and
ask for help, beg for help. What kind of a benefit is that for us to be
giving to senior citizens?
The Democratic proposal says all seniors are covered. As an American
over 65, you are entitled. But the Republicans do not believe in that.
The benefit? The Democrats define what people are going to get. What
the Republicans say is, here is a little money. Why do you not go out
and see if you can buy yourself an insurance policy?
The HIAA, the health insurance industry, says that the private
insurance market will not sell policies simply for drugs, for
pharmaceuticals. They are not going to do it. It is too risky. So the
Republicans are giving them the money and saying, okay, folks, go out
and find it. But it is not there. They will never find it.
This budget resolution is basically a PR document. Pass it on time,
we want to get it done, we will all stand up here and say it is the
first time in 29 years that we have had a budget resolution, and all
the rest, but the fact is that it is a nonsense piece of paper.
It is really sort of like Alice in the Looking Glass. The more we
look at it, and the reason they ran it through at midnight last night,
is because they did not want us to have any time to look at it, because
it becomes curiouser and curiouser.
I urge Members to vote against this budget resolution.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), a member of the
committee.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, it is going to be very interesting to watch this debate
today. Everyone here today recognizes that some great things have been
happening with the economy. Unemployment is at a 30-year low, the
economy continues to grow.
Now there are some on the other side who want us to go back to the
old days, the days of tax and spend and spend and tax. That is really
what they are talking about when they bring out their numbers, their
interpolated charts and numbers. That is what they are trying to do.
They are trying to move us backward.
Still others want us to sit back and do nothing. They want us to
enjoy the fruits of our labor and the fruits of this growing economy.
But the majority budget, the budget we take up today, recognizes that
we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make progress, to secure
America's future. That is what this reform budget does. This budget
reinforces retirement security to the social security lockbox.
Secondly, it pays down the debt, reduces it by $1 trillion over 5
years. It eliminates the public debt by the year 2013.
It reinvests in public education, a 9.4 percent increase over last
year. It sets in motion a plan for providing prescription drug benefits
to seniors. It begins to rescue our military from years of neglect and
misuse.
Yes, and I know this is blasphemy to some, yes, it does provide tax
relief. It allows Americans to keep more of what they earn.
I hope today will be a good debate. I think it will show the clear
differences between the two parties, between those who want to move
backwards and those who want to charge ahead. Today should be a good
debate.
I urge my colleagues to support this good, open, fair rule. More
importantly, I urge my colleagues to vote for this budget. When we go
home over the Easter break, I urge them to talk about the great things
we are doing, the challenges that we are meeting, and the steps we are
taking.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
New York for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), for a very detailed analysis of the
process. Many of us are concerned about process. But in the course of
his defining the process, he really captured the substance of my
opposition to this resolution at this time.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is right, the 1977
budget reconciliation was one of our finest hours. The reason is that
some of us agreed with aspects of it, and some of us disagreed. But we
found that the synergism of providing a budget surplus was a key
element to our support.
We now find ourselves in the year 2000 with a budget surplus, but we
also find ourselves with a budget where many of us disagree because the
principles of opportunity are denied. We give a tax cut that I imagine
is to cater to a candidate running for president of the United States
on the Republican ticket.
We do not do anything to deal with extending social security and
Medicare. One thing that we certainly throw to the winds and leave it
encumbered with all kinds of problems is the senior citizen
prescription drug benefit.
Members can imagine in a district like the Eighteenth Congressional
District, probably representative of many across the Nation, with a
high number of senior citizens, there is not a place that I go that
they do not say, what choices do you want me to make, food, housing, or
my health care?
I do not see why we are prepared to give a $929 billion tax cut, if
we project it over 10 years, to placate the presidential politics when
we have individuals in our community who have worked, who have paid
taxes, who are living by themselves and cannot provide for their health
care, cannot get prescription drugs?
We have a plan. The Democrat plan is unencumbered. Yet, we could not
get that resolved in this budget process.
{time} 1100
In my State, a mere 20 percent of our young people get college
degrees. We are fighting this whole issue of the digital divide,
realizing that e-commerce is driving the economy, begging to get our
young people educated, needing more teachers professionally developed,
needing our crumbling schools
[[Page H2246]]
being rebuilt, and, yet, this budget does not provide for that in its
educational piece.
It slows up on the idea of education. In particular, Mr. Speaker, it
does not allow for the President's proposals to renovate crumbling
schools. We leave out money to hire and train more teachers. I was in a
meeting with members of the e-commerce industry, and one of the things
that we noted in that discussion was we appreciate our teachers, but we
must make them professionally aware of the technology.
We do not have the money, Mr. Speaker, for Head Start. How many Head
Start graduates do we have in leadership positions and owners of small
business. There is a definitive measure that we can have to determine
that Head Start is a successful program.
So I certainly ask my colleagues and my Republican colleagues, in a
time of opportunity, what are we challenged to do? We are challenged to
give opportunity to others who may not have walked that walk before. We
need to be fiscally responsible, but we did that in 1997, and that is
why we are here today.
Now we need to establish priorities. A prescription drug benefit for
seniors that is unencumbered, education for our children, compensation
for our teachers, the rebuilding of crumbling schools, the protection
of Social Security and Medicare, and the heck with the $929 billion tax
cut that no one is asking for except presidential politics. We can do
better than that, Mr. Speaker. I ask to vote down the resolution and do
a better job.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I think we know what this budget
resolution conference report is all about. The majority wants to
provide the Republican presidential candidate with a budget that he can
work with, and that is fine. I read on the front page of the Washington
Post today that Presidential Candidate George Bush has recommended
another $46 billion of spending this week alone, $13 billion more for
education, $25 billion more for defense, and then, of course, he wants
a tax cut of over one and a half trillion dollars over the next 10
years.
Well, that is great. We are all for many of those things. But the
thing that troubles us the most is that we have what may be a once in a
lifetime opportunity to do right by our children's generation. We have
an unprecedented surplus ahead of us. Is it right to use that surplus
for our own benefit, or is it better to use that surplus to pay off the
debt that we incurred so our children do not have to pay it off and so
our children do not have to pay the quarter of a trillion dollars in
interest costs that are due every year. And those interest costs will
be a lot more when they are our age.
We are the ones who had the benefit of running up that enormous
deficit during the 1980s. We now have the responsibility to pay it off.
First things first. Pay off the $3.7 trillion of our public debt so
that our children are not burdened with that debt.
Second thing, provide for our own retirement, provide for our Social
Security and Medicare. That is our second responsibility. Do not leave
it to them to have to provide for our retirement and our health care
when we are no longer working and doing so well.
How wrong a legacy to leave the public debt to our children's
generation, to leave it to them to pay for Social Security and
Medicare. How right to pay off our debt now, to provide for our own
retirement, and, to the extent we can, target tax cuts where they will
benefit the economy, where Allan Greenspan will not have to raise
interest rates to offset their stimulus effect. Target them and then
invest in the next generation in education, prescription drugs research
and development, and infrastructure. That is what we should be doing.
That should be our legacy for our children.
This conference report does not accomplish that legacy. Let us do the
right thing, the responsible thing. Reject this selfish, short term
budget policy. We can do better than this. Much better.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I simply rise in strong support of this rule
and the budget conference report itself.
We are making history here by, on time, proceeding for the first time
in the quarter century since we have had the 1974 Budget Impoundment
Act with doing back-to-back budgets on schedule. I believe that that is
a very clear signal that this Congress, under the leadership of the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) is on track towards doing the
kinds of things that he said when he stood in this well in January of
1999. He has proceeded with regular order following with the rules and
the structure that we have in place here.
What is it that we are doing? Well, we have established the
priorities the American people very much want us to address. Education
is a great concern to the people whom I am honored to represent in
Southern California. It is a concern all across this country. We need
to make sure that, as we deal with this global economy, that the
American people have the expertise that is necessary to be competitive.
The best way to do that is to enhance the education level that we have
in this country. This measure goes a long way towards doing that.
We have a priority. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) who came
before the Committee on Rules last night made it very clear in his
testimony that, what is it that the Federal Government can do and has
the responsibility to do that no other level of government can do
whatsoever? That is those very, very important words right in the
middle of the preamble of the Constitution, ``provide for the common
defense.'' That is exactly what this budget does by dramatically
enhancing our ability to deal with our national security and the
security of our interests around the world. Ensuring that we get our
very brave men and women off of food stamps, that is a priority that we
have here.
So as we look at this budget, it is a very, very important conference
report.
I will say, since I am standing here in the well and I am looking at
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) who is in the back of the Chamber,
that he will be sorely missed. It has been his leadership over the past
several years that has played a big role in getting us to the point
where we are today, and I look forward to great things from him in the
years to come.
The best way that we could send him off when he does leave here
months and months from now is to overwhelmingly pass this rule and to
pass this budget conference report with strong bipartisan support.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, there were three main issues associated with
this conference. First, should we add $4.1 billion to defense spending,
increasing overall spending by that amount, and reducing the surplus by
that amount? The conference said ``yes'' to that question.
Second question: Should we increase efforts to fight dreaded diseases
by increasing spending for NIH by $1.6 billion, which would increase
overall spending by that amount? The conferees said ``no'' to that
question.
Third: Should we increase student assistance by as much as $200 per
grant in order to offset the higher cost of higher education and pay
for that by a small cut in the size of tax breaks planned for the high
rollers in this society? The conference again said ``no.''
Those are the issues before the conference. Those are the issues
before the House today.
This huge Republican tax cut will simply not permit us to do what
nearly everybody knows we ought to be doing to help students get the
kind of education they need. That reflects what Candidate Bush said in
my State last week. He is reported in the Eau Claire newspaper saying
as follows: ``George W. Bush gave strong indications Thursday he is not
inclined to increase Federal spending to give more grants to students
to go to college. Bush, who attended both Yale and Harvard, conceded
that some people have complained that loans carry a repayment burden.
``Too bad,'' he said. ``That is what a loan is.'' There is a lot of
money available for students and families willing to go out and look
for it.
[[Page H2247]]
Some of you are just going to have to pay it back, and that is just
the way it is.'' What this really is is Richey Rich indicating that he
does not have a clue about how the other half lives.
What this conference also does today is gut our ability to deal with
the problems we need to deal with respect to health problems.
This chart shows the amount by which every appropriation to attack
major diseases will be cut from the Senate amendment in order to make
room for my colleagues' Republican tax cut today. They have been
talking to folks about how they are going to promise to help increase
research on diabetes. This says they are going to have to cut $47
million below the amount in the Senate amendment. They are going to
have to cut $14 million for Parkinson's disease. They are going to have
to cut $350 million for all types of cancer research. They cut $41
million from research that could have taken place on Alzheimer's and
$180 million from research that could have taken place on AIDS.
So when my colleagues vote on this conference today, think of the 150
people a day who will be diagnosed with cancer this year, think of
those suffering with diabetes and Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, and
think of all of the students who are struggling every day to get a
decent education who my colleagues will not be able to help.
That may be consistent with the Republican values. It is not
consistent with the values of the people I represent.
[From the Leader-Telegram, Mar. 31, 2000]
Bush Averse to More College Grant Funding--Let Students Get Loans,
Candidate Says in EC
(By Doug Mell)
Texas Gov. George W. Bush gave strong indications Thursday
he is not inclined to increase federal spending to give more
grants to students to go to college.
Instead, Bush said, he has more affinity for giving
students loans.
``I support Pell Grants (the federal government's main
college grant program),'' Bush told reporters after visiting
Locust Lane School in Eau Claire. ``I support student
loans.''
Bush, who attended both Yale and Harvard, conceded that
some people have complained that those loans carry a
repayment burden.
``Too bad,'' he said. ``that's what a loan is.''
Bush, the Texas governor and likely GOP presidential
nominee, added: ``There is a lot of money available for
students and families who are willing to go out and look for
it.
``Some of it you are going to have to pay back, and that's
just the way it is because there is nothing free in society.
College is not free.''
He also said the federal government should not get involved
in setting tuition levels for state colleges and
universities.
Here are edited remarks from a question-and-answer session
between Bush and reporters after visiting Locust Lane School:
What are your plans to increase school accountability?
We are going to ask the question, are children learning? We
are going to say to states, `If you accept federal money, you
have to develop an accountability system.' I believe a
national test will undermine local controls of schools.
Under the Title 1 initiative, it says that after a three-
year period, if standards aren't being met for disadvantaged
students--in other words, if students remain in failed
schools--instead of subsidizing failure, something must
happen. You can't have an accountability system, you can't
measure, unless ultimately there is a consequence. Otherwise,
there is no accountability.
And the consequence is, the parents get to make a different
choice. It's funding children and it's battling failure.
I believe if you set high standards and hold people
accountable, people will learn. I've seen it with my own
eyes.
Is it the school's fault when test scores are low or is it
a combination of things?
I think it's the system's fault. When you have kids that
can't pass a basic test, it sounds like to me that they have
just been shuffled through the system. Because nowhere along
the line has someone blown the whistle and said, `Now wait a
minute; we are not going to move you through until you know
what you are supposed to know.'
When you have high school kids who can't pass basic reading
comprehension exams, you've got a problem. If a kid can't
read when he gets to high school, something is fundamentally
wrong with the system.
That's why it is so important to address these problems
early, before it is too late.
What has been the response to your proposals from teachers?
I differentiate between the union leaders and the teachers.
I think the teachers are helping. I think teachers want the
best. I think really good teachers do not care about being
held accountable. I think they understand that accountability
is not a punishment.
We need to expand the program at the federal level that
encourages, trains, pays stipends to, ex-military people who
come into classrooms.
I want to increase the teacher training, teacher
recruitment aspect of the federal expenditures, but I want to
send it back to the states with a lot of flexibility.
One of the cornerstones of the education reform package at
the federal level is maximum authority and maximum
flexibility back to the states. The more flexibility states
have to spend federal money to meet their needs, the more
money is freed at the local level as well.
I think there needs to be a teacher protection act, which
will say that if teachers uphold standards of discipline in
their classrooms, they can't get sued under civil rights
statutes.
Could Gov. Tommy Thompson play a role in your
administration?
Tommy is a friend, and he's smart and he's capable. He's
led the way on a lot of interesting initiatives and education
reforms. There is a lot of different roles Tommy could play.
Have you approached anyone concerning being a vice
presidential candidate?
No, and I won't with anybody. I obviously have thought
about it. People say to me all the time, `Why don't you
consider so and so, and why don't you consider this and that?
But I have yet to put a process in place. Over the next
couple of weeks, I will be thinking through the strategy.
I think there is going to be a need to have a different
attitude in Washington. There has to be a different type of
politics and a different type of attitude about expending
political capital.
And I tell people point-blank in this state and every
state: If you want four more years of Clinton-Gore, I'm not
the right guy. That's really what much of the election is
about.
What are your plans on dairy policy?
I'm going to say the same thing that other presidents have:
We need to have a national plan, a national dairy policy.
Until there is one, until there is one that the country can
agree to, there is going to be compacts.
Do you oppose dairy compacts?
I'd like to see a national dairy plan.
That includes something on compacts?
It would include a national plan that all regions of the
country could live with. If you had a national dairy plan,
hopefully, if it made sense, it would make them moot.
I'm going to be a president for everybody. Surely there is
plan that is best for the nation.
Would Wisconsin dairy farmers get a fair break under your
administration?
I think what Wisconsin dairy farmers can expect is a fair,
even-handed policy that tries to develop a national dairy
strategy. I recognize it's going to be difficult to do.
What is your position on the Elian Gonzalez controversy?
He should have his day in a family court in Florida. And
the (Clinton) administration has been heavy-handed on this
issue, and I disagree with them, I strongly disagree with
them.
There needs to be a full hearing, and I hope his dad gets
to come over (from Cuba) and testify.
I don't trust Fidel Castro. I don't trust the system. I do
not believe we ought to trade with Cuba and Fidel Castro,
because foreign trade with Castro becomes an avenue for
propping the administration up.
I hope the dad is given the chance to make the decision in
a free world, give him a chance to make a decision about his
son in a totally free environment. There needs to be a venue
to make that decision.
What is your position on trade with China?
I do believe we ought to have China in the World Trade
Organization. But as opposed to trading with government
entities, most of the trade with China, as a result of the
World Trade Organization, will be with private entities.
What is your position on campaign finance reform?
I think we ought to have campaign funding reform. It starts
with people being honest about the law. Secondly, I think we
ought to ban corporate soft and labor union soft money, so
long as you have paycheck protection.
We need instant disclosure who the campaign contributors
are and I want full instant disclosure on what went on in the
White House when the vice president was there.
I think we can make it more fair, more open and more
realistic so people know what is going on.
I'd love to work with Sen. (Russ) Feingold and Sen. (John)
McCain on that issue. I would hope he (Feingold) would allow
paycheck protection so union members don't have their money
spent by union bosses without their permission.
What is the first bill you would send to Congress after you
are elected.
First is to go to the Defense Department, the secretary of
the defense, and ask for a top-down review, a top-to-bottom
review of the strategies in place to reconfigure our
military.
I worry about haphazard spending, political spending when
it comes to procurement, research and development. And I want
there to be a procedure in place to reconfigure how war is
fought and war.
Our military needs to be lighter, more lethal, easier to
move, harder to find. We need to think 20 or 30 years down
the road.
The first bill I would like to see coming out of education
is Title 1 reform with flexibility to states.
[[Page H2248]]
I would like Congress to pass a tax-relief package, with a
tax fairness component, I think we need to get rid of the
death tax.
This code we have today penalizes people who live on the
outskirts of poverty. If you are a mother making $22,000 a
year and you have two children, for every additional dollar
you earn, you pay a higher marginal return than someone
making $200,000. It's not right.
So my simplification plan drops the bottom rate from 15
percent to 10 percent and increases the child credit, which
facilitates upward mobility among people who are struggling.
It may sound strange to hear a Republican talking that way,
but I'm passionate about this subject. Al Gore is going to
say it's risky.
But what is risky is locking people in place in America.
What we ought to believe in is having a tax code that
encourages upward mobility, not discourages upward mobility.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss) has 18 minutes remaining.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, whenever anybody leaves an institution, an institution
is obviously diminished, a little poorer, especially when it is a good
person. Obviously people get replaced through the election process and
through the hiring process here, but there is still always a sense of
loss when we lose one of our spectacular people.
Much has been said about the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich),
and I want to be associated with those remarks, the extraordinary job
he has done through the years here today. We acknowledge that.
I know in the general debate, he is going to have the great
opportunity to display his brilliance, and we are going to have the
opportunity to further thank him.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman will yield to me.
Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out what the Republicans
have done since they took the majority in dramatically increasing the
funding for the National Institutes of Health.
{time} 1115
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) bringing that forward.
I was going to make the observation that this is really a debate
about the rule, and I think we agree it is a brilliant rule and
deserves everybody's support; and we are trying to get to the debate
when the distinguished chairman can make the kinds of points that are
so relevant to the debate and the final vote on the budget.
But today I also want to recognize and publicly thank an outstanding
Hill staffer who has set an admirable standard for the past 12 years
and who is now heading for new challenges.
Today's rule is the last piece of legislation that Wendy Selig will
handle before she heads off to a leadership position of the American
Cancer Society.
Wendy personifies skill and professional competence in her work,
whether it is as a press secretary, an administrative assistant, the
majority counsel on the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process
that I chair, or as a special assistant on the House Committee on
Intelligence. All of these jobs she has done at one time or another or
sometimes simultaneously.
Wendy brings a special brightness to whatever she touches, as all
those who have worked with her knows. We wish her all success in her
new endeavor. We will miss her a lot.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 205, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 124]
YEAS--221
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
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)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--205
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
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
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
[[Page H2249]]
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--8
Borski
Combest
Cook
Houghton
Myrick
Northup
Stark
Wynn
{time} 1137
Mr. SAWYER and Mr. BALDACCI changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. HULSHOF changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 474, I call up
the conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 290)
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2001, revising the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2000, and setting forth appropriate
budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to House Resolution
474, the conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
April 12, 2000, at page H2206.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me one more time run through what this budget
proposal and outline does today, because it is, I believe, the right
combination and the right direction for our country, although I will
tell my colleagues right off the bat, it spends too much. But with what
we are working with here, with a narrow margin and a lot of diverse
interests, I think we have come up with a very good proposal.
First of all, for the second year in a row, the second time in 40
years, we are not going to touch the Social Security surplus. We are
not going to take any money that is in surplus that comes in from the
Social Security taxes to pay benefits for our seniors; we are not going
to take it and spend it on any other government program. That means
that that surplus is going to be available to fix Social Security for
the baby boomers and their children. So we will keep our mitts off of
that.
Secondly, we are going to strengthen Medicare with a prescription
drug program and other Medicare reforms. We think that is important.
Now, we hear people on the other side of the aisle criticizing our
Medicare proposal. The President first of all cuts Medicare and
secondly does not have a prescription drug program until 2003. I like
to call it the ``somewhere over the rainbow program.'' We believe we
ought to get Medicare reform and prescription drugs today, and we are
going to be unveiling our plan to strengthen Medicare.
Thirdly, we are going to retire $1 trillion of the publicly held
debt. Now, for so long around here, we talked about passing all this
debt on to our children. We are going to pay $1 trillion of the
publicly held debt down; and in fact we are on track, if we wanted to,
to pay off the public debt by 2013. We are also going to strengthen
education and science. Let me just make the point that some folks have
said on this House floor that we do not do enough for Pell grants.
{time} 1145
Well, we have had a 50 percent increase in Pell grant funding since
1995 when we took charge. As you can see, under a Democrat President
and Democrat Congress, Pell grants were not a priority, but under the
Republican Congress, starting in 1995, we have significantly increased
Pell grants every single year.
Now, I know that some people say it is never enough, but the fact is
that we do, in fact, want to accomplish these other missions, having to
do with Medicare and retiring debt, and having a small tax cut at the
same time. I will get to that in a second.
For those who do not think we make education a priority in this
budget, they are wrong. We significantly increase education, primary
and secondary, and we continue our march to make Pell grants more
available. But I would suggest to many of my colleagues, why do we not
have a few conversations with these university presidents who cannot
seem to control costs that are going up in higher education by far
faster than the rate of inflation? No matter what we do in this body,
we cannot solve the problems of the cost of higher education until we
get some help on the side of the people who run these institutions who
have not been able to manage costs. But let there be no mistake, we
have increased the amount of money for Pell grants in this Congress by
50 percent.
In addition to our support of education and basic science, a basic
science program that we believe stresses programs like the human genome
project, which offers so much hope for everyone in this country for a
healthier life for our families; not just extend life, but improve the
quality of life with the major breakthroughs that are occurring by the
ability to code the human gene.
Mr. Speaker, they say that sometimes advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic, and the fact is when we think about
efforts that go on today to decode the human gene system, it is just
remarkable. We believe in basic science research in this House.
In addition to that, we are promoting tax fairness for families and
farmers and seniors. Let me talk a little bit about this. We have a
guarantee of $150 billion in tax cuts out of a $10 trillion budget. I
can only define that as puny. The President today is going to say that
that is too much of a tax cut. Well, of course it is for the President.
He raises taxes. But to cut $150 billion, guaranteed, out of a $10
trillion budget, and to somehow say that is risky and out of line,
well, sure it would be for somebody who thinks that we ought to just
get our paychecks and send it all to the government. Of course, they
think that is too much.
But I tell you, it is interesting when we have votes on things like
repealing the earnings test tax, so that seniors can be independent and
not get penalized on their Social Security, everybody votes for it.
When we put the elimination of the marriage penalty tax on the floor,
it is amazing the bipartisan support we get for that.
I will tell you another thing. We bring a bill up here to reduce the
inheritance tax, the death tax, on farms, you watch the people that
will vote on a bipartisan basis in this House, because, you know what?
The day you die, you should not have to visit the IRS and the
undertaker on the same day.
The fact is that we need more tax relief. I am disappointed we do not
have four times as much tax relief in this bill, because the American
people know that America is strengthened from the bottom up, not from
the top down; that in this new era, bureaucracy and centralization is
not the key. In this new era, it is the power of the individual to
compute and to communicate and to re-knit our families together, in our
schoolhouses, in our churches, in our synagogues, and community
organizations. Let us strengthen them, not strengthen the power of the
central government in a far-away place.
Finally, we are going to restore America's defense. We are going to
restore it because we do not think that our soldiers and sailors and
airmen ought to be in a position where they are on food stamps, where
we have spread them out all over the world and not given them the tools
they need to be an effective fighting force.
Let us not forget that providing for the common defense is the number
one priority of the central government. We need to rebuild our Nation's
defense, and, I hope at the same time, to reform our Nation's defense.
Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to come to this floor on a bipartisan
basis and we ought to support a budget that saves Social Security, that
strengthens Medicare and allows our seniors to have access to
prescription drugs, that reduces the publicly held debt by $1 trillion,
that gives our children a fighting chance to have a better tomorrow,
that strengthens the support for education and basic science, that
promotes tax fairness and reduces the tax burden
[[Page H2250]]
on small business and families and family farms, and restores America's
defense establishment. If we can accomplish all of that in one vote
today, we should have no reluctance on a bipartisan basis being able to
support this.
We should come here with a firm eye and send a message to the
American people that we are starting to get it, we are starting to
understand them. We want them to have the power, and we want them to
have the responsibility to rebuild this country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is essentially the
same document as the resolution Republicans had on the floor last
month. The Republican budget plan, if implemented, would threaten our
record prosperity and undermine the values of middle-class families.
This budget reflects the irresistible urge Republicans have to enact
massive, irresponsible tax cuts above all other needs and priorities of
the American people.
They give tax cuts a higher priority than extending the life of
Social Security and Medicare, they are willing to sacrifice a real
Medicare prescription drug plan for all seniors, and they are willing
to make deep cuts in health and education in order to make their budget
add up.
There is not one dime in this budget for Social Security and
Medicare. Republicans' unwillingness to do anything to prevent the
long-term insolvency of these programs that serve as the bedrock of
retirement security for millions of Americans is inexplicable.
This budget pretends that it pays for a prescription drug plan. But,
if you look closer, you will see there is not one penny appropriated
for a drug plan. The money is ``reserved.'' It is a budget gimmick. It
is not real. It will not happen. Talk is cheap; prescription drugs are
not. This budget does not solve the problem.
This budget contains Draconian cuts in non-defense appropriations.
Nearly $120 billion in cuts need to be made, and, if Republicans have
their way, they will cut deep into important priorities like education,
health, veterans' affairs, and the environment.
It is clear what the American people want. They want a fiscally
responsible budget that will keep interest rates low and the economy
growing, they want to strengthen Social Security and Medicare so that
retirement security is protected for current and future retirees, they
want a drug plan in Medicare that covers all seniors who want it, and
they want to invest the surplus in their priorities, like making sure
that children get the best public education we can provide.
Mr. Speaker, this budget did not get better in the conference. It
probably got worse. It continues to ignore the voices of working
families who have made it perfectly clear that they reject the efforts
to bleed the surplus dry for political tax cuts instead of investing in
Social Security, in Medicare, in paying down the debt, in ensuring the
future of this great country.
Vote against this budget. We can do better than this.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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. Speaker, I am a new Member of Congress,
but I was not born yesterday, and I hear this rhetoric come to the
floor of Congress every time we bring these budgets together. You hear
the other side of the aisle castigate each other, as if the world is
going to end tomorrow. You hear these inflammatory accusations of what
is actually happening.
Mr. Speaker, I would like just to point to the facts. I would like to
go over what is actually included in this budget, rather than
inflammatory remarks about political posturing.
A budget outlines the priorities of a country. A budget outlines the
priorities of Congress. That is what we are achieving in this budget,
so it is more than just numbers.
What we are achieving in this budget is really truly historic. This
budget, for the first time in 30 years, is stopping the raid on the
Social Security trust fund.
Imagine that. In 1969, they passed a bill back then which gave the
government the ability to dip into the Social Security trust fund, take
the money out, both Republicans and Democrats did it, and then spend it
on other government programs that have nothing to do with Social
Security. We are putting an end to that. This budget is doing that.
This budget is also strengthening Medicare. It is reserving $40
billion to create a prescription drug plan for seniors beginning next
year, not in the year 2003 as the President has been proposing. This
budget retires the entire national public debt by the year 2013. It
pays off our public debt by the year 2013. It supports education and
science. It promotes tax fairness for families, for working families
and for seniors, and it does restore our vital national defenses and
the quality of life for our military personnel.
What I would like to guide you to is the Social Security part,
because this is something that is very important to me. I am a younger
Member of Congress, and I fundamentally believe that it is our
obligation in this body to make Social Security a program that is not
just solvent for this generation, but for the generation after that,
which is the baby boomers, and the generation after that. So we have
got to act now to prepare for the problems we have coming in Social
Security.
Last year the President came to Congress in the State of the Union
address and he said, ``Let's dedicate 62 percent of the Social Security
surplus back to Social Security and take 38 percent out of Social
Security to the government programs.'' He said he would take 38 percent
out of Social Security to spend it on the government programs. That is
the budget last year that the President brought to Congress. That was
the culture in Washington, that was the way things were done.
We countered with a different proposal last year. 100 percent of the
Social Security surplus should go to Social Security, and, by golly, we
actually accomplished that. Last year, for the first time since 1969,
we stopped taking money out of Social Security. This budget stops the
raid on Social Security, not just for now, but forever, so we can pay
off the debt and preserve Social Security for future generations.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it is a joke to hear Members of the party that
tried to blow up Social Security for 30 years now pretending that they
are defending it.
I would like to just make two points: It has been suggested that our
comments with respect to National Institutes of Health funding are
inaccurate. Does the other side deny that they turned down the Senate
amendment that would have added $1.6 billion to NIH?
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I have 1 minute. You can get your own time.
Mr. NUSSLE. You asked a question.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) controls the time.
Mr. OBEY. The gentleman understands the rules.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out with respect to Pell grants, their
standard bearer, Richie Rich, or, excuse me, George Bush, said in my
state last week when asked if he would help students who have such a
huge debt overhang, ``Too bad, that is what a loan is. There is a lot
of money available for students and families willing to go out and look
for it. Some of you are just going to have to pay back, and that is the
way it is.''
Do you disagree with that? Do you disagree with your standard bearer?
You certainly cannot tell it from your budget resolution. You
specifically eliminated the $600 million the Senate added for Pell
grants. I think that makes clear where you stand.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) controlling the time of the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kasich).
[[Page H2251]]
There was no objection.
{time} 1200
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for
yielding time to me. I also would like to state how much I appreciate
the leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) in the
Committee on the Budget.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the increase in the budget for
research, especially for the National Science Foundation. This bodes
well for the fate of the support of research in Congress this year.
Turning to the budget resolution overall, which is supposed to
represent our national priorities, I would like to point out how skewed
these priorities are contained in this blueprint that we have before
us. They are not the ones that the families in New Jersey tell me
about.
New Jersey families tell me that the things that are most important
to them are shoring up social security, Medicare, education,
environmental protection, and they see the benefit, the direct benefit,
to them of paying down the national debt.
I would like to point out that the Democratic substitute would have
devoted three times as much to paying down the debt as the one that is
before us now. The majority's budget resolution has one overriding
priority, exorbitant tax cuts at the expense of everything else.
In the Committee on the Budget, I offered an amendment that would
have invested more resources in school construction, smaller class
sizes, larger Pell grants. It was rejected in favor of enormous tax
cuts.
We offered an amendment in committee to pay down our national debt
faster. It was rejected in favor of tax cuts.
Earlier this week on the House floor Democrats offered motions, a
motion that said simply, let us wait on the enormous tax cuts until
Congress has had a chance to pass bipartisan legislation modernizing
Medicare. That, too, was rejected.
Make no mistake, there are appropriate tax cuts. I myself have
crossed the aisle to support marriage tax relief, estate tax cuts, and
other reductions. But the irresponsible tax cuts contained in this
legislation are a direct affront to our obligations, I mean the
obligations of our society to provide a good education for all of our
children, to give access to good health care for all, to protect our
air and water and land for those who come after us. This headlong
obsession with large tax cuts even puts at risk social security.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that only in Washington would a colleague
have the motivation to say that a 2 percent reduction in taxes is an
enormous tax cut.
We are going to have $11 trillion in revenue. We are cutting taxes
$150 billion, and the gentleman calls that enormous?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sununu).
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker talked about
priorities, that the priorities of this budget should be setting aside
the social security surplus.
We set aside every penny of the social security surplus for the third
year in a row. This was first proposed last year by Republicans in
response to the President's suggestion that we should spend 40 percent
of the social security surplus. That is simply wrong.
The speaker suggested that one of the priorities should be providing
prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. We set aside $40
billion to put together not just prescription drug coverage, but
coverage that includes reforms that protect the options and choices of
those senior citizens that currently have prescription drug coverage.
There was a suggestion that our priority should be paying down the
debt. We do. We are on a glide path to pay down the debt by 2013.
The suggestion was that the priorities should be education and
science, and they are. He pointed out specifically the additional
funding for the National Science Foundation. Indeed, we also have over
$1 billion that is focused toward the special education mandate that
burdens cities and towns across the country.
We also have the kinds of tax fairness that the previous speaker
suggested that he supported: eliminating the marriage penalty, getting
rid of the social security earnings test, getting rid of death taxes
for millions of our citizens.
Of course, we promote a strong national defense.
I want to talk specifically, though, about the record on debt
reduction. The suggestion was that an alternative had three times the
debt reduction that this resolution has. That is quite frankly a
fiction, because this resolution has $1 trillion in debt relief over
the next 5 years.
Was there any resolution brought to the floor that provides $3
trillion of debt relief over 5 years? Of course not. That is simply not
possible.
However, we pay down $1 trillion over the next 5 years. That is not
just a pie in the sky projection, because if we look at what we have
already done, the achievement is quite significant: $50 billion in debt
paid down in 1998, $88 billion in 1999, over $150 billion this fiscal
year.
As we debate the budget here on the floor today, we are going to pay
down over $170 billion in the next fiscal year, $450 billion in debt
reduction over a 4-year period, an historic achievement. It keeps
interest rates low, it keeps the economy on the right track.
Certainly we could keep penalizing seniors and pay down a little bit
more debt, but that would be wrong. We could keep penalizing married
couples and pay down a little more debt, but it would be wrong.
We have a proposal here that sets the right tone for the American
economy and achieves the right goals for the taxpayers.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\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. Speaker, the budget before us today is kind of like
a decoy budget because it is like putting your duck decoys out in the
pond. You have increased defense spending by $4 billion. Now we have
locked that in. We know this September that money is now committed and
there is no way of going back.
Then they are proposing to cut other spending by $7 billion. That is
probably not going to happen because their own members on the Committee
on Appropriations on the Republican side are not going to want to do
it, but the decoy ploy has worked pretty well.
The budget is well crafted from the standpoint of getting a document
done. It is not well crafted from a budget policy standpoint. I think
at the end of the day it is going to be a failure, like the other
budgets that the Republican Congress has tried to adopt.
We have heard a lot about the social security surplus. I will just
say since I have been around here, since fiscal year 1995, the
Republicans have been trying to spend the social security surplus on
tax cuts. It was not until the economy under the Clinton administration
had gotten so strong that we had such surpluses because of the Clinton
recovery, and the political beating that they took for their attempts
to do that, that now they are able to have this renewal of faith and
say that, in fact we support social security and we are not going to
touch it.
Their numbers do not add up. They say they want to increase NIH, but
they rejected the amendment that the Senate had adopted to increase
NIH. The way the function is in the budget, they do not leave any room
to increase NIH.
They are going to cut community health, which is contrary to what the
standardbearer said yesterday where he wants to increase community
health by $4 billion. Their tax cut still works out to be about $800
billion over 10 years, which will probably push this budget, if it were
to become law, into spending the social security surplus.
Finally, with respect to prescription drugs, we have yet to see the
plan. It reminds me of when I was a boy, kind of, of President Nixon's
secret plan, not yet President Nixon, to get us out of Vietnam. It
never actually happened. I
[[Page H2252]]
think that is probably true with the prescription drug plan. The budget
resolution still says if, maybe, whenever, but it does not say when
like it does with taxes.
We can pass this budget today. We will be here in September writing
the real budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
(Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report is good if one is among the few
who are well off and healthy, but it is bad if one is like so many of
our citizens, they are struggling and facing poor health.
This conference report gives a $150 billion tax cut to the wealthy
while, in reverse form, Robin-Hood like manner, it takes from the old,
the young, the students, families, communities, especially farming
communities.
This conference report cuts programs from agriculture at a time when
indeed our agriculture communities are struggling. Discretionary
spending for agriculture is cut. Resources needed to process claims and
make timely loans are cut. Funds for programs to provide vital
information to farmers are cut.
Over a 5-year period, this budget resolution cuts the purchasing
power of agriculture by 9.1 percent over the next 5 years. It provides
$500 less in income assistance to farmers than the House-passed
resolution, and that was, indeed, inadequate.
Mr. Speaker, with this conference report education funds are cut, the
Head Start program is cut, after school programs are cut, Pell grants
are cut, and there is no school repair nor monies provided for more
teachers.
Rural seniors indeed need help. Rural seniors on Medicare are over 50
percent more likely to lack prescription coverage for the entire year
over urban beneficiaries.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report is good, indeed, for those who
need no help. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to reject this
conference report. It is bad for America.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight on agriculture, I
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I beg to disagree with the gentlewoman,
who is my dear friend and who I work with very closely on the Committee
on Agriculture. But as a member of the Committee on the Budget, I just
want folks involved in agriculture to know and understand that we
worked very hard over the last 2 years to provide money in the budget
for real, meaningful crop insurance reform; that we have also provided
money in this year's budget in anticipation of a bad year in
agriculture for more money to go to our farmers in the form of an
additional AMTA payment.
The gentlewoman is probably right, we are going to cut out some of
the bureaucratic function of Washington, DC with respect to
agriculture, but this budget, which is the best budget our chairman has
ever produced, in my opinion, in the 6 years that I have been here, is
going to put more money in the pockets of farmers than any other budget
we have ever passed in the 6 years that I have been here.
It is at a time when our farmers are in dire straits all across the
country, whether it is Georgia or Iowa or whether it is New England.
This particular budget is going to go to put more money in the pockets
where it is needed.
Sure, it is probably going to take some money out of the bureaucracy,
but we are going to put it where it is important.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt), the ranking member, a distinguished and thoughtful man, said
earlier today that we are preparing to get the train wreck on schedule.
That is what we have in front of us here is the schedule, where it is
going to stop on the highway.
The reason I say that is that it is just like the one we did last
year and the year before. It has built into it $100 billion worth of
cuts in nondefense spending.
Most people say, what does that mean, nondefense spending? Well, I
mean FBI agents, they want to cut some of those, or drug enforcement
agents, they want to cut them, or maybe it is Pell grants they want to
cut, or the National Institutes of Health. That is a nondefense area.
There are $100 billion in cuts.
If Members think the level out there right now is too high, we have
too many FBI agents, too much at the National Institutes of Health,
then Members will think this is a real nice budget.
The only way they are going to get around that is that they are going
to have to go over and get that social security money that is sitting
there. They say, we have covered it, it is all protected, we have it in
a lockbox. But all we have to do is come out here and pass a resolution
on the floor and it is gone. It is a lockbox with a hole in the bottom.
So we are looking at a budget that has built into it all the seeds of
not passing the appropriations acts, and winding up being back here in
September, 2 months before the election.
Mr. Speaker, somebody is going to get up here, and I have listened to
the debate so far and I have never heard this phrase yet, because it is
the favorite Republican phrase, where are we going to find that $100
billion? Fraud, waste, and abuse. That is the one, we get out here and
beat our breast, waste, fraud and abuse.
When we start looking at what that really means, it is the Department
of Social Health Services.
{time} 1215
The Department of Human Services goes out to hospitals in our
districts and starts going through the records of the doctors and the
hospitals, and the place is flooded with Members back here saying we
have to give them back that money.
So when one thinks they are going to find $100 billion in fraud,
waste and abuse, they ought to think very carefully about that. What is
going to happen is in September the election will be upon us, the
Republicans will cave to the President of the United States, and we
will get a decent budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest five
reasons why our colleagues should vote against this Republican budget
resolution.
The first reason is that it contains indiscriminate and risky tax
cuts that, under realistic assumptions about defense and nondefense
spending, will take up more than the available non-Social Security
surplus over the next 5 years. The tax cut in this budget resolution,
$175 billion over 5 years, exceeds the total non-Social Security
surplus forecast by the Congressional Budget Office under an assumption
of discretionary spending frozen at inflation-adjusted levels.
Reason number two, it proposes to significantly undercut nondefense
discretionary programs that Americans depend on. Over 5 years, the
Republican plan would cut nondefense programs by $122 billion below
inflation adjusted levels. That would mean, for example, Pell grants
for 316,000 fewer students. It would eliminate Head Start for more than
40,000 children.
Reason number three, the Republican plan does nothing to extend the
solvency of Medicare and Social Security. We ought to be using a
portion of our surpluses to extend the solvency of these programs,
which would have the important added benefit of locking in additional
debt reduction.
Reason number four, under the Republican budget resolution's
unrealistic spending targets, we are once again headed toward an end-
of-the-session train wreck and efforts to circumvent the budget process
through new and improved gimmicks. Appropriations leaders in both
parties have already given warning that they may not be able to produce
passable appropriations bills this year under this budget resolution's
spending limits. This is simply more evidence that it is not really the
budget process that is out of whack around here. What is needed is a
responsible use of that process and a realistic budget resolution.
[[Page H2253]]
Finally, reason number five, a vote for this budget resolution would
send a message to the American people that the cynicism they feel about
Congress and their cynicism about the budget process are, alas,
justified. We should be sending our constituents a positive message
that in a time of budget surpluses we are going to invest in the future
of this country, through affordable and targeted tax cuts, through
continued debt reduction, and through adequately funding those programs
on which older Americans and working Americans and the most vulnerable
among us depend.
Take the responsible course. I urge my colleagues, vote against this
irresponsible budget resolution.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.
(Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this budget conference
report, and I applaud the work of the Committee on the Budget. For the
second year in a row, under the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kasich), the Committee on the Budget has produced a quality work
on time. If the House will look at this, it is the first time in the
history of the House that we have met this budget on time ever.
When the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) first became budget
chairman, our government's finances were a mess. We had high taxes. We
had expanding government. We had a huge debt and a budget deficit of
$200 billion, and I quote the administration, ``as far as the eye could
see.'' Today we have a responsible and a balanced budget which keeps
America on the right track. Today we have a goal of balancing the
budget, paying down the debt, securing Social Security; and, yes, we
hear all the ifs on the other side, but that is our goal, that is our
target and this budget gets us there.
Those who would like to spend more are not keeping their eye on the
target, which is balancing the budget, paying down the debt, protecting
Social Security. Also, besides protecting Social Security in this
budget, the money that goes into Social Security is reserved for Social
Security. We pay down $1 trillion of debt over the next 5 years, $1
trillion of debt. We modernize Medicare by providing $40 billion for a
prescription drug benefit so no senior should be forced to choose
between putting food on the table or taking life saving prescription
drugs.
We provide additional educational spending; additional educational
spending. I believe our goal is simple when it comes to education, that
every child in this country deserves an opportunity to go to a good
school.
We improve our national security by giving our men and women in
uniform the resources they need to protect America from the dangerous
world outside. We include tax fairness in this common sense budget. We
believe it is morally wrong to penalize young couples who want to get
married, up to $1,500, simply because they are married as opposed to
being single. We believe it is unfair to tax people just because they
die, and we believe that the Tax Code must encourage people to save for
their children's future education.
Today, my friends, we continue to keep this Nation on the right
track. We have balanced the budget; and we have a balanced, responsible
approach to govern.
I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) for his hard work on
this budget, to the Committee on the Budget and to this institution and
to the American people for the many years of his service. I would say
thanks to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this budget is not about the
past. It is about the future. Any way we want to explain it, the
centerpiece of this budget resolution today is a massive tax cut at the
expense of debt reduction, Social Security, agriculture and defense.
The numbers do not lie.
It is gratifying to hear my friends on the other side adopting the
Blue Dog rhetoric about the importance of paying off the debt. I only
wished their resolution carried through on what they say. Once they
take away all the double counting in this resolution, it would leave
only $12 billion of the non-Social Security surplus, approximately 8
percent, for debt reduction over the next 5 years. That is $73 billion
less than the Blue Dog budget and $430 billion less debt reduction over
the next 10 years, and that is a fact. No rhetoric is going to change
that.
I wish they paid more attention to what the tax cut does in 2010 to
2014 when the Social Security system is going to need this money. This
budget and this tax cut, if it is implemented, which fortunately I do
not believe it will be, will wreck the Social Security program
beginning in 2014, and that is irresponsible.
Also, the budget provides money for another short-term agricultural
relief package, which we all appreciate; but why did we not take the
opportunity, as the Blue Dog budget suggested, of having a 5-year, fix-
the-policy, look-at-the-baseline problem? Why are we doing a 1-year fix
again? Why can we not find the support on both sides of the aisle to
match our rhetoric with the needs of the country?
When we look at the agricultural needs today, this budget comes up
tremendously short.
The American people continue to tell us that paying off the debt
should be our first priority using the budget surplus. Over and over
and over they tell us that. Unfortunately, this budget continues to
ignore this message from the American people, and I am very
disappointed that once again we have not been able to find a
responsible middle ground, but that is what this is all about. If the
priorities are a massive tax cut at the expense of debt reduction,
Social Security, agriculture and defense, vote for this resolution.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, somebody very wise once said that
everybody is entitled to their own opinion but not their own version of
the facts. We need to get the facts down here today because the one
thing we owe to the public is to have an open and honest debate about
exactly what we are doing.
The major fact here that is going unstated is the 10-year price tag
associated with this tax cut. Now today there is the admission that we
are talking about $175 billion tax cut over 5 years. Last year we
debated a $792 billion tax cut over 10 years that was fiscally
irresponsible and wildly unpopular, rejected by the American public. By
the math we have done over here, what we are debating today, but we are
not willing to say, is an $875 billion tax cut over 10 years. It
undermines everything that has been said on this floor about paying
down the debt and spending.
I would be happy to yield to the chairman of the House Committee on
the Budget if he wants to correct me and tell us what the real price
tag is over 10 years on this tax cut. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich), I would be happy to yield to him if he would like to tell me
what the price tag is over 10 years on the tax cut contemplated by this
budget resolution we are going to vote on.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, it is our job to come up with a 5-year
number. We believe that the 10-year number will fit. I also want to
commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) for voting for the tax
cuts that we have brought to this floor, particularly eliminating the
tax on the senior citizens. So it would be good if we could even bring
a couple more to the floor that he would vote for, but the point is
that we believe it will fit and we will be able to have tax relief plus
save Social Security.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this remains the dirty little
secret about this budget resolution, that we do not have the 10-year
price tag associated with the tax cut, and I stand on my assertion it
is an $875 billion tax cut which undermines what should be our Nation's
highest priority, paying down the debt.
In 1999, we spent $230 billion on interest payments alone on this
$3.47 trillion Federal debt. That is 13 percent of
[[Page H2254]]
our total spending. It is more than we spend on Medicare. It is
slightly less than what we spend on national defense. Paying down the
Federal debt should be our highest priority. It contributes to lower
interest rates. It allows us to preserve the solvency of Social
Security and Medicare for the retirement of the baby boomers, and we
cannot do that and sustain an $875 billion tax cut. We ought to be
willing to talk about it. We ought to be honest with the American
public. We ought to do responsible tax cuts, but we ought to pay down
the Federal debt first.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the House Committee on
Armed Services.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich)
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2001 budget
resolution conference report.
This budget resolution provides $4.5 billion more for national
defense than the level requested by the President. With this budget
resolution, Congress will have increased the President's defense budget
request for over 6 years in a row by a total of nearly $50 billion.
While this is a significant amount of money, it is not enough to
offset the drastic cuts in defense we have experienced during the
tenure of this administration.
Underscoring this point, the military service chiefs testified before
our committee earlier this year that the President's budget, even with
a significant increase, still leaves more than $84 billion short over
the next 5 years, including a $15.5 billion shortfall in fiscal year
2001.
The budget resolution before us will once again allow us in Congress
to step up to the plate. With these additional funds, the Committee on
Armed Services has already begun to mark up the fiscal year 2001
defense authorization bill and to address the broad range of shortfalls
that result from the President's request, serious shortfalls in
military health care, modernization, readiness, and quality of life
programs.
I want to thank the leadership for their support in arriving at this
defense number; but especially I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha),
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and the 285 other Members
who joined with me in passing the amendment to the supplemental
appropriations bill. Now is the time to carry through and protect this
money. We have it in the budget.
The conference report before us, while not providing everything that
is needed, does provide another significant installment payment by
Congress toward restoring our military to the level of excellence that
the American people expect and that national security requires.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this conference report.
{time} 1230
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt) for his work on this resolution. I thank my colleagues on
this side of the aisle for all of their work.
Unfortunately, I do not think this measures up. This budget is an
important document, not because of what it says, but because of what it
fails to do. This budget could have provided an opportunity to begin to
pay down the national debt, but it will not. This budget could have
been an opportunity to do some things to strengthen Social Security,
but it will not. This budget resolution could have been a chance to
provide some sensible Medicare prescription drug benefits for older
Americans. It does not do that either.
Of course, it would be one thing if all this resolution did was to
ignore the problems facing American families. But the problem here is
that it just adds to their problems. It adds to them by failing to
extend the solvency of the trust fund by one single day. In fact, this
budget plan would even cut the funds Social Security and Medicare needs
to perform some basic administrative functions to make it work.
Now, there is one group of Americans in this budget who will get some
special help. It is the wealthy who stand to gain hundreds of billions
of dollars from this budget.
If this all sounds familiar, it should. Because it is the same budget
the leadership tried to sell us last year. It is, in fact, the same
platform that George W. Bush is trying to sell the American people this
year. It did not make sense then, and it does not now.
America does not need a huge tax cut for the wealthiest individuals
in our society. We need a budget that allows us to, one, pay down that
debt. With that interest savings we accrue by paying down that debt,
strengthen Social Security, strengthen Medicare, invest in education,
and invest in prescription drug care for our seniors. We need a budget
that would move this country into the future. This budget, I regret to
say, throws us back into the past.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding, can I just reaffirm how much
time is remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays) has 9\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Nussle).
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, while I think I understand what the tactic is on the
other side. We have heard about train wrecks today. In fact, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip,
came in and talked about how this is not going to work, how it does not
mean the priority. We have heard about the Democrats rushing to the
floor saying that, oh, at the end of the year, there is going to be a
train wreck.
Well, if there is a train wreck, Mr. Speaker, it is for one reason.
It is because the Democrats are in an election year, and they are
running for their lives. They are slapping on the camouflage, and they
are sneaking up, they are crawling up that hill, going toward that
railroad track, and they are planting the dynamite. They are planting
the demolition chargers, and they are trying to blow it all up because
they know one thing. If this train makes it to the station, they lose.
That is unfortunate. Because in America, it does not have to be win-
lose. It can be win-win. When we had our conversation with America,
when we went to town meetings across the country, Americans in Iowa,
Americans in Minnesota, in Connecticut, in Ohio, South Carolina, all
across the Nation said that they wanted to have some goals in this
budget put firmly in place.
Protect 100 percent of Social Security. The gentleman form Michigan
(Mr. Bonior) said it did not do that. What is he reading? What is he
reading? Strengthen Medicare with prescription drugs. Forty billion
dollars, the first time we have ever set up a Medicare lockbox to set
aside $40 billion to do that. The previous speaker says it does not do
that. What is he reading? Who is he listening to? Who is writing his
speeches these days?
At least read the document that my colleagues are going to be voting
on today. It not only provides 100 percent set-aside for Social
Security so that it is not touched, the first time we have been able to
accomplish that, the first time in a row that we have been able to
accomplish that; but, under Medicare, we not only set aside $40
billion, but we have a prescription drug benefit.
Now, it is not the one they want. Of course, Democrats have a
different philosophy of the way prescription drug benefits ought to be
administered. They say, let the government take it over. Give it all to
the Health Care Finance and Administration, let them write the plan.
Of course Republicans have a little bit different idea. We say we do
not trust the government to run this health care system very well. It
has not done a good job. Let us look for some free market ways of doing
it. So there is a difference of opinion. But do not say we do not have
it when we have it.
Then of course we retire the debt by 2013. The gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior) said there is no debt retirement. Again, what is
he reading? Three trillion dollars of debt retirement as a result of
this bill, and we
[[Page H2255]]
have to be proud of that, all of us, again, in a win-win situation.
Strengthen support for education.
There has been talk today about NIH cuts. There is a $1 billion
increase for NIH the last 2 years alone, 13 percent the first, 14
percent the second. Increases in NIH funding, not cuts. So let us vote
for this plan, but it does the things that America wants, and it is
win-win.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our ranking member for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to oppose this resolution and this piece of
legislation simply because we have not set our priorities straight.
There will be a lot of rhetoric today about some of the nuances of
the bill and the conference report. There will be a lot of rhetoric
about the little things that are in there. But let us talk about the
broad stroke, the very large issues of priority.
In this bill, the Republicans have determined that their priority is
a $175 billion tax cut. They do not hide that. They show that in the
full light of the day. They say this is what we want. They also have
said what we want is absolutely no money for school reconstruction,
absolutely no money to reduce our classroom size, absolutely no money
that is truly dedicated to prescription drugs.
Yes, there is some semblance of money that is in there. But if one
reads the true fine line, one will find that there is really no money
there for any one of those priority items.
Education and health care are simply smoke and mirrors. Tax cuts,
they have the full force of law under this resolution, under this
conference report. They would prefer to spend the $175 billion over the
next 5 years, $800 billion over the next 10 years for tax cuts, but not
for prescription drugs, not for reducing our classroom size, or not
reconstructing our schools, as most Americans, most Americans, want to
have.
Yes, this bill is about priorities. It is about leadership. It is
about what the people of America want and do not need. What they do not
need are the tax cuts. What they do need are prescription drugs,
reconstruction of our schools, and smaller classroom size.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference
report.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, this budget resolution was not produced
until late last night; and this morning, we found it on our doorsteps.
Some Members who have had only a cursory opportunity to look it over
may think, well, they have touched it up here, tuned it up here. This
resolution runs better than the last vehicle that left the House. But
before my colleagues buy it, let me suggest we look under the hood.
It is true that, in this resolution, they have mitigated the
unrealistic reduction in nondefense spending that they assumed in the
last one, but it is only at the margin. This resolution still requires
$121.5 billion real reduction in nondefense discretionary spending.
This is not just another number among hundreds of numbers in the
documents before us that we can hit or miss with impunity. This whole
budget turns on this unrealistic assumption.
If we do not attain it, if we do not cut nondefense discretionary
spending by 9.8 percent, on average, over the next 5 years, there is no
surplus. There is no debt reduction. The budget is in danger of being
in deficit again.
This chart right here in technicolor tells us why. For the last 5
years, if we look on the far side of the chart, we will see that, even
though we had a deficit during much of that period of time, and even
though we had spending caps on discretionary spending, under Republican
dominion here in the House and the Senate, nondefense discretionary
spending still grew by 2.5 percent above the rate of inflation.
Now, what we are asked to believe in this resolution is that we can
reverse that trend, and in an era of surpluses, not deficits, and
without any spending caps, because there is no mechanism for
enforcement here, no spending caps extended in this budget, no
sequestration, with no enforcement mechanism, we can go from 5 years
with real spending growing 2.5 percent a year to 5 years where it
declines 9.8 percent on the average over 5 years. I do not believe it
will happen. I am not saying it is not possible. I do not believe it.
It puts the budget in peril if it does not happen.
Look, tax cuts, same thing. The last time this budget was on the
floor, they were proposing a tax cut of at least $200 billion. Here I
have to say I think our Republican colleagues listened. Because we came
to the floor of the House, and we took their spending numbers and their
tax cuts, and we combined them, integrated them into one chart over 5
years. We show it by a chart here in the well of the House that, if
this budget were adopted in 1 year, the surplus would vanish, it would
be wiped out in 1 year. We challenged our colleagues to counter if we
were wrong, and they never countered. They never corrected the numbers.
When the debate closed, our chart stood.
I said, and I think the analogy is appropriate, they are going to put
the budget on thin ice. No cushion. If anything happens, any reversal
in the economy occurs, we are back in deficit, borrowing from Social
Security again.
Well, this budget resolution is a bit less risky. That is because,
instead of having $200 billion in tax cuts, it has $175 billion in tax
cuts. But here is the bottom line on this chart. We have redone the
chart. Look at the bottom line. One will see the numbers are very, very
small. There is precious little cushion left, if my colleagues pass
this resolution, for any kind of downturn in the economy or for the
eventuality that $121 billion in real reduction and discretionary
spending simply cannot be attained.
Let me tell my colleagues one other thing that is risky about this
budget. There is a certain slight of hand here, as the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Davis) called it a minute ago, it is a dirty little
secret. Last year, we had a 10-year price tag. Last year we very
honestly ran out the projections of the budget, including the tax cut,
over 10 years.
This year, we only have a 5-year projection. Why is that? Because in
the first 5 years, the tax cuts seem much, much more modest. This
budget, unlike last year's, only goes out 5 years, and it seems that we
have got $175 billion tax cut.
But if we run that over 10 years, and if we use the same rate at
which last year's proposed tax cut expanded, by our calculation, the
total tax cut with debt service adjustment is $929 billion, and look
what happens. It is a small number, yes, but we are back in the red
again. This budget brings back the deficit.
That is why we say it is risky. After all we have done to get rid of
the deficit, that is why we say it is risky.
Let us take Medicare. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) here said,
what are they reading? I will tell the gentleman what we are reading.
We are reading their budget resolution. It has got two different
paragraphs. Section 214 and section 215, they say different things. A
conference report is supposed to reach agreement between the House and
the Senate, but the Senate has one provision and my colleagues have
another provision.
Instead of using this time-honored device we call reconciliation, one
tool that is unique to the Committee on the Budget to get something
done. What do they do? They say, here Committee on Ways and Means, here
is $40 billion we are putting aside in reserve fund if you can use it,
if you can come up with a prescription drug bill and structurally
reform Medicare, then you can report a bill at some particular point in
time. No dates are named.
Go back to our resolution, and we show one how to do it. So we do a
prescription drug benefit. We say to the Committee on Ways and Means
and the Committee on Commerce, go do it.
I do not have time to go through the other details. We have not had
time to do it in a budget resolution. But let me tell my colleagues
something, look at
[[Page H2256]]
military health care. We tried to put a little bit of money in there to
do something for the retirees, $5.4 billion over the next 5 years. Do
my colleagues know what they provide? $400 million.
The Speaker was here talking about education. Well, we looked up the
numbers on education. We have got $4.8 billion for next year. They have
got a cut in education below a freeze for next year.
{time} 1245
Health care, which the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) was talking
about. Look at function 550. They are $900 million below a freeze. We
are above a freeze for health care.
So for all these reasons this budget resolution ought to be voted
down. It ought to be sent back to a real conference where we can do
debt reduction, do tax relief, do realistic spending levels, do
Medicare prescription drugs, extend the life of Medicare and Social
Security.
We can do it better, and we ought to do it better. Vote this
resolution down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). All time for the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has expired.
Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) reclaim his time?
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich)
reclaims his time and yields 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the ranking member that
I was here last year and the year before, and I say to my colleagues
that every one of his arguments he has used almost in the same format
every year.
Now, what is interesting about his argument this year, it is all
predicated upon a 10-year projection. But this is not a 10-year
projection. We are talking about 5 years.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) talked about a dirty little
secret. There is no dirty little secret. This tax cut is less than 2
percent. Less than 2 percent. We do not even have accuracy charts
around here in Congress that we can guaranty anything less than 2
percent. And for the gentleman to project out on his chart for 10
years, that it is possibly a deficit of $1 billion, is really pushing
the numbers.
When we look at this tax cut for Americans, what are the components?
It is a marriage penalty tax, a death tax, an education savings
account, health care deductibility, community renewal, and pension
reform. All these things are for Americans. So I urge passage.
Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak in favor of the budget resolution
conference report which outlines our spending priorities for fiscal
year 2001.
First of all it provides $150 billion in tax cuts, including repeal
of the marriage-penalty tax and small business tax relief. Since Small
Businesses produce so many new jobs and are responsible for the state
of our economy, we need to make sure this prosperity continues.
This is long overdue and I wholeheartedly support providing America's
working men and women the opportunity to keep more of their hard earned
dollars.
The fiscal year 2001 Budget Resolution also protects the Social
Security surplus by creating a ``lock box'' and dedicates the $161
billion surplus to the Social Security Trust Fund.
This budget also sets aside $40 billion for Medicare reform and to
fund a prescription drug benefit. We should give seniors the same
choices that other Americans already have, including Members of
Congress and the President.
I believe that we must pay down the debt and this budget resolution
dedicates $1 trillion over the next five years toward that end. What's
more, by 2013 it will be completely eliminated.
It is vital that the men and women who serve our country are fully
equipped and it is our responsibility to make sure that our military is
no longer asked to carry out its duties without the necessary
resources. The defense budget is increased by $20 billion for fiscal
year 2001.
When the men and women who defend our country return home we must not
forget them. That is why we have funded the VA at the level requested
by he Veterans Committee, which represents $100 million for health care
over the President's VA budget proposal.
To sum it up, this budget resolution taxes less, spends less, places
restraints on government growth, provides for a strong defense,
protects 100 percent of Social Security surplus and reduces the debt.
This is a budget that we can all be proud of and I urge my colleagues
to vote for this conference report.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I want to congratulate him on the budget work that he has
done over the last number of years.
What we are now taking a look at is we are taking a look at a budget
that is not going to steal from Social Security. But perhaps one of the
most important things about this budget is that we reinvest in
education. We reinvest in education in a way that will make an impact
for our kids.
What we do is we take dollars away from a Washington bureaucracy, and
we move the rules and regulations away from the process and target
getting dollars back to our children. We get the dollars into the
classroom. We get the dollars into a school district where the people
who are making the decisions for our kids and for the learning process
are the people that know the names of our kids. But more importantly,
not only do they know the names of our kids, they also know the needs
of our kids. They know the needs of the community and the school
district.
So what we will get is we will get more effective decision-making, we
will get more dollars to the classroom where they actually make a
difference.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I also thank him not only for what he has done for this
budget but what he has done over the years to bring some fiscal sanity
to this city.
I can remember when I was back in the State legislature and we would
marvel at how much the Federal budget would go up every year. It seemed
like back in the 1980s that we were talking about budgets going up
double, triple, and sometimes almost quadruple the inflation rate. It
was no wonder they were piling deficits upon deficits.
Now, we have heard a lot of interesting arguments this morning, but
John Adams said something pretty powerful about 200 years ago. He said
facts are stubborn things. And if people forget everything else that
has been said today, I hope they will remember this: in the fiscal year
that we are in today we are going to spend $1,780 billion. In my
opinion, that is too much. Under this budget, we are going to spend
$1,830 billion. I still believe that is too much. But more importantly,
that means that total spending will only increase this year by 2.8
percent. That is less than the inflation rate, and it is almost half
the rate the average family budget will go up.
That is a giant step in the right direction. This is a good budget,
and I hope the Members will join me in supporting it.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 3\3/4\
minutes.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just take a moment and,
before I finish with the policy, I would like to just spend a few
minutes to say that any person who is trying to carry out a program, to
run a committee, a committee chairman, cannot be successful without
staff. They are the ones who are the least recognized and the hardest
working of all the people here.
I do not want to leave anyone out, and I hope I have not, but I
wanted to thank Greg Hampton, who came to my congressional office at
the Committee on the Budget, the same with Mike Lofgren. Mike an expert
on defense, Greg on health care. Jim Bates, who I do not see on the
House floor, is a guy who worked until 2, 3 o'clock in the morning to
try to be able to make sure that everything, all the T's were crossed
and all the I's were dotted and that we followed all the parliamentary
procedures. He has a very tough job. And Pat Knudsen, who was in charge
of so many activities, including just being able to put together our
communication program. And a very special
[[Page H2257]]
``thank you'' to my friend and staff director Wayne Struble. I have
never known anybody who has come to this government with more
conviction, more determination, and more absolute and total consistency
to stay on a path to try to make this country a little better.
Now, they never get recognized; and I want their parents to know how
important they were to me. They made me a much better leader because of
the work that they put in. Oftentimes they are neglected, but they are
not neglected with me.
Secondly, I was trying to think back to the members of the Committee
on the Budget that have been with me since 1973. I think the gentleman
from California (Mr. Herger), who had contributed a great amount; and
to my dear friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has
sat there through thick and thin, has been on this Committee on the
Budget since 1995; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), my
great friend, who actually went off in order to accommodate another
member for a short period of time. It goes without saying that without
their support, guidance, and advice we would not have been as
effective.
I want to just close the debate by just suggesting that we get some
bipartisan support for this product. I think it is a good product. It
will allow us ultimately to have the money that we need in order to be
able to fix Social Security for three generations.
We will be able to strengthen Medicare and pay down that trillion
dollars in the publicly held debt, provide that tax relief, try to
provide some more resources for education, and of course rebuild
America's defense.
I would be remiss, by the way, if I did not take a second to thank my
good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), who came on the
floor and who sat with me in the tough times when we were trying to put
these budgets together and make them work.
So let me just say to the membership today, I think we have a great
opportunity to make another down payment on our goals. We have a long
way to go, but I think we have come a long way and would ask for
support for the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to
recognize my staff, just as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), has,
before we go to the vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me this
opportunity.
Since January, when the budget first began emerging from the White
House, through last night, our staff, which is a small staff because we
are the minority staff, has worked diligently and really performed
Herculean efforts to stay on top of the budget, and I could not ask for
more and the House could not either.
My chief of staff is Tom Kahn. Richard Kogan is our policy director.
Hugh Brady, Susan Warner, Lisa Irving, Jim Klumpner, Sarah Abernathy,
Andrea Weathers, Sheila McDowell, Linda Bywaters, Sandy Clark, Kimberly
Overbeek, Pepper Santalucia, Sarah Day, an intern from Winthrop
College, and Joseph Ortiz. As I said, they have put in Herculean
efforts, wonderful work on the budget; and without them we simply could
not have mounted the arguments that we have on the floor.
I thank the gentleman very much for giving me the opportunity to
recognize them for their wonderful work.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference
report on the concurrent budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2001. As has
been the case with previous budget resolutions, this budget not only
tests the bounds of fiscal reality, but fails the test of fiscal
prudence and priority. We all know that as soon as the appropriations
process begins in earnest and the depth of the necessary cuts to non-
defense programs come into focus, this budget will become irrelevant.
The Majority has chosen to spend virtually all of the budget surplus
on tax cuts and on a $21 billion increase to defense spending, while
requiring cuts of $7 billion below a freeze in Fiscal Year 2001 in
other programs and $121.5 billion below inflation over 5 years. If
enacted, this would result in 500 fewer FBI agents, 600 fewer DEA
agents, 40,000 fewer kids in Head Start and 300,000 fewer students
receiving Pell Grants to go to college. We would also have to cut
community development and scale back funding increases for the National
Institutes of Health.
Like the House-passed resolution, and other Republican budgets, this
proposed budget sacrifices everything in the name of giving the largest
possible tax cuts without doing anything to address the long-term needs
of Social Security or Medicare. The solvency of Social Security and
Medicare are in no way enhanced. Recall that the Democratic alternative
budget, which all my Republican colleagues voted against, extended the
life of Social Security by as much as 15 years and the life of Medicare
by as much as 10 years.
With respect to debt reduction, the conference agreement devotes 8
percent (a mere $12 billion) of the on-budget surplus, over a five-year
period, to paying down the national debt. Again, recall that the House
Democratic substitute devoted 40 percent of the on-budget surplus to
debt reduction over 10 years. When the Republicans claim to care about
paying down our nation debt, clearly they are being disingenuous. While
the Republicans claim that they will not spend any of the Social
Security Surplus, their history indicates otherwise. Since gaining the
Majority in 1995, Republican budgets have increased discretionary
spending greater than the rate of inflation. If they were to enact
their massive tax cut and increase spending as they always have, their
budget would eat into the Social Security Surplus and add to the
national debt.
Turning to a voluntary prescription drug benefit for Medicare
beneficiaries, I am dismayed that Republicans have explicitly provided
for tax cuts, particularly for the highest income bracket, but have
done nothing to make definite their plans for a Medicare prescription
drug benefit. While Medicare has been a tremendously successful program
in providing health care for senior citizens and a better quality of
life, the rising use and cost of prescription drugs demands
congressional action. Prescription drugs now account for about one-
sixth of all out-of-pocket heath spending by the elderly. The percent
of beneficiaries without coverage who cannot afford to buy their
medicine is about five times higher than those with coverage, ten
percent compared to two percent. Almost 40 percent of those over age 85
do not have prescription drug coverage. The Republican budget only says
there will be a benefit `if' or `when' the Ways and Means Committee
proposes a plan.
While I opposed the conference report, I am pleased that it includes
language from the amendment that I offered with Congresswoman Baldwin
to Republicans included language I proposed to increase access to
Medicaid CHIP and fund access to Medicaid coverage for uninsured women
diagnosed with breast cancer. In my state of Texas, there are more than
800,000 Medicaid-eligible kids who are not enrolled in the program but
still get sick, and we have more uninsured women, whom if they contract
breast cancer, are in dire straits.
Taken all together, the only reasonable conclusion I can arrive at is
that the Republicans have once again thrown together a haphazard budget
scheme that is not fiscally sound, does not pay down the debt, does not
extend the life of Social Security or Medicare and provides no
meaningful prescription drug benefit. For these reasons, I am compelled
to vote against H. Con. Res. 290.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
fiscally irresponsible budget resolution conference agreement. Not only
is this agreement bad fiscal policy, but it is flawed economic
strategy. America has emerged from an era of struggling to eliminate
billion-dollar deficits into a new age of setting priorities for an
expanding budget surplus. Instead of seizing the opportunity to help
American families prepare for the future, this budget resolution
proposes deep cuts in domestic programs to make room for a fiscally
irresponsible tax cut that could force us to return to spending the
Social Security trust fund.
We owe it to our nation's seniors to enact a Medicare prescription
drug plan this year. Prescription drugs now account for about one-sixth
of all out-of-pocket health spending by the elderly. Ensuring our
seniors can afford the prescription drugs they need should be a higher
priority than providing tax relief to the wealthiest members of our
society.
This conference agreement allows a prescription drug benefit of up to
$40 billion over five years but only if accompanied by unspecified
Medicare ``reforms.'' Under this agreement, the Republicans have chosen
to hold the prescription drug benefit hostage to unspecified Medicare
reforms which may or may not be enacted. By contrast, the Democratic
alternative budget required that a full $40 billion be devoted to a
prescription drug benefit.
We should be focusing on taking care of our elderly, ensuring the
long term solvency of Social Security and Medicare, educating our
children and paying down the national debt. This
[[Page H2258]]
agreement sacrifices these national priorities for a massive tax cut.
Passing such an irresponsible budget resolution will force the
Appropriations Committee to either invent gimmicks that make a sham of
the entire budget process or produce bills with significant deficits in
funding. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this conference
agreement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 208, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 125]
YEAS--220
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
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)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--208
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
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
Dixon
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
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
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
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
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
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--7
Borski
Campbell
Cook
Houghton
Myrick
Stark
Wexler
{time} 1321
Ms. DANNER and Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. BARTON of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________