[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16892-16898]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 BUDGET, DEFENSE, AND VETERANS' ISSUES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to 
discuss with some of the real experts on defense and budget some of the 
issues that confront this Congress and the American public as it 
relates to budget, defense and veterans' issues. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for his comments just now on the 
impact of the budget on veterans.
  We plan to use the next hour, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the issue of 
defense spending and to dispel the misguided rhetoric and unjustified 
claims from the other side of the aisle that the President is hollowing 
out this Nation's military forces. We will show that not only is the 
President providing a strong defense, but because of his fiscal 
discipline, joined by the Congress and in many respects led by the 
Congress, a surplus exists, a surplus that if the Republicans have 
their way, would not be used to fund critical military readiness needs 
or other discretionary programs, but instead provide a fiscally unsound 
tax cut.
  Let me first address the over $800 billion Republican tax proposal 
which perhaps will be debated tomorrow. How do they pay for this? They 
pay for it by using the projected on-budget surplus, not paying down 
the debt, not saving Social Security or Medicare, not investing in 
readiness, research, development, T and E, but a tax cut.
  We are here today talking about the largest surplus ever recorded in 
dollar terms and the largest since 1951. Let me repeat that. We are 
here today talking about the largest surplus ever recorded in dollar 
terms under this administration and the largest since 1951 when Harry 
Truman was President of the United States, the largest since 1951 as a 
percentage of the gross domestic product, because the President's 
economic plan passed in 1993, and the Democratic Congress, without a 
Republican vote, it focused on reducing deficits, paying down debt held 
by the public, investing in our people and opening markets.
  Our publicly held debt today is $1.7 trillion below what it was 
forecast to be by President Bush's director of the Office of Management 
and Budget. Let me mention that again. In 1992, in December, 
President's Bush's director of OMB, Dick Darmen, submitted an analysis 
to the Congress in which he said today's deficit was going to be $1.7 
trillion more than it actually is. It is less than projected because of 
that economic program.
  This fiscal prudence has resulted in many achievements. Our Nation is 
seeing record economic growth for 5 years in a row. We have an 
unemployment rate which is the lowest peacetime rate in over 4 decades.
  I would say, as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
said, that is a result of a program that was universally, unanimously 
opposed by our Republican colleagues. Real family income is up, real 
hourly wages are up, private sector growth is booming at the fastest 
rate since Lyndon Johnson was President. Business investment is at a 
higher rate than at any time since President Kennedy was in office, and 
Federal Government spending has been reduced to the lowest level in a 
quarter of a century.
  The tax cut plan by the Republican majority would bring us back 
unfortunately and fearfully to deficits realized during the Reagan-Bush 
years where we went from $985 billion in debt in 1981 to $3.2 trillion 
just 12 years later. We tripled, almost quadrupled, the national debt 
in 12 years.

[[Page 16893]]

  Let me remind everyone here that debt held by the public in 1981 was, 
as I said, 985 billion. Now 3.247 trillion; not now, in 1993. The tax 
plan that is being proposed will cost more than 864 billion over 10 
years. Actually, that will be $1.02 trillion when we consider the extra 
interest that will be paid because we do not, as the President has 
proposed and as we propose, pay down the national debt and save 
literally the American taxpayer billions and billions and billions of 
dollars in interest that they would otherwise pay if we did not reduce, 
as we propose to do, the debt. It will add an additional 1 trillion in 
public debt over the next 10 years and balloon to 3 trillion over the 
following 10 years.
  Now I have three children and two grandchildren. I do not want them 
to have to pay off that added debt. I think it is immoral for us to 
follow that course. I think it is incumbent upon us as a generation 
that is doing very well to pay our debts and to leave the next 
generation, the young people of America, in a position where they can 
invest their money in the priorities of their time, not of our time.
  Who would end up paying for this increase in interest rates if we do 
not pay down the debt? Consumers, home purchasers, farmers and small 
businesses in the form of higher interest rates. So while on the one 
hand they would have thought they got a tax reduction, in fact they 
will get an increase because of the interest rates.
  By proposing a tax cut, the Republicans also in my opinion ignore 
something that every American depends upon every day, a strong and 
creditable defense. If this tax cut is realized, defense spending would 
be $200 billion almost, less than the President's plan over 10 years. 
This, Mr. Speaker, is in my opinion unacceptable and unsafe in this 
unstable and dangerous international community.
  I have shortened my discussion just a little bit because I have so 
many of my distinguished colleagues that have joined me.
  The balanced budget agreement cut defense spending to a level 
dictated by an arbitrary formula. That was what we adopted in 1997. I 
voted for it because in that time we had large debt, not surpluses, 
confronting us. That formula, which was as a result, has removed the 
careful considered judgment of the President, civilian and military 
leaders and this body in deciding appropriate spending levels.
  My colleagues saw the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) a 
little earlier say the assumption of the Republican tax cut is that 
everything will stay on hold, all domestic and defense discretionary 
spending, essentially on hold. There is no question that defense 
spending has diminished below the point many of us would like to see, 
but the cause of this cannot and should not be the subject of partisan 
finger pointing at one party or the other. We have heard too often 
recently the Republican side of the aisle, quick to blame the President 
for what they allege to be a hollowing out of our military.
  The President's record on defense spending has not created, in my 
opinion, and I think the record reflects, a hollow force. On the 
contrary, today's Armed Forces are well prepared, well trained and 
dedicated as ever. But we must continue to invest. We must continue to 
ensure that our military is ready, prepared for whatever eventualities 
may occur. Our equipment remains effective and superior to our 
adversaries, as we have just seen. The performance of our men and women 
in uniform has been and continues to this day to be outstanding. Our 
military needs to be supported in a responsible manner.
  Now frankly my Republican colleagues say that that is what they want 
to do, but then they propose a tax cut which will inevitably lead, as 
it did from 1986 to just a couple of years ago, 1986 to essentially, 
and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) will perhaps tell us, but 
1995 and 1996, to a continuing decrease in effective net defense 
spending. That was not prudent. We ought not to follow that course, but 
the tax cut will inevitably lead us to that end.
  The Armed Services must compete with the robust economy which has 
provided a market rich for the technical, mature, educated product that 
our Armed Forces has produced.

                              {time}  2000

  The President has kept the Nation's armed forces strong and our 
military is the envy of the world. Mr. Speaker, just as we agreed in 
1997 to work together to solve our economic crisis of dangerous deficit 
spending, we must now work together to ensure a continued, strong 
national defense and a continued, strong economy, and a continued 
reduction of the debt so that the American public and our children will 
be out of debt and keep interest rates low. That is the best thing we 
can do for our public.
  Tomorrow, we will debate perhaps, we do not know yet, they are 
talking about it, the tax scheme which, among many things, will 
jeopardize our fiscal commitment to our Nation's defense. We in 
Congress must vow never, never, never to sacrifice our Nation's defense 
for the sake of partisan politics, and we must pledge to work together 
to ensure a ready superior force, prepared always to defend our Nation 
and its interests throughout the world.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the very distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Armed Services from the State of Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I certainly thank the gentleman, and I 
also compliment the gentleman on asking for and receiving this Special 
Order.
  Mr. Speaker, we are talking this evening about priorities for 
spending this surplus budget. Of course, we hope to reduce the Federal 
debt, we hope to protect Social Security, we hope to protect Medicare; 
we must fully fund the military as the gentleman talked about so well. 
As a matter of fact, I have declared this year, and we have worked for 
and I think successfully in the bill that we have passed, and we are 
now in conference on with the Senate, I have named this the Year of the 
Troops, because we have done good things in this bill to make 
conditions better for them, their pay raise and potential pensions 
better for them, and this really is, this year, the Year of the Troops. 
There are recruiting problems, there are retention problems, keeping 
those fine young men and women in uniform rather than going home 
discouraged, urging them to recruit, to come in and join the 
magnificent adventure that we know as the American military.
  Madam Speaker, one thing that concerns me is our military retirees. 
Let us look at this whole issue through the eyes of a military family. 
The father is one who has spent 20 years in the military and retired as 
a sergeant first class. He has done well. And he has a son who is now 
in the military and has been in the military some 6 or 7 years, and 
that son has a wife and children, and they look at Congress as to what 
does the future hold for us?
  Well, first, let us look at the young man, the young corporal who is 
in the military at the present time. His wife is working hard because 
of the fact that they have 3 children. They are on food stamps. This is 
not acceptable for any member of our military to have to receive food 
stamps to feed them. And yet, that is the case in this particular 
family.
  Let us look at the father who spent some 20 years in active duty, an 
honorable discharge, one who performed his duty well, whose time had 
been under fire in adverse conditions, receiving commendations 
therefor. And this man, this military retiree develops a serious health 
problem and goes to a nearby military post and asks for help, and he is 
turned away because of his age, because of the fact that there are no 
facilities to take care of him. And he is bitter. He said, but when I 
joined the Army and they asked me to stay for 20 years for a full 
commitment that they would take care of my health problems for life, 
and then he finds that that is not the case.
  We are letting down two generations of young military and senior 
military people. We cannot allow that to happen.

[[Page 16894]]

  How do we stop it? We look toward this fortunate budget surplus that 
we have. And I might say, Madam Speaker, that I was very proud to be a 
part of the beginning and the continuation of the budget surplus 
through the votes that we held here through the years. We must take 
care of this family and families just like them.
  The Committee on Ways and Means is marking up the reconciliation bill 
that will provide for billions of dollars in tax cuts over the next 10 
years. I am very concerned that these tax cuts are being contemplated 
when we have not ensured that adequate health care will be available to 
our Nation's seniors.
  I am particularly concerned about providing health care to military 
retirees. When they joined the military, many of them during the Second 
World War, they were promised lifetime health care facilities if they 
completed 20 years or more of military service. My hat is off to them 
for doing that.
  Tom Brokaw recently wrote a book entitled The Greatest Generation, 
and these are the men and the women of that generation that helped 
build America. They came through the Depression, won the war on both 
ends of the earth, in Europe and in the Asian area, came back and built 
our economy and strengthened our freedom and made us the grandest 
civilization ever known to the history of mankind, and these are the 
same ones that are being deprived of medical health care, even though 
they have performed their 20 and 20 plus years of active military 
service. It is not right for them.
  We must do a better job. We must look very seriously at this budget 
surplus. We must take care not just of the troops that we have now, and 
I am so proud of them. I am so proud of them, what they did in the 
effort regarding Kosovo is a new chapter in American military history. 
But yet, those who are retirees wrote their own chapters in military 
history. I am proud of them so much as well.
  So I must say to my colleagues, let us think hard and long on this. 
Let us use this budget surplus to help those young men and young women 
in uniform today and those who wore the uniforms so ably and so well in 
yesteryear. We can do it. It is a matter of reason, a matter of taking 
care of first priorities first.
  Our national security is the first challenge, it is the very first 
precept that we in Congress have is to have a national defense for our 
Nation. In doing so, we must not break faith with those in the past, we 
must not break faith with those young men and young women in uniform 
today.
  So I compliment the gentleman, and I look forward to using the budget 
surplus well and not let it be taken away from the military, from the 
national defense of our beloved country. I yield back.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the very distinguished gentleman 
from Missouri who, if our party were in control, which we are not, 
would be the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, who has 
served on that committee with great distinction for some 2 decades and 
who has made enormous contributions to the strength of this Nation.
  I would again reiterate that he and I and others who will speak, 
while we are saying that we need to make sure that the military 
component of our country is strong and fully funded, we are saying that 
the majority of the surplus ought to pay down that debt, because then 
our entire country and our economy will be strong, and we will have the 
resources to keep not only a strong defense, but a strong educational 
system as well, and to save and ensure the security of Social Security 
and Medicare, so that we can accomplish those objectives which will 
benefit all of our Nation and the international community as well.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I would now like to yield to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), and the ranking 
member, who also would be a chairman of a very important subcommittee 
of the Committee on Armed Services. I thank the gentleman for joining 
us.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify a 
couple of things, because the folks back home often hear about a 
surplus. I guess the President started saying it, the Republican 
leadership tried to one-up him, but I think it is accurate to say that 
through this month, there really is no budget surplus.
  For the first months of fiscal year 1999, that is October through 
May, the Treasury reported a cumulative surplus of $40.7 billion. But 
it is composed of an off-budget surplus of $78.8 billion. That is 
things like Social Security taxes that are supposed to be set aside for 
paying Social Security benefits and nothing else. To spend them in any 
other way is to steal from the American people. There is an on-budget 
deficit of $38.1 billion. The Office of Management and Budget estimates 
a fiscal unified surplus of $98 billion to be composed of $123 billion 
surplus, but that is off-budget, minus a $24.8 billion on-budget 
deficit.
  Folks, Social Security trust funds are a promise between the American 
Congress and the American people. It is a special line item in your 
taxes. It is a promise that that money will be collected and set aside 
for your benefits and your spouse's benefits when that time comes in 
your life when you need them. For this Nation to spend them on 
anything, to give someone else a tax break with your Social Security 
money, is a crime against you.
  The Federal debt is still growing. At the end of May, the public debt 
was $5.6 trillion. For someone from Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, that is 
pretty hard to comprehend. For the first 8 months of this fiscal year, 
the public debt actually increased by $78 billion.
  Now, something we may not realize is that your government borrows 
money, and when your government borrows money to have to pay interest 
just as you would on your Visa card, on your home loan or on your car 
loan, the interest on the Nation's debt is the single largest item on 
the Federal budget.
  In fiscal year 1998, last fiscal year, $363 billion was spent on 
interest. That is your money, that is your money that could have gone 
for education, it could have gone towards the military, it could have 
gone to build roads. Instead it went to some banker or some lending 
institution that lent this money to the Nation, and one-third of that 
money went to foreign lending institutions, because that is who owns 
one-third of our debt.
  Through the first 8 months of this fiscal year, the Treasury has 
already paid out $222.7 billion of your money on interest. Just to let 
you know, since the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I serve 
on the Committee on National Security. For the first 8 months of this 
year, we have spent $50 billion more on interest on the debt than we 
have on the military, and the year is not over yet.
  Lastly, the point I want to make is we cannot undo 40 years of 
deficit spending with a couple of months worth of surpluses. The last 
time our Nation had an on-budget surplus was in 1960. Since then, the 
debt has increased by $5.7 trillion at an average of $136 billion each 
year. For my Republican colleagues to say that there is plenty of money 
to give the wealthiest Americans a tax break is totally false. The only 
way they can do it is to take your Social Security Trust Fund, your 
taxes, and give someone else a tax break with your taxes. That is not 
why I came here. I came here to try to do the right thing, not the easy 
thing. They want to do the easy thing.
  Madam Speaker, that is not the worst of it. The gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) pointed out the horrible injustice done to our 
Nation's military retirees, people who spent years in places like 
Vietnam, in Korea, in Germany, now in Bosnia, Kosovo, people who 
dedicated the prime of their lives to defending you and me and our 
families. They were promised, every single one of them was promised 
free health care for themselves and for their families for the rest of 
their lives if they served honorably for 20 years. When I enlisted in 
1971, the promise was made to me. I did not stick around for 20 years, 
so I did not earn it. But those who did earned it. It was in the Army's 
recruiting brochure all the way up until 1991. It was a promise that 
was

[[Page 16895]]

made, a promise that has to be kept. How on earth do you keep that 
promise if you give all the money away in tax breaks?
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) did not mention it by name, 
but the program that would allow military retirees to continue going to 
the base hospital, even after they turn 65, is called Medicare 
Subvention and it is a very simple concept. It would allow that base 
hospital, be it Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi or a Naval air 
station or a Marine Air Corps base, to send a bill to Medicare for 
providing medical care to a veteran who has served our Nation for 20 
years, just like they would the private sector doctor who treats that 
same person. It would cost our Nation $1.2 billion to fulfill that 
promise of health care to our veterans, to our military retirees.

                              {time}  2015

  Is it in this bill? No. There is $800 billion worth of goodies for 
their big contributor friends, but not a penny to take care of our 
military retirees, not one cent.
  Those who paid the price come home with the least. Why? Because they 
do not have lobbyists down the street. They do not have lobbyists at 
the Capital Grill and the other four and five star hotels and 
restaurants here in Washington.
  They can barely get by. They can barely pay for their prescriptions. 
So in the eyes of my Republican colleagues, they do not count. They 
will not make a big campaign contribution so they do not get just $1.2 
billion to fulfill that promise that has been made by every recruiter 
in our country for the past 50 years. And they are going to say that 
this is good for the Nation? That is baloney.
  It gets worse. It gets worse, because I was talking about retirees. 
What about the active force right now? What about the typical soldier 
who is spending 120 days a year away from his family, a typical Marine 
150 days, a typical airman about 120 days, a typical sailor, 180 days 
out of this and every year away from his family; not seeing his kids 
growing up, not being there for the piano recital, his kid's Little 
League ball game. He is giving up half his life to defend us.
  What do they have in it for him? After 5 years of Republican control 
of Congress, what do they do for them?
  This is a lady named Lisa Joles. She was on the front page of today's 
Washington Post. She is the wife of a United States Marine. She is 
picking up a used mattress off the curb at the Quantico Marine Base on 
Saturday. She and other spouses do this on a periodic basis to make 
furniture available for the people serving our country, defending our 
country, as we speak.
  What is in this package of $800 billion of goodies for the special 
interests, the big bucks contributors, that are right now over at the 
Capitol Hill Club, right now at the Capital Grill, right now at the 
Mayflower and all the other fancy hotels and restaurants in Washington? 
What is in it for Lisa and her family? Absolutely nothing, because the 
truth of the matter is, after 5 years of Republican control, the 
defense budget is still about $30 billion less than it was just 8 years 
ago.
  They said this was the folks they were for. What do my colleagues 
think Lisa gets out of that bill? My guess is she does not get a 
doggone thing.
  That is not the worst of it. Look at this guy, a United States 
Marine. How hard did he have to work to earn that title? In addition to 
all the things he went through just to earn that title, he is gone from 
his family about 150 days a year, defending us, front line of freedom, 
toughest guys we have out there.
  This gentleman is in today's Washington Post, and I hope everyone 
will forgive me if I get his name wrong. He is Lance Corporal Harry 
Schein. His son's name is Devantre.
  The reason he is in today's Washington Post is to make the point that 
he works two part-time jobs so he can live on his Marine salary and 
take care of his son.
  That is not the worst of it. The real tragedy is that what I have 
shown are not exceptions. They are the norm. After 5 years of 
Republican control, the guys who said they were going to come here and 
make national defense their first priority, we are seeing what their 
first priority is tomorrow: $800 billion in tax breaks, mostly geared 
to the top 1 percent of income earners in America. The top 1 percent 
get more than half of the money.
  I do not think there is one person in this room that falls in that 
category. There is probably not one person watching this on television 
that falls into that category. They are probably at the Capitol Hill 
Club. They are probably at the Capital Grill, the Mayflower. They are 
probably writing some Republican a thousand dollar check because, boy, 
they are going to get it back with that tax bill; they are going to get 
it back tenfold. When someone gets, even under their plan, a 10 percent 
break, the guy who pays $1,000 in taxes gets back $100; but the guy who 
pays $50,000 in taxes, oh, my goodness, he gets $5,000 back.
  They say it is fair? I do not think so. I came here to look out for 
the little guy, and believe me, the rich guys do not need any more 
representation here in Washington. They are overrepresented. I think 
the little guys need some representation for a while.
  Just look at these numbers. These are the people who are defending 
our country right now. They are in crummy places like Kosovo. They are 
in crummy places like Bosnia. Heck, some of them are in Colombia; they 
are in Panama. Some of them are sitting on the tip of Cuba in a place 
called Guantanamo. They are sitting on the aircraft carriers for 6 
months at a time. They are sitting under the sea in submarines for 
months at a time.
  Fort Belvoir, an allotment for food stamps for United States active 
duty military, $66,000. For the women, infants and children's program, 
active duty military, their families, $138,000.
  What of that $800 billion is for them? Nothing, because they pay the 
most, and they do not have lobbyists and they cannot buy dinners at the 
Capitol Hill Club or the Capital Grill or the Mayflower. So they get 
nothing.
  If this bill passes, and $800 billion worth of revenue is taken out 
of the stream, it never gets fixed, because as I said at the beginning 
there is no surplus yet. We are getting mighty close to it. I am proud 
that we are getting close to it, but they do not take care of those 
folks. They are not only robbing senior citizens' Social Security trust 
fund, they are depriving those who pay the most of an opportunity to 
make a little bit more money.
  What did they do for them in this year's defense bill? A 4.8 percent 
increase. Now, let me say, everything is relative. Everybody knows 
Congressmen make good money; 4.8 percent of a Congressman's salary is 
good money. 4.8 percent of nothing is nothing. And they say this is 
fair? They say this is good for the country? Who is kidding whom?
  We have a chance to change that tomorrow. We really have a chance on 
this House floor to decide whether or not we listen to the American 
people or we listen to the big bucks lobbyists. Do voices count or do 
state dinners at the Capitol Hill Club, the Capital Grill, the 
Mayflower? Do thousand dollar contributions from the few mean more than 
doing the right thing for the many?
  Oh, they are going to say, it solves the marriage tax penalty. It 
does, but these are the guys who are paying the price. These are the 
guys who are paying the price. It does nothing for them. All it does is 
ensure there will never be any money to fix those problems.
  Do not take my word for it. I have served on the Committee on Armed 
Services for almost 10 years now. Let me quote some of my Republican 
colleagues. Let me quote a great man, the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spence), himself a veteran, who is the chairman of that committee. 
This is a publication he put out in February. ``The President's fiscal 
year 2000 defense budget falls at least $18 billion short of what the 
Nation's military leaders have identified as unfunded requirements in 
the coming year, and nearly $70 billion short over the next 6 years.''
  I would say to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), I 
agree,

[[Page 16896]]

but if they give it all away to the fat cats, where are they going to 
find the $70 billion to solve that problem?
  Another Vietnam veteran, great American, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), quote from just last month, ``The war I am 
concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is the next war, and I am concerned 
about the stocks of ammunition that are now very low. I am also 
concerned about those young men and women who have served us so well in 
the air war that has taken place over the past 78 days. The best way we 
can serve those men and women in uniform is to see to it that we get a 
large number of them off of food stamps. I am talking about the 10,000 
military families that are currently on food stamps.'' This is the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Military Procurement, House Committee on Armed Services.
  ``Another way we can serve them is to see to it that we have the 
spare parts to get our mission capability rates up above 70 percent and 
to get that crash rate which last year was 55 aircraft crashing 
resulting in 55 deaths,'' of brave young Americans, ``during peacetime 
operations down to a lower level, if not an acceptable level. All of 
that is going to take money.''
  I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), he is 
right; it is going to take money, but if we give it away to the fat 
cats and defense cuts, that money not only will not be there, it will 
not be there for the next 20 years because they give away $800 billion 
in the first 10, and then they give away an additional $2 trillion in 
the next 10.
  It goes on. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a leader on 
this House floor for national missile defense, no one understands the 
subject better than he. He is sincere when he says these things, and I 
am going to remind everyone of what he has to say. ``In fact, if we 
look at the record over the past 7 years, the only major area of the 
Federal budget that has in fact been cut in real terms is the defense 
portion of our budget. In fact, it has gone down for 13 consecutive 
years. In the past 3 years, I have been a Republican and as chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, voting 
consistently against the B-2 bomber, it is not that I do not like the 
technology. I think the technology is critically important, but I just 
do not think we can afford the B-2 bomber with the budget limitations 
we have and with other problems we face as a Nation.''
  I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), we will 
never solve those problems if we give away $800 billion to the fat cats 
tomorrow and another $2 trillion 10 years after that.
  Lastly, the Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey), April 19, 1999: ``Since the end of the Gulf War, our military 
has shrunk by 40 percent. Army divisions have dropped from 18 to 10; 
fighter wings from 24 to 13. The Navy used to have 546 ships. Now it 
has only 333. At the same time our deployments have increased. As the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) often points out, we have had 
33 Army deployments in the 1990s alone, compared with 10 for the entire 
period from 1950 to 1989. Funding has been inadequate to meet demands. 
The result has been lower troop retention, slow recruitment, shortage 
of spare parts, deficient training. Clearly this Congress must pass on 
an urgent basis legislation to reverse the decline of our military. 
Only by doing so will we prevent trouble from breaking out in many 
parts of the world.''
  Again, that is not me. That is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), 
the Republican majority leader.
  So I call on the names that I just mentioned, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Armey). Tell me how are they going to solve the 
problems that they have so articulately spelled out and deprive this 
Nation of first $800 billion and then $2 trillion after that, when we 
are already running a deficit? The answer is, they cannot.
  So I mention I serve on the House Committee on Armed Services, and 
for the first hour of every meeting I hear my Republican colleagues, 
one after another, talk about the shortfalls in defense spending. They 
have every right to do so, because they are there and they are real.
  I also have every right, and I am putting them on notice right now, 
that should they vote to deprive this Nation's military of $800 billion 
tomorrow, I will remind them at every meeting, as long as I serve on 
that committee, that they contributed to the problem. They can vote to 
help solve it tomorrow. They can vote to help contribute to the 
problem. I hope they will do as they said when they pointed out our 
Nation's defense needs.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor) for his contribution. I do not think we have any stronger 
fighter for personnel in the House and the average personnel, the guys 
and gals who really make it happen when this Nation needs to have it 
happen. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for also 
pointing out that there is no free lunch; that actions have 
consequence. While it is nice to talk about cutting taxes, it is 
difficult to do that when talking about $800 billion and then $2 
trillion and say at the same time we want to save Social Security, save 
Medicare, pay down the debt so we can keep interest rates low and bring 
them down even further, and maintain a strong defense.

                              {time}  2030

  Madam Speaker, I hope that, when they try to say that, I know the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) will remind them on a regular 
basis that it is easy to say and tough to do.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), one 
of our most able, new Members.
  Mr. HILL of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I want to repeat as a freshman 
Member of Congress what has already been said by the previous speakers. 
We have no budget surplus.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, we will have an on-
budget deficit of $4 billion in the fiscal year of 1999. If we take 
away the surplus in Social Security, our budget is still running a 
deficit. If we read the fine print of the CBO report, we will not have 
a real budget surplus next year either. CBO estimates that we will have 
a $3 billion deficit for fiscal year 2000.
  I do not believe that it is fiscally responsible to spend money that 
we do not have and that we may not have in the future. After 30 years 
of budget deficits, this Congress has still not learned it cannot spend 
money it does not have.
  As we stand on the bridge of finally balancing our budget and 
beginning to pay down our $5 trillion debt, the leadership of this 
House has put forward a bill that could blow a giant new hole in our 
budget and create trillions of new dollars of debt that our children 
and grandchildren will have to pay.
  What happens if the budget forecasts change and our economy does not 
produce the surpluses the experts are now predicting? We will turn 
again to Social Security and its trust fund and use the Social Security 
trust surpluses to conceal the irresponsible behavior just like 
Congress has done for the last 30 years. This is wrong.
  The decisions we make this week about our budget priorities will 
affect millions of Americans, including our veterans, the people who 
put themselves in harm's way for our country.
  I just received a seat on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I 
am learning how many unmet needs there are in our veterans' community. 
Many veterans are not receiving the health care, as was previously 
mentioned, and other benefits they were promised when they enlisted to 
defend our country.
  Over the next few years, Congress must act to make sure that we keep 
the promises that we made to our veterans when they enlisted in our 
armed services. We will not be able to keep these promises if we pass a 
bill this week that soaks up every cent of our

[[Page 16897]]

projected budget surplus for the next 10 years. We will have no money 
to fix the problems that plague our veterans' health care system.
  So, Madam Speaker, I urge this body to set aside whatever real 
surpluses we have over the next few years to pay down our God-awful 
debt that we have collected and to protect Social Security, Medicare, 
and our country's veterans. This is the responsible thing to do.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his contribution, 
and I think he articulated it very well, very concisely. That really is 
the alternative we have of acting responsibly or acting irresponsibly, 
very frankly, as we did when we quadrupled the national debt and put 
that on our kids and the next generation. I think the gentleman's 
contribution was very, very significant.
  Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to yield to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows), one of our newest Members of 
Congress, but one of our most able Members of Congress.
  Mr. SHOWS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I 
do not know if I can articulate it as well as the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) did with his 10 years of experience on the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  I think we are all here tonight saying we do not oppose tax cuts, but 
I think they ought to be targeted tax cuts, I mean real tax breaks to 
help real people, help folks like with college tuition, nursing home 
expenses, starting small businesses, and to help our American farmer.
  What I do not support is a tax plan that is irresponsible and how it 
adversely affects children, senior citizens, agriculture, our veterans, 
and our national defense.
  Tonight, I want to focus on our veterans, those who have protected 
the gates to democracy, have stood on foreign soil, and battled adverse 
odds so that we can stand here tonight.
  I have got to mention my father, Clifford Shows, who fought in World 
War II and was captured at the Battle of the Bulge, almost amputated 
his feet when he got out, Madam Speaker. He spent 6 months as a POW, 
marching in the snow as a prisoner of war. He and the thousands of 
others from this generation have carried us through a Great Depression 
and won a world war.
  Like Tom Brokaw says, ``I believe they are our greatest generation. 
These veterans, and the others from Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and 
all those who have stood so strong that our flag can proudly fly today 
are our veterans, and they deserve our strong respect and support.''
  I am a new Member of Congress and a new Member on the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs. I have sat through testimony after testimony about 
the President's budget. I have sat through testimony about the state of 
the VA health care system. I have read about VA plans to lay off 1,100 
workers at veterans' hospitals.
  Right now, if it was not for the volunteers who are working in our 
veterans' hospitals, I do not know what the staff of these hospitals 
would do. Needless to say, this has not been an encouraging few months 
with regards to the needs of our veterans.
  Now, over an $800 billion tax cut is being proposed, one that only 
provides real savings to the wealthiest in our Nation. This proposal 
comes at a time when the VA is struggling to maintain the health care 
needs of veterans. These tax cuts are just irresponsible.
  When my father goes to VA, he has to drive 2\1/2\, 3 hours to get to 
a VA hospital. We want satellite facilities, but can we afford to do it 
under this proposal?
  This Congress passed a budget resolution that would increase funding 
for veterans' health care by $1.7 billion, and it is not enough. We 
must focus on keeping that commitment.
  Now is the time to stay focused on the needs of our veterans. Did my 
colleagues know that veterans' hospitals across the country have to 
rely on these volunteers, or we would not be able to give them the 
basic service they have right now; that the number of hospital beds are 
being decreased; and that veterans cannot receive the attentions from 
doctors that they deserve?
  The World War II veterans right now are dying at a rate of over 
150,000 per month. I hate thinking about that. But we must, and we must 
not only think about it, we must take action to fix it. We can fix it, 
and we can take action.
  The integrity of our budget, real reduction in the national debt, 
saving Social Security and Medicare, supporting our veterans and 
targeting tax cuts that really help folks can be done. Playing politics 
with tax money, making irresponsible 10-year projections about 
surpluses that can change as quickly as the projections must not be 
done.
  Sound bites are fine and dandy. But what we need are real solutions 
for real problems that touches the lives of real people is what this 
Chamber must be about. Let us do these things that are right. Let us 
support our veterans. They have supported us. They have fought for us, 
and they have protected us. We are free today to be here today because 
of our veterans.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the intervention of 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows), and I hope that he will 
take back to his dad our thanks, not just from those of us who have 
heard him speak tonight, but from a grateful Nation.
  I think we all agree with Tom Brokaw that this was one of the great 
generations of all time in this country who, when the challenges came, 
knew that the costs would be high, but they were willing to pay it.
  My opinion is the American public knows that freedom is not free, 
that keeping our promises to our veterans is not free, that paying down 
that debt is not free. They have to pay down their debt all the time, 
and they know that, when they do, their families are better off. The 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) makes the point that that is 
what we need to do as well, and I appreciate his contribution.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), 
one of our most distinguished senior members of the Congress of the 
United States who, in my opinion, is one of probably 10 of the real 
experts on defense issues and the readiness issues and the status of 
our Armed Forces here and around the world that we have in the Congress 
of the United States.
  He is from Washington State. He has been a Member of Congress for 
over 20 years. He is the second ranking member on the Committee on 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and I am very pleased that he 
joined us tonight.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) for taking out this special order. I must say, over the 
years, I have enjoyed working with Steny Hoyer, because I think he is 
one of the most serious and most reflective Members of this 
institution.
  I must tell my colleagues that I am very, very concerned that we are 
going to repeat a mistake that we made in the 1980s when we passed a 
major tax cut bill in 1981. We had a defense build-up that only lasted 
until 1985, midway through the Reagan administration. Then we went for 
many years cutting defense every single year simply because we did not 
have the money.
  Now we are faced with a situation in, let us face it, a post-Cold War 
era where we realize that we have cut defense now by 37 percent. We are 
faced with the problem that, with discretionary spending being cut, as 
it has been over these last several years, that if we have another 
major tax cut that will take up a lot of discretionary authority, that 
we will wind up not being able to do for defense what we need to do.
  Now, one of the great myths in this institution is that the 
Republicans are for more money for defense. But the facts do not really 
tell that story. The President's budget request between fiscal year 
2000 and fiscal year 2005 is $198 billion higher than the Republicans.
  Now, I think there is a few Republicans, if they knew that, they 
might follow the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) and come our way. 
But

[[Page 16898]]

the reality is that, if we have another major tax cut, that we are not 
going to be able to take care of the needs of defense in the future.
  I worry about this because President Clinton put $112 billion 
additional money in the defense budget. Even with that, we are still 
having a major problem with readiness, with training, with replacing 
the older weapons systems that need to be replaced.
  So I hope that the Republicans who claim that they want to increase 
defense will realize that, if they pass these huge, massive tax cuts, 
that there simply will not be the money in the future to adequately 
take care of the defense needs of our country.
  We are faced with decisions this year already in the defense mark-up 
about whether we can afford certain weapon systems because the Chief of 
Staff of the Air Force sends over a list of $18 billion in unmet needs 
that he has. That is one of the services. Also, we are seeing a 
situation where the Navy and the Air Force, for the first time, are not 
able to meet recruiting goals. So we have got serious problems.
  I think the Democratic alternative of having a tax cut with a more 
targeted tax cut that will not take up as much money in the future is a 
much sounder policy and will allow us to have the resources necessary 
in the future to take care of our defense needs. Having gone through 
this once in the 1980s, I would prefer not to go through it again.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for taking out 
this special order tonight to give those of us who are concerned about 
defense a chance to mention these important facts. If my colleagues 
remember the great story of the fact that, between George Washington 
and Jimmy Carter, we had a deficit of only about $980 billion, and 
then, after the tax cut in 1981, we had a $4.5 trillion increase in the 
debt.
  Now, even with the good news in the economy, it would still take us 
2015 to pay off that entire debt if we were using restraint.
  I will tell my colleagues in my district, my constituents would say 
pay off the debt before we do another tax cut and make sure we have got 
enough money to protect defense, Social Security, and Medicare. Those 
are the right priorities.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman very much, 
and I could not agree with him more; that those are the right 
priorities. And that, of course, is the point of this special order, 
and the remarks of my colleagues who have spoken, have spoken of those 
priorities.
  The gentleman from Washington and I went through the 1981 experience 
together, and we do not want to relive that.
  Madam Speaker, I will now yield to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner), a former State Senator now Member of Congress from 
Texas, who has now been here for a number of years and has really 
become an expert on a number of matters.
  Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and appreciate his 
having this hour for us to talk about perhaps the most important issue 
that this Congress will face in this session. The proposal to reduce 
taxes at a time when we are just now beginning to see a balanced budget 
is indeed an issue that we must all confront with a great deal of 
concern.
  The chart to my left shows the history of Washington spending more 
money than it has taken in. In fact, we have gone for 29 years in 
Washington spending more money than was taken in. This chart shows the 
history by presidential administration.
  My colleagues will notice that President Johnson was the last 
president to have a balanced budget. Through the years of President 
Nixon we had budget deficits. They got larger through President Ford. 
They got larger through the administrations of President Carter. They 
got much larger through the administrations of Ronald Reagan. They got 
even larger during the administration of George Bush. And it has only 
been during the Clinton administration that we have begun to see 
reductions in the annual Federal debt.
  In fact, this past year was the first time that the annual deficit 
was not there. In fact, we had a surplus in the overall Federal budget. 
And it will be only next year that we will actually have a true surplus 
based on the projections when we look just at the general operating 
fund of the Federal Government and do not look at the surplus in Social 
Security.
  The next chart reveals what has happened through all those years of 
accumulating annual deficits, spending more money every year than we 
took in. We can see we have accumulated an increasingly large national 
debt, until today we owe over $5.6 trillion.
  When we look at where money is spent in the Federal Government, and 
these are figures from fiscal year 1998, we see that interest on the 
Federal debt is now the second largest category of Federal spending. In 
fact, in the blue we see that in 1998 we spent $364 billion just to 
cover the interest on this $5.5 trillion national debt. Only Social 
Security was an area where we spent in the Federal Government more 
money.
  If we look at the green, we can see that national defense, the third 
largest area of expenditure, was only $268 billion, falling beneath the 
amount that we spend every year just to cover the interest on the 
national debt.
  We also know that defense spending has gone down since 1962. Defense 
spending back in 1962 constituted one-half of the Federal budget. 
Today, it only constitutes 16 percent.
  When we hear all this talk about the surplus, we need to understand 
that the surplus is just an estimate of what the Congressional Budget 
Office thinks we might see in the years ahead. And, in fact, it is 
based on some assumptions and some projections that may not turn out to 
be true. In fact, we may not really have a $2.9 billion surplus. If any 
of these four things were to happen at one time, we would have no 
surplus.
  For example, if Federal spending increases, instead of going down, as 
is projected under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, just kept up with 
inflation for the next 10 years, 18 percent of that surplus would 
disappear.
  If Medicare spending grows at just 1 percent faster than is 
projected, 12 percent of the surplus disappears.
  If productivity grows at the rate of 1.1 percent per year, the 
average since 1973, instead of the number the Congressional Budget 
Office used of 1.8, then 53 percent of the surplus disappears.
  And if the unemployment rate just goes up one quarter of 1 percent, 
17 percent disappears and there is no surplus.

                          ____________________