[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 26343-26349]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                              {time}  2045

                OVERVIEW OF REPUBLICAN BUDGET PRIORITIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. 
Wilson) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I watched with interest the debate that we 
have seen this evening here, and I think we need to set the record 
straight on a few things and talk to the American people a little bit 
about where we are and where we are going to go.
  We are now close to the end of the budget process for this next 
fiscal year and we have set some parameters. They are pretty clear. We 
are going to keep the budget balanced. There is going to be a real 
balanced budget for the first time since 1969. We are going to stop 
using Social Security for this year's government programs. We are going 
to prevent new taxes from being put on the poorest of American people. 
We are going to pay down $150 billion of publicly held debt next year.
  Within those parameters, the content of the bills is largely 
negotiable, but those principles are inviolable. Stop the raid on 
Social Security, no new taxes, keep the budget balanced.
  How did we get here and what are the priorities within those bills? 
In 1997, before I was elected to Congress, the people here before me 
passed the Balanced Budget Act. At the time they were called foolhardy 
for expecting that we could actually balance the Federal budget by 
2002. The reality is that because of good economic times and a real 
will by this body to control Federal Government spending, we have 
balanced the budget early. Last year, we paid down $60 billion of 
publicly held debt and $140 billion this year. Last year we were able 
to balance the budget if you count Social Security, and the 
Congressional Budget Office just announced last week after closing all 
the books that because tax revenue was coming in at a much higher rate 
than was anticipated, we actually had the first real surplus in Federal 
spending since 1969. We have turned the corner with respect to Social 
Security, we have stopped using Social Security for this year's 
government programs, and there is no turning back.
  In January of 1999, the President came here to this room to give his 
State of the Union address. He talked about his vision for this country 
and what he wanted to see and explained the budget that he was about to 
send up to this Hill. That budget planned on spending 40 cents of every 
surplus dollar for Social Security this year. It also included $19 
billion in new taxes and fees this year alone with a 10-year projected 
increase in taxes of $260 billion. For those of you who think that that 
was just about a tax on cigarettes, we are really talking about a 55-
cent tax on cigarettes and who could be against sin taxes, that is not 
true. If you go through the budget that the President sent up here, in 
addition to increases on tobacco taxes, which do affect generally very 
poor people, there was half a billion dollars for a harbor service 
fund, there was $1.1 billion for an increase in aviation fees, there 
was $1.5 billion in Superfund taxes, there was half a billion dollars 
on food safety inspection user fees, there was another $108 million for 
agriculture fees, there were FDA fees and justice and bankruptcy filing 
fees and Coast Guard fees and Federal Railroad Administration rail 
safety inspection fees, customs fees, National Transportation Safety 
Board fees, Social Security Administration fees, all of these adding up 
to $19 billion in new taxes and fees.
  The President and his spokesmen said that their budget was 
responsible and they made the hard choices by using 40 cents of every 
dollar that was surplus for Social Security and adding on $19 billion 
in new spending with new taxes and fees. Well, we put that to the House 
yesterday. We voted here on the President's taxes and fee increases. 
Was that what we wanted to do at a time of economic plenty? Not one 
Member of this House was willing to stand up and say yes, we want to 
increase taxes, we want to support the President's proposal for 
increased spending and increased taxes. There is no will in this House 
or in this country for an increase in taxes. And there should not be, 
because we can control spending and do it responsibly.
  We passed a budget earlier this year that set out some priorities, 
that said we were not going to touch Social Security, we were not going 
to increase taxes or fees, and we were going to put the priorities in 
that budget in two particular areas: Education and national defense. 
Then we began our annual process of passing 13 spending bills that 
reflected those priorities. If there is one thing Speaker Hastert has 
done around here, he has told us again and again and again, ``Let's 
just get the job done.'' Our job is to legislate, our job is to pass 
these bills, our job is to get these spending bills done no matter 
what. He has done a very good job of keeping us on task.
  Where are those 13 bills? The President has vetoed the District of 
Columbia bill, and we are now working on the second version of that. 
The Energy and Water bill became law on September 29. The Legislative 
appropriations bill was signed by the President on September 29. 
Military Construction has passed both houses. The conference report was 
done. It was signed into law on August 17. The Transportation bill, 
signed on October 9. The Treasury-Postal bill, signed on September 29. 
The VA-HUD bill was signed today, and I appreciate the President's 
commitment and willingness to sign that bill and not hold it up for 
some omnibus appropriations bill yesterday.
  Just today we passed out the conference report from the House on 
Commerce, State, Justice and the Senate should be doing it soon and it 
will be to the President. The Agriculture bill is with the President as 
is the Defense bill. He has not chosen yet to sign or to

[[Page 26344]]

veto those bills. The Interior bill is very close to coming back to the 
floor of the House in a conference report and being sent to the 
President. All of these things have been done on a much faster schedule 
than in the 103rd Congress which was the last time that my colleagues 
from the other side of the aisle were in charge here. But at that time, 
they were in late October or early November when they were passing the 
bills and they used all of the Social Security surplus. We are trying 
to be responsible here, not use a dime of the Social Security surplus, 
be responsible in our spending, put the emphasis on education and 
national security, and get the job done.
  I was very disappointed to see that the President vetoed the Foreign 
Operations bill. In his budget that he brought up here in January, he 
proposed a 30 percent increase in foreign aid. Now, most folks when 
they hear people talk on a national level about the commitment to 
national security do not really know what is in the foreign aid bill. 
The foreign aid bill does not include America's national security 
programs. It is not the Defense bill. It also does not include funding 
for the State Department which is where most of our diplomatic work is 
done. It does include some other programs that have to do principally 
with foreign aid. When I read the President's veto message, it is 
almost as if he is talking about another piece of legislation. He is 
talking about another sign of a new isolationism and that it fails to 
address critical national security needs.
  There is no element of this bill that addresses America's national 
security. That bill is still waiting on his desk for signature. But the 
rub really comes in the third-to-the-last paragraph of his veto 
message, where he says the overall funding is inadequate. The President 
asked for a 30 percent increase in foreign aid and wanted new taxes to 
pay for it. We are not willing to raise taxes, we are willing to do the 
responsible thing, and we have level-funded the foreign aid budget. He 
vetoed it because he wanted more money in the bill. Where is that money 
going to come from? It is going to come from Social Security. And we 
are not willing to touch Social Security. But there are some things in 
that aid bill that are increased. We increased the child survival 
programs by $60 billion. We increased UNICEF. We were not willing to 
increase funding for the IMF, particularly after the revelations of 
graft in the program in Russia. That did not make any sense at all. Yet 
the President wants $4 billion in increases to foreign aid. He also 
wants, as part of that $4 billion, $900 million of debt relief for 
foreign nations at the expense of debt relief at home. That is not 
something that we are willing to do. The foreign aid bill was a good, 
solid, reasonable bill that funded things at a constant level and set 
some priorities within that bill. It was good budgeting.
  But I do want to address the President's concern and fearmongering 
about a new isolationism. I am a free trade Republican. I believe that 
America should be engaged in the world. I am a veteran of the United 
States Air Force. I think we should have forward basing of American 
troops, strong relationships with our allies. I started my career as an 
Air Force officer and then got involved in arms control and working 
with our NATO allies in Europe. I strongly support America's 
involvement and engagement in the Middle East and am very concerned 
about developments in Asia and emerging threats to the United States 
both in ballistic missiles and in weapons of mass destruction. It also 
happens that I have a master's and a Ph.D. in international relations 
and know a little bit about 20th century diplomatic and international 
history. In fact, I went to the same school that the President of the 
United States did on that subject.
  This bill on Foreign Operations is an adequate and reasonable bill. I 
do not think that this debate or the reason for the veto was about 
foreign aid or foreign policy. I do not think it was about that at all. 
I think it was about money. All of this comes down to money. We want to 
save it in Social Security, we think it should stay in your pocket, we 
think our priorities should be national defense and education, and the 
President wants to spend it.
  He now has on his desk the Defense appropriations bill. For the last 
10 years, we have seen the erosion of America's national defense. Korea 
is now posing a ballistic missile threat to the United States, and in 
the last fiscal year we finally turned upward on America's national 
defense spending. But I think we need to be very clear about where we 
are and why it is so very important for the President to sign this 
bill. Between 1960 and 1991, 31 years, the United States Army conducted 
10 operational events. In the past 8 years, the Army has conducted 26 
operational events. Twenty-six operational events in the last 8 years. 
That is 2\1/2\ times the number in one-third the time. At the same time 
we are drawing down the size of our military. Since 1990, the United 
States Air Force has shrunk from 36 fighter wings down to 20 and at 
that same time has sustained a fourfold increase in its commitments. A 
fourfold increase in its commitments. We are burning out our aircraft 
and we are burning out our people. And it is showing up in their 
unwillingness to stay in the military. We should not be surprised that 
the military has not been able to meet its retention and its 
recruitment goals.
  I represent Kirtland Air Force Base. When I go out there and talk to 
a young family and talk about how long they are deployed, 150, 170, 200 
days a year in far-flung places and then they have to come home with 
pay and benefits that are lower than they have really ever been 
relative to the civilian workforce, retirement benefits that just are 
not there anymore and they have to justify to their families why they 
should keep doing this. They just cannot do it anymore. They are 
exhausted, they are worn out, and we need to turn the corner.
  The Air Force missed its recruiting goal this year by 7 percent. They 
are 5,000 people under strength and they are short 800 pilots. That is 
not because of a lack of commitment of this House. We are turning the 
corner and determined to increase spending on national defense. The 
bill that the President has in front of him does that for the first 
time.
  Our United States Navy, the pride of the seas, is 18,000 sailors 
short. There are ships that come in and a helicopter will go out and 
pick up the skilled operators and seamen on that ship and move them 
over to the one that is going out in order to keep the ships at sea. 
The operations tempo is too high, the pay is too low, the retirement 
benefits were cut in 1980 and again in 1986. But last year we turned 
the corner and we are going to continue to fund national defense.
  The bill that the President has on his desk and that I am asking him 
tonight to sign has a 4.8 percent increase in military pay. It includes 
funding at $4.5 billion more than the President requested.

                              {time}  2100

  It is a $17.3 billion increase over fiscal year 1999. It has an 
increase for readiness to take care of some of the shortfalls we have 
seen, spare parts and training. We need to make sure that our forces 
have the spare parts and the training they need to do the job when they 
are called upon to do the job.
  Mr. Speaker, I got an e-mail message from a young man from New 
Mexico, he is a first lieutenant in the Army and was deployed during 
Kosovo as a maintenance guy with the helicopters, the Apaches that went 
down and never actually saw operations in Kosovo. He was so frustrated. 
He went into the military as a young officer, raring to go, and found 
that the extra duties that were placed on him for peacekeeping and all 
kinds of other things were just diminishing their ability to do the 
real mission, and that is why they were unprepared when they went to 
Kosovo. They had never trained, they had never practiced for a real 
mission because they were doing so many other things, and they were 
short funded on flying hours and training hours and ammunition.
  We are going to try to turn this around and get the spare parts and 
the training and depot maintenance that we need.

[[Page 26345]]

  I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida, particularly on this point.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I share the gentlewoman's concerns, and 
that is why I am here tonight to express my deep concerns about the 
President not signing the Defense Appropriations bill, and in fact, 
expressing the possibility that he might veto this critically important 
bill.
  Now, all of us agree, no matter our political ties, that providing 
peace of mind is one of the most important and logical roles of the 
Federal Government, in fact, ensuring our national security and, 
specifically, to provide for the common defense, our instructions in 
our Nation's Constitution.
  Yet, for the last 7 years under this administration and until this 
past year, real defense spending has been cut. We have reduced the 
number of military personnel in our armed forces by 36 percent since 
the end of the Cold War. Today, for example, we have heard some good 
examples from our acting majority leader tonight, and I want to share 
some of these others. We have today only 10 active Army divisions, the 
same number that we had at the calamitous start of the Korean War. We 
are also not buying enough new Navy ships to replenish even today the 
much-diminished fleet.
  So that is why this Defense appropriations bill is so important. As a 
government, it is our obligation to restore peace of mind and security. 
This bill does that, by providing the resources our service Members 
need to do their jobs defending us. It represents a real effort to get 
our defense budget back on track and to deal with the serious problems 
that are facing us in an increasingly dangerous bill.
  The bill, as the gentlewoman mentioned, fully funds the 4.8 percent 
pay raise for our troops. It increases funds to improve their training, 
their benefits, and the quality of life for the armed services' most 
valuable asset, and that is the 2.2 million men and women who serve 
their country; and it provides a greatly needed $3.6 billion for our 
ballistic missile defense to defend this country.
  Today, our troops are as hard pressed as ever. They have been asked 
to do more with less for too long. I was just in Kosovo in July, and I 
had lunch with a sergeant who had been deployed to the Balkans four 
times in the last 5 years, 48 out of the last 60 months. He is leaving. 
These constant deployments have led to a real recruitment and retention 
crisis in our military, with large numbers of our specialized personnel 
and pilots and maintenance crews, for instance, they are voting with 
their feet and they are leaving.
  On top of this, some of our military families are living in appalling 
conditions. Over 60 percent of our military housing today is 
substandard.
  So simply put, this bill offers desperately needed funding for our 
military which has one of the hardest jobs in the world as they risk 
their lives on a daily basis to ensure that all of us remain free.
  This is an issue that transcends politicians and party lines. In 
fact, on the day we voted on the bill, most of our Democratic 
colleagues were right here beside us on the House floor saying this is 
a great bill. That is why it passed with 372 yea votes, which is why I 
do not understand the President's latest maneuvers with this current 
veto threat. Just look at the votes. It was a veto-proof margin.
  The only thing that I can think of is that the President is 
determined, as the gentlewoman pointed out earlier, to spend more money 
on new Washington programs. After all, this defense bill offers the 
only other way besides raiding Social Security for the President to 
find additional money to pay for things such as that increase in 
foreign aid that he wants.
  So, Mr. President, we are asking you tonight to please sign this bill 
into law. It is a good bill. Even your compatriots here in the House 
agree. It is a bill that provides both the military resources and the 
pay raise that our young men and women in uniform need. It is a bill 
that our peace of mind and our national security need. After all, the 
price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Do not play politics with our 
national security.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time to me.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida. She 
is one of the great leaders in this House on national security and 
always brings to these discussions kind of a soberness and 
thoughtfulness that I really appreciate. It is particularly true that I 
appreciate it on an evening like this when some of the things that I 
heard in the run-up to this discussion that we have had here among our 
colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, it was full of some 
hyperbole and some things that just were not true. It bothers me when 
we start playing partisan politics with something as important as 
national defense.
  I notice my colleague here from California (Mr. Cunningham), who is a 
Navy guy, but despite that, I yield to him.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would tell my Air Force friend, I have 
a confession to make before the House, that I recently had to pay for a 
20-ounce bottle of Diet Coke as a wager for the Air Force-Navy game. Of 
course, Air Force won 21 to 14, so I had to pay for the 20-ounce bottle 
of Coke. I personally wanted Pepsi, we have a Pepsi dealership in my 
district, but I did lose that bet. However, stand by for next year.
  What I would like to address is both issues that the gentlewoman 
spoke to. I am not going to be as kind.
  My mother told me that if a person lies enough, that they are going 
to go to hell, and I would tell the speakers in the last hour that I am 
going to be happy to send them a fan when they die because they are 
going to need it.
  I have never in my life heard spin and such lunacy as I heard in the 
last hour. People across this Nation wonder, well, the Democrats say 
this, the Republicans say this. Let me give my colleagues some markers 
for credibility.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), her husband is the 
poster for Bill Clinton. The group that spoke, I am not sure about the 
young man that spoke there at the end, but the rest of them belong, and 
I want the viewers, Mr. Speaker, to look up: www.d--as in dog--DSAUSA, 
which stands for Democrat Socialists of America. Democrat Socialists of 
America lists 58 members of the Democrats, which every one of those 
speakers belong to. Their agenda, the Democrats' socialist agenda is 
government control of health care. They tried that. Mr. Speaker, $100 
trillion, 100 trillion. Government control of private property, 
Government control of education. The highest socialized spending 
possible, the highest taxes possible, and cut defense by 50 percent.
  Now, for them to stand up and say that they are not tax-and-spend 
liberals, liberal is kind for this group. They are the farthest left in 
this House, and it makes me angry to hear such poppycock that goes on.
  Let me give my colleagues some facts. The gentlewoman talked about 
the $9 billion that the President proposed in the tax. He takes it, 
sets it up for new spending, and when we do not spend $19 billion extra 
on spending, he says we are cutting, but not a single one of them would 
stand up and support it, because it cuts not only the things that the 
gentlewoman mentioned, it also cuts student loans and puts a tax on 
them. They are not going to do that, at least not openly.
  The President, remember, he said, I want 100 percent for Medicare and 
Social Security. Well, then 3 weeks later, he says, I want 60 percent 
for Social Security and 15 percent for Medicare. Look at the bill. Look 
at the words, the language, the facts. The President takes $344 billion 
out of Social Security and Medicare, and he puts it up here where that 
$19 billion is for new spending, takes it out of Social Security. Then 
he puts in the 60 percent for Social Security and 15 percent for 
Medicare. They use it as a slush fund like they have for 20 years.
  Mr. Speaker, facts are facts. We said no, Mr. President. We are going 
to put 100 percent in Social Security; we are going to lock it up and 
make it a trust fund, not a slush fund. It will accrue interest. And 
the gentleman said, well, how about a long-term plan? Long term? That 
interest accrues and saves

[[Page 26346]]

Social Security and Medicare forever, and it also pays down the 
national debt in a very short time.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think we need to 
share something here. This is not talking about projections, this is 
talking about reality on what has happened to the Social Security Trust 
Fund.
  Here is 1984, and we start seriously dipping into the trust fund to 
pay for current government programs. Of course, in 1995, before I was 
here in Congress, is when there was a change in control of the 
Congress, and in 1997 when the Balanced Budget Act was passed. We see 
the reductions in spending from Social Security under Republican 
control. We are now down to where we should be, which is we should not 
be spending Social Security for current government programs.
  Our whole point here is that there is no turning back. We need to 
plan for the future in Social Security, make sure it is there not only 
for today, that the check is there on time and in full today; but that 
it is there for my colleague from California when he retires and long 
after that, when I retire, and even much longer after that, when my 
other colleague from California's children retire. That is what it is 
about.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if I can mention one last thing on this, 
and then I will be quiet.
  The other side mentioned emergency spending. None of the Republicans 
voted for the extension in Somalia; it costs billions of dollars and we 
got our rear end kicked out of there. Haiti. Kosovo cost $12 billion in 
2 months. We are spending $50 billion in Kosovo. We bombed an aspen 
factory in the Sudan, $100 million. The President just gave them a $50 
million settlement.
  In this foreign aid bill, the President spent $47 million taking 
1,700 staff and press to Africa this summer, $47 million; and these 
things were declared emergency, because under emergency, we told them 
not to go to Kosovo; we told the Black Caucus not to support going to 
Haiti. We told them that it would cost billions of dollars going to 
Kosovo, and we flew 86 percent of all of the sorties there; and yet we 
said, you are going to have to pay for it. And they said, no, we are 
going to go and pay for it later.
  Well, that emergency spending they are talking about is just that. 
The actual enumeration of the consensus, we had that paid for, in the 
budget. What we did not pay for is their guesswork that they wanted to 
maneuver the numbers for partisan advantage in the elections, guessing 
district by district, and the Supreme Court ruled against them, and 
they are upset. But they did get $300,000 just to see how it would 
work; and we had to fund that in emergency funding, because it is not 
in the budget.
  We are saying, maintain a balanced budget, Mr. President. Take this 
red marker, take this red marker that our leadership took to him, to 
the White House, and mark out the programs that you want to and put in 
the programs that you want to, and we will work with you, but stay 
under the balanced budget and keep your hands off of Social Security 
and Medicare, like you propose with $344 billion. I thank the 
gentlewoman.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. I am 
happy to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to commend the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico, the chairwoman of the Adobe Caucus, as we 
call it. I want to say sincerely I am very impressed with her 
presentation tonight.
  I think people across the country watching this presentation will say 
we have a fresh, articulate, intelligent face that is actually speaking 
of facts and doing it in a very rational, calm manner, without having 
to invoke fear and Mediscare and Social Security scare. All the 
gentlewoman is doing is speaking the facts and saying there is a chance 
for a new beginning.

                              {time}  2115

  I think as was pointed out, the frustration some of us see is that as 
if the American people are not going to remember that for 40 years who 
was running deficits and who was looking at trying to avoid things. The 
people that since 1970, actually 1969, since before man landed on the 
moon were running deficits, spending more than they had.
  I do not think the American people are going to forget that. I think 
there are some things that they like the Democratic Party for, but 
fiscal restraint is not one of them.
  I grew up in a family of Democrats. My cousin is a member of the 
National Democratic Committee. I love Democrats. They are my flesh and 
blood, but there are some things that people look to Republicans for. 
One of those is the fiscal responsibility of making sure that money is 
not squandered. This is hard-earned money that the government has taken 
from them and, frankly, I think that some people, Democrat or 
Republican, may stand here tonight and hear Democrats say one thing and 
Republicans say the other and say, well, I get just confused. I mean, 
who can I believe?
  I would have to say what the American people can look to is who they 
can believe is people who are willing to come up and draw some very 
strong lines and say that we are not going to spend more than we have 
from now on and Social Security will now permanently be off budget.
  I would just like to publicly commend the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Mrs. Wilson), because she is one of the few original cosponsors to a 
bill that would introduce a constitutional amendment that really draws 
that clear line in the sand not just for today and tomorrow but 
permanently. It takes a line in the sand that etches it in stone, and 
that amendment would say that we not only in America have a balanced 
budget during a time of peace but we also do not spend Social Security. 
We do not touch the Social Security trust fund. We will stop using it 
as a slush fund and treat it with the sanctity that every trust fund 
should be treated that people are going to depend on.
  I want to commend the gentlewoman for that. I think she has taken a 
great leadership role. As soon as the gentlewoman arrived here she got 
our attention by really raising this issue. I would say this to the 
American people, if they are confused about can they trust the 
Republicans or can they trust the Democrats with their Social Security, 
I would ask every person watching to call up their Member of Congress 
and say, are you going to support the constitutional amendment that 
takes Social Security off budget permanently? Because there is the real 
litmus test.
  We can say anything we want here. Democrats can say this. Republicans 
can say that, but the proof in the pudding, are you willing to draw 
this line and cast it in stone so that you cannot and will not break 
the promises to future generations?
  I think the gentlewoman has taken a great leadership role on this, 
and I think it is a chance for the American people to get to the truth 
and find out who really will stand by their future and who is just 
talking about it because they are looking at the next election.
  I just have to say that in the whole time we are here, I was in local 
government for 20 years before I came here, and let me say something, 
that I am astonished at the change of institutional mindset that has 
happened since 1995 when I arrived here, that spending more than you 
have is no longer acceptable; that dipping into the trust fund is not 
going to be allowed.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the situation was in 
California and particularly in San Diego, but in New Mexico we cannot, 
by law and by the Constitution, we cannot spend more than we have come 
in.
  Did the gentleman have to live under those rules?
  Mr. BILBRAY. In California, we not only have to have a balanced 
budget, it is mandated by the Constitution. It is funny, I got here and 
people were spending more than they had.
  Not only that, but we are not allowed to take a trust fund and use it 
as a slush fund. Even a sewer fund in California cannot be diverted 
into police officers; even though how important police officers are, 
the law says if you want to raise funds for police officers

[[Page 26347]]

do that up front but you do not do it with your sewer rates.
  This town, before I got here, was doing things and accepted doing 
things that people in California, in my home State, would go to jail 
for. Frankly, it just astonished me after working at local government, 
being a mayor and a county chairman, that Washington could just accept 
this as being the right thing, because the rest of America was living 
without a budget, was not spending its retirement programs, but 
Washington was doing it because nobody raised enough Cain to force them 
to finally start doing the right thing.
  I am very proud, no matter what happens in the next election, of 
being able to be part of a community, part of a group, that has told 
Washington, enough is enough; live within your budget and keep your 
hands off of Social Security.
  I think that is something that all of us can be very proud of, 
Democrat or Republican, if we can just live within this, and I hope the 
President joins us. He said today that he now is committed to our 
strategy of a balanced budget, without touching Social Security. I know 
there are a lot of people in this institution that are uneasy with that 
because they are used to the good old days. I think we are teaching 
them new disciplines, and I think it is something that we are going to 
be able to pass on to our children and grandchildren and be very proud 
that we were the beginning of the change of Washington.
  Mrs. WILSON. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) for 
his remarks. On that point, when we set out our budget at home, if we 
were to take the money we put in our IRA and spend it this year for car 
payments or for rent or for entertainment, to go to the movies, we 
would not expect it to be there when we retired. But that is what the 
Federal Government has been doing for the last 30 years and we need to 
stop doing that and be responsible about it.
  I have to say that while we had kind of a somewhat extreme group down 
here this evening, this is not really a partisan issue. I think 
probably fully two-thirds of this body recognizes that we are gradually 
coming up with a change in attitude about what Federal Government is 
all about, and that we should not spend Social Security every year; 
that we should have a balanced budget; that there is no need to 
increase taxes in time of peace and prosperity; and that we should 
spend money on priorities like national security and education. So I 
think that it would be wrong to characterize this as a completely 
partisan fight. In fact, it is really not.
  I think there is really a vast majority in this body that wants to 
protect Social Security.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I had a friend of mine on the other side of the aisle 
today on the subway, and I quote, he said, the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Gephardt) has an insatiable personal ambition to become Speaker of 
the House. I think everybody has seen every speech he gives.
  Another Democrat said that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) 
told us to vote against every single one of these bills and the White 
House, at the meeting, under good faith, he was doing the same thing.
  Today he came to the House Floor, very partisan, having the Democrats 
vote against every single bill. I asked the Democrat I said, ``Why?'' 
And he said, quote, ``Duke, if we can stop all of the bills and the 
President, one of two things, either the Republicans will give in and 
give the President an omnibus bill and we can spend more, or the 
government will get shut down and you will get blamed for it,'' and 
that is the strategy. I think that is lame.
  What we are trying to do is pass 13 appropriations bills. The 
gentleman over there, he is so naive. He said that we are doing it 
piecemeal. There are 13 appropriations bills. That is the way it is 
supposed to work, is we give the President each bill.
  Mrs. WILSON. Would the gentleman educate me a little bit?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
  Mrs. WILSON. How long is it that we have been doing 13 appropriations 
bills to fund the government?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. This is the 106th Congress, which is 212 years. Now, 
granted, early on they did not do it that way but they have an 
authorization and an appropriations cycle and that is the way they do 
it, 13 appropriations bills.
  The young man is obviously naive on the way of the system. He wants 
one big bill. Like we made a mistake last year and put all the bills in 
one, as the mother of all bills, and the President, to get him to sign 
it, demanded that we increase the spending in it. We did that. That is 
a mistake. We are not making that same mistake this year. We are saying 
in each of the 13 bills, Mr. President, take your magic marker, mark 
out where you want to, put in your priorities and we will work with 
you, but we are not going to touch Social Security, Medicare. We are 
not going to increase taxes. It is that simple.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I just think it is interesting, too. I 
heard the same statement and I think sometimes in this town we get too 
wrapped up in partisan bickering and we think of partisanship and turn 
our brain off. A statement that says we are piecemealing the budget, 
budget bill by budget bill, last year when we did the omnibus bill they 
said well, this is a conglomeration, this is not the way it is supposed 
to be; it is not organized to lump it altogether.
  So it is almost like let us just complain about whatever is happening 
and point fingers. I really want to echo the statement of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) about Democrats, Republicans, 
are coming to the realization that the new standard is a balanced 
budget.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The friends that were telling me this said they were 
upset, that their side was rebelling because many of them in each of 
these 13 appropriations bills worked in a bipartisan way, through the 
subcommittee, through the committee, did not agree on everything, 
brought it to the House Floor and now the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt) tells them to vote against it. They have their projects, they 
have their hard work, and they thought that was wrong. I think it is 
wrong for a single minority leader to tell people to vote against every 
single bill.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I would just like to say, there are a lot of Democrats 
who want to work with us.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I agree.
  Mr. BILBRAY. There are a lot of them that basically are saying now, 
why did we not set these basic common decency standards of a balanced 
budget and not raiding Social Security? It is just that it was done for 
so long that it took a change in leadership to kind of make us get to 
the right place.
  I really enjoy how many Members on the other side of the aisle really 
are saying thank you for the changes and the mindset because it set a 
new standard, a new benchmark.
  What I am worried about is that it is going to be so easy to fall 
back to the old benchmark. It is so easy to go ahead and promise 
everybody everything and not have enough money and then just pass it on 
to the next generation. That is one reason why I am very nervous about 
the future, and one reason why I support the gentlewoman's concept of 
okay, right now when the overwhelming majority of the elected officials 
of the United States and the people of the United States agree that we 
not only should have a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget 
but also one that does not touch Social Security, now is the time for 
those who say they really are for those goals to step forward and 
support the constitutional amendment, to make sure that we do not fall 
back into our bad ways and have a relapse, as we say in rehab programs, 
that we keep away from that temptation of having a relapse.
  I want to again thank the gentlewoman for taking that leadership 
role.
  Mrs. WILSON. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) for 
those remarks. That idea that there is no turning back, that we cannot 
turn back the clock of history, it takes so much effort to change the 
culture of an institution, to change the expectations of

[[Page 26348]]

people from being one of spending Social Security to one of protecting 
Social Security.
  The question really is how do you institutionalize this so that it is 
not a fight every single year, and it is not a negotiation around the 
fringes every single year, that it is just not an option; that it is as 
impossible in the Federal Government to take away our retirement as it 
is in State government and local government.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Would the gentlewoman agree, though, that in my 
district Social Security is not enough to live on in many cases?
  Mrs. WILSON. I would definitely agree.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Many of my seniors are having to spend their money on 
prescription drugs, on health care, and many of them are afraid to live 
day by day. What we are also trying to do is prepare our youth so that 
we do not run into the same problem in the outyears, to give them a way 
to set aside, to not tax savings, so that they can set aside money for 
when they become chronologically gifted that they will have the money 
and be able to enjoy their grandchildren.
  Mrs. WILSON. One of the things that I liked most about the tax 
package that was sent down to the President, and it was a tax package 
for over 10 years, that it would allow us to plan for what our spending 
levels would be and to plan for some tax reduction, and to encourage 
people to save. One of the provisions that I liked about that most, 
probably next to the marriage penalty, which really bothers me, I think 
we should honor marriage and not tax it, but one of the ones that I 
liked most next to that was the increase in allowances for IRAs.
  Right now one can only put in $2,000 tax deferred every year into 
their individual retirement account. It would have increased it to 
$5,000 a year.
  The gentleman struck on something that I would like to talk about 
this evening, too, and we have not talked about it much, and that is a 
commitment to education. We talked about defense and the bill that is 
on the President's desk right now. He has an opportunity to really make 
clear his commitment to America's engagement in the world, and his 
commitment to America's national security and go ahead and sign that 
bill.

                              {time}  2130

  But there is one other issue that is a priority in this year's budget 
cycle, and that is education. We have not yet dealt with the Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education bill on the house floor. But 
today we spent the whole day talking about the reauthorization of the 
elementary and secondary education bill.
  We need to make sure that these kids we talk about who are just 
entering the work force and those kids who are just entering 
kindergarten have the skills to achieve their dreams, and that means a 
continuing commitment in this country to education.
  The bill that is probably going to come to the floor has an increase 
over what the President requested for education. The differences will 
be in where the priorities are in that budget. The President wants 
100,000 new teachers. He is only, of course, willing to fund a third of 
that and tell local school districts, ``Raid your supply account and 
your utilities account and all your other accounts, and put on some 
more taxes to match this, and then we will give you that one-third. 
And, oh, by the way, it is only for 5 years.''
  It sounds very much like the cops program that did not get a lot of 
cops to the street, but local chiefs of police pretty quickly figured 
out that this was not such a good deal after all.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield for a moment on 
that point?
  Mrs. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I was the chairman of a county of 2.8 
million when this cops issue was coming up. I heard the President talk 
about this big number, this 100,000. I looked at how much money he was 
offering per law enforcement officer. When I ran the numbers, those of 
us who actually pay to put police officers on the streets, I sat down 
with my budget people and said, how does this work out?
  The gentlewoman from New Mexico is right. It works out less than a 
third. It was about a quarter for what they were thinking about saying 
that we could put an officer on the street. It was about a quarter of 
what it would cost just for the personnel, not the vehicle, the 
equipment and everything else.
  But I still to this day, because of my involvement in law 
enforcement, every time I hear the statement 100,000 cops on street, I 
just say, ``How can you say that with a straight face?''
  Those of us in California, one may be able to do it with Little Rock, 
Arkansas, I do not know what they pay their police officers, but let me 
tell my colleagues, out there in San Diego, California, and I bet it is 
the same situation in the city of Albuquerque, there is no way any 
reasonable police chief would be able to say we can hire a police 
officer permanently at this rate and be able to get to the number of 
100,000.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, that of course was not the point at all. 
The whole point of the program was another Federal program where one 
gets local governments to carry most of the bill, constrain on what 
they can use the money for.
  I have to commend the Committee on Appropriations for saying wait a 
minute. Twenty-three years ago, the Federal Government passed something 
called IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It is the 
special ed law. They promised that 40 percent of the extra cost would 
be paid by Federal Government.
  Every school district in this country has to comply with the Federal 
special ed law. But for about 35 years, the Federal Government was only 
paying 8 percent of the cost, which meant all that money that can be 
going to smaller class sizes or pencils and paper in school so parents 
do not have to bring it in from home or computers in the classroom and 
bricks and books and all of the things we desperately need for teacher 
training, all of that money had to go to pay the Federal Government's 
responsibilities.
  So this bill this year increases, again, substantially Federal aid to 
special ed. Let us fund the things we have already committed to fund 
before we start new government programs.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am on the Subcommittee 
on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Secondly, I wrote 
most of the special education legislation. I was chairman of the 
committee when it started. Thirdly, I have been a teacher and a coach, 
both in high school and college, and a dean of a college. My wife has a 
doctorate in education. My sister-in-law is the head of special 
education in San Diego County.
  What we are doing in the Labor-HHS bill is saying that, for years, we 
got less than half of the dollars down to the classroom, and we are 
block granting the money down to the school.
  Let me give my colleagues just a quick analysis. People say, ``Well, 
Duke, why did you not support Goals 2000?'' I did as it initially is, 
and in concept. But if my colleagues look at Goals 2000, one has to 
have a plan. They say it is only voluntary, only voluntary if one wants 
the money. One has to submit it to a board, not one's board of 
education, but another board. One has to submit that to the board. It 
goes to the principal. Then it goes to the superintendent. Think of the 
time. Then all that paperwork has to go to Sacramento, California. 
Think of the bureaucracy that has to rest in Sacramento.
  Now, take all the schools in California sending that paperwork to 
Sacramento. Where do they have to send it? They have to send it to 
Washington, D.C. with all of the other States.
  We are saying, give the State the money. If they want Goals 2000, if 
they want the program that works in their area, do it. It actually 
provides more money to them. We provide $300 million more than the 
President requested for education.

[[Page 26349]]

  The President zeroed out impact aid. When one has a military family 
or Native Americans and one's district, that impacts the school. The 
President zeroed that. IDEA gave very little amount of money to it. We 
increase it up to 12 percent in the bill. We think it is important. I 
think it is important to show the differences in priorities.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, where does all of this leave us? Where are 
we now on the cusp of the final couple of weeks of this congressional 
session? We have set some parameters. We are going to keep the balanced 
budget. We made that commitment in 1997. We achieved it earlier than we 
thought we were going to. We are going to keep a balanced budget. We 
are going to stop using Social Security to pay for this year's 
government programs.
  I have to say I read with interest the comment of the White House 
Chief of Staff in the Washington Post this morning. Even the White 
House Chief of Staff recognizes that the Republicans key goal is to not 
spend the Social Security surplus. That is our goal. The President has 
accepted that as the goal and one of the parameters within which we 
work. I commend him for that in recognizing that Social Security should 
be off limits.
  We are not going to increase taxes. This House and the Senate have 
soundly rejected any increase in taxes. We should be having tax relief 
in a time of plenty, not increases in taxes. We are going to pay down 
the public debt next year by about $150 billion, and I am very proud of 
that accomplishment and being part of that.
  We are going to strengthen national defense. The President should 
sign the bill. It is on his desk for defense spending. It is a real 
increase in defense spending that will stop the erosion and the 
decline. If he is concerned about America's role in the world, if he is 
concerned about a new isolationism, it is not coming from this 
Congress. We are committed to maintaining a strong national defense and 
increasing defense spending.
  We are going to improve education. I see for our children a very 
bright future. It is one that we are all trying to build together. But 
we have got to be committed to it. We have to stick to our knitting. We 
have to get the job done, set the parameters, work in good faith with 
our colleagues across the aisle and with the President of the United 
States. But I think that the future is there for us to see and take a 
few steps back from the political skirmishing of today.
  I have to say it must be really tough to be in the minority. I have 
never, thankfully, been in the minority here. But sometimes I think 
that there is a small group of folks here who believe that their only 
job and their only role is to resist and to criticize rather than to 
govern and to shape. I believe that together we can govern and shape.
  If we take a little bit of a step back from protecting Social 
Security and resisting the temptation to increase taxes, protecting our 
national defense, and improving education, to see things in a little 
bit bigger context, 3 weeks from now, we are going to be celebrating 
the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It has been a 
marvelous 10 years. We have achieved great things. We have resisted the 
temptation to turn in on ourselves. I remember very clearly the week 
that that wall came down. It was a life-changing experience for many 
Americans and for many Americans in uniform.
  Very often, the aftermath of a great war is a rank thing. It 
certainly was in the First World War of this century. We resisted it 
after the Second World War because of the Cold War.
  Ten years ago, I think there was a real fear that America would turn 
in on itself, but we have not. We are building a strong foundation for 
a new century. All of us who serve in this body should be proud of 
that.
  We have a series of spending bills. They are pretty solid, based on 
some pretty solid foundations. We are committed to working with the 
President on the final ones, as long as they do not touch Social 
Security. We do not increase taxes, and we keep the focus on defense 
and education.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I do not remember the exact amount, I 
believe it was almost 100 percent, if not 100 percent, of the 
authorization committee on defense supported the bill in the defense 
appropriation. That is in the Senate and the House. On the 
appropriations cycle, Democrats and Republicans alike supported the 
defense bill that came out in the conference. One hundred percent 
signed it. The President is wrong to veto a defense bill that increases 
our military servicemen's pay by 1.8 percent.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right. There are over 350 
members of this House that voted yes on that final conference report.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I laud, not only the experience of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), even though it is in the Air 
Force instead of the Navy. But I laud her leadership in defense and 
also the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler). I want to tell my 
colleagues, when it comes to standing up for our men and women in 
uniform, there are no two stronger women in this House than the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I 
also appreciated the Diet Coke and his willingness to back his team in 
spite of certain defeat.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to be here tonight to talk about 
some things that I think are important to this country. I look forward 
to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the 
President to working out these final elements of these bills.
  We have drawn a line in the sand, as the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cunningham) said. It is a line in the sand that says we are not 
going to raise taxes, and we are not going to cut Social Security. 
Within that, we will work with the President. Our priorities within 
that playing field are national defense and education. But we are 
willing to work with him to achieve something that is important for us 
and for our children. And that is our message tonight.

                          ____________________