[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.

                          ____________________