[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5671-5755]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 2000

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 131 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 131

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 68) establishing the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2000 and setting forth appropriate budgetary 
     levels for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2009. The 
     first reading of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed 
     with. Points of order against consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule 
     XIII are waived. General debate shall not exceed three hours, 
     with two hours of general debate confined to the 
     congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Budget, and one hour of general debate on the subject of 
     economic goals and policies divided and controlled by 
     Representative Saxton of New Jersey and Representative Stark 
     of California or their designees. After general debate the 
     concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under 
     the five-minute rule. The amendment specified in part 1 of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in 
     the Committee of the Whole. The concurrent resolution, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. No further amendment 
     shall be in order except those printed in part 2 of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 40 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
     shall not be subject to amendment. All points of order 
     against the amendments printed in the report are waived 
     except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration 
     of the concurrent resolution for amendment. After the 
     conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
     amendment and a final period of general debate, which shall 
     not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Budget, the Committee shall rise and report the concurrent 
     resolution, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendment as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution 
     and amendments thereto to final adoption without intervening 
     motion except amendments offered by the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical 
     consistency. The concurrent resolution shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question of its adoption.
       Sec. 2. Rule XXIII shall not apply with respect to the 
     adoption by the Congress of a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2000.

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 131 is a structured rule providing for 
consideration of H. Con. Res. 68, the budget resolution for fiscal year 
2000.
  H. Res. 131 provides for three hours of general debate with two hours 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Budget, and one hour on economic goals 
and policies equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
  The rule waives clause 4(a) of rule XIII requiring a 3-day layover of 
the committee report. The rule also considers the amendment printed in 
part one of the Committee on Rules report as adopted upon adoption of 
the rule. The rule also makes in order only those amendments printed in 
part 2 of the Committee on Rules report to be offered only in the order 
specified, only by the Member designated, debatable for 40 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, and 
shall not be subject to amendment.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendments except 
that if an amendment in the nature of a substitute as adopted, it is 
not in order to consider further substitutes. This is a very important 
point, because Members need to know that there will not be any king of 
the hill or queen of the hill procedures used here today. There are no 
free votes.
  The rule also provides, upon the conclusion of consideration of the 
concurrent resolution for amendment, for a final period of general 
debate not to exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

[[Page 5672]]

  The rule also provides and permits the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget to offer amendments in the House to achieve mathematical 
consistency pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the Budget Act. Finally, 
the rule suspends the application of House rule XXIII with respect to 
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 131 is a conventional rule for consideration of 
the budget resolution and provides for the consideration of a number of 
substitutes, including the Blue Dog budget offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), the Democratic substitute offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and President Clinton's 
budget. It strikes me as odd that the Committee on the Budget Democrats 
would not offer the President's budget for consideration, and that as a 
result, Members on our side of the aisle had to offer it to get it 
considered.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget takes advantage of this historic opportunity 
to save Social Security by ensuring that 100 percent of the money 
destined for the Social Security Trust Fund remains in the trust fund. 
That is $1.8 trillion over the next decade for retirement security. The 
President's plan only sets aside 62 percent of the funds destined for 
the Social Security Trust Fund, about $100 billion less than the 
Republican plan. Our budget strengthens Social Security and ensures 
that big spenders can no longer raid the fund to pay for their big 
government spending programs.
  Mr. Speaker, after saving Social Security and Medicare, the real 
question is, what should we do with the remainder of the surplus? We 
say, give it back. When previous Congresses could not figure out how to 
run the government, they turned to the American people for more taxes. 
Now that we have a surplus, the big spenders do not want to give the 
people a refund. They want to spend it on new, wasteful, bureaucratic 
programs.
  I welcome this debate because it will speak volumes about the 
differing opinions on the role of the Federal Government in the lives 
of the American people.
  A few months ago, we received a preview of this debate when the 
President said, and I quote, we could give it all back to you and hope 
you spend it right, closed quotes. But the President then proceeded to 
explain that he really should not give back the surplus because Federal 
Government bureaucrats could make wiser choices with your paychecks 
than you could.
  That is the ideological conflict we are dealing with today. Our 
budget is designed to provide more freedom and more power to the 
American people. The President's budget is designed to keep taxpayer 
money controlled inside of the Washington, D.C. bureaucracy.
  The Republican budget expands upon our efforts to provide every 
American with as much personal freedom and liberty as possible. We 
simply believe that individuals make much better choices about their 
lives than bureaucrats do.
  The President's position on taxes illustrates his belief that the 
government makes wiser choices with the paychecks of the American 
worker. In a budget that weighed 12 pounds and was 2,800 pages long, 
the Clinton budget did not contain any real tax cut. In fact, his 
budget proposal actually included billions of new taxes and fees.
  Today, your tax rate is about 2 percent lower than it was 2 years ago 
because Congress provided the first Federal tax cut in 16 years. Yet 
Federal tax revenues still comprise a record percentage of Gross 
Domestic Product. In fact, Americans pay more in taxes than for food, 
clothing and shelter combined.
  The President responded to this growing tax burden by stating, 
``Fifteen years from now, if the Congress wants to give more tax 
relief, then let them do it.''
  Well, if waiting until the year 2014 to get a tax refund does not 
appeal to people, they will be pleased to know that the Republican 
budget states that the surplus does not belong to government. The 
Republican budget will provide $800 billion in tax relief, including 
$10 billion to $15 billion in the first year. It is a reaffirmation of 
our belief that the American people know best how to spend their money.
  The President's budget, which the Democrats would not even offer 
today, spends $341 billion of the Social Security surplus over 10 
years, it breaks the balanced budget caps, and proposes $30 billion 
more in outlays than allowed under the law in just the first year.
  It should be noted that despite the President's rhetoric, his budget 
actually cuts Medicare by $11.9 billion over 5 years. The Republican 
budget rejects the President's Medicare cuts, including those he 
proposed for certain prescription drugs.
  Even the President's own Comptroller General, David Walker, has 
criticized the Clinton Medicare proposal for essentially doing nothing 
to alter the imbalance between the program's receipts and benefits 
payments. The President's $11.9 billion cut in Medicare and his fiscal 
shell games are endangering the quality of our seniors' health care.
  Conversely, our budget locks away all of the Social Security trust 
fund surpluses for the Nation's elderly to save, strengthen and 
preserve Social Security and Medicare.
  This budget continues our determined efforts to provide more 
security, more freedom, and less government to the American people. In 
its entirety, our budget is a common sense plan to provide security for 
the American people by preserving every penny of the Social Security 
surplus, return overtaxed paychecks to those who earned it, pay down 
the national debt, rebuild our Nation's defense, and improve our public 
schools.
  Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget reaffirms our belief in the 
Ronald Reagan adage that it is not the function of government to bestow 
happiness upon us. Rather, it is the function of government to give the 
American people the opportunity to work out happiness for themselves. 
That is why this budget resolution is written in such a way to provide 
more freedom to American families and communities by returning money, 
power and control back to them.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. I urge my colleagues to support it 
so that we may proceed with the general debate and consideration of 
this historic budget resolution and the substitute resolutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the 
customary half hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, people are starting to get their hopes up with this 
budget. With the new surplus and the new millennium, it looks like 
anything is possible. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, they are in for a 
huge disappointment. Last week's unveiling of my Republican colleagues' 
new budget proved to be more of the same: All bad ideas.
  Despite predictions of Medicare and Social Security catastrophes 
looming on the horizon, the Republican budget does nothing to extend 
the life of either Social Security or Medicare for even one day. But it 
still manages to siphon $775 billion into tax cuts for the richest 
Americans, instead of investing in education, health care, to prepare 
this country for the next century.

                              {time}  1015

  Like Nero, Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget fiddles while Social 
Security and Medicare burn.
  The chief actuary of the Social Security Administration has said this 
budget will have virtually no effect on the date that Social Security 
becomes insolvent. It will just make sure that it goes broke on 
schedule. That is not me speaking, Mr. Speaker. That is the chief 
actuary of the Social Security Administration.
  In contrast, the Democratic budget has a lock box which will protect 
Social Security until the year 2050 and protect Medicare until the year 
2020. My Republican colleagues propose a plan that is less secure than 
the Democrats', and Treasury Secretary Rubin recommended that the 
President of the United States veto it.
  Because in reality, Mr. Speaker, the Republican lock box is more of 
an open till. The differences do not stop there.

[[Page 5673]]

  The Democratic budget reduces the debt more than the Republican 
budget every year that it is in effect. The Democratic budget provides 
$40 billion more for veterans' health care over the next 10 years than 
the Republican budget. Mr. Speaker, we made our veterans a promise. We 
must keep that promise. America's fighting men and women risk their 
lives for this country. They deserve the very best health care, the 
best services we can give them. But my Republican colleagues will not 
allow a vote, will not even allow a vote on the Clement veterans' 
amendment.
  The Democratic budget provides more for defense spending over the 
long run than the Republican budget because, in the later years, my 
Republican colleagues had to choose between defense spending and tax 
cuts. What do my colleagues think, Mr. Speaker? They chose the tax 
cuts.
  Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic budget still manages to 
provide some balanced tax cuts and keep our economy from slipping back 
into deficit. The Republican budget, on the other hand, will create a 
whole new deficit by the year 2014.
  The Democratic budget does more to reduce class size and modernize 
our schools than the Republican budget, which will cut spending for 
Head Start, cut spending for Pell Grants, and cut money for work study.
  The Democratic budget protects important programs like WIC, which the 
Republican budget cuts by so much that 1.2 million women, infants, and 
children will lose their benefits next year; 16,400 of them live in my 
home State of Massachusetts.
  Mr. Speaker, the WIC program provides essential nutrition and 
education during the early years of the childrens' development in order 
to make sure that they start school ready to learn. If we do not give 
them good nutrition when they are very young, we lose our chance 
forever.
  Some of my Democratic colleagues tried to make sure that we got that 
chance. But this rule does not make in order the DeFazio amendment on 
the progressive budget, the Clement amendment on the veterans budget, 
or the Mink amendment on education.
  This rule does make in order the Shadegg-Coburn amendment which some 
people are equating with President Clinton's budget. They say it 
reflects some CBO comparison. Mr. Speaker, I want to make something 
perfectly clear. The Shadegg-Coburn amendment looks as much like 
President Clinton's budget as I look like Gwyneth Paltrow.
  Looking at this budget, we would think that my Republican colleagues 
have very sharp memories when it comes to bad habits that gave us the 
budget deficits in the 1980s and the tripling of our national debt. Now 
that our budget finally is in the black, we should be very, very 
careful about repeating those mistakes.
  So I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, we will make in order the Clement 
amendment to take care of our American veterans. Our veterans deserve 
every bit of care we can give them. This country made them a promise. 
This country should live up to that promise.
  Yesterday's U.S.A. Today says, ``If your Member of Congress comes 
home this weekend bragging about having adopted a responsible Federal 
budget, don't you believe it.''
  So I urge my colleagues to defeat the Republican budget. Today's vote 
gives us an unprecedented chance to protect Social Security, to protect 
Medicare for the next generation. Mr. Speaker, let us not let that 
chance go by.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Atlanta for yielding 
me this time and appreciate his fine leadership in this effort.
  This morning, as the House opened, since we did not go through one 
minutes, a lot of us were here to listen to the prayer delivered by the 
Chaplain. The Chaplain said, ``One of the things that we have to do 
here is face the challenge of those decisions that will affect the 
lives of others.'' This issue of the budget is a very serious one, and 
it cannot be taken lightly. That is why I am extraordinarily proud of, 
not only the process that we have gone through for consideration of 
these different budgets, but the budget itself that is the underlying 
effort that was put forward by the Committee on the Budget.
  When we think about the impact on lives of others, we think about 
retirees and those who are looking towards retirement. We are making 
history today when we do in fact pass the committee's budget, which I 
believe we will do.
  We are locking away Social Security money for Social Security and 
ending what has been at least a 3\1/2\ or 4 decade long practice of 
raiding Social Security for other spending.
  I have got to enter into the Record at this point, Mr. Speaker, a 
letter that has come from the AARP, the American Association of Retired 
Persons. In it is made very clear that there is a high level of support 
and recognition that our plan to lock away Social Security does in fact 
provide the greatest opportunity for us to address the needs of 
retirees.
  The letter is as follows:

                                                         AARP,

                                                   March 24, 1999.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: AARP believes it is important to protect 
     Social Security's growing reserves and is pleased that the 
     House Budget Resolution provides that protection. Over the 
     next ten years, Social Security is projected to contribute 
     $1.8 trillion of the unified surplus. Preserving Social 
     Security's reserves not only allows our country to better 
     prepare for the impending retirement of the baby boom 
     generation, but also gives us greater financial flexibility 
     to enact long-term reform in both Social Security and 
     Medicare once the options have been carefully considered and 
     their impact understood. In the meantime, maintaining Social 
     Security's trust fund assets helps reduce the publicly held 
     debt, further strengthening the economy.
       We are also pleased that the Resolution does not call for 
     reconciliation in the Medicare program. Much work remains to 
     be done to strengthen and modernize Medicare--work that must 
     be taken on judiciously and on a bipartisan basis. Currently, 
     however, the program is still absorbing the impact of the 
     changes enacted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Until 
     such changes are fully understood, we should move cautiously 
     in making additional changes to the program.
       The Association remains concerned that the constraints on 
     domestic discretionary spending will place an inordinate 
     burden on low-income programs such as elderly housing and 
     home energy assistance. Inevitably, these caps will lead to 
     difficult choices in providing for appropriations for these 
     important programs and may need to be reconsidered in light 
     of pressing needs.
       The Resolution now before the House continues to move this 
     year's budget process forward in a constructive manner. AARP 
     is committed to working with the House on a bipartisan basis 
     to achieve a Budget Resolution that takes advantage of the 
     opportunities that come from a surplus and at the same time 
     continues the course of fiscal discipline that our nation has 
     worked hard to achieve.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Horace B. Deets.

  Our budget actually devotes $100 billion more than the President's 
budget to save, strengthen, and secure and preserve Social Security and 
Medicare. Unfortunately, the President's budget cuts Medicare by $11.9 
billion. We maintain the spending discipline that brought us the 
balanced budget while, unfortunately, the President's package exceeds 
the caps by $30 billion.
  After locking away the Social Security and Medicare funds, we 
returned the rest of the surplus to the American people in tax relief. 
That is something I think is very important to recognize, that we have 
an overcharge that has taken place, and that overcharge should in fact 
be provided as a rebate, and that is exactly what we do.
  On the other side, the President's budget in fact raises taxes by 
$172 billion. In fact, the President has said that Congress should not 
even consider providing tax relief for over 15 years.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page 5674]]


  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), 
my chairman, my very dear friend, keeps alluding to the President's 
budget. We did not propose the President's budget. The gentleman's 
Members proposed the President's budget so he is using the President's 
budget as a straw man. We do not want any part of the President's 
budget.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman 
from Massachusetts has made an extraordinarily wonderful point when he 
says he does not want to have anything to do with the President's 
budget.
  We made the President's budget in order for consideration when we 
move ahead for debate for a very important reason; and that is, I 
believe that the President was very serious when he submitted his 
budget to the Congress.
  I find it very interesting that the budget of the President's had to 
be offered by Republicans. Why? Because not one single Member of the 
President's party chose to step forward and endorse, support, and 
propose this budget that I am proudly talking about and juxtaposing to 
the proposal that has come from the Budget Committee.
  So I will continue, if I can, to talk about more reasons why 
Democrats do not even want to offer the President's budget.
  Our budget actually pays down $450 billion more in public debt than 
the administration's budget does. For those on the other side of the 
aisle who have looked back to the days of liberal rule of the Congress 
and budget deficits which went as far as the eye can see, we are making 
in order, as I said, this old-fashioned tax-and-spend last budget that 
the President submitted for this Congress, the 20th Century.
  I think it is unfortunate that the President chose to do that. But we 
have to take seriously what the President has submitted to us. That is 
why our Republican colleagues, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) will in fact be offering 
that.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to once again yield to the gentleman from 
South Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the distinguished ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, as I said, the chairman and I are very 
friendly.
  Mr. DREIER. And we agree on a lot of things, too.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the director of OMB, 
and I would just like to read a couple statements. It says, ``As you 
know, Congressmen Shadegg and Coburn will be offering a substitute 
amendment as the budget resolution on the House floor today. This 
amendment is being characterized as the President's budget. The 
administration has not been consulted in the development of this 
amendment. It is our understanding that it is based on a set of 
assumptions and is quite different from those presented in the 
President's budget. Therefore, this is not the President's budget.''
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my friend, for his very valuable 
contribution.
  I hope that the spirit that was raised as a question from the 
distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Budget 
earlier this morning to me will be recognized, and I am trying to give 
time over to the other side of the aisle because I know that the 
gentleman said that he wanted to have, in fact, longer than the 40 
minutes. Although I have got to tell my colleagues, as chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, I have had Democrat after Democrat who has come up 
to me and said, ``Gosh, don't you think, after 10 hours of debate, 
maybe tonight we could complete this budget process?'' That is exactly 
what we are trying to do.
  Frankly, I do not have to leave here tonight or first thing in the 
morning, but I have got so many Members on the other side of the aisle 
who are urging us to complete this. Let me say, I know that there is 
great time. I have tried to yield as generously as I can to the ranking 
minority member.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. DREIER. If there is one question, I am happy to yield to the 
gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, it is down the gentleman's alley. I would 
like for him to elaborate, to explain this so-called trust box that my 
colleagues are proposing. It is my understanding that the basic 
protection is a rule of order here on the House floor. As the gentleman 
knows, as the chairman of the Committee on Rules, he is in the business 
of waiving points of order every day of the week.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we have no intention of 
waiving that one, I should say, and we do plan to have in fact this 
locked up. It is the first time in history that we have ever attempted 
to do that. That is what this Congress is doing.
  So I hope that, if my colleagues look at the litany of proposals that 
have been put forward, I am very happy that we have got the President's 
budget, we made the Spratt budget alternative in order, and we made the 
Blue Dog budget in order.
  Of the alternatives that we are going to have, all three of them were 
authored by Democrats. So I have got to say that I think we are being 
very fair, very balanced, and I look forward to a vigorous debate on 
that.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, the President is not reputed for his 
accounting. I remember a Bush budget that was offered word for word 
that only got 30 votes.
  I am going to vote ``no'' against everything. I will tell my 
colleagues why. We have an approaching $200 billion trade deficit, and 
there is still no address to the critical negative balance of payments.
  Number two, neither party secures Social Security. My colleagues can 
waive rules. They can take lock boxes and throw them out windows. I 
submit a little bill that says we should amend the Constitution that 
says it is illegal to touch Social Security. We did it for limiting 
President's terms. We did it to allow popular vote for Senators. We in 
fact prohibited alcohol in this country. What is more important than 
Social Security?
  So I will listen to the debate. But, quite frankly, the Republicans 
should have offered word for word President Clinton's budget, and it 
would have been soundly defeated.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that President 
Clinton's budget was put on the Senate floor yesterday and defeated 97 
to 2.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me the time, and I rise in support obviously of this very good 
rule to bring the budget forward.

                              {time}  1030

  First, though, Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for all my colleagues when 
I say good luck, Godspeed, and we are behind our young men and women 
who are overseas today doing the very hard work of this Nation's 
national security in their mission in Yugoslavia. We are all praying 
for their success, for a safe mission and a quick return home.
  Mr. Speaker, as has been described, this rule is a fair and balanced 
approach to the very important debate we are about to have for the 
Nation's fiscal year 2000 budget. I know that some of our colleagues 
will be disappointed this rule does not allow for every proposed 
amendment. But what we have tried to do is craft a rule that allows for 
several different approaches to be debated so that all the major

[[Page 5675]]

issues, all of the major issues, can be addressed today. I think we 
have succeeded on that point, as we will hear in the 10 hours of debate 
that will ensue.
  In addition, I point out to my colleagues who have expressed specific 
concern about the need to boost defense spending levels, even beyond 
what the Committee on the Budget has provided, that we have in fact 
taken that advice and this rule will incorporate an enhancement of 
defense spending in the base text of the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, the budget brought forward today by the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, is a 
positive blueprint for where we should be headed as we assess our 
Nation's finances in the new millennium. The budget outlines our 
unwavering commitment to preserving Social Security and Medicare, 
living within budget caps, caps we set for ourselves in 1997, and 
providing real tax relief to the American people.
  We know there is a great temptation among some who see the term 
``surplus'' and who conclude that we should be boosting the budget of 
all sorts of government programs. But we are committed to maintaining 
discipline, even in the face of that kind of temptation, by first 
meeting our obligation to ensure the retirement security and the 
national security of the American people. They are counting on us and 
we are doing it.
  Once we have accomplished those goals, we propose to give something 
back in the form of tax cuts to the American people. With all the 
numbers we will be hearing today, and all the rhetoric and spin that 
will come forward, to me, once again, this debate here in Congress 
boils down to fundamentally different competing visions of where 
America is headed in the millennium.
  We propose less government and more control by American families of 
their own hard-earned resources. The administration, and some of our 
Democrat colleagues across the aisle, propose ever more government and 
ever more taxes, and we will hear it here today. It is really just that 
simple.
  This is a healthy debate for us to have, and this rule allows for 
plenty of opportunity for all voices to be heard. I congratulate the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), for bringing this rule forward, and my colleague, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), for his beautiful support for it 
today, and I urge the support of all my colleagues for this rule and 
the underlying resolution.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to respond to the comments made by my friend who just left the 
microphone and to the claim that we are to have 10 hours for debate. I 
wish someone would explain. I count 5 hours, if we do not count the 
rule. We get 5 hours of debate after the debate on the rule is 
finished.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we did a calculation, and my guess is we will 
be out of here about 8 o'clock tonight. I suspect we are not doing 
anything else today, so I assumed it would be about 10 hours.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Does vote time count as debate time; is that what the 
gentleman is telling me?
  Mr. GOSS. I think some of the better debate takes place during the 
vote time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Well, I think if the gentleman wants to look at the 
record, we have 5 hours for debate, not 10 hours of debate, after the 
rule is completed.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will permit, I will correct 
my statement to say that we will be applying 10 hours of our day today 
to this subject.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. It is still not a correct statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, for all Americans, we are now in the 
``Goldilocks economy''. It is not too hot, not too cold, just right, 
everywhere but on the Republican side and their CBO numbers. Over there 
it is the ``Mamma Bear economy''. It is always too cold.
  So their CBO numbers right now have the American economy growing at 
2.3 percent for this year. Forget the fact that the economy grew at 6.1 
percent for the first quarter. Forget the fact that everybody else in 
America is projecting 3 or 4 percent growth. And guess what that means? 
That means we have to cut back on how much we can help out on Medicare, 
how much we can help out on education, how much we can help out on the 
environment.
  The CBO was off by $100 billion in 1997. They were off by $75 billion 
in 1998. And they are off by at least $50 billion this year. And in 
July of this year, when the money shows up, guess where it is going. It 
is going for a tax break for the rich. This money is in something which 
the Republicans, Senator Domenici, is calling right now, he is calling 
it a tax reduction reserve plan.
  That is the Republican plan, a skeleton key for their lock box this 
July that will take $50 or $60 billion for tax breaks for the wealthy. 
No money for Medicare, no money for education, no money for the 
environment, but money for those tax breaks. That is the secret plan. 
That is what this is all about.
  They continue to have the remarkable ability to harness voluminous 
amounts of information to defend knowingly erroneous premises. This 
debate is a fraud.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). All Members will be reminded 
that references to Members of the other body are prohibited by House 
rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
point out that it was President Clinton who said on this floor in his 
first State of the Union that he wanted to use CBO numbers, much to the 
applause of all the Democrats in this Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that this Republican 
budget has many and serious deficiencies. It is also true of the rule.
  The rule, for example, will not allow us to direct our attention to 
the needs of American veterans. The rule does not allow us to have an 
amendment come to the floor which will allow us to debate the issue of 
health care for American veterans. The rule does not allow us to 
provide very drastically needed additional funds to provide for the 
health care for the men and women who went to war for this country.
  Why do the Republicans refuse to allow us the opportunity to provide 
adequately for American veterans? It is a tiny amount of money that is 
needed. It will not disrupt the budget.
  Please, I implore my colleagues, make in order as part of the rule an 
amendment which will allow us to debate the issue of veterans' health 
care and finally allow us to provide the funds that are necessary to 
provide for the health care of American veterans at veterans' hospitals 
across this country.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The question before the House is how do we safeguard Social Security, 
increase military spending, cut taxes for the wealthy, and balance the 
budget without devastating cuts in everything else that is important to 
many Americans, from veterans' programs to education to law 
enforcement? The answer is we do not, and we cannot honestly.
  On the Republican side they have revived with gusto the magic 
asterisks of the Reagan years, which are so-called undistributed cuts, 
meaning we do not know what to do, we are punting, and we will figure 
it out later, but there will probably be a whole bunch more cuts or we 
will not deliver on these promises. One or the other has got to give.

[[Page 5676]]

  Unfortunately, the other budget alternatives before us also come up 
short in those areas. I tried to offer a progressive budget alternative 
that was balanced, did not offer tax cuts to the wealthy, protected 
those programs important to Americans, with modest reductions in the 
military, and it was not allowed.
  It was an honest budget and it was not allowed. It did not have any 
magic asterisks that say we do not have the slightest idea how we are 
going to do this, we will just put something in that says we will 
figure out how to cut later.
  This is a dishonest budget with a dishonest debate without a 
progressive alternative.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding me this time, and I thank the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt).
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule and to 
this budget resolution for many reasons, but I want to concentrate on 
the veterans. Veterans are very important to us because we know how 
much they have sacrificed in order for us to be free.
  I offered an amendment in the Committee on the Budget, as well as an 
amendment in the Committee on Rules, asking for $1 billion for the 
veterans for fiscal year 2000 over and above what the Republicans had 
requested, which was only $900 million. What I requested was exactly 
what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, recommended to the Committee on the 
Budget that was adopted but rejected by the Committee on the Budget. 
They went with the lower amount.
  It is interesting, when I asked the question in the Committee on the 
Budget, ``Why did we go along with the lower amount?'' ``Well, the 
uncertainties of the veterans' programs in the future,'' was the 
answer.
  Well, we know what is happening in Kosovo right now. We also know 
that a lot of people could get hurt and killed in Kosovo. We know about 
all the regional and ethnic conflicts in the world that will continue 
in the future as well, because we know about our civilization and we 
know about the struggles for freedom and for fairness. And we also know 
that we have an obligation to our veterans to do everything we possibly 
can to help them in time of need. But are we? The Republican budget 
ignores this recommendation.
  In fact, the resolution actually decreases veterans' funding over the 
next 10 years by $3 billion. This is simply wrong. In an era with 
budget surpluses, it is unconscionable to deny our veterans the funds 
they so desperately need. Yes, we are going to increase the defense 
budget, which I strongly support, but we are going to deny our 
veterans.
  The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, 
Disabled American Veterans, and the American Legion have expressed 
their strong support of both my amendment as well as opposing the rule. 
These groups represent millions of veterans across our country who are 
suffering because their hospitals do not have adequate funds to provide 
the quality care that they deserve.
  For 4 consecutive years the veterans' budget has been essentially 
stagnant. This means the same inadequate funding for health care, more 
reductions in full-time employees, and new initiatives without new 
funding to pay for them. Veterans are growing older and sicker each 
year and cannot survive on a flat-line budget. The pattern has to end. 
Vote against the rule, help the veterans of this country once and for 
all.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip of the Democratic party.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I came back from Hershey, Pennsylvania and I said to 
myself, I am going to try to work together to keep my anger from 
spilling over on the floor. And I think I have done a good job this 
week. But I cannot, on this issue, stand by and not express my extreme 
displeasure on the way the veterans of this country have been dealt 
with in this budget.
  There is no reason why the Clement amendment should not be made in 
order; why it was treated the way it was in the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs and throughout this whole process. I came here 22-plus years 
ago, and the Vietnam veterans back then could not get a decent hearing 
on anything; on Agent Orange; they could not get a decent hearing in 
this Congress on outreach counseling.
  We put together a group called The Vietnam Veterans in Congress and 
we went to work on that stuff, and we finally got some things and 
justice done for those veterans. And we are back at the same old game 
here today: $3 billion in cuts in the Republican budget. And I might 
say, while I am talking about their budget, the President's budget is 
not much better. They are both lousy in terms of our veterans.
  We have people in this country who have sacrificed, who have put 
their lives on the line day after day, month after month, year after 
year, fighting right now in Kosovo and in Serbia, without the knowledge 
that they are going to have the benefits that they need in health care 
and other things when they get out of the service.
  Over the top of the building which houses the Department of Veterans 
Affairs are written the words ``To care for him who shall have borne 
the battle, and for his widow and his orphan.'' Those words are 
meaningless if we do not put our dollars and our hearts behind those 
words, and we are not doing it. We are not doing it, and it is wrong.
  There is a crisis in health care for our veterans in this country. If 
my colleagues talk to the people who run these hospitals anywhere in 
America, they will hear that the veterans are not getting the service 
they deserve. And it seems to me it is only just and right that we vote 
down this rule so the committee can go back and do its work, and not 
cut veterans' benefits by $3 billion while we increase Star Wars and 
all these other things, while we provide tax benefits for the 
wealthiest people in this country.
  It is not right, it is not just, and I hope my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle and on that side of the aisle will reject the 
President's budget on this and the Republican budget on this.

                              {time}  1045

  The veterans' organizations are in agreement with us on this. The 
DAV, the VFW, the Paralyzed American Veterans, AmVets, the organization 
that I belong to, Vietnam Veterans of America, say ``no'' on this rule.
  Vote ``no'' on this rule so we can get a decent budget for the people 
that are fighting for our country right now.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in opposition to 
this budget and in support of our Nation's veterans.
  This rule does not even allow the veterans of America to have a vote 
on the budget that they recommended to us to take care of their health 
needs, to take care of the cemetery needs, to take care of all of the 
issues which have been left up in the air in the last few years' 
straight-line budget.
  The Democrats in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs could not even 
have their amendment to raise the budget by $3.2 billion, which is what 
the veterans advocate. We were not even allowed a vote in our 
committee. We went to the Committee on Rules to ask for a vote on this 
on the floor. The Committee on Rules did not give us a vote.
  The veterans of this Nation fought for our country's democracy, 
fought for freedom of speech, fought for the right to be heard. And yet 
their budget is not even allowed to be heard on any committee or on the 
floor of this House.
  Reject this rule. Reject this budget. Vote ``yes'' for American 
veterans.

[[Page 5677]]


  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. This budget is a disaster 
for American veterans and this rule is a disaster for veterans. And 
that is why this rule is being opposed by almost every major veterans 
organization in the country, including AmVets, the Blinded Vets, the 
DAV, the Paralyzed Vets, the VFW, and the Vietnam Vets.
  The truth is that the President's budget for veterans is totally 
inadequate and the Republican budget for vets is even worse. It is 
unacceptable to me that in a time when some Members of this body want 
to give tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest 
people in this country, we cannot come up with $3 billion to protect 
medical care for veterans all over this country.
  Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, by a unanimous vote, the Senate did the right 
thing and they raised the amount of money available to vets. We need to 
defeat this rule, send it back, so that we can join in the Senate and 
say ``yes'' to our veterans and make sure they get the medical care to 
which they are entitled.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the 
consideration of this budget has gotten so partisan. Because I tell my 
colleagues, this area of veterans' health care is an area where we 
ought to be able to reach bipartisan agreement, as the other body did 
in a 99-0 vote last night.
  We ought to be improving the President's budget in the area of 
veterans' health care, and instead the Republican budget makes it 
worse. Over the next 5 years it would cut discretionary spending for 
veterans, which primarily goes to health care, a total of $400 million 
below nominal 1999 levels.
  Long-term care issues are going to be increasingly important as our 
veterans population ages. Making the Adult Day Health Care program 
permanent could be unobtainable if this resolution is passed.
  I fought hard on the Committee on Appropriations for increases to the 
VA medical research budget, increases that could not be maintained if 
the Republican budget passes. Mental health services that are funded 
through our veterans' centers and which need to be expanded would have 
to be cut back if the Republican resolution is adopted.
  The majority leadership owes this House the opportunity to have a 
vote on this critical funding. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Clement) deserves a vote on his amendment. Vote against this rule. Vote 
for the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I also 
rise in support of the Republican budget.
  Listening to the rhetoric from the other side, one would think that 
the Republican budget cuts veterans' funding. Actually, the Republican 
budget increases veterans' funding by $1.1 billion. It is the Clinton-
Gore budget that cuts veterans' funding, particularly veterans' health 
care funding.
  Why I support the Republican budget is pretty simple. The Republican 
budget reflects Republican values of good schools, low taxes, and a 
secure retirement. It is interesting, when we compare the Clinton-Gore 
budget with the Republican budget, this is really an historic day.
  The Clinton-Gore budget raids the Social Security Trust Fund by $341 
billion, cuts Medicare by almost $12 billion, cuts veterans' health 
care, whereas the Republican budget does something that the folks back 
home have asked for for almost 30 years. We wall off the Social 
Security Trust Fund.
  How often have I heard in a town meeting or in a senior citizens 
center folks saying, ``When are the folks in Washington going to stop 
dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund for other purposes?'' Our 
budget puts an end to that. We wall off the Social Security Trust Fund 
and say hands off.
  The President wants to spend over $300 billion in Social Security 
Trust Fund surpluses on new government spending, not Social Security. 
We protect Social Security in this budget. We do provide for small tax 
relief. And I believe we should eliminate the marriage tax penalty. 
That should be our top priority when it comes to tax relief for 
families.
  The Republican budget pays down the national debt. We increase 
funding for education by over $1 billion more than the President 
requests in his budget, and we provide over a $1 billion increase in 
funding for veterans' health care.
  I also want to point out the Republican budget rejects the Clinton-
Gore cuts in Medicare that hurt our local hospitals.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all make the point that in 
both fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, the President of the United 
States in his budget recommended cuts in veterans.
  Many of my colleagues who--well, let me not characterize some of 
their comments, because I get very concerned when politicians play on 
the fears of people in this Nation. We have seen it exhibited on this 
floor in regard to Medicare. We see the administration trying to play 
on the fears of our seniors on Social Security and Medicare, to the 
point where a Democratic member of the United States Senate said that 
they only care about politics, they do not care about the seniors. We 
see the same kind of rhetoric out here today on veterans.
  I wish I had heard a little bit of talk about this when the 
President's budget director came up to the Committee on the Budget, 
when it came to the issue of the veterans. For the last 2 fiscal years, 
the President has recommended cuts in veterans' health care. We 
recommended increases. Now in this next fiscal year, of course, we have 
increased the funding for the veterans by $1 billion.
  Now, people come down here and they make an argument there ought to 
be some amendment in order. I have been in the Congress now, this is my 
17th year. Since 1995 we have been in the majority. I never saw 
amendments made in order. In fact, I did not even see the old majority 
let a lot of budgets in order.
  The fact is, in the last 3 years, we have significantly increased 
funding for veterans' medical health care. I think the time has come 
for politicians as we head into the next millennium to stop using the 
politics of fear in order to scare people, in order to use it as a 
club.
  They have this seminar down at Hershey where we are supposed to have 
greater comity, to be able to get along better. Well, we should. Maybe 
that ought to extend to the American people so that we are not beating 
them up every day and playing to their worst hopes and fears.
  The fact is, at the end of the day we do better for veterans in this 
budget than the President did. And this will be 3 years in a row that 
we have done a better job than the President has, and at the same time 
will protect Social Security and Medicare and provide tax relief to the 
American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise that the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, during recent days Members of both 
parties have spoken very reverently about our sailors and soldiers and 
Marines, showing their concern for our troops deployed overseas. And I 
join them. But, unfortunately, they are not doing it here today.
  And unfortunately, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) left. There 
is

[[Page 5678]]

not $1 billion over Clinton's budget. There is $900 million over 
Clinton's budget in their budget today. And the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich) forgot to tell them the other half, that in the subsequent 
4 years they eliminate $3 billion from the budget of the veterans. He 
should tell them the truth.
  And while he is doing that, it is not a small, modest tax break. In 
that budget, in the first 4 years, there is $142 billion in tax breaks 
for the richest in this Nation. And in the next 5 years, they add 
another $437 billion, most of which goes to the wealthiest in this 
Nation. Yes, my colleagues, $779 billion in tax breaks for the richest 
in this Nation, and they cannot find $3 billion for our veterans. Shame 
on this House.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Pryce) a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia 
for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this fair and 
balanced rule. It provides for a full and free debate of our Nation's 
budget priorities.
  The House will have the opportunity to debate not only the Republican 
budget proposal but also the President's budget, as well as two other 
budgets offered by House Democrats. That is right. Out of the four 
plans we consider today, three were written by our Democratic friends.
  I would like to take a moment to recognize the hard work of my friend 
from Columbus, Ohio (Mr. Kasich). He is a tireless advocate of balanced 
budgets, fiscal discipline, and the Republican principles of smaller 
government and lower taxes. The GOP budget resolution embodies these 
values.
  First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget is honest. It 
comes to terms with our Nation's true budget situation by recognizing 
that the surplus that everyone is talking about is really Social 
Security money. Instead of spending this money, the Republican budget 
locks away 100 percent of the Social Security surplus to be used only 
for Social Security benefits, debt reduction, or Medicare reform.
  Secondly, the Republican budget is responsible. In 1997 the 
Republican Congress and President Clinton agreed to a historic balanced 
budget agreement that has steered our Nation down the path of economic 
prosperity. In the Republican budget we honor the balanced budget deal 
we made with the President by sticking to those limitations. Promises 
made, promises kept; and our country will be better for it.
  Further, the GOP budget provides Americans with security today and in 
their future by investing in our national defense and the education of 
our children. We wish we could do more in these areas, and we will do 
more as our budget situation improves and additional resources become 
available.
  It is today's fiscal discipline that will ensure those resources 
materialize in the future. When a true budget surplus is achieved, 
Congress will have the flexibility to bolster our Nation's defense 
budget, prop up special education, and check off some other items on 
our wish list.
  For Republicans, this wish list includes some long-awaited tax relief 
for American taxpayers. I, for one, am amazed that the tax rate in 
America is at its highest level since World War II. These high taxes 
have real effects on real people's lives. Am I the only one receiving 
mail and phone calls from students, newlyweds, and young parents who 
are trying to get ahead in life, only to be set back by crippling tax 
bills?
  One man from my district who was downsized, out of his job, is being 
taxed at the rate of 28 percent on his severance pay. In frustration, 
he wrote to me asking why the government is hitting him while he is 
down. He is trying to put two kids through college. Meanwhile, the 
government is taking $700 from him while he is unemployed.

                              {time}  1100

  I cannot explain the government's greed, but I can tell him that the 
Republican budget anticipates giving back some of that surplus to the 
people who earned it so they can spend their money as they see fit on 
their priorities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule, which gives ample 
opportunity to debate the priorities of both Republicans and Democrats.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Evans) the ranking member on the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The irony of today is that as many brave American servicemen and 
women are joining with our allies in a military campaign to bring an 
end to uncontrolled aggression, Congress is turning a deaf ear and a 
blind eye to the health care needs of its veterans.
  The budget resolution for next year provides a modest $900 million 
increase in funding for veterans' health care. This increase is one-
half the increase recommended by the Republican majority of the House 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. It is less than one-third the total 
increase for VA funding supported by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
Democrats.
  Would Members of Congress want to rely for their health care on a 
health care system as underfunded as the VA's? I doubt it. But Congress 
apparently has a different, lower standard for health care for our 
servicemen and women.
  Even more troublesome is the fact that its supporters tell us time 
and time again that it provides an unprecedented increase in funding 
for veterans' health care. What they fail to say is that the Republican 
budget provides an unprecedented decrease of $1.1 billion for Veterans' 
Affairs in fiscal year 2001.
  After years of inadequate funding under both Democratic and 
Republican administrations, a consensus exists today for the added 
funding needed to provide veterans with the highest quality health care 
and other benefits and services that they have earned.
  As Republican Members of the House have said, ``We must keep our 
promises to the veterans.'' I agree. Approving additional funding for 
veterans' health care as proposed in the Clement substitute and other 
budget alternatives would do that and would be an important step for 
this Congress to take if Congress is going to do more than simply talk 
the talk on veterans' issues.
  urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this year's budget falls far short 
of providing the funds needed to honor our commitments to our 
servicemen and women. Even with the increased support last week by the 
Committee on the Budget, funding for fiscal year 2000 is $2 billion 
short of what is needed to provide for our veterans' health and well-
being.
  The budget falls short in keeping up with medical inflation in our 
aging veterans population. As our veterans grow older, we must dedicate 
funds to expand health care programs, expand home and community-based 
services, build more veterans nursing homes and, yes, build more 
veterans cemeteries.
  Veterans are in a budget disaster. Let me say, there is no surplus 
when your bills are not paid. Let me repeat that. There is no surplus 
when all of your bills have not been paid. The veterans have paid their 
bills, they have served us well. All of us, when the veterans come 
here, we talk a great talk. It is now time to walk that walk for the 
veterans.
   Mr. Speaker, this year's budget falls well short of providing the 
funding needed to honor our commitment to our service men and women. 
Even with the increase voted last week by the Budget Committee, funding 
for Fiscal Year 2000 is 2 billion dollars short of what is needed to 
provide for our veterans health and well being.
  This budget falls short in keeping up with medical inflation and an 
aging and vulnerable veterans population. As our veterans grow older, 
we must dedicate funds to:
  1. Expanding long term care programs;
  2. Expanding home and community based services;
  3. Building more veterans nursing homes; and
  4. Building more veterans cemeteries.

[[Page 5679]]

  Veterans are in a budget disaster.
  The Budget Committee increased the figure for veterans health care by 
$1.1 billion dollars last week. Given the 3.9 percent rate of health 
care cost inflation, this is still a flat-line budget. Given the new 
initiatives VA is to be tasked with, this is still a flat-line budget. 
A flat-line budget is still a budget reduction.
  We've all heard talk about giving away the budget surplus. There is 
no surplus when all the bills have not been paid. Last week, many of us 
on the Veterans' Affairs Committee who see this need spelled it out in 
detail in our ``Additional and Dissenting Views and Estimates.''
  This was after Mr. Evans attempted to introduce a proposal within the 
Committee calling for adding 3 billion dollars to the Administration 
budget. That debate was not permitted.
   Mr. Speaker, this was not a partisan effort. It was a simple 
statement of dollars and common sense. We need an opportunity to 
present the case to the full House for more funding for veterans 
programs.
   Mr. Speaker, this is still not a partisan effort. In all fairness, 
we need a rule that allows such a discussion.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I have worked well with the 
Republicans since coming to Congress. I think it is important to try to 
work together. But what this Republican budget does is cross that line 
of reason. This is a bait and switch budget. Republicans are saying 
with one hand, look at all the good things we are doing over here and 
then with the other hand they are cutting programs and not telling you 
what they are doing.
  Let me give my colleagues an example. Education. They say, ``Well, 
we're increasing education,'' and they are in spots. But on the other 
hand they are cutting in the year 2000 $1.2 billion of the education 
budget.
  Democrats are extending the life of Social Security to the year 2050. 
The Republicans make doing nothing about extending the life of Social 
Security just sound good. The same is true for the Medicare budget. The 
life of the program is not extended one day under this bait and switch 
budget.
  All of this so they can talk about a tax cut. Now, I support tax 
cuts, but I think a $779 billion tax cut is too much while we have 
ignored the fact that we are not adding one day to Social Security or 
Medicare solvency.
  Oppose the rule on this bait and switch budget.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Wise).
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, budgets are about priorities. That is where 
this Republican budget falls so short. It fails to adequately protect 
Social Security with the guarantees that are needed. It does nothing to 
protect Medicare, to extend it beyond its insolvency date of 2008. And, 
Mr. Speaker, on veterans it falls woefully short.
  I come from the State, West Virginia, with the highest number of 
veterans per capita in the Nation. I cannot go back and point to this 
budget and say that I voted for it. Today, Mr. Speaker, the next 
generation of veterans are being forged in the fire over Kosovo. Yet 
this budget does not say to them, we recognize that sacrifice. Yes, it 
gives an increase of $900 million the first year, trails off and 
disappears in the years to come. This is a totally inadequate budget 
for veterans.
  So we want to talk about priorities. Bad on Social Security, bad on 
Medicare, woefully short on veterans. This is not about families and 
veterans. This is a bad priority, Mr. Speaker, and it is a bad budget. 
I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, every day I rise, 
come in and listen to people come to the well and talk about how they 
support the troops. Well, I think that every surviving troop becomes a 
veteran and that is not acknowledged in this bill.
  Regardless of what is being said, even the veterans have read this 
bill and they understand that they have not been treated well. We have 
homeless veterans, we have dwindling health care being offered to the 
veterans. It is unconscionable that we present a budget like this that 
treats our veterans in the fashion in which they have been treated in 
this budget. There is no real future for America that is reflected in 
this budget, you see, because education has been cheated, Medicare has 
not been addressed. We have got a lock box that has a trap door. The 
guardians of the privilege, they are doing well in this budget. They 
are taking care of the rich in this budget but they are ignoring the 
working people of this country. This is Robin Hood in reverse.
  I ask everyone to vote against this rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions), a colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, what we are engaged in here today is the 
debate that always takes place in Washington, and that is over how much 
money can we spend, how much bigger can we make government, and then 
how we are going to fight to try and save this country.
  The bottom line is there is no doubt that the choices today are 
clear. The President prefers the status quo. He prefers bigger 
government. And he prefers that the government be the answer or the 
solution to America's problems. Republicans place our faith in 
families, communities and the marketplace to solve our Nation's ills. 
This is just yet another chapter in the string of successes of what 
will be for this country and for the Republican Congress. Welfare 
reform, a balanced budget, and tax relief are all successes that this 
President and his party at one time or another fought vehemently and 
now campaign and act like they were their ideas.
  The bottom line is that the Republican Party offers a simple message. 
There is only one way to speak honestly to the American people, and it 
is called discipline. It is called dedicating 100 percent of Social 
Security dollars for Social Security and Medicare. The Republican plan 
dedicates 100 percent. The difference between 100 percent and 62 
percent will be clear to the American public. There is one thing that 
Democrats do do and that is that they fully fund big government. Their 
budgets increase government spending across the board. In fact, the 
President's budget busts the bipartisan spending agreement that we had 
just 2 years ago. He increases spending by more than $200 billion in 
new domestic spending, creating over 120 new government programs.
  Mr. Speaker, our message is plain and simple. We will keep producing 
ideas worth being stolen by the Democrats, but we are going to take 
credit for this one. It is called discipline and doing what we said we 
would do.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  This rule allows just 2 hours of general debate for a budget with 
$1.7 trillion of spending authority. That is a travesty. Let me tell my 
colleagues how this kind of haste makes waste, just one way that you 
can mask the numbers in a debate so short about a matter so complex as 
the budget. This budget, as now drafted, this Republican budget 
resolution, means that our military personnel will not get the 4.4 
percent pay raise that the Joint Chiefs of Staff asked for and the 
troops thought they were promised by the President and the Congress. 
The Republican resolution does provide extra money for defense, but 
nothing for an increase in military retirement benefits, nothing for 
extra pay raises to help retain critical personnel.
  Now, we were able to ferret this out because every pay raise requires 
a corresponding increase in the contribution to the military retirement 
trust fund, function 950 of the budget. Look at function 950 in their 
budget, the Republican budget. There is no entry, no adjustment, no 
provision for these major pay increases, these major retirement reforms 
that have been promised. They are in ours. We followed the President's 
lead. We did it right, they did it wrong.

[[Page 5680]]

  You pass this budget and everybody is on notice. Unless you do the 
numbers in this resolution over, you are breaking faith with our 
troops. You are denying them the pay raises and the benefits that they 
have been told were coming. This is no way to treat the armed services. 
The same goes for the civil service. The same mistake has been made.
  I yield to the gentleman from Virginia to explain that briefly.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, not only does this Republican budget resolution not fund 
military pay raises, but on a party line vote they refused to treat 
civilian Federal employees the same as military employees as has been 
done for 50 years. It breaks a precedent, it is not fair to any Federal 
civilian employees around the country. It is a resolution that should 
be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, when the budget resolution was before the committee last 
week I offered an amendment which would have ensured that federal 
civilian and military employees received equitable and fair pay raises 
for the next ten years as they have for the last fifty years.
  I expected that the amendment would be noncontroversial and pass. 
After all, the President recommended a 4.4 percent increase for 
military and civilian employees, and the Senate recommended a 4.8 
percent increase for both.
  So, I was surprised by the vehement objections raised by those on the 
other side of the aisle. It failed on a party line vote. Yesterday, I 
learned why.
  You see, House Republicans do not support a fair pay raise for either 
the civilian federal employees or the military. They did not include 
any funding above the baseline for either the military or civilian 
retirement trust funds--funding which would be required if they favored 
a fair pay raise.
  They couldn't afford it because of their $779 billion tax cut. Mr. 
Kasich admitted this yesterday.
   Mr. Speaker, federal employees have contributed over $220 billion 
toward deficit reduction in the last decade in foregone pay and 
benefits. The sacrifices made by our military personnel in the name of 
deficit reduction have been significant.
  We have downsized more than a quarter million civilian Federal 
employees over the last year, so those remaining must work much harder 
with far fewer resources.
  The time has come to restore fair and equitable pay raises for these 
men and women who have dedicated their careers and, for many, their 
lives to serving their country.
  Mr. SPRATT. Function 950 of this budget is fatally flawed. That is 
the best reason yet to vote against the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous 
question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to make in order the 
Clement amendment which does increase the Veterans' Affairs function by 
$1.9 billion. We made a promise to our veterans and this country must 
keep our promise.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

    Amendment to House Resolution 131 To Be Offered if the Previous 
                          Question Is Defeated


   to make in order an amendment to keep our promises to our veterans

       On page 2, line 23, before ``.'' insert the following:
       ``or in section 3 of this resolution. The amendment in 
     section 3 of the resolution shall be considered before the 
     amendments in the nature of substitutes printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by Representative Clement of 
     Tennessee or his designee, shall be debatable for one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment nor to a 
     demand for a division of the question''
       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:

     SECTION 3.

               Amendment to H. Con. Res. 68, as Reported

                  Offered by Mr. Clement of Tennessee

       In paragraph (16) of section 3 (relating to Veterans 
     Benefits and Services (700)) increase budget authority and 
     outlays by the following amounts to reflect fundings for 
     veterans' medical care:
       (1) For fiscal year 2000, $1 billion in new budget 
     authority and $900 million in outlays.
       (2) For fiscal year 2001, $3.2 billion in new budget 
     authority and $2.822 million in outlays.
       (3) For fiscal year 2002, $3.283 billion in new budget 
     authority and $3.106 million in outlays.
       (4) For fiscal year 2003, $3.369 billion in new budget 
     authority and $3.283 million in outlays.
       (5) For fiscal year 2004, $3.456 billion in new budget 
     authority and $3.423 million in outlays.
       (6) For fiscal year 2005, $3.546 billion in new budget 
     authority and $3.512 million in outlays.
       (7) For fiscal year 2006, $3.638 billion in new budget 
     authority and $3.603 million in outlays.
       (8) For fiscal year 2007, $3.733 billion in new budget 
     authority and $3.697 million in outlays.
       (9) For fiscal year 2008, $3.830 billion in new budget 
     authority and $3.793 million in outlays.
       (10) For fiscal year 2009, $3.929 billion in new budget 
     authority and $2.891 million in outlays.
       In paragraph (1) of section 3 (relating to national defense 
     (050)) reduce budget authority and outlays by the following 
     amounts:
       (1) For fiscal year 2000, $1 billion in new budget 
     authority and $900 million in outlays.
       (2) For fiscal year 2001, $3.2 billion in new budget 
     authority and $2.822 million in outlays.
       (3) For fiscal year 2002, $3.283 billion in new budget 
     authority and $3.106 million in outlays.
       (4) For fiscal year 2003, $3.369 billion in new budget 
     authority and $3.283 million in outlays.
       (5) For fiscal year 2004, $3.456 billion in new budget 
     authority and $3.423 million in outlays.
       (6) For fiscal year 2005, $3.546 billion in new budget 
     authority and $3.512 million in outlays.
       (7) For fiscal year 2006, $3.638 billion in new budget 
     authority and $3.603 million in outlays.
       (8) For fiscal year 2007, $3.733 billion in new budget 
     authority and $3.697 million in outlays.
       (9) For fiscal year 2008, $3.830 billion in new budget 
     authority and $3.793 million in outlays.
       (10) For fiscal year 2009, $3.929 billion in new budget 
     authority and $3.891 million in outlays.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I predicted in the Committee on Rules meeting yesterday that the 
Democrats would trot out the veterans one more time and use them as a 
pawn in a political battle to try and force a vote. It is even more 
clear that they are pawns when we see that six people who spoke on 
behalf of the veterans today, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Gutierrez), the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Brown) are all members of the Progressive Caucus which has 
put its own budget forth in which they are cutting defense spending by 
nearly $220 billion over 5 years. In a time when 11,000 military 
families are on food stamps, they want to cut funding for the military 
even further, it seems that they are far more concerned about using the 
veterans as a political pawn than they are allowing our own active 
members of the military enough income to provide for food for their own 
families.
  This has been trotted out virtually every year that I have been here. 
I have said that they would use the veterans on a vote against the 
previous question. I urge all Members to vote in favor of the previous 
question, to vote for a rule that gives a fair opportunity to be heard 
on several Democrat alternatives to the Republican budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following extraneous material for the 
Record:

                                         House of Representatives,


                                           Committee on Rules,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 1999.
     Hon. Denny Hastert,
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: As you know, H. Con. Res. 68, the 
     Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2000, was filed by 
     the Committee on the Budget on Tuesday, March 23. As 
     reported, H. Con. Res. 68 contains matters within the 
     jurisdiction of the Rules Committee.
       Specifically, Section 5 (the Safe Deposit Box for Social 
     Security Surpluses), which establishes a point of order 
     against consideration of a budget resolution, an amendment 
     thereto or any conference report thereon which provides for a 
     deficit in any fiscal year, falls solely within the 
     jurisdiction of the Rules Committee. Although the Rules 
     Committee has not sought to exercise its

[[Page 5681]]

     original jurisdiction prerogatives on this legislation 
     pursuant to section 301(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, the Committee has discussed these provisions with the 
     Budget Committee. It is the understanding of the Rules 
     Committee that the Leadership has scheduled the resolution 
     for floor consideration on Thursday, March 25. In recognition 
     of these facts, I agree to waive the Rules Committee's 
     jurisdiction over consideration of this legislation at this 
     time.
       Nevertheless, I reserve the jurisdiction of the Rules 
     Committee over all bills relating to the rules, joint rules 
     and the order of business of the House, including any bills 
     relating to the congressional budget process. Furthermore, it 
     would be my intention to seek to have the Rules Committee 
     represented on any conference committee on this concurrent 
     resolution.
           Sincerely,
     David Dreier.
                                  ____


               The Previous Question Vote: What It Means

       The previous question is a motion made in order under House 
     Rule XVII and is the only parliamentary device in the House 
     used for closing debate and preventing amendment. The effect 
     of adopting the previous question is to bring the resolution 
     to an immediate, final vote. The motion is most often made at 
     the conclusion of debate on a rule or any motion or piece of 
     legislation considered in the House prior to final passage. A 
     Member might think about ordering the previous question in 
     terms of answering the question: Is the House ready to vote 
     on the bill or amendment before it?
       In order to amend a rule (other than by using those 
     procedures previously mentioned), the House must vote against 
     ordering the previous question. If the previous question is 
     defeated, the House is in effect, turning control of the 
     Floor over to the Minority party.
       If the previous question is defeated, the Speaker then 
     recognizes the Member who led the opposition to the previous 
     question (usually a Member of the Minority party) to control 
     an additional hour of debate during which a germane amendment 
     may be offered to the rule. The Member controlling the Floor 
     then moves the previous question on the amendment and the 
     rule. If the previous question is ordered, the next vote 
     occurs on the amendment followed by a vote on the rule as 
     amended.

                                                     DEBATE & AMENDMENTS ON HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTIONS
                                                                  [Fiscal year 1990-99]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Total Time
         Year                Budget Res.            Rule Number        General Debate Time   Amendments Allowed       Vote on Rule        Consumed \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999..................  H. Con. Res. 284.....  H. Res. 455..........  3 hrs. (1 HH) \2\...  3 (1-D 1-R).........  Adopted: 216-197....  6 hrs.
1998..................  H. Con. Res. 84......  H. Res. 152..........  5 hrs. (1 HH) \3\...  5 (3-D 2-R).........  Adopted: 278-142....  7 hrs.
1997..................  H. Con. Res. 178.....  H. Res. 435..........  3 hrs.\4\...........  3 (2-D 1-R).........  Adopted: 227-196....  6 hrs.
1996..................  H. Con. Res. 67......  H. Res. 149..........  6 hrs.\5\...........  4 (2-D 2-R).........  Adopted: 255-168....  10 hrs.
1995..................  H. Con. Res. 218.....  H. Res. 384..........  4 hrs. (1 HH) \6\...  5 (3-D 2-R).........  Adopted: 245-171....  9 hrs.
1994..................  H. Con. Res. 64......  H. Res. 131..........  10 hrs. (4 HH) \7\..  ....................  Adopted: voice vote.  16 hrs.
  ....................  .....................  H. Res. 133..........  ....................  4 (2-D 2-R).........  Adopted: 251-172....  ................
1993..................  H. Con. Res. 287.....  H. Res. 386..........  3 hrs. (1 HH) \8\...  3 (1-D 2-R).........  Adopted: 239-182....  13\1/2\ hrs.
1992..................  H. Con. Res. 121.....  H. Res. 123..........  5 hrs. (2 HH) \9\...  4 (1-D 3-R).........  Adopted: 392-9......  11 hrs.
1991..................  H. Con. Res. 310.....  H. Res. 382..........  6 hrs. (3 HH) \10\..  4 (1-D 3-R).........  Adopted: voice vote.  13 hrs.
1990..................  H. Con. Res. 106.....  H. Res. 145..........  5 hrs. (2 HH) \11\..  5 (3-D 2-R).........  Adopted: voice vote.  12\1/2\ hrs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes hour on rule, general debate time, and debate time on all amendments. Does not include time taken on rollcall votes and walking around
  time.
\2\ The 3 hours of general debate were allocated as follows: 2 hrs. Budget Committee and 1 hr. (HH) between Rep. Saxton of New Jersey and Representative
  Stark of California. Additional debate time on amendments was as follows: 1 hr. Neumann and 1 hr. Spratt.
\3\ The resolution provided for an additional 20 minutes of debate controlled by Representative Minge of Minnesota. Additional debate time for
  amendments: 20 min. Waters, 20 min. Doolittle, 20 min. Brown, 20 min. Kennedy and 20 min. Shuster.
\4\ Additional debate time for amendments: 1 hr. Payne, 1 hr. Orton and 1 hr. Sabo. The resolution provided for an additional 40 minutes of general
  debate, following the conclusion of consideration of the proposed amendments, divided and controlled equally by the chairman and ranking minority
  member of the Budget Committee.
\5\ Additional debate time for amendments: 1 hr. Gephardt, 1 hr. Neumann, 1 hr. Payne and 1 hr. by the minority leader. The rule provided for a final
  ten minute period of general debate following the disposition of the amendments.
\6\ In addition to the hour on HH, Reps. Kasich and Mfume was each given 1 hr. of general debate time to discuss their substitutes. This was followed by
  5 substitutes under ``king of the hill'' (1 hr. Frank, 1 hr. Solomon, 1 hr. Mfume, 1 hr. Kasich, 1 hr. for the final substitute identical to the
  reported budget resolution).
\7\ The 4 hrs. of general debate were allocated: 2 hrs. Budget Committee, 4 hrs. HH, 2 hrs. to discuss the Mfume substitute, 1 hr. to discuss the
  Solomon substitute, followed by 4 substitutes under ``king of the hill'' (2 hrs. Kasich, 1 hr. Solomon, 1 hr. Mfume and 1 hr. Sabo (identical to the
  base resolution)).
\8\ Three substitutes were allowed under ``king of the hill'' (30 min. Dannemeyer, 1 hr. Gradison, 8 hrs. Towns-Dellums).
\9\ Of the 4 amendments allowed, the first was a perfecting amendment by Rep. Ford of Michigan for which 1 hr. was allowed, followed by three
  substitutes under ``king of the hill'' (1 hr. Dannemeyer, 1 hr. Kasich, 2 hrs. Gradison).
\10\ General debate began on April 25th under an unanimous consent request agreed to on April 24th. Four substitutes were allowed under ``king of the
  hill'' (1 hr. Kasich, 1 hr. Dannemeyer, 2 hrs. Dellums, 2 hrs. Frenzel).
\11\ Of the five amendments, one was an amendment by the Chairman of the Budget Committee, 30 mins., followed by 4 substitutes under ``king of the
  hill'' (1 hr. Dannemeyer, 3 hrs. Dellums, 1 hr. Kasich, 1 hr. Gephardt).
 
 Source: Rules Committee Calendars (Note: HH stands for Humphrey-Hawkins debate which relates to the economic goals and policies underlying the economic
  projections assumed in the baseline of the budget resolution).

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
bill because it prohibits the open and free amendment process that 
governs most of our budgetary and appropriations debates.
  This debate that we will engage in later today is an important one 
for the American people. We will be deciding the future of our Social 
Security system. We will be deciding the fate of the Medicare system. 
Our constituents care about these programs, because they know just how 
valuable they are.
  Earlier this week, I met with several senior citizens groups in my 
district, which resides in Houston, Texas. Without exception, each of 
them relayed their concerns to me that both the Social Security and 
Medicare systems should not have their benefits reduced in any way. 
They were also concerned about the longevity of both programs--and 
making sure that Medicare and Social Security will be here for their 
children, and their children's children.
  This puts into proper perspective the gravity of our chore. Without a 
completely open rule, we cannot dissect the Republican resolution and 
directly address the concerns of our constituents.
  Having said that, I am thankful that the rule contains provisions 
which allow for the debate of the Democratic substitute to this bill, 
sponsored by Ranking Member Spratt. I only wish that we would have a 
more extensive debate on that amendment--meaning more than 40 minutes, 
so that my Democratic colleagues could voice their support for the 
measure.
  I urge each of my colleagues to vote against the rule, and to vote 
for the Democratic substitute when it comes to the floor for 
consideration.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.

                              {time}  1115

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the 
resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 203, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 72]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger

[[Page 5682]]


     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--203

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Barr
     Brady (TX)
     Cummings
     Emerson
     Engel
     Lowey
     Stupak

                              {time}  1134

  Mr. BOSWELL and Mr. BISHOP changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. PICKERING, HORN, STUMP, BISHOP and JONES of North Carolina 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 73, my voting card was not 
operable and is now being replaced. Had the voting card worked, I would 
have voted ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 194, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 73]

                               AYES--228

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan

[[Page 5683]]


     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Barr
     Brady (TX)
     Buyer
     Emerson
     Engel
     Franks (NJ)
     Gonzalez
     Johnson (CT)
     Lowey
     Stupak
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1144

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                         PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably detained 
during rollcall Nos. 72 and 73 due to medical reasons. Had I been 
present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 72 and ``yea'' on 
rollcall No. 73.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 72 and 73, I was not 
present due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to House Resolution 131 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 68.

                              {time}  1148


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 68) establishing the congressional 
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2000 and 
setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 
2001 through 2009, with Mr. Camp in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, general debate shall not exceed 3 hours, with 2 hours 
confined to the congressional budget, equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1 
hour on the subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and 
controlled by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 1 hour of debate on the 
congressional budget.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today we offer the first budget of the next century and 
a new agenda for the new millennium. I think this is a great day for 
the House, because we have been able to move forward from an era not 
very long ago when, as we looked out across the horizon, the economic 
horizon of this country, we saw deficits as far as the eye could see.
  The majority came into its position in 1995 when we first advanced 
the need for economic stimulus driven by tax relief, giving more power, 
providing more incentives for risk-taking, and at the same time a big 
dose of fiscal restraint; in other words, starting to get the Congress 
of the United States to live within its means.
  The fact is that in 1995, Mr. Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal 
Reserve System, said that if you can offer a legitimate and credible 
plan to balance the Federal budget, he said that he believed that 
interest rates would decline by 2 points.
  I must also remind Members that in 1995, as we assumed control of the 
House of Representatives, interest rates had been rising, the economy 
had been slowing, there was concern about unemployment. The fact that 
we laid down a plan that would begin to put our fiscal house in order, 
to put us in a position where the Congress of the United States would 
operate really like the American family, and that we would restore some 
of the incentives to risk-take, I believe that has contributed 
significantly to the economic gains that we have had in this country.
  Now today, as we stand here, as I stand here in the well, we are 
about to pass a budget that not only captures the surpluses of Medicare 
and social security, but at the same time has the on-budget surpluses 
that so many people have sought for years.
  In other words, when we take a look at the balance sheets of the 
Federal Government, both in the social security and Medicare accounts 
and in the non-social security and Medicare accounts, we have been able 
to achieve not only a balanced budget, but also some huge surpluses.
  Let me say, at the outset, we are doing something that the Congress 
of the United States has never done: We are taking all the payroll 
taxes that we collect every day that are related to social security and 
Medicare and we are locking them into an account so that the 
politicians, Republicans and Democrats, cannot raid those accounts for 
any other spending item.
  That money will sit in an account, and until we enact a plan that 
actually saves social security, that money will be used to pay down 
part of the Federal debt. Last year we paid down about $50 billion of 
the debt. Most Americans do not know that. This year we would 
anticipate paying down at least $125 billion of the national debt.
  Of course, if I was a citizen listening to somebody in the well of 
this House make that claim, I would greet it with great skepticism, but 
the fact is that what I am saying is true. Last year the publicly-held 
debt was paid down by $50 billion, and in fact this year we anticipate 
at least $125 billion of the publicly-held debt to be retired.
  That does not allow us to rest on our laurels, by any stretch of the 
imagination, because we must work every day to make the power of 
government less and the power of people greater. We need to run America 
from the bottom up, so people can have control over the education for 
their children, so that the baby boomers and the younger generation can 
have hope of having a decent retirement by having more control, so 
Americans can have more money in their pockets.
  The fact is, as it relates to social security and Medicare, we know 
those programs have to be transformed, and not just to protect the 
retirement benefits of our seniors today. I would argue that that is a 
given. Because of a pay-as-you-go system, we know that the baby boomers 
are able to carry the load of their parents, but I want the moms and 
dads of this country to realize that the people who are really at risk 
are their children. I want mom and dad who are on social security and 
Medicare to realize that we are going to stand up and protect their 
benefits, but it is their children, their baby boomer sons and 
daughters, who are at risk.
  We must have the courage to transform this system so that the 
benefits just do not accrue to our seniors today, but that our baby 
boomers and their children will also have retirement security. Sad to 
say that the President has taken a leave of absence on this. He is 
missing-in-action as it relates to the issue of social security and 
Medicare.
  Just last week the Medicare Commission, headed by a member of his own 
party, was blunted by the action of the President. That Democrat, 
leader of this program to try to extend the life of social security and 
to reform it so it is available for the baby boomers, that Senator said 
last week that the administration and many in his party were

[[Page 5684]]

more interested in using the issue of Medicare as a political weapon 
than they were interested in being able to transform and save Medicare, 
not just for today's seniors, but for the baby boomers and their 
children.
  That is the worst of American politics, to use the threat of 
destroying economic security for our senior citizens to try to win 
votes. That is not what makes America great. What makes America great 
is not just to debate when Republicans and Democrats disagree, but the 
ability to search for a common goal, to preserve some of the vital 
retirement programs for this Nation, to keep the demagoguery out of 
this debate. Let us work together to try to extend the life of Medicare 
and social security.
  At the same time, we are also honoring the 1997 budget agreement. The 
President breaks the spending caps. He breaks the discipline of the 
1997 budget agreement. We will not do that. Not only will we not break 
the discipline of the 1997 agreement that has contributed to a stronger 
economy, but we will not raid the social security and Medicare trust 
fund the way the President does.
  We have decided to save it all, and to take that and coordinate with 
that the 1997 budget agreement by having fiscal restraint. It is about 
priorities in America today. What we are saying is that the programs of 
defense and education ought to be top priorities in our budget.
  There was a paper distributed on the floor with more misleading 
information about the fact that this bill does not include a pay raise 
for the military. That is false. That is patently false. I am beginning 
to believe that many people who stand in opposition to this bill are 
just going to ignore the facts. This is not going to be a debate about 
what is in the bill, this is a debate about what fictions we can 
create.
  There will be provided for in this budget document a pay raise for 
our troops. The Committee on Armed Services will come to the floor and 
tell us that. We know that it is necessary to boost the spending for 
the military. That is precisely what we do in this bill. At the same 
time, we also believe we should emphasize education.
  The fact is, in education we have provided more money than the 
President has, not just for defense but for education as well. As 
Members know, we are very interested in education flexibility, so that 
the school districts can manage their challenges better at the local 
level without having to have a bureaucrat a thousand miles away who 
does not even know what time zone it is in these local school districts 
to tell them how to manage their challenges.
  In addition to all of this, Mr. Chairman, there is tax relief for the 
taxpayers. The fact of the matter is there are many on the other side 
of the aisle that bristle at the thought of a tax cut for Americans. It 
has become almost a philosophy, almost a mantra, to make the argument 
that there is something wrong with shrinking the size of the government 
and letting peoples' pocketbooks grow bigger.
  I want to warn a number of my friends, it is not only wrong for the 
country but it is very bad politics to make an argument that the budget 
of the government ought to grow while our personal and family budgets 
ought to shrink, and that somehow we should pound our chests in self-
righteous indignation at the notion that we want to work to cut the 
size of government and give more money to the American people.

                              {time}  1200

  If we are going to run America from the bottom up, if we are going to 
let Americans be able to pursue their hopes and dreams, Mr. Chairman, 
the more money that one has in one's pocket, the more one can control 
one's own destiny, the more power that one has. The smaller this amount 
becomes, the less power one has.
  Power is a zero sum game. If one has less and the government has 
more, who has got the power? When the government has less and if one 
has more, who has got the power?
  In our country today, as we approach the new millennium and we set 
the new agenda for the next century, what we do know is that the 
strength of America, harkening back to where our founders was, was a 
limited government; the dignity of the individual was to be preserved; 
that the individual in our society was what was most important in a 
Nation that recognizes that freedom is precious; and that that the 
future is ours.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we intend not only to preserve Social Security and 
Medicare, we not only agree to prioritize the items of national 
security and education, but at the same time, we also believe that the 
American people ought to be empowered, that the American people ought 
to have more money in their pockets in order to provide, not just for 
themselves and not just for their communities, but for those that may 
live in the shadows of their communities who have less and cannot be 
ignored in America.
  That is the great tradition of America. More in one's pocket means 
more for one's family. For those who have not been so fortunate, we 
have an obligation to take care of them.
  So at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, I think we present a budget 
for the new millennium that is right in pace with where the American 
people want to go. The American people hunger for more control over 
their lives and more power in order to fix the problems, to meet the 
challenges that they see every day.
  This budget will begin to preserve and reform and transform the 
programs for economic security in our senior years, at the same time 
paying down some of the national debt and, most important, beginning to 
transfer again, continuing to transfer power, money, and influence from 
the institution of government into the pockets of people.
  We will move forward on this. We will lay down a good marker as we 
enter the next millennium. We will set the pace and set the direction 
for what can be a glorious new century for, not just Americans, but for 
people all over the world who have come to see us as a model and as an 
example of the power of freedom and individuality and compassion and 
caring and vision.
  Vote for the budget. Reject these alternatives and, at the same time, 
reject the President's budget and set ourselves on the right course.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I was trying to get the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kasich) to tell us why Function 950 of his budget resolution provides 
no adjustment as it is required to do to provide for the pay raise, the 
extra pay raise for selected pay grades and officers and NCOs and for 
the military retirement benefits.
  The fact of the matter is, Function 950, the military retirement 
account, where that charge needs to be made, is absolutely unadjusted 
in their budget resolution. So it does not provide for the pay raise 
and the benefits that our troops have been promised.
  Let me go to the overarching subject, the budget, and the happy 
occasion that we find ourselves in today. I did not ever think that I 
would serve to see the day where we have surpluses as far as the eye 
could see. I think it is worth taking just a minute to track down the 
trail we have followed for the last 10 years that have led us to this 
happy set of circumstances.
  In 1990, we had a budget summit that lasted 6 months. We finally 
brought it to the floor. It was defeated once. Then the Democrats put 
the vote up to pass President Bush's budget summit agreement. There 
were only 80 votes on that side of the aisle. It implemented 
discretionary pay caps, a pay-as-you-go rule, and the kind of 
disciplines that have served us well to get rid of the deficit. But it 
did not have any obvious effect because it was eclipsed by a recession.
  In 1993, when President Clinton came to office, he found on his desk 
awaiting him the economic report of the President. In it, Michael 
Boskin, his Economic Council chief, said the deficit this year will be 
$332 billion. That was the baseline from which the Clinton 
administration began.
  From that baseline, in 1993, we reduced the deficit with the Deficit 
Reduction Act of 1993, which had exclusively Democratic votes in the 
House

[[Page 5685]]

and the Senate from $330 billion projected level, $290 billion actual 
level in 1992, to $22 billion in 1997.
  Then our colleagues on the other side of the aisle joined with us, 
and we finished the job and wiped out that additional $22 billion of 
deficit and lay the basis for going into the next century.
  It is critically important that we did this, because until we dealt 
with the year-to-year deficit, we could not deal with the next problem; 
and that is the problem, the challenge of an aging society.
  Our society is getting older and older. I am a war baby. A huge 
generation of young people were born, babies were born in 1946 until 
1964, and they will start retiring in about 10 or 12 years. When they 
do, they will put unprecedented strain on the most popular, most 
successful program ever invented by the government, the Social Security 
program, so much so that they may put in jeopardy its solvency by the 
year 2032.
  The Medicare program, which runs a close second in popularity, is in 
even greater jeopardy because the cost of medical care is rising along 
with the demographic increases, and it, too, is threatened with 
insolvency in the year 2008.
  We have an opportunity to do something about that. We have an 
opportunity to take the work we began in 1990 and 1993 and 1997 and 
deal with the next problem, which is a daunting challenge, preparing 
this country and this government for the burdens of the next century 
cast upon us by an aging society.
  Our budget, the Democratic budget, rises to that challenge; theirs 
does not. We are going to have other speakers who will turn to this 
topic, but let me just give my colleagues the highlights and tell them 
what is the difference between us and them. I will give it to my 
colleagues in a nutshell.
  We protect the Social Security Trust Fund. We proposed to protect the 
Trust Fund so that 100 percent of the payroll taxes coming into it are 
spent exclusively for the benefit of that particular program for the 
first time probably in 30 or 40 years. We propose to do it by directing 
the Treasurer of the United States to take that percentage of payroll 
taxes not needed to pay benefits that year and to buy down public debt.
  How does that happen? That means that, when the obligations come due 
in 2020 and 2030, the Treasury will be in better shape than ever 
because it will have lower debt and lower debt service to meet those 
obligations.
  We also, unlike the Republicans, do something about Medicare, because 
we see Medicare and Social Security as linked together. We extend the 
life of Medicare, the solvency of the Medicare program from 2020. They 
leave it as it is. They leave it in a lurch.
  We are still opposed to huge tax cuts in the out years, $143 billion 
in the first 5 years and $450 billion plus in the second 5 years, 
rising to as much as a trillion dollars between 2009 and 2014, which 
will drain the budget dry of the funds needed to do something about the 
Medicare program.
  Do my colleagues want to know the difference between us and them? 
Look at the Trust Fund account for Social Security. In our plan, Social 
Security will have $3.4 trillion more money at the end of 15 years. 
They will add $1.8 trillion. We are twice as good as they. With 
Medicare, we add $400 billion. To their Trust Fund, they add a paltry 
$14 billion.
  There are significant differences. If my colleagues care about 
meeting the challenge in the next century, this is a budget resolution 
to vote for.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 14 minutes to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to 
control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui).
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, Social Security is probably the most important program 
Americans have had over the years. It takes care of the senior citizens 
of America. As anybody knows, if we did not have Social Security today, 
half the senior population would live in poverty.
  One-third of the benefits of Social Security go to families that have 
the bread winner disabled or perhaps dies. So many children who no 
longer have a mother or father who are the bread winners in that family 
can still go on to school and perhaps college. This is a very, very 
critical program.
  What the budget of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
does is adds 18 more years to that program so that it will be solvent 
to the year 2050, 50 more years of solvency total. The Republican plan 
does not add one year to that solvency.
  As we continue this debate, it is my hope that the Republicans 
respond to the March 13 letter from the actuary of the Social Security, 
Mr. Harry Ballantine of which everyone bases their conclusions on.
  In that letter, in the second paragraph, he says,

       The proposal of the Republicans would not have any 
     significant effect on the long-range solvency of the Social 
     Security program under the intermediary assumptions of the 
     Trustee's report. Thus, the estimated long-range actuarial 
     deficit of 2.19 percent of taxable payroll and the year of 
     combined trust funds exhaustion would not change.

  So when we hear that the Republicans are saying they extend the life 
of Social Security by protecting the money, they do not. In fact, they 
can use the money for a tax cut. They can use it for a tax cut. So bear 
in mind what this is all about, this debate, is to protect Social 
Security, and the Democratic bill does that.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott) for yielding me this time. I particularly 
want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for 
providing us with this alternative.
  When we talk so much, as both sides have, about Social Security and 
Medicare, the people back home are listening to us and saying, have 
they really given us a solution? The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) has done that, and the Democratic alternative has done just 
that.
  He has said let us take aside all of the surplus that we are getting 
in the area of Social Security, dedicate it to Social Security and 
Medicare, and make sure we come up with a fix, a solution. Set the 
money aside and take away the rhetoric of tax cuts and additional 
discretionary spending. Solve these problems first before we go home.
  Medicare is perhaps one of the most aching problems that is out 
there, home health care, prescription drugs. People each day are asking 
us in both Democratic and Republican districts, how do we solve this?
  It is indeed a problem back home in Rhode Island, because I know home 
health care agencies, the most cost effective, efficient agencies are 
going out of businesses. People that need the kind of home care, that 
is the least costly home care, are not getting it and eventually ending 
up in nursing homes and hospitals.
  I have a couple in Rhode Island that are 66 and 70 years old. 
Prescription drugs is something they never thought about when they 
retired. But after open heart surgery and bypass surgery, both of them, 
at age 66 and 70, are back working part-time just to pay for the $8,200 
a year for prescription drugs they have to pay.
  Seniors are doing without paying their rent, without paying for food, 
and sometimes not even paying for the prescriptions because the cost is 
so high. That is going to come back to all of us in terms of higher 
taxpayer costs.
  We should not leave here until we resolve this problem. The only way 
to do it is, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 
suggested, lock this money aside, not use it for all those rhetorical 
questions that are being asked all the time about tax cuts and 
discretionary spending, and fix the problem.
  Let us bring us to a solution rather than continuing putting us in 
this rhetorical oblivion that will never come to

[[Page 5686]]

a conclusion. End this problem now. Fix Medicare.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, Medicare and Social Security have improved 
the lives of millions of elderly and disabled Americans. Together they 
provide a vital safety net which millions of Americans rely on. 
However, while Medicare is projected to run short of funds in just 9 
years, and Social Security will run short of funds by 2032, the 
Republican budget resolution does nothing to extend the life of 
Medicare or Social Security.
  The Democratic budget alternative that will be offered later today 
will extend the life of Medicare through 2020 in addition to extending 
the life of Social Security to 2050.

                              {time}  1215

  Only after this commitment is fulfilled would we propose to spend 
money on high priority areas like health, education and the 
environment.
  I believe firmly that I would not be standing before my colleagues 
today if it were not for Medicare. Social Security and Medicare 
together enabled my grandmother to live independently until she was 90 
years old. As her primary caregiver for the last several years, I know 
the role Social Security and Medicare play in making ends meet, in 
protecting her from making sure that a medical crisis would not lead to 
financial ruin.
  Medicare and Social Security are not just commitments we made to our 
seniors, they are commitments we made to families. And it is just as 
important to young people that we have Medicare and Social Security as 
it is to our seniors, because it keeps our families and our communities 
strong.
  We have an historic opportunity to make good on this commitment. The 
budget decisions we make today will have enormous consequences for 
decades. The Republican budget resolution squanders this opportunity 
before us; the opportunity to reduce public debt while protecting the 
existence of Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means 
and a former member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed Social Security 
and worked for its passage, the Republican Party was dead set against 
it. When John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson said that having Social 
Security was not enough, if there was no health security and advanced 
Medicare, 90 percent of the Republicans in this Congress voted to 
reject it. When Bill Clinton was elected President, the Republican 
Party in this House elected a majority leader, my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), who said of Social Security, It is 
``a rotten trick;'' who said of Medicare that he ``resented'' having to 
be a part of it as a compulsory government program.
  So I suppose that against that backdrop the American people should 
take some confidence and some reassurance in the fact that Medicare and 
Social Security are even mentioned in this budget resolution. They are 
indeed mentioned in the resolution. When we look to the budget 
resolution to see whether there is any money to match the promises 
made, there is not $1 truly set aside for Social Security and Medicare 
to assure solvency into the future. All that the Republican budget 
resolution says is that these vital programs can go broke on schedule, 
which is not much help to the people of this country.
  The second indication that we get out of this budget resolution of 
where the heart of the Republican Party is on these critical issues for 
hundreds of millions of American citizens who either benefit from these 
programs today or will in the future is to look to the instructions 
that they include in this resolution. What instruction do they have 
about Medicare and Social Security? They have one reconciliation 
instruction, and it is ``Give us our tax breaks.'' They say ``Give us 
our tax breaks.''
  We say save Medicare and Social Security first. Do the fiscally 
responsible thing; pay down the debt, preserve these valuable programs, 
postpone the desire to help those at the top of the economic ladder to 
some future time, and help those Americans who want these systems 
preserved.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today we have a very fundamental 
choice before us; we can pass the budget resolution that proposes a tax 
cut over 10 years of approximately $800 billion, or we can do first 
things first, and that is we can take up and pass the Spratt amendment, 
which provides a tax cut of about $137 billion but pays down the 
publicly held debt, the Federal debt, by more than $137 billion more 
than the Republican budget proposal.
  Now, why is that so important? The first thing is it is the right 
thing to do for our children and grandchildren, and not for them to 
have to inherit this debt.
  The second thing is, as we begin to prepare for the retirement of the 
baby boomers, of which I am one, and funding the solvency of Social 
Security and Medicare, we are going to need some of those funds to pay 
that.
  Thirdly, and perhaps most important, one of the best things we can do 
to protect our economy right now is to pay down the Federal debt. As 
Chairman Greenspan has testified before the House Committee on the 
Budget, it has a direct bearing on interest rates.
  In my home, Florida and Tampa, where the average mortgage for a 
homeowner is about $115,000, if we drop interest rates two points, down 
from 8 to 6 percent, that is $155 a month in that homeowner's pocket 
they would not otherwise have.
  Paying down the debt and providing that type of tax cut, simple and 
immediate, to homeowners, to people holding student loans and car 
loans, is the right thing to do for our children and grandchildren and, 
most importantly, will help preserve the solvency of Medicare and 
Social Security as we begin to prepare for the retirement of the baby 
boomers.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a member of the Committee on Commerce and 
also the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this Republican bill is a complete fraud. 
That is the bottom line. They have got hundreds of billions of dollars 
for tax cuts, mostly for the rich, but not one penny to extend the 
Medicare trust fund, which is going bankrupt, by the way, in the year 
2008.
  Let us go back to their balanced budget of 1997. The premise was that 
we would have to cut Medicare and home health care, those are visits 
made to people's homes who have Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and other 
chronic diseases, $115 billion to give a $90 billion tax break for 
mostly the wealthiest in America.
  Now we have this huge surplus. Now, what do the Republicans say? We 
are going to give that money back to the Medicare recipients; we are 
going to give that money back to the HMO health care recipients? No, 
they say, we do not have enough money for those people.
  Now, the problem, of course, is that the programs were cut 
fraudulently, using numbers that were not accurate in 1997 in terms of 
the problem with Medicare. It turns out today that the CBO says that in 
fact they have found miraculously $88 billion more of savings in 
Medicare for this 5-year period, and they found an additional hundreds 
of billions of dollars of revenues that they did not project.
  How much goes back to Medicare on the Republican side? They do not 
have a penny.
  If we kick them in the heart over here, we are going to break our 
toes. They just do not want to help these old people on Medicare.
  So, my colleagues, our substitute, with the effort to try to help 
those most vulnerable, the senior citizens

[[Page 5687]]

within our society, intends on guaranteeing that Medicare is extended 
10 extra years in solvency, so that the senior citizens in our country 
are going to be given the protection which they deserve.
  My colleagues, the Republican substitute does nothing, nothing to 
help the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. Vote ``no'' on the 
Republican budget here today on the House floor.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I was elected in 1970 and spent 15 years in the State 
legislature and spent 10 years here, and I have never seen a budget 
exercise like this one.
  Last year, we have to remember, the Republicans did not pass a 
budget. They never got a budget resolution through the United States 
Congress. This year they said, we are going to do it, but we are going 
to do it by jamming it past people so fast they can never figure out 
what is happening.
  We listened to a wonderful stump speech by the chairman of the 
committee today, but when he hands the budget to us 4 hours before and 
gives us two pieces of paper with the numbers on it, that is all we 
got, two pieces of paper, to spend $1.7 billion, I say this is a smoke 
and mirrors budget.
  My colleagues can look at these pieces of paper and say there is 
anything in here. They can promise the world. They can promise 
veterans, they can promise old people, they can promise the National 
Institutes of Health, they can promise anything on these two pieces of 
paper, because there is no specificity. There were no hearings. It was 
simply, ram it through.
  Now we come to the floor. We get 40 minutes on the Committee on the 
Budget to talk about this issue. Now, is that because we are busy 
tomorrow? No. People are going home. Could we have more time on this? 
No, the Committee on Rules said we have to be out tonight. Where are we 
going? I guess we are just going out for 2 weeks, yet we cannot spend 
another 1 or 2 hours on this issue.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is right. I sat on the 
Medicare Commission, and the Medicare Commission rightly turned down 
the proposal being jammed through by the Republicans to privatize 
Medicare, but they are going to do it here. This budget has no money in 
it to deal with the problems of Medicare.
  What they are going to do is they are going to come in with their 
little voucher program. It is going to be called ``premium support.'' 
They are going to try to ram that out of the Committee on Ways and 
Means and run it through here and leave the old people holding the bag.
  This is a bad budget, and I urge Members to vote against the 
Republican alternative.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) may yield time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped we were going to come to the 
floor today to talk about the real facts contained in the Democrat 
budget versus the Republican budget, but it appears we are getting off 
base here. But let us look at what the actual dollar numbers are when 
it comes to Medicare, and here they are.
  We are going to put $1.8 trillion aside over the next 10 years to 
save and protect Social Security and Medicare. What does the President 
do? He is well below us, right down here.
  These are the actual numbers, Members.
  Mr. Chairman, today the House is going to consider a budget for the 
fiscal year 2000 that addresses the issues that matter most to American 
families. This budget, the first for the new millennium, safeguards 
Social Security and Medicare, addresses priorities such as education, 
defense and agriculture, and provides historic tax relief. This budget 
meets the challenges of the 21st century head-on by adhering to several 
bedrock principles, each of which is set forth right here.
  First, we are going to lock away every penny of the Social Security 
surplus for our Nation's elderly.
  We are going to set aside more money than the President to strengthen 
Social Security and Medicare.
  We are going to create a safe deposit box to ensure that bureaucrats 
in Washington cannot get their hands on the Social Security Trust Fund 
money.
  We are going to pay down more debt than the President's budget.
  We are going to maintain the spending discipline that carries over 
from the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.
  We are going to make national defense a top priority by providing 
additional resources for things such as pay raises which are 
specifically set forth in the budget.
  We are going to provide the resources to train, equip and retain our 
men and women in uniform, who are in harm's risk as we speak today.
  We are going to offer security for rural Americans by providing 
reforms in crop insurance and money to fund that crop insurance reform.
  And we are going to enact historic tax relief. Yes, tax relief. And 
it is interesting that opponents of this budget would get up today and 
argue against tax relief. That is almost un-American, and I really 
cannot believe we are hearing that in the well today. But, yes, we 
favor tax relief, and we are going to support tax relief in our budget 
plan for hard-working Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget is consistent with the common sense 
conservative principles of encouraging our communities and individuals 
to grow from the bottom up, not from Washington down. This is a budget 
Americans can be proud of, and I urge all of my colleagues to support 
the Republican budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  When I came here, we were paying interest on the national debt equal 
to about $52 billion. In the years I have been here that bill has gone 
up to $252 billion. Dead weight. Produces no goods and services for 
anybody.
  We have got a proposal in our budget resolution that will drive that 
debt down $3 trillion. It is good for Social Security, it is good for 
the economy, it is good for the Federal budget, and it is good for our 
children and grandchildren.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this chart shows where we were 
when Republicans took the majority in 1995.
  For the foreseeable future, at that time, this government went deeper 
and deeper into debt--for as far as the economist could see. We came 
in, as the new majority, determined we were going to reduce and slow 
down spending. Look, we did it.
  This is historic. I went back over the last 40 years. In every one of 
those years that the Democrats had control they used the surplus coming 
in from Social Security for other Government spending.
  Please look, what we are doing now. We do not have to increase the 
national debt in this 5 year Republican budget. The President's plan, 
the Democrats' plan, has to increase the national debt. Their plan 
forces this country deeper into debt by $2 trillion more than the 
Republican proposal.
  I want to say that again to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt). Your plan goes deeper into debt by $2 trillion more than the 
Republican proposal.
  Nobody should just talk about the debt to the public. They have got 
to talk about the total Government debt. Because what we owe the Social 
Security Trust Fund is just as important as what we owe Wall Street.
  I want to talk about the caps. The Republicans stay under the caps. 
The Democrat proposal does not stay under the caps. I am chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget Task Force on Social Security. That 
bipartisan task force is working very well together. But I just want to 
say very clearly that what we are doing for the first time in recent 
history, is not spending the Social Security surplus for other 
Government programs.

[[Page 5688]]

  I mean, it is a giant step forward for saving Social Security. We are 
putting that money aside. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) says that they are saving Social Security by adding a giant IOU 
to the Medicare Trust Fund and the Social Security Trust Fund. That 
makes us go deeper into debt. It is not honest. It is a asset for 
Social Security but a deficit for the general fund. In short it is a 
mandate for future tax increases for our kids and grandkids.
  All the review of the President's proposal that suggests that we can 
save Social Security by adding more IOUs--conclude it is smoke and 
mirrors. It is!
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating the budget. In 
putting together a budget blueprint, it is important to remember that 
the Federal budget is an outline of priorities. It is not a detailed 
specification of every single appropriation bill that we are going to 
pass over the next year. The Federal budget is $1.7 trillion. The 
budget blueprint is intended to talk about what our priorities are as a 
Congress for the next year.
  In trying to establish those priorities, the Committee on the Budget 
tried to answer three questions. First and foremost, what about Social 
Security and Medicare? Those on the other side have talked about these 
important issues; and we came back with the answer first we should set 
aside every penny of the Social Security surplus, every penny of that 
trust fund surplus, to strengthen and protect Social Security and 
Medicare.
  As the debate goes on today, we will see time and again that we set 
aside more to preserve Social Security and Medicare than the President 
in his budget. We set aside every penny of the surplus for Social 
Security, not 60 percent as the administration suggested, because it is 
the right thing to do.
  Second, we wanted to set priorities about the size and scope of the 
Federal Government. And we thought it was appropriate that we keep to 
the commitments of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, a bipartisan agreement 
that set some control on the growth and scope of the Federal 
Government. Keeping those commitments again is an important part of the 
integrity of this budget resolution.
  And third, what about tax relief? Right now taxes in this country are 
at a peacetime high. They have not been this high since 1944. And we 
thought it appropriate that, after we set aside 100 percent of the 
Social Security Trust Fund surplus, we ought to give back the 
additional surpluses to the American workers in the form of lower 
taxes.
  This is about priorities, our priority of saving 100 percent of the 
Social Security surplus, against the administration's priority, if we 
can call it that, of only setting aside 60 percent of the Social 
Security Trust Fund surplus. Our commitment and priority to keep to the 
promises we made as part of the 1997 budget agreement. The 
administration's budget breaks those caps by $30 billion. Our 
commitment to lower taxes once we have ensured that we protect the 
Social Security Trust Fund surplus. The administration's commitment to 
raise taxes by $100 billion. That is the wrong direction for this 
country.
  In the end, this budget resolution pays down more debt, does more to 
protect Social Security and Medicare, and provides fair and honest tax 
relief. That is a set of priorities we can be proud of. It is a set of 
priorities that makes sense for the country. And that is why I am proud 
to support the budget resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Rivers) and ask unanimous consent that she control the 
time for yielding to other Members.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of fiscal responsibility 
and in support of the Democratic budget resolution and in opposition to 
the Republican budget resolution.
  When I was elected to Congress, my highest priority was to balance 
the unified budget. We have apparently accomplished that goal. Now my 
highest priority is to pay down the publicly held debt and extend 
Social Security and Medicare solvency.
  Mr. Chairman, a week ago the majority on the Committee on the Budget 
submitted two pages of numbers and called it a budget resolution. It is 
as much a budget resolution as a blank piece of paper is a Pulitzer 
Prize winning novel. The budget resolution is two pages, no 
explanation. Draconian spending cuts of $181 billion over 10 years are 
hidden in blue smoke and mirrors.
  This budget says we are going to increase defense spending and 
education and cut other programs by $27 billion. It is not going to 
happen. The budget builds on the hope that the CBO can re-estimate the 
base line just so we can put off until September either any cuts we 
have to make and either have a showdown or disaster like last year.
  What this budget will do is bust the caps and the pay-go rules. The 
majority's budget resolution gives more priority to enacting an $800 
billion tax break than paying down the debt. It does not stop Social 
Security and Medicare from going insolvent. It locks in nearly a 
trillion-dollar tax cut betting on a 15-year projection that, if the 
surplus does not materialize, will result in more deficits and more 
debt.
  The Republicans say they are saving the surplus in Social Security in 
the trust fund, but they do nothing to honor the obligation to 
extending the life of Social Security and Medicare. Let us look at what 
Alan Greenspan has to say. He is adamantly clear that the best policy 
is debt reduction. Let me quote him.
  ``From an economic policy point of view I envisage that the best 
thing we can do at this particular state is to allow that surplus to 
run. What that means, of course, is that the debt to the public 
declines, interest costs on the debt decline, and in my judgment, that 
contributes to lower long-term interest rates.''
  Make no mistake, the Democratic budget resolutions retires nearly 
three-quarters of a trillion dollars of publicly held debt. The 
Republicans' do not.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, when asked about the rough-and-tumble world of 
politics, Margaret Thatcher said, ``Well, you don't tell deliberate 
lies, but sometimes you have to be evasive.''
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that there is considerable evasion in 
this budget. Starting with the issue that the Republicans claim to put 
aside all of the Social Security money for Social Security, in today's 
Wall Street Journal, page A-28, we find a very interesting article. The 
Wall Street Journal tells us that their commitment is essentially 
toothless and can be waived by a simple majority, which is done on the 
floor every day. This is the Wall Street Journal.
  They promise us that certain programs will be taken care of, that 
certain groups will get the things they need. But they forget to tell 
us, or they evade telling us, that $52 billion of cuts have to be found 
over the next 5 years to provide what they have in their budget.
  An earlier speaker talked about what was un-American. Well, I will 
tell my colleagues what is un-American, Mr. Chairman. What is un-
American is not paying our bills, not dealing with our debts, not 
dealing with our existing obligations. And as a Nation, we have many: 
Social Security, Medicare, and a national debt that is nearing $6 
trillion.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) mentioned that Alan Greenspan 
said unequivocally that the best way to deal with our current situation 
is to pay down the debt and to use both surpluses, on-budget and off-
budget. The Democratic proposal here today puts more than $474 billion 
over the Republican proposal in the next 15 years.
  The last piece of evasion that I want to speak to today is the 
suggestion

[[Page 5689]]

that the tax cuts that are being proposed come purely from the on-
budget surplus. That ignores the fact that as these tax cuts play 
themselves out over the years, by the year 2013 we will be dealing with 
an on-budget deficit and we will have to dip into Social Security 
money.
  Now, that comes at a time when the existing obligations I was talking 
about, our baby-boomers, begin to retire, and it will be the greatest 
strain on our budget to provide for them.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  It is so amazing. I mean, really, when it comes right down to it, 
both sides have done not a pretty good job of coming up with a budget. 
All right? I mean, there are only so many ways we can do it, with 
mandatory programs and discretionary programs. There are only a certain 
few ways we can do it.
  And so what happened was the President sat down and he said, you know 
what? I can spend that Social Security surplus and I can have a whole 
bunch of new programs that I can pass out to people and make them feel 
good.
  The Republicans sat down and said, you know what? For the first time 
since 1969, we are going to set all of it aside, 100 percent of the 
Social Security surplus, so that it is there not only for Social 
Security but it is there if we need to find a fix for Medicare. We set 
all of it aside. The President did not set all of it aside.
  So what happens today? The last minute, the last opportunity, in run 
the Democrats, oh, but we did not mean that. We did not quite mean 
that. We can do better. We can do better than that. We are going to set 
100 percent of it aside because they are. And so they rush in here at 
the last minute. Well, even their last-minute plan does not quite make 
it.
  Let me show my colleagues something here. They are talking about debt 
reduction and how much they want to reduce the debt for their 
grandchildren and children, and we heard all sorts of speeches waxing 
philosophical about that. Let us look at the plan. The Republicans set 
aside more money so we can pay down the debt. The Democrats do not. 
Those are the facts. Yet they run in here and say, we can do better 
than that.
  Let me tell my colleagues something else that is interesting here. 
When it comes to education, they say this is a priority. Look what we 
do. The Republicans, the Republicans, spend more time than the 
President, who stood up here for the State the Union address and said 
how he is going to support education.
  Well, let me take my colleagues one example further. Special 
education. Special education. Since 1975, a program that the Democrats, 
to their credit, passed one of the most beautiful civil rights pieces 
of legislation in history, saying every American child ought to be able 
to attend public school. And what did they do? They did not fund it. 
And they have not funded it since 1975.

                              {time}  1245

  For the first time, the Republicans are funding IDEA, special 
education, $1 billion extra in our budget than the President's for 
special education. Plus we are saying to governors and States who are 
crying to Washington to give them more flexibility for education, we 
are letting them spend excess dollars from welfare, we are giving them 
the ability to transfer funds from other education programs, and we are 
allowing them, if we get more money at the end of the year, this 
surplus may grow as everyone has talked about so far, in our plan we 
allow special education to get a little bump up. That is not in their 
plan, either.
  Mr. Chairman, it just is amazing to me with the Academy Awards being 
last week how they can continue to win more Academy Awards for this 
budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Could I have the benefit of the chart of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle), the chart he just used that showed the President commits 62 
percent of the surplus and you commit 100 percent of the surplus?
  Mr. NUSSLE. The gentleman did not bring his own charts today?
  Mr. SPRATT. That is 62 percent of the unified surplus which he 
quotes, $1.8 trillion. One hundred percent of the Social Security 
surplus, which is part of it, equals $1.8 trillion. They are the same 
thing over a different period. Over 15 years it works out to the same 
thing.
  Mr. NUSSLE. That is the problem, if the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. SPRATT. No, I cannot yield because I do not have the time to 
yield.
  Mr. NUSSLE. He wants to use my chart but I cannot talk about it?
  Mr. SPRATT. In a little while we will answer what he just said about 
education.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I hope he does.
  Mr. SPRATT. Because I do not think the facts will bear him out.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I believe there 
was another problem with the charts that were just shown to us in that 
while the speaker, I am sure he misspoke, when the speaker said he was 
comparing the Republican plan to the Democratic plan on the floor from 
House Democrats today, I believe he used numbers from the President's 
proposal and not from our budget today relative to debt reduction.
  Secondly, the question of IDEA, special education, is one I am very 
interested in, because for several years I have offered an amendment to 
the Committee on the Budget as well as to the Congress to deal with 
fully funding IDEA, making the commitment that was passed so long ago 
real, to bring funding up to 40 percent of real cost. That was offered 
in the Committee on the Budget last week and to a person every 
Republican, including the gentleman from Iowa, voted against doing 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of our 
Committee on the Budget for the terrific job he has done.
  Mr. Chairman, if I could yield first of all to the gentleman from 
North Carolina.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we want to talk about education. There is a lot that is 
wrong with this Republican budget resolution. We need to discuss these 
issues in depth. The budget resolution is arguably the most important 
single decision we make here. It is the blueprint for how Federal 
resources will be used for the coming fiscal year and on into the 
future. So the Democratic and the Republican proposals we are 
considering here today need to be debated in depth. They are a study, 
in fact, in contrasting priorities.
  The Republican budget would provide no help in extending the solvency 
of Medicare and Social Security. It falls short on veterans health care 
and crop insurance for our farmers and other critical needs. The 
Democratic alternative would extend the solvency of Medicare and Social 
Security, would provide more funding for critical priorities, would 
implement targeted tax relief, and would reduce the debt held by the 
public more than the Republican proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, we want to talk especially about education, because 
nowhere is the contrast more stark than with education. Our Republican 
colleagues boast about providing some increase for elementary and 
secondary education, but, overall, funding for education and training 
would be cut by $1.2 billion from the nominal 1999 level in the 
Republican budget for 2000. The result would be drastic cuts in funding 
for other priorities like higher education and teacher training and 
Pell grants and Head Start. Over 5 years, the Republican budget cuts to 
education and training would result in a 6.9 percent decrease in 
purchasing power, and over 10 years the decline in purchasing power for 
education would be over 18 percent.

[[Page 5690]]


  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I find 
interesting about this budget is we were told absolutely education is 
increased. They did increase it for elementary and secondary education. 
But what they do not tell us is that they are cutting it in all other 
parts of education. They do not say specifically where they are going 
to cut those budgets. But it is cut over 10 years from this level by 
$36.5 billion. So they are cutting programs like Head Start and Pell 
grants and work-to-school programs. That is where the cuts are.
  And so again it is one of those bait and switch budgets that they 
tell us we are doing great things over here and then they do not tell 
us what the other hand is doing, which is cutting education. This 
budget does not reflect that our school facilities are in a crisis 
situation. There was a study done by the engineers that said of all of 
our infrastructure, our school infrastructure is the one that is in the 
greatest need. We would not work in the schools that we send our 
children to.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and the gentlewoman from Oregon 
(Ms. Hooley) in a further discussion of this. It is important to get 
these facts out.
  Is it not true that the Democratic alternative would make room for 
school construction? The kind of proposal that the President has made 
to give tax credits in lieu of interest on bonds in these low-income 
areas that need desperately to build or modernize facilities, or like 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) and I have introduced 
to target high-growth areas so that our kids are not going to school in 
trailers.
  I come from a district where we have hundreds of trailers, thousands 
of kids going to school in these kinds of facilities. We need to get 
ahead of the curve in school construction.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. The Democratic budget does indeed provide for modernizing 
schools. In fact, it would provide tax credits that would allow 
modernizing of up to 6,000 public schools.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, one 
of the other things that I think is interesting to note, not only are 
schools in bad shape right now and we have talked about trailers. We 
have first graders that have to walk across an open area in Oregon 
where it rains all the time. This is not a wonderful thing to do to 
wash their hands or go to the bathroom. And some of the rooms are in 
such disrepair. Again, my colleagues would not work in that facility 
but we expect our children to learn in that facility.
  The other thing that I think is interesting is there have been 
studies that have been done that show that, in fact, students do better 
in schools that reflect our society and are not in such disrepair. They 
do better when our schools are repaired.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Those studies are very convincing, that 
the students perform better when they are in first-rate facilities. It 
is not just an abstract issue. We have thousands of kids going to 
school in these facilities. Often they are going to lunch at 10:30 
because the cafeteria facilities haven't kept pace with the addition of 
trailers. They do not have adequate gym or restroom facilities. It 
simply is a misplaced priority to say that we cannot afford to do this. 
The Republican budget squeezes it out. The Democratic budget would make 
room for that kind of school modernization.
  Let me ask my colleagues, also, to address the other major initiative 
that we are looking at in this Democratic budget: getting class size 
down and getting 100,000 new teachers in the classrooms of America. We 
made a start on that last year. What is it going to take to keep that 
going?
  Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman will yield further, indeed, these are 
connected. Simple math will tell us, we cannot have more teachers and 
get the smaller class sizes in the early years unless we have the 
classrooms to put them in. And so this Democratic budget does allow for 
both of those, continuation of the hiring of new teachers, the 100,000 
new teachers that we are calling for, we will continue down that line 
with the Democratic budget, in addition to providing for the loans for 
the construction and modernization of facilities.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. We are talking about a stark contrast in 
these budget proposals. The one makes room for reduced class size and 
for school construction and also lets us make good on what we promised 
last year when we passed the higher education act, opening up 
opportunity through Pell grants and an improved student loan program. 
The other budget makes a short-term increase in education, but would 
drastically decrease this funding over the long haul.
  Mr. HOLT. Unlike the Republican budget, the Democratic alternative 
does not cut higher education, training and social services in order to 
increase elementary and secondary education programs. That is a key 
difference.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I used to be a teacher. I can guarantee my 
colleagues that smaller classroom sizes, you have much better 
performance by the students. Do not take just my word for it but go out 
and look at all of the research on this subject and you will find if we 
can get our classroom size to 18 and under, that students' performance 
goes way up. Not only does it go up, it stays up. We are trying to get 
it down in K through 3. But if you get it down, get that ratio down, 
the performance goes straight up and that performance stays up 
throughout their years in school.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. And the impact is the greatest in grades 
1 through 3, is that right?
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Right.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the way my 
colleagues have chimed in here. There is no question that we are 
dealing with a stark contrast in many areas of this budget, but 
certainly in education. In dollar terms, the Democratic alternative 
next year provides $2.6 billion more for education and training, and 
then over the next 5 years we are talking about a $10.2 billion gap. It 
is a gap that we have got to close.
  Vote for the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is, this Republican budget locks away 
the entire Social Security trust fund surplus for our Nation's elderly, 
the entire amount. We set aside more than the President to save, 
strengthen and preserve Social Security and as necessary Medicare as 
well. We create a safety deposit box to assure Social Security trust 
funds cannot be raided. We pay down more public debt than the 
President. We maintain the spending discipline for the 1997 budget act. 
We provide additional resources to properly train, equip and retain our 
men and women in uniform. And we will enact historic tax relief after 
we have solved Social Security for our children and our children's 
children. That is what we do. The President wants to spend more. The 
Democrats want to spend more. We do not.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget brings honesty back 
to the budget process and ends a 30-year assault on our Social Security 
system. For the first time, every single penny of Social Security taxes 
will be locked up for Social Security and Medicare. Over the next 10 
years, this budget saves $1.8 trillion for these two critical programs 
for our seniors and future generations.
  As my colleagues can see on this chart, while the Republican budget 
saves every penny, 100 percent, of the Social Security surplus, the 
President's budget saves only 62 percent of Social Security over the 
next 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, saving just 62 percent of the Social Security surplus 
is not good enough. The President's budget spends $341 billion of this 
very Social Security surplus over 10 years and provides no Social 
Security reforms or protections.

[[Page 5691]]

  Mr. Chairman, not a dime of the Social Security dollars Americans pay 
should be used for unrelated programs. Locking up the entire Social 
Security trust fund will help save, strengthen and preserve Social 
Security and Medicare, not only for seniors today but for future 
generations as well. We must repair Social Security forever, not just 
put a band-aid on the problem. This Congress cannot allow the Social 
Security program to be bankrupt. We cannot stand by and allow anyone, 
even the President, to raid Social Security just to pay for more 
Washington-run programs.
  Save Social Security. Vote ``aye'' on this Republican budget.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say our colleagues are attacking the 
President's budget; it is not even on the floor.
  Our resolution is on the floor. It commits a hundred percent, puts 
$1.8 trillion into the trust funds over the next 10 years as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I plan to yield time to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) as well because we want to address 
fiscal responsibility because we firmly believe that our budget is the 
more fiscally responsible. Mr. Chairman, what we have been presented by 
the majority is the baby boomer budget.
  As my colleagues know, the real reason why we have this prosperity is 
because our parents put their lives on the line for democracy and free 
enterprise. That is why we live in a free and prosperous world. And 
now, we the baby boomer children must decide what we are willing to 
sacrifice for our children's future.
  So what have we done with this opportunity? Mr. Chairman, one of the 
things we have done is to build up a $5 trillion public debt that we 
are about to leave to our children.
  The critical test of the baby boomer generation is, are we going to 
be as responsible to our children as our parents were to us? Mr. 
Chairman, the answer is no if we do not pay down the Federal debt. The 
answer is no, as well, if we do not provide for their retirement 
security. That is why it is important to extend Medicare and Social 
Security.
  But the budget that we have been presented with by the Republicans 
says after we die, after we have exhausted Social Security, there is 
nothing there left for our kids. It is exhausted in terms of Medicare 
in 2008; in terms of Social Security, by 2032. That is it; we have used 
it, we are set, and then it is up to our kids to take care of their own 
retirement security and to pay down the Federal debt.
  That is why this budget, the one we are offering, is the far more 
responsible one because it reduces the public debt, it provides for the 
retirement security of our kids, and it also provides for the 
investment that our kids need to be able to fulfill their potential. It 
puts money into education, it puts money into training, it enables them 
to live in a safe environment.
  This is by far the more responsible budget, the one that sustains the 
intergenerational legacy our parents left to us.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious debate. We are 
involved overseas in a very serious effort, and we need to be serious.
  I came here in June of 1981, and I was presented with a budget on 
this floor which I voted against, and I voted against it because I 
thought it would cause high deficits and high interest rates. I, 
frankly, was right. The 1981 budget that we adopted, which was sold to 
us as a budget that would do all sorts of good things for America, 
created $3 trillion in new debt, and tax cuts were enacted long before 
any Republican, as Dave Stockman said, was prepared to vote for the 
cuts to sustain the spending cuts to sustain those tax cuts, and as a 
result, and I heard the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) last 
night on the floor lamenting the fact that our grandchildren were put 
deeply in debt, they were by that 1981 program.
  Mr. Chairman, I suggest to my colleagues that this budget is very 
much like that. It is very much like that in that it retreats from 
investments in the future, it promises tax cuts that will be 
unsustainable, and notwithstanding how many times our colleagues repeat 
they are saving Social Security commitment, it does not do what both 
the Blue Dogs' budget does, which I will vote for, which the Democratic 
alternative does, which I will vote for, and frankly offering the 
President's budget is simply a political charade in which we have 
participated in the past ourselves. And I understand that; we both have 
done that to one another. Ronald Reagan's budgets were presented 3 
years during his presidency. Zero Republicans voted for it the first 
time, one Republican the second and 12 the third.
  This is a serious debate, and we ought to commit ourselves to the 
American public to do real things. I suggest to my colleagues they 
ought to vote for the Democratic alternative and, as well, they ought 
to vote for the Blue Dogs' alternative because they do real things. 
They do not pretend; they do real things.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if this was our parents making 
this decision, they would not be giving themselves an $800 billion tax 
cut. They would be providing for the retirement security of their 
children, they would pay down the debt that they incurred, they would 
fully fund the military pay raise, they would fully fund the education 
of their children, they would do right for America and make sure the 
next generation of Americans is better off than their generation and 
the benefits that they incurred from their own parents.
  We have a progressive legacy, let us keep it. Let us not be so 
selfish and give ourselves a tax cut. Let us take care of our kids 
first.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to comment that 
when the President gave his budget address, everyone on that side of 
the aisle thought it was terrific, and now everyone is running away 
from it and denying they ever liked it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut 
for yielding this time to me.
  As my colleagues know, somebody once said, and it may have been the 
Vice President, that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but 
they are not entitled to their own facts, and I want to talk about the 
facts because we heard earlier today, and there is some revisionist 
history that it was the, quote, minimal tax hikes of 1993 that brought 
about the balanced budget that we have today.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not making up the facts. This is according to the 
Congressional Budget Office. This is the direction we were headed in 
1995. The deficit was at about $200 billion. They were predicting that 
by 2009 we would have deficits approaching $600 billion, and worse, 
that included the Social Security surpluses.
  Now where are we today?
  Mr. Chairman, thanks to some of the fiscal discipline demonstrated by 
this Congress since 1994, we are headed in the right direction. Again, 
these are not our numbers. This is according to the Congressional 
Budget Office.
  Now one of the things that we are debating here today is whether or 
not there should be tax relief for the average American family. Now 
somebody said earlier, and it is true, and this is according to the Tax 
Foundation, that Americans now pay the highest tax burden since 1944. 
Now our budget does not specifically call for tax cuts, but it does 
begin to make room for tax cuts because we believe Americans are 
overtaxed.
  Mr. Chairman, the average American family, and again not according to 
us, according to the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan group, the average 
family

[[Page 5692]]

today spends more in taxes than they do for food, clothing, shelter and 
transportation combined.
  Now we happen to believe that is wrong, and we may have a difference 
of opinion with our friends on the left, but that is the way we see it.
  Now it has also been mentioned that our Democratic friends really do 
not want to talk about the President's budget, and I suspect this 
article, again not something that we said, this is according to the 
Investors Business Daily; what they said was balancing the books on the 
backs of the poor.
  But this is what Investors Business Daily said, and again the source 
of the Tax Foundation, that under the President's budget plan he 
increases taxes over the next 5 years by about $45.8 billion. Now that 
is bad enough, but what is worse, almost 40 percent of those new taxes 
will be paid by families that earn less than $25,000 a year.
  Now it is no wonder then that our Democratic friends do not want to 
talk about the President's budget.
  In sum, our budget does four things:
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, we say that every penny of Social 
Security taxes ought to go only for Social Security.
  Second, we say that we are going to keep faith with the spending caps 
that we agreed to with the President in the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997.
  Third, we begin the process of actually paying down some of that 
debt. We will begin to pay off some of the debt that is owed to the 
public.
  Finally, we make room for tax relief.
  Now I know that does not sit well with some of our friends on the 
left, Mr. Chairman, but we believe that is important.
  In sum, what this budget really does is that it ensures lower 
interest rates and a stronger economy well into the next century.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing how all we can talk about is 
the budget in 1981. This is 1999, and I just remind some of my 
colleagues that the budget since 1981 was controlled by a Democrat 
House and a Democrat Senate that refused to cut spending. The 
difference, as I answer my colleagues, is this is a Republican Congress 
that has brought fiscal discipline to the process. In fact, the 
Democrats are running as fast as they can away from the President's 
budget that he submitted this year. The Senate voted down yesterday by 
a vote of 97 to 2 the President's own budget. Why can they not even 
support the President's own budget? And by a vote of 99 to nothing, 99 
to 0, could not even get one person to vote, the Senate rejected the 
President's proposal for the government to invest Social Security funds 
into the stock market.
  Over the past 4 years, Mr. Chairman, the Republican Congress has 
worked very hard to balance the budget; the President took credit for 
it. Cap federal spending; the President took credit for it. Provide 
much needed tax relief to American families; the President took credit 
for it. The Republican budget plan for the year 2000 continues this 
shift to restore a solid American common sense to American government.
  Now American families know how to balance their checkbooks, and they 
know how to stay within a budget. American families know the value of a 
dollar. There is no reason why this Federal Government cannot be as 
responsible as the average American family.
  Over all, the Republican budget returns control to the American 
family by taking less of their money, setting very strict fiscal 
priorities and respecting spending caps. The Republican budget locks up 
100 percent of Social Security surpluses for the first time since 
Social Security became a program. We are being honest about the Social 
Security Trust Fund. The Republican budget bolsters national defense by 
nearly $10 billion, and the Republican budget plans to reduce the 
national debt by 1.8 billion over the next decade. And the Republican 
budget cuts taxes by $800 billion over 10 years.
  Right down the line the Republican budget trumpets that fiscal 
responsibility is the wave of the future. This budget says loud and 
clear that Republicans want American families to keep more of their 
hard-earned money and send less of it to Washington forever.
  When the Republicans took over Congress 4 years ago, the budget 
predictions had red ink spilled as far as the eye could see. Today, 
because of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that we pushed through and 
the President took credit for, there are nothing but surpluses as far 
as the eye can see in the future.
  Now some budget decisions are very difficult to do, and what we did 
not show with the Democrat Congress after 1981, discipline is hard, 
discipline is not always easy. But at the close of this century the 
Republican budget does it all. It cuts taxes, it reduces the debt, it 
saves Social Security, and it bolster defense.
  So, Mr. Chairman, if we stick to our guns, America will be freer, it 
will be richer, it will be safer into the next century than ever 
before, so I urge my colleagues to vote for the Republican budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, let us be very clear about what 
our budget does and what their budget does not do. This chart tells my 
colleagues what our budget does. Our budget locks away the entire 
Social Security Trust Fund surplus, $1.8 trillion over the next 10 
years, to save, strengthen and preserve Social Security and Medicare. 
We set aside $100 billion more towards Social Security than the 
President does. We are creating a safety deposit box to make sure that 
we do not raid the trust fund in the future. We are paying down $450 
billion more in debt than the President is. We are also maintaining the 
fiscal discipline of the 1997 Budget Act. And the most important thing 
is that we are doing this honestly, we are not playing a shell game. 
Honest numbers are finally coming into town, into Washington. We are 
maintaining strong defenses, and we are recognizing a historic 
commitment to education.

                              {time}  1315

  What I would like to talk briefly about is our Social Security lock 
box, our safety deposit box. This is very important because no other 
budget proposal coming to the floor today, the President's proposal, 
the Democratic proposal, locks away Social Security.
  If we take a look at this chart one moment here, we asked David 
Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, to analyze the 
different Social Security proposals and in looking at the President's 
budget proposal he said, although the trust funds will appear to have 
more resources as a result of the President's proposal, in reality 
nothing about the program has changed. The proposal does not represent 
Social Security reform.
  Here is what we are doing. We in our Republican plan are setting 
aside 100 percent of all payroll taxes, plus interest, for Social 
Security and Medicare. We save this money to support those programs, 
and what is more important we implement legislation that prevents 
future raids on Social Security by creating a lock box. The President's 
plan does nothing to do that. The Democratic plan does nothing to do 
that.
  If we look at page 41 of our budget resolution, we have section 5, 
which sets up a safety deposit box legislation because Congress over 
the last 30 years has been raiding Social Security. There was nothing 
to stop Congress from raiding Social Security.
  We are stopping the raid on Social Security. We are saying that 
beginning today, there will be no more raids on the Social Security 
trust fund and that in the future, we are putting a point of order to 
require a supermajority vote in Congress that any budget resolution 
ever coming to Congress again has to have a supermajority vote if it 
attempts to dip into Social Security.
  We are essentially saying, we need discipline now to stop raiding 
Social Security but we want to make sure that future Congresses will 
not raid Social Security. That is why we have meaningful legislation, 
meaningful changes, in this budget resolution.

[[Page 5693]]

  Now we are told that the President is not interested in passing 
legislation to prevent future raids on Social Security. In fact, the 
President raids the Social Security trust fund by $341 billion over the 
next 10 years. We raid zero dollars. We put all of it towards Social 
Security and Medicare.
  So because we cannot get a statutory fix to stop the raid on the 
trust fund, because the President will not sign that into law, we are 
changing the rules in Congress. We are changing the rules in Congress 
so we will not raid Social Security, so that future Congresses will 
have to go after a higher threshold. If they try to bring a budget to 
this floor of Congress in the House and the Senate, they are going to 
have to take a supermajority vote to raid Social Security in the 
future.
  Even though we cannot get a law passed by this President to prevent 
the raids on Social Security we are changing the rules in Congress so 
that Congress now and into the future will not raid Social Security.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to myself.
  Mr. Chairman, we keep having a red herring dragged across the path of 
this debate. The principal budgeting contention on the floor, the 
alternative to their budget is our budget and it commits 100 percent to 
Social Security, is backed up by a statute which requires the treasurer 
to take a certain percentage of payroll taxes to buy down public debt.
  The general public probably does not understand, but points of order 
are honored in the breach on the House floor. We have a Committee on 
Rules upstairs which specializes in overriding points of order. It is a 
joke to say that a point of order provides any protection whatsoever.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say regrettably that the Republican 
budget we are considering falls far short of what the American people 
need and what they deserve in terms of environmental protection.
  We need to prepare our country for our children and their children. 
We need to prepare an America that has clean and vibrant cities, that 
has suburban areas not choked with automobiles and strangled by 
shopping malls. We need an America that has rural areas that are 
prepared to handle the necessary but dangerous pressure of development.
  Simply put, the Republican budget does nothing to preserve our 
environment. The House Republican resolution for fiscal year 2000 
provides $22 billion for discretionary natural resources and 
environmental programs. Our budget provides $23.6 billion.
  The Republican level of funding is $1.3 billion less than this year's 
level of funding, and over 5 years the Republicans would cut funding 
$5.3 billion below 1999 levels.
  The Sierra Club estimates that the Republican budget would stop up to 
135 toxic waste cleanups under the Superfund program and would 
eliminate funding for the clean water action program.
  The Democratic proposal gives our children a chance to grow up and 
raise their children in cities that are clean and safe, in suburbs that 
have coherent development patterns and provide park land and green 
space instead of chaos and confusion.
  A recent series in the Philadelphia Inquirer demonstrates in the 
Philadelphia region that one acre per hour is being lost to 
development. In the last 30 years, the population in the Philadelphia 
area grew 13 percent; development grew 80 percent.
  The Democratic budget would provide the tools for better regional 
planning, to improve water quality, to help local governments preserve 
open space, to reduce traffic congestion and clean the air.
  Our proposal does not promote Federal planning. It does not promote 
Federal zoning. It is a good proposal, and I ask for support.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stump), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the veterans' portion of this 
budget for awhile. The Clinton-Gore budget has been a total disaster 
for veterans' health care over the last few years. It totally has 
neglected veterans' health care in favor of other spending priorities 
by this administration.
  Mr. Chairman, we are the second largest employer in the Federal 
Government. We have 173 hospitals to maintain, over 500 outpatient 
clinics, and this administration did not give us one dime increase this 
year in the area of health care.
  This budget provides $1.1 billion in health care alone for our 
veterans. Their budget would require a massive layoff in VA health care 
and necessitate closing of some of our VA facilities that are needed to 
treat our needy veterans.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield just to make 
clear who ``their budget'' is, because our budget has $1.9 billion?
  Mr. STUMP. I made it clear. I made it clear. I said the Clinton-Gore 
budget.
  This Republican budget increase has the largest increase in history 
for veteran VA health care. I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and the 
entire Committee on the Budget, that they have always been there when 
we needed them for additional health care monies, which we have had to 
ask for every year under this administration.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Combest), another distinguished Member and the chairman of 
the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 68 
before us today. In contrast to other documents, most notably the 
President's budget, this document underscores our commitment to the 
recovery and long-term economic health for production agriculture.
  This resolution makes available a total of $6 billion in new 
agriculture funding authority over the life of the resolution. This 
should be viewed as nothing less than a triumph for American 
agriculture. They are in time of great need and we are working hard to 
create an adequate safety net to ensure their future.
  I would remind my colleagues that the President promised crop 
insurance reform in his State of the Union address. Unfortunately, his 
budget proposed no new money or policy proposals that came forward, not 
one idea, not one dime, nothing.
  The President has decided to turn his back on this problem so it 
falls to Congress to step up to the challenge, and we have.
  The $6 billion in new agricultural spending in this resolution is the 
first infusion of funding for farmers in recent memory. This money will 
allow us to make permanent improvements in the tools farmers have 
available to manage the weather and price risks over which they have no 
control.
  In addition to the $6 billion in new agricultural funding, the budget 
resolution creates generous tax cuts in fiscal year 2000 over the next 
decade. These reductions will allow Congress to continue working to 
provide American farmers and ranchers with tax relief, capital gains 
relief, estate tax reform and the creation of farm risk management 
savings accounts.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle who care 
about the future of farmers and ranchers to support this budget 
resolution before us today because it is fair and responsible.
  In behalf of American agriculture, I would like to extend special 
thanks to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Gutknecht), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and 
the gentleman from Texas

[[Page 5694]]

(Mr. Thornberry) for the great work that they have done on the 
Committee on the Budget in behalf of the American farmer and rancher.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me once again say that our budget resolution, the 
House Democratic resolution, provides that same $6 billion a year but 
it has a special difference. Because this is a 10-year budget and we 
are running out the allocations for 10 years, we don't quit in 2004, 
2005. Their budget stops the funding of the crop insurance program just 
as it is getting established. It, in effect, says to the agricultural 
committees, go find the necessary mandatory spending offsets in order 
to pay for it.
  We provide $9 billion in the second 5-year period on top of $6 
billion in the first to see that this is a 10-year commitment. The same 
with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump). The gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Stump), the excellent chairman of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, sent to our committee a request for $1.9 billion a year, I 
believe. That is what we put in our budget. The Democratic budget 
provides what the Republican chairman of the committee requested; $1.9 
billion a year for veterans.
  Their budget gives a plus-up of $900 million, a billion dollars the 
first year in fiscal year 2000. But in 2001, 2002, 2003, it disappears. 
It is nonrecurring. It does not carryover. So it is plussed up a 
billion and then dropped back down again; dropped so much that over 5 
years, their budget is $500 million for veterans below a 1999 freeze 
level. That is the way the numbers are being distorted out here.
  Let me go back to education. In education, the budget of the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), which they have touted as being a big 
plus-up in education, is $2 billion below the President next year; $3.9 
billion below the President in 2001; $3.5 billion below the President 
in 2002; $2.1 billion in 2003.
  What they say with ESEA and IDEA is we want to give a bigger 
allocation but it has to come out of the hide of other higher education 
programs; the whole function for education and job training. It is very 
improbable that they are going to be able to shove those other programs 
aside to make the kind of increases they are not providing because the 
function that they are providing for education as a whole does not 
increase over this period of time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) for the last half hour has been complaining about how we have 
been talking about the President's budget. What did he do? He got up 
and talked about the President's budget.
  In fact, there are three budget plans sitting over on that desk over 
there. There is only one over here. There is one Republican plan, and 
one Republican plan that does a good job in these areas, but the 
gentleman is picking from three different numbers over there. The 
gentleman has to make up his mind.
  I understand the gentleman does not like the President's budget but 
the gentleman is like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking 
chairs right now running around trying to figure out how to run away 
from this President's budget. The gentleman has to make up his mind, I 
would suggest.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on the Budget, I rise 
today in strong support of the Republican budget resolution, H. Con. 
Res. 68. This budget prepares our country for the challenges of the 
21st Century, and I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) 
and the Members of this committee for putting this altogether.
  Over the next 10 years, the Federal Government is projected to run a 
budget surplus, as we have heard before, of $2.6 trillion. Our budget 
properly utilizes this windfall to strengthen the retirement security 
of the American people.
  For the first time ever, 100 percent of the Social Security surplus, 
and maybe I should say that again, for the first time ever, 100 percent 
of the Social Security surplus will be locked away to strengthen Social 
Security and Medicare. Over the next decade, this will secure $1.8 
trillion, $100 billion more than the President's budget, to keep these 
two programs strong for current and future retirees. This is historic.
  For years, Congress and the President have raided the Social Security 
trust fund to pay for wasteful government spending. With 77 million 
baby boomers nearing retirement, it is time to end this dishonest 
practice.
  Our budget also provides the American people with tax relief that 
they need. Over the next decade, it cuts Federal taxes by $800 billion.

                              {time}  1330

  This tax cut, the largest since Ronald Reagan's first term as 
president, will strengthen working families and keep our economy moving 
forward.
  Finally, this year's budget provides the resources to improve our 
schools and keep our military strong. If the United States wants the 
United States to be the world's strongest Nation, we must do a better 
job of educating our children, and we must ensure that our military 
forces are the best-trained and the best-equipped in the world. This 
year's budget takes a giant step forward in accomplishing both of these 
goals. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Democrat 
budget plan. It invests in health programs to serve all Americans. Our 
Republican colleagues talk about their commitment to health, but I 
challenge them to put their money where their mouths are.
  The Democratic budget demonstrates our commitment to improving 
quality health care and access to health care for all Americans. The 
Republican plan shows once again their top priority, providing tax 
breaks for the wealthiest in this country.
  We all support groundbreaking research at the National Institutes of 
Health. I support that effort, and the Republican budget does provide 
additional funding for the NIH.
  But what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not seem to 
understand is that all of the research in the world goes to waste if 
people do not have access to health care. Their budget would slash 
funding for other health programs, like the Centers for Disease 
Control, Ryan White AIDS grants, maternal and child health, all in 
order to pay for their tax breaks for the wealthiest in this country.
  More than 43 million Americans today are without health insurance. 
They seem to have fallen from our radar screen. The Democratic budget 
includes measures to expand access to health care. The Republican plan 
ignores the problem.
  Many Americans struggle with no health insurance at all. Millions who 
do have insurance are fighting their managed care companies to have 
access to the care they need. The Democratic plan includes the 
Patients' Bill of Rights, real managed care that would put medical 
decisions back in the hands of those where it belongs, doctors and 
their patients.
  Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget alternative recognizes a key 
reality. If we are to save Medicare and social security for future 
generations, live within our spending caps, and continue to provide 
funding for vital health care programs in this country, we cannot 
afford to give tax breaks to the wealthiest members in this Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic plan.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, as we look to the future, and that is what a 
budget

[[Page 5695]]

does, we must evaluate where we are as a Nation. It has become clear to 
all of us that one of the most important principles that all Americans 
hold dear is the idea of security: fiscal security for our Nation; 
financial security for us personally, individually; educational 
security; security from attack from foreign nations; family security; 
and retirement security.
  We need to take care of our growing aging population, and we must 
also look out for our young people, securing a solid and stable future 
for them.
  We are at a crossroads today. What will the priorities of our Nation 
be? Will security be one of them? If we answer yes, then we must 
support the Republican budget, for our elders, our baby boomers, our 
Generation Xers, our Y Generations, all are relying on us to save 
social security and Medicare.
  Mr. Chairman, the most responsible way of doing this is by supporting 
a plan that saves all of the social security surplus. By locking away 
100 percent of the social security surplus, 100 percent, we preserve 
approximately $100 billion more than the President's proposal, more 
than the President's budget. By establishing this safe deposit box, we 
prevent a hungry bureaucracy from stealing from social security to pay 
for other programs, to ensure that retirement money is available for 
our elders, for our boomers, for our children, for our grandchildren. 
It is more than the President has offered, and we are doing the same 
with Medicare.
  Speaking of the Democratic alternatives, the President, by 
comparison, does not have the trust of the Senate on his proposal. 
Instead of saving all of social security, the President would spend 
some of it. The Senate voted yesterday 97 to 2 to reject his plan. His 
plan of a government-run board investing social security funds in the 
stock market was rejected.
  There is a better way. Support the Republican budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller).
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the 
Committee on the Budget, I rise to support House Concurrent Resolution 
68. Our budget plan is the first ever to lock up 100 percent of social 
security payroll taxes and interest for the future. This is historic 
because over 10 years the Federal budget has been taking social 
security funds to pay for other spending programs.
  In the year 2000, the GOP sets aside $137 billion, that is 100 
percent of social security monies, for social security. The President 
pledges 62 percent of that, that is $85 billion, and $52 billion of 
social security money spent for other programs.
  Between the years 2000 and 2009, we set aside $1.8 trillion for 
social security and Medicare. The President's budget sets aside $1.3 
trillion for social security, and earmarks about $345 billion for 
Medicare. That is $1.645 trillion, over $100 billion less than our 
budget.
  No matter how we add it up, $137 billion is more than $85 billion. No 
matter how we add it up, $1.8 trillion is more than $1.645 trillion. 
Two plus two does equal four.
  Some on the other side who are using projections on the President's 
budget will save over 15 years, compared to our budget, over 10 years. 
That, as the saying goes, two plus two does equal five. No matter how 
you look at it, we are saving more for social security and Medicare 
than the President's budget saves over 10 years.
  The President is not only missing-in-action on Medicare reform, he 
cuts Medicare by $11.9 billion. He is using a very strange strategy for 
claiming the high ground on Medicare. One, he cuts billions from 
Medicare. Two, he saves less than Republicans for Medicare. Three, he 
single-handedly stops bipartisan Medicare reform from the Medicare 
Commission. Four, he leaves us with the status quo. Five, he then 
claims to be the champion of Medicare.
  If we look at the facts, we know that the Committee on the Budget 
resolution does more to protect social security and Medicare than the 
President has ever done. Also, anyone who votes for the President's 
budget is doing nothing short of stealing from social security and 
cutting Medicare. I urge all my colleagues to vote for the GOP budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Democrat 
alternative. The Democrat alternative is a budget resolution that 
fights for families, advocates for our children, stands up for our 
seniors, and is responsive to rural America.
  The resolution before us abandons farmers and farm families. 
Recruiting and training sufficient numbers of qualified teachers is 
difficult throughout all of America, but it is particularly difficult 
in rural America. Working for better health care is difficult 
throughout all America, but the problem is magnified in rural America. 
The lack of health resources and adequate health providers are harsh 
realities.
  Farm life is hard, and the risk of injury and death is great. Income 
security is difficult in many parts of the United States, but in rural 
America, low earnings, slow investment, low economic development, and 
pockets of poverty are all too often a way of life. That is why we 
should all make sure we take into account the special needs of our 
farmers and our farm families.
  Small farmers and ranchers are struggling to survive in America. Most 
are losing money and fighting hard to stay in the farming business. 
That is why the Democrat alternative increases discretionary spending 
for agriculture.
  The resolution before us cuts discretionary spending for agriculture 
by $2.3 billion over 5 years. The Democrat alternative includes funding 
for agriculture research, education, and vital farming services. The 
resolution before us cuts those services.
  The Democrat alternative continues crop insurance spending $14.6 
billion more than the Republicans. The Republican resolution before us 
ends crop insurance in 2005. The Democrat alternative puts into proper 
perspective the needs of farm families and their communities.
  It is an alternative that requires our support. It is an alternative 
that deserves our support. I urge all of our colleagues, both our 
Republicans and our Democrats, to support the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be part of this spirited historic debate 
today, historic because I believe that this plan before us represents 
the best news to come out of Washington in a very long time.
  One year ago when I announced my run for Congress, I did so because I 
saw a bleak situation here in Washington: social security expected to 
be in the red in only 30 years, the tax burden on our families the 
highest it has been since World War II, and a national debt long 
overdue.
  Today I can proudly tell the folks back home that we are addressing 
each of those critical challenges. It has also become clear that the 
minority will do and say anything to obscure these accomplishments.
  Mr. Chairman, the proposal before us accomplishes what too many 
people said for too long was impossible.
  Number one, our plan ensures that social security dollars are locked 
away, to be used only for social security. On the other hand, the 
President has proposed spending $52 billion of the social security 
surplus in the next year alone.
  Number two, our plan allows working families to keep more of their 
hard-earned cash, with tax cuts growing only as our surplus grows. On 
the other hand, the President's budget proposes 80 new tax increases 
that will raise the tax burden on our families by over $172 billion.
  Number three, and perhaps most important, this budget works to pay 
down our public debt, reducing it by some $1.8 trillion. That is $450 
billion more than the President.
  Some weeks back the President challenged this Congress. He challenged

[[Page 5696]]

this Nation when he unveiled his plan. I want to offer my sincere 
thanks to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) for his hard work 
and guidance. The chairman has done well, we have done well, and with 
this plan, America will do well.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief comment with 
respect to agriculture. I know that everybody has struggled with this 
budget, but the concern that I have is that we are currently unable to 
deliver the farm programs that we in Congress have identified as 
critical.
  If we cut the Farm Service Agency any further, we are going to 
decimate our ability to deal with these programs, and I fear that the 
budget that the majority is proposing accomplishes just that.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, the words of my colleague, the gentleman 
from Minnesota, are precisely correct. There is a crisis in 
agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, these are desperate times on the farm. Therefore, I 
cannot understand why the majority's budget cuts discretionary spending 
in agriculture; cuts, in fact, that would amount to a reduction in more 
than $300 million this year alone.
  To project out, the majority's budget would reduce the purchasing 
power of agriculture, the discretionary money is reduced to the extent 
that purchasing power would be reduced for the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture 33 percent over 10 years, 25 percent over 5 years.
  The Republican budget is also a sham. I know that my colleague, the 
gentleman from Georgia, has worked on crop insurance. There is funding 
for crop insurance for 5 years, and then it goes away altogether.
  Looking at this budget, we can only conclude it is a sham. They 
purport to prop up crop insurance, but only for a few years. Then the 
money is zeroed out, resulting in loss of the crop insurance program or 
other deep cuts in other mandatory spending areas critical to propping 
up farming.
  For the life of me, I cannot understand, when we have people that 
have farmed for generations being forced off their farms this Spring, 
not just in the area that I represent but across the country, we would 
have a Republican budget that cuts discretionary spending in 
agriculture, and then puts forward a crop insurance program but only 
funds it for a couple of years, 5 years, before the funding goes away 
altogether.

                              {time}  1245

  Let me tell my colleagues something, the Democratic alternative is 
different. We preserve funding for the discretionary account in 
agriculture. We are $400 million better next year alone, and we 
continue the funding for the crop insurance program, not just for 5 
years, my friends, but on into the future altogether.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to remind the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge) and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. 
Pomeroy), who are my friends, when it comes to agriculture issues, that 
we are talking about a 5-year budget that we are debating here today. 
So we fund agriculture for the 5 years of that budget. Next year we 
will have 5 more years. We will fund crop insurance for the additional 
out years as they come forward.
  When my colleagues talk about cuts, what we are looking at is cuts 
which include the supplemental on top of the budgeted baseline numbers 
for last year. When we look at real numbers, there are no cuts. But I 
would remind my colleagues that the President's budget makes cuts in 
agriculture to the tune of 15 percent.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise today, Mr. Chairman, as a member of both the House Committee 
on Budget and the House Committee on Appropriations to say that, yes, 
this budget proposal is balanced; yes, it locks away all of the Social 
Security revenues into Social Security for the first time in a 
generation; yes, we increase veterans' benefits significantly over last 
year and way above the President's request; yes, we increase education 
funding above the President's request; yes, we protect Medicare and do 
not cut Medicare benefits as the President's budget does.
  But I want to say that the goose that lays the golden egg called the 
budget surplus that we are here today to discuss is not us. It is the 
economy. The economy must be considered as we look at the fiscal 
discipline that I am here to talk about today as a member of the House 
Committee on Appropriations.
  It is going to be hard later on, no question about it. But should we 
exert fiscal discipline? Listen. Chairman Greenspan, the guru of the 
American economy, has told us time and time again that, as we exert 
some fiscal discipline in this Congress, the economy continues to 
improve. That is the goose that lays its golden egg. We need to feed 
that goose, feed that goose by exerting fiscal discipline, holding the 
growth of Federal Government spending below inflation in the last few 
years for the first time since 1969. That is the fiscal discipline that 
we must enter into. This budget does that.
  It is going to be a tough year. But let me tell my colleagues, if we 
show the markets that, here in Washington, we are not going to spend 
foolishly or blindly any longer, the economy will continue, revenues 
will continue to sore, the budget surplus will continue to increase, 
and we will have good discussions here on the House floor of where to 
invest in the American society as opposed to those discussions we used 
to have about how to reduce the deficit instead of how to invest the 
surplus.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 9 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Clement), and I ask unanimous consent that he be 
permitted to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican 
budget resolution. This resolution ignores the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs' recommendation of a $1.9 billion increase for veterans 
funding. As a matter of fact, it actually decreases veterans funding 
over the next 10 years by $3 billion. Yes, it increases it the first 
year, but I think we need to make it very clear, under this budget 
resolution, the Republican resolution decreases it over the next 10 
years by $3 billion.
  This is simply wrong. In an era with budget surpluses, it is 
unconscionable to deny our veterans the funds that they so desperately 
need.
  Veterans hospitals are being consolidated around the country, 
including Tennessee, due to the lack of sufficient funds. One of Iowa's 
three major veterans hospitals is threatened with closure. Florida's 
veterans hospitals are having to lay off employees and close some 
inpatient services.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this 
resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:


                                       The Independent Budget,

                                                   March 25, 1999.
     Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr.,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Budget, Cannon 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Spratt: On behalf of the Paralyzed 
     Veterans of America (PVA) I am writing to offer our support 
     for your budget alternative to H. Con. Res. 68. Department of 
     Veterans Affairs (VA) health care is facing an emergency--
     without desperately needed additional dollars the health care 
     system relied upon by sick and disabled veterans will be 
     forced to curtail services, close facilities, and lay off 
     thousands of health

[[Page 5697]]

     care workers. The Spratt Budget Alternative recognizes the 
     grave condition of VA health care and takes action to provide 
     a remedy.
       The Independent Budget has estimated that VA medical care, 
     for fiscal year (FY) 2000, must receive a $3 billion increase 
     over the President's budget submission. H. Con. Res. 68, 
     although providing a $900 million increase over the 
     Administration's budget, an increase which is taken away in 
     FY 2001, does not provide the resources needed by the VA this 
     year, and over the next few years. The Spratt Budget 
     Alternative provides $1.8 billion over the Administration's 
     budget for VA health care, and provides $900 million more 
     than H. Con. Res. 68. In addition, the Spratt Budget 
     Alternative provides over $2 billion more than H. Con. Res. 
     68 over the next four years, nearly $10 billion more over 
     five years.
       The Spratt Budget Alternative provides more of the 
     resources that the VA needs if we are to provide sick and 
     disabled veterans with the health care they have earned and 
     the health care they need.
           Sincerely,

       AMVETS, Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American 
     Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign 
     Wars of the United States, Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner), a real fighter for veterans.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, this is a shameful budget for our veterans, 
and veterans across the country are angry. This budget breaks our 
contract with our Nation's veterans. We promised health care for life. 
But I will tell my colleagues, those who vote for this Republican 
resolution, their veterans are going to have to wait for months and 
months for appointments in a hospital, if it stays open.
  We promised to care for the disabled, but the folks in my colleagues' 
districts are going to have to wait years to have those claims 
processed. We do virtually nothing for those of our veterans who are on 
the streets, those who want education, those who want training.
  Over the life of this resolution, we have cut veteran benefits by $3 
billion. This is shameful. This is unconscionable. I do not know how my 
colleagues wrote a budget resolution that says to those who have fought 
for us, who have fought to make this a democracy, who have fought to 
keep us here in the kind of condition where we have a surplus, say to 
them, ``Thanks, but no thanks. We are through with you.'' Vote no on 
this Republican resolution. Protect our Nation's veterans.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) who serves on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, the budget that we are considering today is 
a huge number to all of us; and we are talking about Social Security, 
Medicare, defense. A small part of it is the veterans number, but the 
veterans number is not a small part of the lives of veterans.
  This number, the budget number for fiscal year 2000 in the Republican 
budget is not adequate. The veterans know it. The Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, both Republicans and Democrats, know it. The VA 
hospital doctors and nurses know it.
  The only people who apparently do not know that this number was 
inadequate were the Committee on Budget members who passed this budget 
number out. Not only is it inadequate for fiscal year 2000, but we are 
voting on a 10-year budget number.
  While this number has $20.2 billion in fiscal year 2000, in 2001 it 
drops back to $19.1 billion, which is less than the current fiscal 
year.
  I think that veterans' communities and veterans around the country 
need to know what this long-term budget process does that the 
Republicans have put on to this House floor today. The number is wrong. 
It is wrong this year. It is wrong for next year. Vote no on this 
Republican budget.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the ranking member on the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs' Subcommittee on Health.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, during recent days Members of both 
parties have shown their concern for our troops deployed overseas. Yet, 
Republicans have betrayed the men and women who have already served our 
country, jeopardizing the well-being of our veterans, and ignoring the 
values for which they fought.
  Democrats have tried to fight for a VA budget proposal for fiscal 
year 2000, but the Republicans, a party still apparently wedded to the 
idea that the wealthiest Americans deserve another tax break, want to 
keep their promise to them and break their promise to protect veterans 
health care. The Republicans continue to put their commitment to their 
wealthy campaign contributors above America's commitment to our 
veterans.
  Here is what the Republicans have said no to America: no to $475 
million more for VA health care, no to $271 million in long-term care 
initiatives, no to $681 million in the Montgomery G.I. Bill.
  Just so America understands, this budget is deplorable for veterans, 
and remember what they did today. Remember what they did today.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), our distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  First of all, as a veteran, I want to set the record straight. The 
President sent a budget up here that said zero, zero increase for 
veterans, and I thank my Republican colleagues for giving veterans an 
extra billion dollars.
  But I want to talk about the overall budget. I sat on that Committee 
on Budget for 6 years as a member of the minority. What a waste of 
time. Let me tell my colleagues, they did everything wrong, and it got 
us in the mess we are in.
  So I am very thankful for this Republican budget today, because they 
do many things: preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare, they 
pay down the national debt, they maintain the fiscal restraint of the 
Balanced Budget Act, they provide tax relief, and they increase support 
for education and defense. That is what I want to emphasize, increased 
support for education and defense.
  The House resolution provides $65.3 billion in budget authority for 
discretionary and mandatory spending in education, training, 
employment, and social services. They outdo the President. His is a 
1999 actual. They go up another billion two in education.
  Do my colleagues know what they do? They help us do what the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and I thought we might be able to 
do in a bipartisan effort in that 6 years on the Committee on Budget. 
They really put their money where their mouth is, and they put more 
money, as we increase the surplus, into special education, something my 
colleagues passed 23 years ago. They said they would send 40 percent of 
the excess cost back for the 100 percent mandate they sent. They sent 6 
percent until I became chairman.
  Thanks to the Committee on Budget and the appropriators, we have 
increased that by more than $2 billion, and they are ready to do more 
of that. That is what the local folks want to hear. The local folks 
want to hear that their property taxes do not have to go up, up, up in 
order to meet our 100 percent mandate in the area of special education.
  So I thank the Committee on Budget. I thank them for doing something 
right, even though, for 6 years, I sat there as a member of the 
minority while they did everything wrong.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I served on the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs for 2\1/2\ years, and I learned a lot.
  Republicans talk a lot about support for veterans; however, their 
support ends at the appropriations' door. This Republican budget gives 
a one-time increase which is not carried over into the next fiscal 
year. Smoke and mirrors again.
  Over a 5-year period, the Republican budget resolution cuts 
discretionary funding for veterans by hundreds of millions of dollars. 
Over a 10-year period, the Republican budget resolution

[[Page 5698]]

cuts veteran funding by $3 billion below the 1999 level.
  In the area of health care, where our veterans are facing a medical 
emergency, the proposed budget includes several new health care 
initiatives, but guess what, without providing the necessary funds to 
support them.
  Unless the veterans' health care system receives significant 
increases in funding, critical services will be cut, health care will 
be denied, facilities closed, and dedicated employees are out of work.
  I have a full-time staff person dedicated to just working on 
veterans' complaints. Republicans, I want them to know they cannot look 
veterans in the face and tell them that my colleagues care about them 
when all my colleagues talk about is flag burning and desecration of 
the flag.
  My colleagues need to be talking about the real issues of whether or 
not veterans are being taken care of, veterans who have served their 
times, veterans who my colleagues say they care about, whether or not 
they can come forward with a budget like this where they are denying 
them the kind of funding that is so desperately needed.
  I ask my colleagues to reject this proposal, to reject the turning of 
our backs on the veterans who we claim to love so much, and do 
everything that we can to increase their funding. They have complaints 
that are not adjudicated. I ask my colleagues to do the right thing for 
veterans. Reject this Republican budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) that we added $1 billion to 
veterans that the President did not provide.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, when I first came to Congress in 1993, the 
budget debate was a very different one. Under the current President, 
but a very different majority in Congress, we were faced with deficits 
as far as the eye could see.

                              {time}  1400

  The budget resolution brought before Congress then addressed these 
problems with a very different set of solutions. That 1993 legislation 
included the largest tax increase in history, significant increases in 
Federal spending, and it repeated the mistakes of the past by including 
continued annual deficits.
  When the current majority took over, we inherited the same budgetary 
problems. Despite the 1993 tax increase, which was sold as the answer 
to the deficit, in 1995 the new majority still faced an unbalanced 
Federal ledger, escalating spending and future deficits stretching out 
as far as the eye could see.
  But we proposed a very different set of solutions to those problems. 
We introduced a balanced budget that reduced Federal spending and 
provided tax cuts for the American people. As a result of that 
legislation, today our Nation's budget is balanced. We even have a 
unified budget positive cash flow, and it appears certain that we will 
have a real ``on budget'' surplus this year.
  The budget resolution under consideration today continues the effort 
we began in 1995. It is balanced, it preserves the spending caps that 
we established in the balanced budget agreement of 1997, it ensures 
that 100 percent of payroll taxes, or $1.8 trillion, are preserved for 
the future of our retirement program.
  It also allows the Congress to give back $800 billion in taxes to 
American wage earners. That tax relief is still far less than what the 
President raised through higher Social Security taxes and marginal 
rates in the 1993 tax increase legislation.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation has stated that the President's 1993 
tax increase will tax the working people of this country for over $850 
billion over the next 10 years.
  The budget resolution reported by the Committee on the Budget will 
balance the budget, it will preserve payroll taxes for the preservation 
of Social Security, it will hold the line on Federal spending, it will 
make a downpayment on repealing the President's 1993 tax increases, and 
it will reduce the public debt.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this important legislation.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I address this body with a great deal of 
sadness, because last night, by a vote of 224 to 1, we pledged to 
support the troops. Today's budget breaks that pledge.
  On this spot last night I asked Members to support the troops not 
just at that time but for all times, not only during deployment but 
during times of training and growing. Someone was not listening when 
the budget was put together.
  The priority should be, is, as far as I am concerned, and will always 
be to take care of the troops; to take care of the young men and take 
care of the young women who go in harm's way for our country. This 
budget does not take into consideration or allow monies for the 
recommended and promised pay raise or change in reform of the 
retirement system. We have to do that. We must do that.
  We cannot break our word, we cannot break our faith and trust in 
those young people. We must reject this budget because it does not do 
what we have promised. Despite some claims that the Republican budget 
funds the pay raise, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) said it would 
not.
  I am pleased, however, that this morning, Mr. Chairman, the senior 
leadership of the House Committee on Armed Services, in a hearing, 
reiterated its strong support. Several of us spoke on both sides of the 
aisle in support of a military pay raise, and cleared up the confusion 
by the remarks of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget does not do it for the troops.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry), and I say to the previous speaker that our 
budget does do it for the troops, and the gentleman from Texas will 
illustrate that point.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, there is no higher priority in this 
budget for me than making sure that our troops are taken care of and 
that there is a pay raise. For some reason, a number of opponents of 
this budget have come up with a variety of reasons to try to argue that 
it is not so.
  I very much appreciate the gentleman from Missouri because I know his 
commitment to taking care of the troops is every bit as strong as mine. 
But what happens, for example, is that in some press accounts questions 
and answers get misrepresented.
  The chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for example, was asked 
whether the full amount in Senate bill 4 was taken care of in this 
budget, and the answer to that, of course, is no. But I can tell the 
gentleman from Missouri, as well as all my colleagues, as well as all 
of those who are in the armed services, that this budget includes the 
pay raise for the members of the armed services. And as a member of the 
committee and a member of the subcommittee which has jurisdiction over 
that issue, there will be legislation within the next couple of months 
on this floor to implement that pay raise, as there should be.
  I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that this budget is so strong that some 
opponents of the budget have to dig pretty deep to come up with some 
reason to oppose it. It is clear, if we look at the numbers, that there 
is an extra billion dollars in here for VA; that there is money in here 
to take care of the crop insurance program; and that there is room in 
here for tax relief, which is so essential, I think, for the American 
people.
  We have often heard it described that taxes are higher than at any 
point in the country's history except for the war year of 1944. Look at 
it another way. Under President Clinton, Federal tax revenue has gone 
up 52 percent faster than the personal income of this country. And in 
the last fiscal year it

[[Page 5699]]

grew 70 percent faster. So what is happening is the regular middle 
class folks are getting squeezed. Their income is going up a little 
bit, but their taxes are going up far faster. They need the tax relief 
that is included in this budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about the budget 
resolution's promises on increases in defense. We have heard some 
claims of an increase of $8 billion in budget authority over the 
President's request, but this resolution provides almost no increase in 
outlay authority.
  Now, I have served for 20 years on the Subcommittee on Defense of the 
Committee on Appropriations, and I can tell my colleagues that when we 
are writing an appropriations budget, budget authority but no outlay to 
support it, we have nothing. The problem is if we do not have adequate 
outlays, we cannot do the 4.4 percent across-the-board pay raise and we 
cannot have the fix in the retirement benefits.
  So I believe that this budget, that I think was presented with good 
intent, is fatally flawed. It is not going to do the job that the Joint 
Chiefs need to have done. It is not going to do the job that all of us 
on a bipartisan basis who support defense need to have done.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  This is really a great budget. Let us take a look at what this budget 
does. It allows the American people the opportunity to secure their 
future as we enter a new millennium.
  It locks away the entire Social Security Trust Fund, the surplus that 
we are going to be gaining over the next 10 years, $1.8 trillion. We 
save it so that we can strengthen and preserve Social Security and, as 
necessary, Medicare.
  We set aside $100 billion more than the President for Social Security 
and Medicare. We create a safe deposit box. What this means is that we 
prevent Congress from going and raiding those surpluses and using it 
for other spending.
  We pay down $450 billion of debt held by the public; $450 billion 
more than the President. We maintain the spending discipline of the 
balanced budget agreement of 1997.
  We allow the American people to secure their future by providing more 
for defense, by providing more for education, and providing the 
opportunity to enact historic tax relief.
  This is the kind of plan that enables us to build on the success of 
the last few years and to prepare for the future. It is a wonderful 
budget to move forward.
  The CHAIRMAN. Two hours on congressional budget debate having 
expired, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Stark) each will control 30 minutes on the subject 
of economic goals and policies.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in the late 1970s a law was enacted called the 
Humphrey-Hawkins Act, and the purpose of it was to provide, among other 
things, for this Congress to have oversight over budgetary policy in 
terms of how it may or may not have a positive, or how it may have a 
negative effect, for that matter, on the economic performance in our 
economy.
  And so I would just like to use some time, if I may, to take a break 
from Republicans blaming Democrats and Democrats blaming Republicans, 
to try to take an overall look at what has transpired to create this 
wonderful surplus that we have in this fiscal year and the surpluses 
that we are now able to anticipate in the coming years.
  Let me first say that our current expansion is now the longest 
expansion in modern history during peacetime. I think it is well for 
all of us to take credit and give each other credit, to the extent that 
we can. Employment, income and wealth gains are impressive, and we are 
experiencing the lowest unemployment rates since the 1970s.
  Sometimes we all like to exaggerate the impact, as if the world 
actually revolves around Washington, D.C. But the fact of the matter is 
that workers all across this country, business people, laborers, all 
share in being able to take responsibility for what has happened here. 
And our system itself, our system of free enterprise, has worked well.
  Recently, in trying to take credit for some things that happened in 
our country, the Vice President took some ribbing for claiming that he 
was the inventor of the Internet, and his strong ties to the rural 
farmland of northwest Washington, D.C. all drew some chuckles. Well, as 
a matter of fact, I wish him well, but his comments and other comments 
suggesting that the administration invented the current economic 
expansion are just excessive.
  Let me try to say what, after much study, the members of the Joint 
Economic Committee have concluded has happened. Yes, the Republicans 
can take credit for being the initiators of tax cuts. That started back 
in the 1980s. And with the exception of 1990, during the Bush 
administration, and 1993, during the current administration, taxes have 
been kept quite low. And, yes, we can give ourselves some credit around 
here for helping to control spending.
  Those have been important factors but not, in my view, the primary 
one. I think I may surprise my colleagues when I try to give at least 
some credit, and maybe the majority of the credit, for what has 
happened to an institution that is not directly associated with the 
Congress of the United States. Of course, all my colleagues know I am 
referring to the Federal Reserve.

                              {time}  1415

  As a matter of fact, the key reasons for the expansion are not 
generally very well understood, and that is why I want to take this 
time, under the provisions of Humphrey-Hawkins, to at least express 
this view for the consideration of my colleagues.
  One of the most important explanations for this record-setting and 
sustained expansion is the anti-inflationary monetary policy being 
pursued by the Federal Reserve. Pursuing anti-inflation policy or price 
stability policy in a gradual, sustained manner has worked to lower 
inflation.
  Who would have thought a decade ago that we could stand here today 
and say to America, inflation is almost zero? That is an impressive 
accomplishment brought about by the Fed. And interest rates have 
followed inflation downward and it has fostered economic growth.
  This chart here to the left of me shows how inflation and interest 
rates have come down together. And anyone who tries to deny the 
positive effects of this on the economy has simply not got it straight. 
This is an extremely important factor. And I believe that, along with 
other policies, this has been a major stimulus to the growth that we 
have seen.
  We have observed not only a lower rate of inflation, but also a lower 
rate of unemployment and healthy economic times all at the same time. 
As a matter of fact, during the last several years we have gone a long 
way to diffuse or to disprove an old theory that in the circles of 
economics is referred to as the Phillips curve.
  This second chart demonstrates something that is perhaps not a new 
phenomenon, and perhaps there were a minority of people who believed 
that this could happen over time. But throughout recent economic 
history, there was a common belief among lawmakers and a common belief 
among some economists, perhaps many economists, that we could not have 
long-term, sustained economic growth without inflation. This period of 
economic growth has disproven that theory.
  This chart shows that the unemployment rate, which is a by-product, 
of course, of good economic growth, has gone down, as inflation has, so 
that we now have historic low rates of unemployment and historic low 
rates of inflation. And again, we have to look across the street or 
downtown to the offices that house the members of the Federal Reserve 
to understand how this happened.

[[Page 5700]]

  The Federal Reserve has simply pursued policies through monetary 
policies to gradually squeeze inflation out of our economy. And so, 
while it is neat for us to be able to say that we have done this 
through the budgetary process, and we have contributed to it some, and 
while it is very encouraging that we have been able to over the last 
two decades reduce the impact of taxes, the fact of the matter is that 
most economists today agree that this policy of squeezing inflation out 
of the economy, which has fostered lower interest rates, has been an 
extremely important factor.
  Let me make four points. First, lower inflation works to lower 
interest rates. We have already demonstrated that here on our charts. 
Both long-term and short-term interest rates have declined and have 
done so with this lower inflation and with expectations that there is 
no inflation around the corner. While long-term rates recently have 
picked up some, they are not far from their historic lows as compared 
to interest rates over the last 30 years.
  Interest-sensitive sectors of the economy, like housing and 
investments, have performed exceptionally well during this period 
because of low interest rates, again brought about by Fed policy on 
price stability and inflation.
  The second point that I would make is that price stability works to 
calm financial markets and this helps to create long-term growth. Lower 
inflation fosters less volatility, less uncertainty and, therefore, 
more stability in financial markets. As a result, market participants 
tend to become more confident and more willing to invest and take risks 
and to innovate. And so we see this as an important factor.
  Point number three: Lower inflation acts like a tax cut. Anytime we 
give more money or provide an opportunity for investors to have more 
money to invest and consumers to have more money to consume and savers 
have more money to save, we provide economic stimulus which works to 
create long-term growth. And in this case, lower inflation reduces the 
rates of interest rates and again we have seen a positive result.
  Point number four: Lower inflation enables the price system to work 
better by reducing the noise and distortions in the pricing system. In 
other words, expectations of prices tomorrow being about the same as 
they are today because there is no inflation is an important factor in 
creating the atmosphere that we need for long-term growth.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point this out today because, as I sat 
here waiting for my time to come up, I listened to both sides blaming 
the other for this or that or the other thing. The fact of the matter 
is that this Congress, both Houses, the administration, have done some 
things correctly during the last couple of decades. But during this 
decade, if one wants to single out one element in our economic 
structure in Washington, D.C., to give the credit to, we honestly need 
to look at Fed policy.
  Now, I will say one other thing, and that is that this policy of 
controlling inflation has worked so well that there are some of us who 
are looking at the possibility of amending the Humphrey-Hawkins act to 
provide that this be the central feature carried out and the central 
objective carried out by the Fed. We think it is proof positive that 
this has worked, and we look forward to hopefully many, many more years 
of economic growth brought about by this policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I come before us this afternoon as the ranking 
Democratic member on the Joint Economic Committee, fulfilling a 
requirement outlined in the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 
1978 attributed to several of our great colleagues, Mr. Gus Hawkins and 
Senator Hubert Humphrey, who put the long-term goal of raising U.S. 
living standards far ahead of any of their short-term political aims. 
And I rise in strong opposition to the budget resolution before us.
  Before I go into details as to how harmful that is, I would like to 
put this debate in some context, as my senior Republican from the Joint 
Economic Committee on the House side did just a moment ago.
  We have had growth in 1998 close to 4 percent, and the economists are 
raising their projections for this year every day. Our economy is the 
envy of the world. The United States is growing two to three times 
faster than Japan or Germany. The unemployment rate is 4\1/2\ percent, 
the lowest unemployment since 1969. And the unemployment rate has been 
below 5 percent for almost 2 years.
  This is all building up and it is continuing good news. Who would 
have believed we would have seen us move ahead of Japan in these 
measurements in our lifetime? Inflation was 1.6 percent in 1998. We 
would have to go back to the early 1960s to find inflation that low. 
Furthermore, it has remained low despite falling unemployment, which 
confounds many of the economists.
  The once famous and now forgotten misery index, the combination of 
unemployment and inflation, the lowest point in 40 years. That is 
before the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and I even got to 
this place. The economy has generated 15 million new jobs net since 
1992 and 2.8 million jobs were added in 1998 alone. The average weekly 
take-home pay after inflation has increased by 2 percent in 1997 and 
1998 after almost 20 years of stagnation. The current expansion is not 
just a statistical phenomena. It has improved the standard of living 
for many Americans.
  Let us not celebrate, because this economic expansion is not yet 
shared by all Americans and that is not acceptable to the Democratic 
Party. One in seven counties in this country have twice the 
unemployment rate of the rest of the Nation. Some research shows that 
although there are fewer numbers of people receiving welfare, there is 
no definition as to what has happened to them. Are they working, or 
have they merely dropped off our statistical radar screen? And what has 
happened to their children?
  There is still more that we need to know in order to ensure that all 
Americans can enjoy the quality of life they deserve. When things go 
well, everybody is taking credit. Somebody said, ``success has a 
thousand parents and failure is an orphan.'' But it is easy to be 
entangled in the cause and effect. And one thing is clear: Eliminating 
the budget deficit has enabled interest rates to fall, which, in turn, 
is considered one of the major stimulants for our economy.
  Our first goal in fiscal 2000 should be to ensure that Social 
Security and Medicare are financially secure in order to provide health 
care to those who need it. The Republicans agree to wall off the Social 
Security Trust Fund, but their budget proposal does not do anything to 
address the solvency of either Social Security or Medicare. Their 
proposal calls for a freeze in Medicare's administrative budget over 
the next 10 years.
  We have hearing after hearing about how we have satisfied the 
Medicare operators so that they can go after fraud and abuse and put 
these egregious profit-hungry private HMOs and hospital chains that are 
stealing from the Government out of business. We have the lowest 
administrative overhead in Medicare of any program in the country, 
about 2 percent, compared to 10 to 30 percent for private insurers and 
managed care plans. The latter figure includes overhead and profit. But 
we cannot continue this good work if we are unwilling in a budget to 
support the administrators who make it work so well.
  Former Speaker Gingrich once said that Medicare's administrative 
agencies should ``wither on the vine,'' as should the program. Although 
no longer here, Mr. Gingrich's wishes seem to be with us, as the 
Republicans attempt to destroy Medicare and its ability to serve the 
need of America's seniors and disabled.
  Let us talk about budget surplus. There is a lot of talk about it, 
but I did not see one. Once we take Social Security off of the table, 
as the Republicans suggest, we are left with about $125 billion over 
the next 5 years. And without

[[Page 5701]]

touching the Social Security Trust Fund, I do not think we find a 
surplus until 2002.
  So if we are going to make policy based on the surplus, why do we not 
wait until we know there is one around and then debate it?
  During 1999, defense expenditures were 13 percent greater than all 
nondefense discretionary spending. I wonder if this really reflects our 
country's priorities. Republicans go further and add billions to 
defense, and it calls for a cut in discretionary spending.
  Now, I do not happen to think the Pentagon is optional. It certainly 
is not. But if the Pentagon is not optional, neither is Head Start, 
public health programs, education, job training, housing, veterans' 
hospitals, law enforcement, environmental programs, the national parks, 
community and economic development, rural programs, highways, energy, 
among a few which are being eliminated or cut severely, if the 
Republicans do not intend to shove us into the greatest deficit we have 
had since Ronald Reagan forced us into a deficit by reckless tax cuts 
and even more reckless military spending on things like Star Wars and 
other things, which produced nothing but welfare for otherwise 
unemployable scientists and would-be soldiers of fortune.
  I predicted that we would strike a deal to kick people off welfare, 
and we have. But what we have done is harm the children and the 
helpless in this country in the Republican effort to grab more tax cuts 
for 1 or 2 percent of the very rich, and that is not again what the 
Democratic Party is about.
  My Republican colleagues did not vote for the 1993 act. Not one of 
them voted. They are taking credit for it. But it has not stopped them 
from bragging about it. Eliminating the deficit was the single largest 
explanation for the current health of this economy, and we must not 
jeopardize it again.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget resolution, send them back 
to the table to bring one that will help the economy for the long run 
and help all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:

               Crisis Facing HCFA & Millions of Americans

       The signatories to this statement believe that many of the 
     difficulties that threaten to cripple the Health care 
     Financing Administration (HCFA) stem from an unwillingness of 
     both Congress and the Clinton administration to provide the 
     agency the resources and administrative flexibility necessary 
     to carry out its mammoth assignment. This is not a partisan 
     issue, because both Democrats and Republicans are culpable 
     for the failure to equip HCFA with the human and financial 
     resources it needs to address what threatens to become a 
     management crisis for the agency and thus for millions of 
     Americans who rely on it. This is also not an endorsement of 
     the present or past administrative activities of the agency. 
     Congress and the administration should insist on an agency 
     that operates efficiently and in the public interest.
       Over the past decade Congress has directed the agency to 
     implement, administer, and regulate an increasing number of 
     programs that derive from highly complex legislation. While 
     vast new responsibilities have been added to its heavy 
     workload, some of its most capable administrative talent has 
     departed or retired: other employees have been reassigned as 
     a consequence of reductions in force. At the same time, 
     neither Democratic nor Republican administrations have 
     requested administrative budgets of a size that were in any 
     way commensurate with HCFA's growing challenge.
       The latest report of the Medicare trustees points out that 
     HCFA's administrative expenses represented only 1 percent of 
     the outlays of the Hospital Insurance trust fund and less 
     than 2 percent of the Supplementary Medical Insurance trust 
     fund. In part, these low percentages reflect the rapid growth 
     of the denominator--Medicare expenditures. But, even 
     accounting for Medicare's growth, no private health insurer, 
     after subtracting its marketing costs and profit, would ever 
     attempt to manage such large and complex insurance programs 
     with so small an administrative budget. Without prompt 
     attention to these issues, HCFA will fall further behind in 
     its implementation of the many significant reforms mandated 
     by the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997. In the future the 
     agency also has to cope with a demographic revolution that it 
     is ill equipped to accommodate and with changes in medical 
     technology that will increase fiscal pressures on the 
     programs it administers.
       As the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare 
     grapples with the problem of reshaping the Medicare program 
     for the next millennium, it would do well to consider two 
     important reforms concerning HCFA's administration. First, 
     the commission should recommend that Congress and the Clinton 
     administration endow the agency with an administrative 
     capacity that is similar to that found in the private sector. 
     Second, the commission should consider ways in which the 
     micromanagement of the agency by Congress and the Office of 
     Management and Budget could be reduced. Congress and the 
     public would be better served by measuring the agency's 
     efficiency in terms of its administrative outcomes (such as 
     accuracy and speed of reimbursement of various providers), 
     rather than by tightly controlling its administrative 
     processes. Only if HCFA has more administrative resources and 
     greater management flexibility will it be able to cope with 
     the challenges that lie ahead.
       The mismatch between the agency's administrative capacity 
     and its political mandate has grown enormously over the 
     1990s. As the number of beneficiaries, claims, and 
     participating provider organizations; quality and utilization 
     review; and oversight responsibilities have increased 
     geometrically. HCFA has been downsized. When HCFA was created 
     in 1977, Medicare spending totaled $21.5 billion, the number 
     of beneficiaries served was twenty-six million, and the 
     agency had a staff of about 4,000 full-time-equivalent 
     workers. By 1997 Medicare spending had increased almost 
     tenfold to $207 billion, the number of beneficiaries served 
     had grown to thirty-nine million, but the agency's workforce 
     was actually smaller than it had been two decades earlier. 
     The sheer technical complexity of its new policy directives 
     is mind-boggling and requires a new generation of employees 
     with the requisite skills.
       HCFA's ability to provide assistance to beneficiaries, 
     monitor the quality of provider services, and protect against 
     fraud and abuse has been increasingly compromised by the 
     failure to provide the agency with adequate administrative 
     resources. Even with the addition of $154 million to its 
     administrative budget that Congress included in its latest 
     budget bill, the likelihood that HCFA can effectively 
     implement all of its varied assignments is remote. The Health 
     Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 assigns 
     many new regulatory responsibilities to HCFA, but a far 
     larger task is implementing the BBA of 1997. The BBA has more 
     than 300 provisions affecting HCFA programs, including the 
     Medicare+Choice option, which will require complex 
     institutional changes and ambitious efforts to educate 
     beneficiaries.
       Medicare spending accounts for more than 11 percent of the 
     U.S. budget. Workable, effective administration has to be a 
     primary consideration in any restructuring proposal. Whether 
     Medicare reform centers on improving the current system, 
     designing a system that relies on market forces to promote 
     efficiency through competition, or moving toward an even more 
     individualized approach to paying for health insurance, 
     Congress and the administration must reexamine the 
     organization, funding, management, and oversight of the 
     Medicare program. During anything less is short-changing the 
     public and leaving HCFA in a state of disrepair.
         Stuart M. Butler, Heritage Foundation; Patricia M. 
           Danzon, University of Pennsylvania; Bill Gradison, 
           Health Insurance Association of America; Robert Helms, 
           American Enterprise Institute; Marilyn Moon, Urban 
           Institute; Joseph P. Newhouse, Harvard University; Mark 
           V. Pauly, University of Pennsylvania; Martha Phillips, 
           Concord Coalition; Uwe E. Reinhardt, Princeton 
           University; Robert D. Reischauer, Brookings 
           Institution; William L. Roper, University of North 
           Carolina at Chapel Hill; John Rother, AARP; Leonard D. 
           Schaeffer, Well-Point Health Networks, Inc.; Gail R. 
           Wilensky, Project HOPE.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a new member of the Joint Economic Committee.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about the economic security of our 
country, the issue that we are now talking as we debate the Humphrey-
Hawkins portion of this.

                              {time}  1430

  But as we talk about the economic security of our Nation, we do 
realize that an economic security for this Nation must put as its 
foremost goal retirement security, retirement economic security for our 
seniors. So that is why we have this raging debate down here in the 
well of the floor of the House of Representatives on how we preserve 
and protect Social Security.
  I would like to draw our attention to the efforts under way to 
protect and preserve Social Security. We have been

[[Page 5702]]

talking about these different plans. We have three plans on this side 
of the aisle, the President's plan and a couple of different Democrat 
plans, and the Republican plan on Social Security. Let us assume for a 
second that this podium I am standing at here is the Social Security 
trust fund. I have the Social Security kitty right here. For the last 
30 years, our FICA taxes have been coming in from our paychecks, real 
money coming in from our paychecks. We then deposit it in the Social 
Security trust fund. But what they have been doing over the last 30 
years has been raiding that money. They have been taking this money out 
of the Social Security trust fund and spending it out on other 
government programs and putting in place of it IOUs, putting IOU after 
IOU coming off of our FICA taxes into the Social Security trust fund.
  Now, we have asked the Comptroller of the United States Government to 
analyze the President's plan, which virtually resembles the Democrat 
plan being considered here as a substitute. David Walker, who is the 
Comptroller General of the United States, took a look at the 
President's plan and said, ``Although the trust funds will appear to 
have more resources as a result of the President's proposal, in reality 
nothing about the program has changed. The proposal does not represent 
Social Security reform.''
  What does that mean? What does it mean when he says, ``Although the 
trust funds will appear to have more resources as a result of the 
President's proposal, in reality it does nothing''?
  What that means is the President's plan and the Democratic substitute 
we are talking about here today simply does this: They print up more 
IOUs and stick it in the Social Security trust fund, more IOUs in the 
Social Security trust fund. It does nothing to extend the solvency of 
Social Security. If we take a look at this chart here, here is what we 
are talking about. The Democratic substitute and the President's plan 
are double-counting the surpluses. Same old smoke and mirrors, same old 
gimmicky accounting. We are dedicating all of FICA taxes plus interest 
to Social Security to pay down publicly held debt.
  But the Democratic bills say that they are putting $4.3 trillion to 
Social Security to extend the solvency. This $4.3 trillion is a sham. 
They are simply saying $4.3 trillion of IOUs to go into the Social 
Security trust fund, money that a future Congress and a future 
President one day will have to come up with to pay for Social Security. 
But it is not real reform. It is not real reform. And it does not do 
one thing to save Social Security. What we are doing in our budget is 
saying, let us stop raiding the Social Security trust fund. We have got 
to act as a Congress to stop the raid on Social Security.
  What we do with our plan on Social Security is this: 100 percent of 
all payroll taxes plus interest is dedicated solely to Social Security 
and Medicare. We save that money to strengthen the program until we 
have a solution by the President and the Congress to fix Social 
Security on its long-term. But here is what we do that the Democrats 
are not doing. We are being honest with the number and we are saying it 
is going to require a supermajority vote in Congress to pass any future 
budget resolution that attempts to raid Social Security. Because the 
President will not sign legislation into law preventing the further 
raid on Social Security, we have got to do it ourselves. We have got to 
change the rules of Congress to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget says 
that a point of order is meaningless in the House of Representatives. 
In the U.S. Senate, it is not meaningless. Under our rule and under our 
budget, the way we change the rules, one United States Senator can go 
to the floor of the Senate and say, ``I raise a point of order against 
this budget because it raids Social Security.'' That one United States 
Senator can therefore require a supermajority vote on any budget plan 
into the future that attempts to raid Social Security. We are trying to 
make it as difficult as possible for Congress to continue to raid 
Social Security. And we are not playing fun and games with the numbers. 
We are not trying to give retirees the false sense of security that we 
are extending the solvency of Social Security into the year 2055 as the 
President is doing. We are not going to print up more phony IOUs and 
stick them in the Social Security trust fund. What we want to do is put 
real money toward the Social Security solution, put that into Social 
Security, that is what we want to do, by buying down our debt, by 
making sure we are in a better cash position to fix Social Security.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important as we go through this debate on how to 
improve the economic security of our country that we improve the 
economic security for our Nation's retirees. That is why the Republican 
budget here today is the only budget that puts away $1.8 trillion 
toward Social Security and Medicare, more than the President does, but 
makes sure that Congress will not renege on this deal. It really stops 
the raid on the trust fund, short of passing a bill by the President, 
because the President does not want to pass a bill stopping the raid of 
the Social Security trust fund because the President's budget raids the 
Social Security trust fund by $341 billion over the next 10 years. We 
are simply saying, stop the raid on the trust fund, stop dipping into 
Social Security from now on. We are putting the measures in place to 
prevent Congress from doing so in the future. On top of it, we are 
going to pay down the debt so we can make sure we are in a better 
position to save Social Security.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey), one of the leading members of the Joint Economic 
Committee, pending which I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from South Carolina, ranking member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, in response to the last comments, the 
difference between now and implementation of the President's proposal 
and the proposal that we have put in the Democratic budget resolution 
is simply this: We are going to add an additional $1.8 trillion of 
bonds to the Social Security trust fund over the next 15 years. That 
means in 2032, when the administrator of the Social Security trust 
funds would run out of bonds, instead, under our plan, he will still 
have enough bonds to cash in at the treasury that will take him to 
2050.
  I have here a letter from Harry C. Ballantyne, Chief Actuary of the 
Social Security Administration, which says that this will extend the 
life of the trust fund, the solvency of the trust fund until 2050.
  The text of the letter is as follows:

                                              Social Security,

                                                   March 12, 1999.
     Hon. Richard A. Gephardt,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. Gephardt: This letter addresses the potential 
     long-range financial effects on the OASDI program of 
     ``locking away'' the annual increases in the Social Security 
     Trust Funds, as proposed by Republican leaders in the Senate 
     and the House on March 10, 1999. The proposal would require 
     that annual increases in the OASI and DI Trust Funds would be 
     used solely to purchase long-term special issue U.S. 
     government bonds. In addition, the proposal would require 
     that the revenue used for the purchase of these bonds would 
     in turn be used solely for the purpose of reducing Federal 
     debt held by the public. Of course, the net change in the 
     Federal debt held by the public in any year would also be 
     affected by the size of any on-budget deficit or surplus for 
     that year.
       The proposal would not have any significant effect on the 
     long-range solvency of the OASDI program under the 
     intermediate assumptions of the 1998 Trustees Report. Thus, 
     the estimated long-range actuarial deficit of 2.19 percent of 
     taxable payroll and the year of the combined trust funds' 
     exhaustion (2032) would not change. The first year in which 
     estimated outgo will exceed estimated tax income would not be 
     affected and would therefore remain at 2013.
       Any plan that reduces the amount of Federal debt held by 
     the public may make later redemption by the Trust Funds of 
     special issue U.S. government bonds easier.
           Sincerely,
                                              Harry C. Ballantyne,
                                                    Chief Actuary.

[[Page 5703]]

     
                                  ____
                                              Social Security,

                                                   March 15, 1999.


                               MEMORANDUM

     To: Harry C. Ballantyne, Chief Actuary.
     From: Stephen C. Goss, Deputy Chief Actuary.
     Subject: Long-Range OASDI Financial Effects of Specified 
       Dollar Transfers to the OASDI Program--Information

       This memorandum provides the estimated effect on the OASDI 
     program of transferring specified additional dollar amounts 
     from the General Fund of the Treasury to the OASDI trust 
     funds according to the following schedule. These transfers 
     would be in addition to all revenue that will be received by 
     the OASDI program under present law.


      Specified amounts to be transferred to the OASDI trust funds

                     [Billions of current dollars]

Year:                                                            Amount
  2000...........................................................$108.5
  2001............................................................116.7
  2002............................................................123.5
  2003............................................................130.1
  2004............................................................137.7
  2005............................................................156.2
  2006............................................................182.8
  2007............................................................197.7
  2008............................................................207.4
  2009............................................................219.6
  2010............................................................224.3
  2011............................................................226.8
  2012............................................................226.9
  2013............................................................213.2
  2014............................................................203.7

       The specified dollar transfer amounts were developed by the 
     Democratic Policy Committee based on estimated budget surplus 
     estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. These amounts 
     represent transfers for fiscal years.
       Enactment of a provision to specify the above transfers in 
     dollar amounts would improve the 75-year OASDI actuarial 
     balance by an estimated 1.01 percent of effective taxable 
     payroll, from a deficit of 2.19 percent of payroll under 
     present law to a deficit of 1.18 percent of payroll. The 
     estimated date of exhaustion of the combined OASDI trust 
     funds would become 2050. This is 18 years later than the date 
     of combined trust fund exhaustion projected under present 
     law, which is 2032. These estimated financial effects on the 
     OASDI program are based on the intermediate assumptions of 
     the 1998 Trustees Report.
                                                  Stephen C. Goss.

  It is the difference between being a secured creditor with your 
credit collateralized by government bonds, backed by the full faith of 
the government and being a political supplicant in 2032 when you run 
out of bonds to draw down and go to the Treasury window to ask for the 
money to meet benefits. That is a big difference.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to turn my attention to 
the presentation which was made just a few moments ago by the chairman 
of the Joint Economic Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey, in 
which he showed the decline in inflation and job loss since 1992 and 
1993. That was an interesting presentation, but what it lacked was the 
other side of the picture. It focused only on monetary policy. As we 
know, fiscal policy is intertwined with monetary policy and in this 
particular case led the monetary policy.
  When the President gave his presentation here, the budget resolution 
in 1993, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve sat up in that chair right 
in the middle there and gave his imprimatur to what the President was 
trying to do that year. That budget resolution was in fact responsible 
for driving down inflation and driving down employment and giving us 
the extraordinarily successful economy that we currently enjoy. The 
budget resolution currently before us, however, threatens to end all of 
that. It threatens to end it by returning to the fiscal 
irresponsibility which preceded public policy, fiscal policy 
particularly in our country prior to the passage of that budget 
resolution in 1993. It does so by pretending to do certain things it 
does not do, by pretending to protect Social Security, by pretending to 
protect Medicare and in fact Medicare is going to be in serious 
jeopardy if this budget resolution passes. It does so, also, by 
advancing a series of very irresponsible tax cuts which grow out 
exponentially in future years. Those tax cuts will threaten other 
essential parts of our budget process which are very important to the 
American people, things like Head Start, like public health programs, 
job training, housing, law enforcement, environmental programs, 
national parks will be put in jeopardy, community and economic 
development programs will have to be sharply reduced, rural programs, 
energy, agriculture, biomedical research and others will suffer if this 
budget resolution passes.
  That is why we should defeat this resolution and pass the Democratic 
alternative.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to address the 
issue that we have been talking about here on saving Social Security 
that the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget was talking 
about. What their proposal does, and let us be very clear about what 
this does. It just puts more IOUs in the trust fund. It simply says 
that from now until the year 2055, we have got IOUs in there, that one 
day a future Congress and a future President when they get around to it 
will honor these IOUs to save Social Security. The letter from the 
Social Security Administration essentially admits just that.
  So the plan that the President has offered and that the Democrat 
substitutes offer does not give us real reform of Social Security. It 
simply says more IOUs in the Social Security trust fund. What we need 
is real money, from our FICA taxes, going to pay down debt so we are in 
a better position of fixing Social Security and improving its solvency.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I indicated in my opening statement here 
that there were some factors that were important in terms of how our 
economy has performed. One of the factors is certainly the way we have 
been able to control spending. The spending controller who is standing 
to my left, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, is as 
responsible for that as anyone.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kasich).
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to make a comment. The 
gentleman from New Jersey has been very accurate in his ability to be 
able to explain why this economy does so well. With the export 
mentality of the United States, allowing our economy to be globalized, 
to be in a mentality that every market has a potential for us, to be 
able to develop and to bring about the production of more goods in this 
country has certainly been one of the key components to our economic 
growth.
  In addition to that, of course, has been the development of 
technology that has allowed our workers to be far more productive. I 
think the gentleman would agree that within the period of the last 
couple of weeks, the most welcome news has been not just the news about 
the economic growth but clearly the fact that it is reflected by very 
low inflation that comes from rising productivity.
  One of the things we have tried to achieve in this country is the 
ability to have noninflationary growth. So now we have the best of all 
worlds, which is a strong economy, strong economic growth with low 
inflation that is accompanied by probably the single best ingredient of 
predictor to the future in terms of this economy, and that is high 
productivity. One of the things we also know, however, is that we 
certainly do not want to do anything to retard the ability of this 
economy to grow by letting government become too big and, in fact, this 
budget which allows us to preserve the Social Security and Medicare 
surpluses to be used to transform Social Security and Medicare for many 
of the baby boomers who are in this Chamber today.
  We know that if we can be, in fact, progressive in the use of Social 
Security and Medicare, it will not only guarantee a strong program for 
the baby boomers and their children while preserving the program for 
our current seniors but at the same time by developing the proper 
Social Security program, it will not only serve to strengthen the 
Social Security program but we believe at the end of the day will 
increase the national savings rate. That will again lead to the 
continuation of low interest rates which can lead to even better 
technological development.

[[Page 5704]]

  One of the major reasons why this party wants to get the on-budget 
surplus out of town and into the pocket of everyday Americans is not 
just because we want to run the country from the bottom up, so that our 
doorkeeper can have more control over his future, so that the future 
can be his so that he has more control in terms of determining his own 
destiny, but there is another issue about this and, that is, the last 
thing this party wants to do is to take the proceeds of a strengthened 
economy and a budget surplus to create a bigger government.

                              {time}  1445

  We came here not just to balance a budget, but to take power, money 
and influence from this town, sharpen the actions of the Federal 
Government, but get the power from here into the hands of Americans. If 
we were to then take the surplus and use it to grow government, it 
would be a boomerang effect that we would live to regret. We believe 
that a government that is smaller, the people that are empowered, is a 
key to a successful economy.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a member of the Joint 
Economic Committee.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time for me and for his leadership.
  For the first time in decades we are working in the black. I believe 
the President put it best in his State of the Union speech when he 
said:
  ``Our fiscal discipline gives us an unprecedented opportunity to 
address a remarkable and needy new challenge, the aging of America.''
  In other words, protecting Social Security and Medicare, providing 
income and health care to the elderly who need it must be a high 
priority.
  The majority's budget resolution, however, completely ignores 
Medicare, and it provides only false promises of protecting Social 
Security. The majority's budget fails to protect the elderly. It puts 
into jeopardy the surpluses and the economic benefits we have worked so 
hard to gain by balancing the budget.
  I was elected in 1992 and came to Congress when we faced a $290 
billion deficit. I never believed that the major debate before Congress 
today would be over what to do with the surplus. When I ran for 
Congress in 1992, Federal aid to New York City under Reagan and Bush 
for 12 years, it had been cut by 62 percent. Under President Clinton, 
aid to New York City has continually risen. In 1992, the unemployment 
rate was 7.5 percent. Today it is 4.4. In 1992, inflation rate was at 
2.9 percent. Today it is at a phenomenal 1.6 percent. The so-called 
misery index, the combination of unemployment and inflation, was 10 
percent in 1992 when President Clinton and I were elected. Today it is 
at a 30-year low of 6.1 percent. Since 1992, this economy has generated 
18 million new jobs, and workers' average weekly take-home pay after 
inflation has increased by more than 2 percent in 1997 and 1998. And, 
added to that, we balanced the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to put the rest of my comments into the 
Record and say we should not reverse course and go back to the 1980's 
that grew the deficits. Let us follow the program we are on. Vote 
against the Republican resolution and for the Democratic one.
  The current economic expansion is not just a statistical phenomenon, 
it has improved living standards for most Americans.
  These are all economic events which occurred since I arrived here.
  And I believe that the 1993 budget which introduced fiscal 
discipline--a budget which cut the deficit by $52 billion that first 
fiscal year--put us on the path of what is now a $70 billion surplus--
and it is growing.
  And I just want to remind us all that the first budget which put us 
on this path was passed without a single Republican vote.
  We balanced the budget, but the Majority's Budget Resolution before 
us today reverses course.
  We all like tax cuts, but this budget resolutions cuts taxes. This is 
the same formula used in the 1980s. The result was astronomical 
deficits from which we have just begun to recover.
  Are we willing to return to the days of deficits as far as the eye 
can see in order to finance the tax cuts?
  The costs and consequences of the Republican tax cuts increase as the 
years go by.
  It postpones the question of how to finance them into some point in 
the future.
  But we must take responsibility for our actions today and not 
postpone the hard decisions to another time, far in the future when it 
may be too late.
  Instead we must continue to pay down the debt and reap the benefits 
of having a budget in surplus.
  This is the path which will pay off for us in the future.
  A report by the Congressional Research Service examines the surplus 
options.
  It concludes that maintaining the surpluses and reducing the debt 
``are likely to contribute more than tax reduction to capital formation 
as well as to the government's fiscal position. Debt reduction [begins] 
when surpluses occur and would end when they end.''
  (And we must rely on real surpluses--not offsets--like the one some 
of my colleagues are trying to create by the supposed selling of 
Governor's Island--for an inflated price to people who would misuse 
it.)
   Mr. Chairman, let us take the wise path and continue the surpluses, 
reduce the debt, protect Social Security and save Medicare.
  Let us take that path and not the path toward a new era of deficits 
that will be the result of this Budget Resolution.
  We learned that their method was wrong and the sound economic policy 
of the past six years is what will keep the economy on track.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise in support of this 
budget resolution because I think it makes a lot of sense for a couple 
of different reasons.
  One of the reasons I think would simply be that it recognizes debt is 
debt, and it was interesting my colleague from South Carolina got into 
a discussion with my colleague from Wisconsin on, well, as my 
colleagues know, does the President's proposal save Social Security by 
moving actuarial insolvency out to 2055 versus not, and I think to a 
degree those are academic conversations because I think what we have to 
stay focused on is the promise of Social Security. And the fact is we 
have got 70 million baby boomers who begin to march off toward 
retirement around 2012, and whether we have marketable security, 
nonmarketable security on the budget debt versus off the budget debt is 
irrelevant in that it is a drain on the resources of the Federal 
Government and has to be addressed at that time.
  So, one, this recognizes that debt is debt.
  Two, I think it has honest accounting in place. If we were to walk 
down the street; I mean it really does wall off Social Security in a 
way that has to be done. Do we want to set aside a hundred percent of 
Social Security for Social Security, which is incidentally what the 
President said two State of the Unions ago, or do we want to wall off 
62 percent of Social Security for Social Security? Most of the folks I 
talk to back home say let us save a hundred percent of Social Security 
for Social Security because if I am taxed on something, I want that tax 
to go toward that thing that I am being taxed on, and in this case it 
is Social Security.
  I say honest accounting because if we were to go down the street and 
see a family that had to borrow, as my colleagues know, to put gas in 
the car or food on the table, we would say that family was not running 
a surplus. In the business world if we borrowed against our pension 
fund assets to pay for the current operations of the company, we would 
go to jail based on federal law, and yet that is what we have been 
doing in Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why I think it is so important to set aside a 
hundred percent of the Social Security for Social Security.
  I think that this budget is also important in the way that it 
recognizes spending caps. I mean can one have a Power Ranger toy and a 
Obe Wan Kinobe toy at the same time? My 6-year-old would say yes. We go 
in the toy store, and he wants both. And in Washington we seem to 
always want both, and I think what is so important

[[Page 5705]]

about the spending caps that this budget keeps in place is that it 
recognizes that we cannot have the Obe Wan Kinobe toy and the Power 
Ranger toy at the same time. At times we do have to make hard and 
difficult choices, but nonetheless choices.
  Finally, I think what this budget recognizes that is so important is 
that right now we are at a post World War II high in terms of the 
amount of money that has been coming into Washington, D.C. This budget 
does something about that.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge), but pending that I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking 
member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, to my friend from South Carolina: What the 
President has proposed and what we are proposing even more emphatically 
is that the Social Security surpluses, in our case a hundred percent of 
those surpluses, first be taken and used solely to buy down public 
debt. In return for the receipt of those excess payroll taxes the 
Treasury will issue, as is customary, a bond backed by the full faith 
and credit of the United States Government to the Social Security 
trustees. Then, dollar for dollar of debt reduction, the Treasury will 
issue another bond partly to Social Security, partly to Medicare. Over 
a period of 15 years, Mr. Chairman, it will double the amount of the 
trust fund.
  So, the key factor is that, as we build up the assets of the Social 
Security Retirement Trust Fund and the Medicare Trust Fund in this 
manner, we are also paying down the debt of the United States so that 
when those trust funds come due in 2032, the Social Security 
Administration will be able to go to the Treasury window, the Treasury 
will be in better shape than ever financially to pay those funds.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Minge) for 2 minutes.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
having yielded this time to me.
  This day is probably a day of budget overload. There is more debate 
on what is the budget, what should the budget be, what are the 
implications of different budgets, whose is best, whose is worse, 
whether they are accurately characterized or caricatured, and it is 
with some reluctance that I raise the spectre of yet another budget.
  I have been working with a group of moderate to conservative 
Democrats called the Blue Dog Coalition, and we, too, have developed a 
budget proposal. We feel that our humble budget proposal is one that is 
not as partisan, as spirited, as some of the others that are being 
discussed today, and we are not here to say that our colleagues have 
irresponsible budget proposals. Like the Republican budget proposal and 
the Democratic budget proposal, we are committed to saving a hundred 
percent of the Social Security surplus for savings for the Social 
Security Trust Fund to reduce the debt. I think that is a common theme 
in the discussions today. We ought to rejoice in that.
  The next issue that has become quite contentious, where there 
certainly is far from any agreement, is what do we do with the 
operating surplus in the budget?
  We have fortunately achieved the time, maybe we can say it is the 
millennium, when the Federal budget is anticipated to show a surplus 
even without the Social Security Trust Fund. It is a remarkable 
achievement. Our group is suggesting that rather than devoting this 
surplus to tax reduction, devoting the surplus to new program 
initiatives or to other ways of spending or investing it, that we split 
the surplus into three parts, that we devote 50 percent of it to 
reducing the national debt, and I submit in the first 5 years this is 
very similar to the Democratic proposal.
  In this respect the Blue Dog proposal and the Democratic proposal are 
very similar, and the Republican proposal would suggest that this 50 
percent ought to be used for tax reduction.
  Going on, the next 25 percent, we urge that we set that money aside 
and invest it in priority programs: health care, education, veterans, 
defense, agriculture, the priority programs that Congress would agree 
on; and third, to take the last 25 percent and devote that to tax 
reduction, be the continuation of tax credits that are expiring, 
targeted tax credits, whatever type of initiatives we agree upon here.
  I would like to emphasize that this is our proposal, and later on 
this afternoon we will deal with it in greater detail. But this 
represents a moderate way of trying to bring some consensus here in 
Congress as to what we should do on behalf of the American people.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, in his opening remarks the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget got up and said that this was about risk taking, this was 
about a budget that would allow people to take risks to keep more of 
their money and to take risk. Unfortunately, the people that are at 
risk in this budget are the people who seek a better education for 
their children, veterans who seek better health care, communities that 
seek to lower class sizes, the elderly that want to make sure that 
Medicare is secure. Those are the people who are taking the risk in the 
Republican budget. They want to pretend as though, if they give back a 
tax cut, that everything will happen and everything will turn out all 
right, and that is the risk, is giving back the tax cut.
  No, the risk for America is in paying for that tax cut because, as we 
see in this budget, student loans for higher education, Pell grants for 
higher education all need to be cut to make room for that. The hundred 
thousand teachers to try to lower class sizes needs to be cut to make 
room for that. In fact, what we see is an across-the-board cut in 
education at a time when the people in this country are telling us that 
they recognize the kind of reinvestment that this Nation, our States, 
our local communities need to make in education so that our young 
people can compete in a worldwide economy. Those are the people at 
risk.
  Once again what the Republicans have done is shifted the risk of 
their budget priorities to those who can least afford it, those who 
have the least ability to make up for their mistakes, those who are 
trying to the best of their ability to move forward in American 
society, in American economy.
  That is where the risk is in their budget, those are the programs 
that are targeted, those are the programs that are cut, those are the 
programs that are reduced, all to make way for a tax cut that they hope 
for people who have simply none of the worries, none of these everyday 
worries, that American families have on a daily basis about themselves, 
their jobs and their children's education.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to conclude the contribution to the 
discussion of the Joint Economic Committee today by saying this: I laid 
out very carefully, I think, a case in which I believe very deeply, and 
that is that Fed has been responsible and successfully so in giving us 
an economy in which there is an inflation rate of darn near zero.
  I think that that is primarily responsible for the growth that we 
have seen, along with other items that I also pointed out.
  However, one of the speakers from the other side, following my 
presentation, suggested that the tax increase that occurred in 1993 was 
somehow responsible for lowering inflation and lowering interest rates. 
In fact, the facts do not bear that out in any way, shape or form.
  I would just like to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle 
that when the tax increase occurred, which is now, of course, referred 
to as the budget arrangement that created this expansion, which I think 
is false, but when that tax increase occurred in 1993, it went into 
effect, the vertical line here indicates the time period during which 
that tax increase went into

[[Page 5706]]

 effect, interest rates actually spiked upward, not downward, as one of 
the previous speakers indicated.
  The spike upward is indicated here on the chart by the red line. As 
well as the Federal funds rate also went up, as indicated by the yellow 
line, and the discount rate went up, as indicated by the black line. So 
when individuals try to make the case that somehow the tax increase 
that took place in 1993 had the effect of lowering interest rates, 
quite the opposite is true. For the following 12 or 13 months after the 
tax increase went into effect, interest rates went up, not down.
  So I think it is somewhat, I must say, misleading, to be kind, to 
make the claim that somehow the President's tax increase had a positive 
effect on economic growth.
  I do not want to shift the entire credit to the Federal Reserve. I 
think they did a good job. I think they have squeezed and squeezed and 
squeezed on targeting inflation and have successfully gotten it out of 
our system.
  It is true that restraint in government spending has played a part. 
As a matter of fact, in 1992, our government consumed 22 percent of 
GDP. Today our government consumes 19\1/2\ percent of GDP. I think that 
is good and good for growth.
  I believe that lower marginal tax rates that remain in place today, 
in spite of the increases in 1990 and 1993, are good and provide a 
positive effect on growth. The marginal rates are lower today than they 
were in the fifties or the sixties or the seventies.
  Investment has also worked to expand capacity. Business has been 
encouraged to invest and, of course, global competition and freer trade 
have also played a role in fostering growth.
  This is the economic report of the President, and incidentally, I 
think it is very appropriate that the cover is red, which claimed that 
the tax increase in 1993 produced lower interest rates. This book does 
not even mention, does not even mention, the role of the Fed, when the 
facts claim quite conversely that the tax increase also created an 
increase in interest rates across the board.
  I am very pleased to have been able to manage this time on behalf of 
the Joint Economic Committee. I hope it has been a contribution to the 
understanding that we all have as to what happened to the economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle) to control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Iowa is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance 
of my time and its control to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I inquire as to the balance of the time 
remaining on this side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina has 11\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress to recognize that uncontrolled 
sprawling development is an economic disaster that wastes human 
resources and uses human and financial capital in inefficient and 
wasteful ways.
  Our Democratic proposal contains a livability agenda that does not 
promote Federal planning or zoning but embraces local control, 
providing Federal vision with tools to municipalities and counties and 
States to better prepare themselves for the 21st Century.
  The Democratic budget puts greater power, more money and enhanced 
decision-making authority in local hands, to fight sprawl, clean up the 
environment and protect the legacy of our land.
  Some of the tools in this livability agenda include the proposed 
Better America Bonds, which would allow State and local governments to 
borrow up to $10 billion to preserve green space, protect water quality 
and reclaim brown fields.
  The regional connections initiative will promote regional smart 
growth strategies across local jurisdictional lines. The community 
Federal information partnership will provide communities with grants 
for easy-to-use information to develop strategies for local growth; and 
the lands legacy initiative will provide $1 billion to significantly 
expand Federal efforts to save America's natural treasures and provide 
new resources for State and communities to protect local green spaces.
  Mr. Chairman, it is wasteful and inefficient and harmful to our 
economy to permit sprawling, unmanaged growth, to sit in traffic jams, 
to pave over good farmland instead of reclaiming and reusing brown 
fields.
  We must save the American landscape. We must provide future 
generations with livable communities. We owe it to America to support 
the democratic proposal.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican 
budget resolution and in strong support of the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. Chairman, under the very able leadership of the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the committee, the 
Democrats want to keep prosperity on track and protect the American 
family.
  The proposal of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) would 
build upon past Democratic efforts and ensure continued fiscal 
responsibility while protecting many valuable Federal programs.
  The Democratic plan would save 100 percent of the Social Security 
surplus and 62 percent of the total estimated unified budget surplus 
for Social Security, ensuring the Social Security trust fund remains 
solvent for many years to come.
  Our plan also transfers 15 percent of these surpluses to shoring up 
Medicare, extending its solvency for at least a decade to grant us the 
time we need to fix and to develop and implement a bipartisan fix for 
this valuable social program.
  Mr. Chairman, education, one of the most crucial underpinnings of our 
great country, is barely given lip service under the Republican 
proposal.
  Many of my colleagues may ask why the Federal Government needs to 
become involved in school innovation and construction issues which are 
historically local concerns? The simple answer is that the problem has 
grown so large that localities and States alone do not have the 
resources or the programs to address the overwhelming needs.
  For instance, a recent survey by the Division of School Facilities in 
New York City concluded that in my district alone 19 new schools were 
needed to alleviate overcrowding. Additionally, to bring schools in the 
7th Congressional District of New York up to standards deemed fair by 
school facility engineers, New York City would have to fund $218.65 
million in exterior modernization projects and $53.8 million in 
interior modernization projects.
  Mr. Chairman, if we support the working men and women of this country 
and if we support our Nation's children, we must oppose this budget 
resolution and support the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget for giving us this opportunity to face Americans and define for 
them what kind of country we would like to be.
  I had the pleasure of organizing the Congressional Children's Caucus, 
a group of about 60 Members who have committed to promoting children 
first in the national agenda. We look forward to hearing from Mrs. 
Tipper Gore,

[[Page 5707]]

the wife of the vice president, on the issues of mental health services 
for children.
  Keeping that in mind, I am very concerned with the budget as proposed 
by the majority leadership, because our children must face the 
challenges of competing in a global environment and the new millennium. 
We have got to invest in children. This budget does not.
  Children cannot learn if they are hungry, tired and improperly 
prepared. The majority's budget proposal reduces domestic spending in 
programs aimed at protecting the interests of children.
  Allow me to call the roll. A program of which many Members of this 
House have testified that they graduated from, Head Start, is being cut 
$501 million, a 10 percent cut; the WIC program that provides for 
women, infants and children, being cut $425 million; Job Corps, which 
has allowed many inner city and rural community youth to find an 
opportunity out of the seat of degradation, cut $141 million; child 
care, there is not a time that I go home to my district when women and 
men, parents who say give me the ability to work, provide child care 
and help me provide child care for my children, sometimes one-third of 
their income, $119 million; the summer youth program, where a mother 
gave me the good news of her young person who had graduated through the 
summer youth program, now gainfully employed, cut some $109 million; 
community services block, cut $54 million; runaway and homeless youth, 
which I confront all the time in our community, cut $4.7 million; 
Native American Head Start, cut $3.8 million; child abuse, $2.2 
million; abandoned infants assistance, $1.3 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I can only say oppose this majority leadership budget. 
Realize that our children are our best investment. Let us support the 
Democratic alternative and invest in our children.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to FY 2000 Budget Resolution 
offered by the Majority's Leadership. I come in the spirit of Hershey 
and bipartisanism. I come to request a budget that protects the Social 
Security Trust Fund for America's citizens. I rise to request a budget 
that will protect the Medicare Trust Fund.
  We must authorize a budget that will protect the Social Security 
Trust Fund. While women tend to collect benefits over a longer period 
than men because of a greater life expectancy; women on average receive 
lower monthly social security benefits since they have lower earnings 
and are more likely to be widowed or unmarried in retirement. The 
Majority's budget proposal does not protect women or children or the 
Social Security Trust Fund. Under this budget proposal--programs 
directed toward improving the quality of life for women and children, 
are the first programs to be reduced and cut--in order to give a tax 
break to the wealthy.
  The majority is suggesting that their budget proposal will save 100% 
of the social security surplus but 0% of that money goes to the Social 
Security Trust Fund and 0% goes towards strengthening Medicare. This 
simply is not true! Domestic programs are not a priority in this budget 
resolution offered by the Majority.
  We must authorize a budget that will appropriate financial resources 
to reduce the average classroom size to promote a learning environment 
and to modernize public schools. Educating America's children should be 
our number one priority. Our children must be prepared to face the 
challenges of competing in a global environment and the new millenium. 
Children can not learn if they are hungry, tired and improperly 
prepared. The Majority's budget proposal reduces domestic spending and 
programs aimed at protecting the interest of our children. $425.1 
million would be slashed from the WIC budget, Head Start would be cut 
by approximately $501.4 million and LIHEAP funding would be reduced by 
$109 million. Nevertheless, the Majority's budget resolution reserves 
$800 billion for tax cuts.
  We must authorize a budget that will protect and extend the Medicare 
Trust Fund. This budget must ensure that patients will have access to 
high quality healthcare by guaranteeing important protections such as 
access to the specialists, coverage for emergency medical services and 
affording prescriptions for seniors. The Majority's budget proposal 
leaves the Medicare Trust Fund in a precarious position and its future 
in question. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that there 
will be a federal surplus of about $2.6 trillion over the next 10 
years. We must authorize a budget that will ensure the economic 
viability of Social Security, Medicare and our national defense.
  We must authorize a budget that will protect America's families. 
Families first--America first--Children first--we must authorize 
financial resources to assist in expanding after-school programs. 
Furthermore, we must enact legislation that will increase the minimum 
wage and improve the quality of life for all Americans. The Majority's 
budget proposal does not safeguard the interest of our Children. The 
Summer Youth Employment program's funding will be cut by over $94.9 
million, the Community Services Block Grant Program slashed by over 
$54.5 million--we must prioritize families, women and children in the 
FY 2000 budget.
  We must authorize a budget that will provide law enforcement officers 
and agencies with modern technology directed at reducing crime. We must 
allocate financial resources to help communities put additional law 
enforcement officers on the street. We must authorize a budget that 
will protect our most valued and venerable citizens, children and 
seniors.
  We must authorize a budget that will redirect additional income to 
America's families. Congress must empower families to save for their 
retirement and provide for quality care for older family members. We 
must enact legislation that will protect women, children and America's 
families. Congress must put families first!
  We must authorize a budget that will safeguard the financial 
viability of American's veterans. The Spratt Amendment will add an 
additional $9 Billion for veterans. We must pass a budget that will 
appropriate an additional $3 Billion for agriculture over the next five 
years. We must pass a budget that will allocate $10 Billion for 
education and $18 Billion more for healthcare.
  We must support a budget that protects America's families, seniors 
and children. I urge you to vote ``no'' on the bill and ``yes'' on the 
Democratic substitute.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Spratt Democratic budget extends the 
life of Social Security and Medicare. The Republican budget does not. 
Do not be fooled. This same Democratic Party that created Social 
Security and Medicare is the same party to trust when it comes to 
strengthening Social Security and Medicare.
  Under the Democratic plan, the Social Security trust fund would have 
50 percent more dollars in it than under the Republican plan. There is 
a $1.3 trillion set-aside in the Democratic plan, more for Social 
Security than in the Republican plan; $1.3 trillion.
  For Medicare, the Republican plan does not do anything at all. The 
Republican plan does not add one penny of money to extend the life of 
Medicare or to strengthen it. The Democratic plan for Medicare will 
triple the amount of money put into Medicare, a move that will extend 
the life of Medicare until 2020. For all those who care about Social 
Security and Medicare and who want Social Security and Medicare to be 
there for our generation and our children's generation, there is only 
one responsible choice: The Democratic budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget and in support of 
the Democratic alternative. The Republican Party, unfortunately, has 
always been hostile to Medicare. My senior citizens need Medicare, and 
that is why the Democratic plan strengthens Medicare.
  When I talk to senior citizens in my district, they tell me that 
Medicare is just as important to them as Social Security. When I speak 
with my mother, who is my best advisor, she tells me that Medicare 
needs to be enhanced.
  The President has proposed a prescription drug component. I believe 
that that is what we should have. The Republican resolution, it does 
not provide a long-term care benefit, nor prescription drug benefit 
under Medicare.

                              {time}  1515

  We need to make sure that our seniors do not choose between food and 
drugs. The Republican budget has no problem in proposing a $775 billion 
tax break for the rich, for the wealthiest of Americans.

[[Page 5708]]

  We cannot continue to play politics with our seniors' health. The 
Democratic plan strengthens social security and strengthens Medicare. 
The Republican plan leaves out Medicare. Medicare ought to be on the 
table. The prescription drug component ought to be part and parcel of 
the mix. Long-term care is very, very important. Senior citizens in 
this country need help. The Democratic plan provides that help, the 
Republican plan does not.
  Let us work on a budget resolution that enhances Medicare, not hurts 
it. We cannot ignore the problem.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Republican budget. The majority attack on education, seniors, and this 
Nation's most vulnerable is becoming an annual rite of passage for the 
Republican Party. Just recently the stock market broke 10,000, the 
highest it has ever been. Despite this wealth, however, we are here 
inflicting pain.
  What kind of message are we sending to our children when we cut 
funding for education by $1.2 billion, essentially crippling Head Start 
and undercutting Pell Grants? What are we saying to public housing 
residents when this budget would put 1 million of them out on the 
street? Where are the compassionate conservatives now?
  What is worse about this budget is that it does nothing to ensure the 
solvency of social security and Medicare, all in the name of cutting 
taxes for the wealthiest families in this country.
  This budget asks too high a price of poor Americans, and breaks the 
promise of a better tomorrow for our children, elderly, and working 
poor. I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget and support the 
Democratic alternative.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman who just spoke mentioned how in our 
budget plan there are tax cuts for the rich. I have read it. It does 
not say that in here one place.
  I had a speaker come up here today and said how we cut funds for the 
Ryan White AIDS research. I will jump off the Capitol dome if Members 
can find the words ``Ryan White'' in here. Look for it, it is not in 
here. How do they say that? How do they get away with that? Do they 
feel no shame, getting to the floor of the House and saying Ryan White 
AIDS research is cut in here? Find it for me. I will wager with them. I 
will be glad to do that. They cannot find it.
  The other interesting thing about this is that they come to the floor 
and they say how they want to put money into veterans, they want to 
save social security, they do not want Medicare cuts.
  Why did Members not make those arguments to the President? The 
President's plan does all of those things. Instead of making those 
arguments down at the Rose Garden, down with the President, at the last 
minute they rush in here with two, not one but two, alternatives to the 
President's plan.
  Why are Members running away from the President? Why are they running 
away from the person who stood here before the Nation at the State of 
the Union and said how he is going to keep education as a priority, how 
he is going to keep making sure that Medicare and social security are a 
priority? Why are Members running from that plan?
  I have a feeling here in the next portion of this debate we are going 
to get a little bit of insight into why the Democrats, instead of 
supporting the President, instead of even adopting a portion of his 
plan, have written their own in a hurry to rush in here and try and 
save themselves from the polls that are going south on them.
  I think we are going to find out here in just a little bit, as the 
gentleman from Oklahoma, the gentleman from Minnesota, the gentleman 
from Arizona, are going to point out to us, why the President's plan 
has so many people running from it, and particularly people from his 
own party; people who we would think would at least find a few things 
in the budget that they could agree with.
  But instead, they are saying, no, we do not want to do what the 
President does for social security, we are running from that; we don't 
want to have Medicare cuts like the President, we are running from 
that; we don't want to increase taxes like the President does, we are 
running from that; we don't want to keep the priority low on education, 
we are running from that; we don't want veterans' hospitals to close, 
we are running from that.
  They are running and running and running. Mr. Chairman, they can run 
but they cannot hide. We are about to show them why.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, 6 years ago the President sent us a budget on February 
17 which passed this House by 2 votes. Opponents on the other side of 
the aisle said it would cut the economy off at the knees and mushroom 
the deficit. Six years later, the economy is running strong and the 
deficit has dropped from $290 billion to a $70 billion surplus. That is 
the finest tribute we can pay to the Humphrey-Hawkins debate.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to both the GOP 
budget proposal as well as the Democratic alternative. Both budgets 
call for enormous increases in defense spending over the next six to 
ten years. I cannot vote for these exorbitant increases in defense 
spending--anywhere between $112-134 billion--when the fate of Social 
Security and Medicare remains questionable.
  The Democratic Budget Resolution, by using the President's plan for 
defense spending, endangers already vulnerable programs by needlessly 
puffing up the military. The Democratic resolution calls for over $9 
billion in undistributed cuts by the year 2000. The question is--where 
do we find it? Shall we do away with the Department of Agriculture and 
the Department of Energy? Which severely underfunded federal program 
will we raid first? Come the year 2000, programs that are already 
suffering--like federal childcare and job training programs--will be 
sitting ducks.
  Proponents of increasing military spending claim that this money is 
needed to replace aging weapons systems, improve the military's 
readiness and training, and to attract and retain more people in the 
armed services through better pay benefits. Since 1996, the 
Congressional majority has added nearly $30 billion beyond the 
Pentagon's request to help with military readiness. Three-quarters of 
this went to pork projects in key members' districts. The proposals 
before us today would commit more than $1.8 trillion to the military 
over the next six years. There is no justification for increasing 
military spending by this amount.
  These budgets propose to squander scarce resources in order to 
appease the defense industry and procure weapons systems not seen since 
the Reagan era. The U.S. alone spends more than twice that of all of 
its potential aggressors combined. That means Russia, China, Iraq, 
North Korea, Syria, Libya and Cuba combined don't even spend half of 
what the U.S. spends for defense.
  The U.S. spends up to $35 billion per year maintaining 6,000 nuclear 
weapons on hair trigger alert. The Soviet Union is no longer a threat 
to the U.S. The U.S. is more threatened by the technicians and 
technology in Russia falling into the hands of rogue states. However, 
yesterday, in the Supplemental Appropriations bill, my colleagues chose 
to reduce the funding to purchase and store the enriched plutonium and 
uranium used to make nuclear weapons in Russia.
  The budgets before us include spending for a National Missile Defense 
(NMD) system on top of the billions already wasted on a futile 
deployment. Spending just a fraction of what the U.S. has spent, and 
plans to spend, on NMD could do far more to reduce the danger of 
missile attacks and weapons proliferation if used on verifiable arms 
control and disarmament.
  We are marching down the wrong path. Instead of making this a more 
livable and peaceful world for our children, we are proposing cuts in 
necessary programs for life while increasing spending on weapons of 
destruction. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing these 
egregious budget proposals.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscally 
responsible Republican budget plan that protects Social Security and 
Medicare while providing needed tax relief.
  President Clinton has called on Congress to use part of the so-called 
budget ``surplus'' to protect Social Security, strengthen Medicare and 
finance a number of new spending projects. But when we hear President 
Clinton and other Washington politicians talk about this great 
``surplus'' we have to remember

[[Page 5709]]

where it comes from--the Social Security Trust Fund. The federal 
government borrows money from this Trust Fund--about $99 billion last 
year--to finance other government spending and to mask what is, in 
reality, a budget deficit. In fact, if we had taken the Social Trust 
Fund surplus out of the federal last year, we would have been $30 
billion short of a balanced budget.
  For the next couple of years it is expected that most of the so-
called surplus will be due to the Social Trust Fund, which all of us 
pay into in the form of payroll taxes. Then, based on current economic 
projects, real surpluses from the non-Social Security portion of the 
budget will begin to grow as taxpayers pay more than the government 
needs to finance its operations.
  I commend my friend and colleague from Ohio, John Kasich, the members 
of the Budget Committee and the Republican Leadership for proposing a 
sensible, long-overdue change to the way the Trust Fund is treated. The 
Republican budget stops using the Trust Fund to mask the real size of 
the deficit and, instead, preserves it for Social Security. This new 
approach to the surplus is more honest and more fiscally responsible. 
It also results in more surplus being preserved for Social Security 
than the President has proposed.
  Our plan builds a wall around the Social Trust Fund--creating a 
``lock box'' that preserves 100% of the ``surplus'' for Social 
Security's needs. By stopping Congress and the White House from 
spending the Social Trust Fund, we protect current and future retirees. 
That's why the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) has given 
the Republican plan its endorsement.
  President Clinton's budget also calls for using 15% of the so-called 
``surplus'' for Medicare. But in short term, he actually proposes to 
borrow money from the Social Trust Fund to shore up Medicare, while at 
the same time cutting almost $9 billion from Medicare to pay for new 
government spending. This scheme is a classic example of robbing Peter 
to pay Paul. It also means, when the Medicare Trust Fund runs out of 
money in 2009, taxpayers will foot the bill.
  The Republican plan also takes steps to pay down the national debt 
and uses honest numbers--not shady Washington accounting--to address 
Medicare's financial challenges. Finally, while President Clinton's 
budget proposal calls for $100 in new taxes at a time when tax revenues 
are at an historic high, our plan provides tax relief beginning in 2000 
that grows substantially over the next ten years to reduce the tax 
burden on America's families.
  With this new plan, we can finally stop raiding the Social Trust Fund 
to pay for more government spending. Let's hope Congress rejects the 
old ways as represented in the President's budget, and passes an honest 
plan to protect Social Security, preserve Medicare and let Americans 
keep more of what they earn.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, one of my priorities when I came to 
Congress two years ago was to bring good East Texas fiscal 
responsibility to Washington. We made great strides in balancing the 
budget over the past two years, and we must not stray from this path. 
That is why I rise tonight, in the name of fiscal responsibility and on 
behalf of hard-working East Texas families, in strong support of both 
the Democratic and Blue Dog budget resolutions.
  I support tax relief. In fact, I was one of only 19 Democrats to vote 
for last year's tax relief bill. Both of these budget alternatives 
provide for tax relief for working Americans. I would prefer to see 
even more tax relief, but it is important to remember that our nation 
still has a $5 trillion debt. The best thing we can do with projected 
surpluses would be to pay down the federal debt, which would reduce 
interest rates for families and small businesses, prepare for the 
retirement of the baby boom generation, and slash the interest payments 
of the federal government.
  We can't fund a larger tax cut until projected surpluses have 
actually materialized and until we fulfill our commitment to preserve 
Social Security and Medicare. Instead, we must pay down the debt, honor 
our promise to our nation's seniors, and provide for targeted tax cuts, 
and both the Blue Dog and Democratic alternative budget resolutions do 
just that.
  Furthermore, both these budget alternatives spend money wisely on 
priority areas. We can fulfill our commitment to reduce class size and 
hire 1000,000 new teachers. We can spend more on education to repair 
our crumbling schools and expand after-school learning programs in 
rural areas. We can provide for the health care needs of the men and 
women who have fought on the battlefield and risked their lives for all 
Americans. We can help East Texas agricultural producers and fund crop 
insurance reform that will provide some meaningful protections for 
farmers against those things that are out of their control. Finally, we 
can spend more for our nation's defense, improving our nation's 
military readiness and increasing military pay.
  These are good budget alternatives that preserve Social Security and 
Medicare, pay down the federal debt, and spend money where it needs to 
be spent. These budget alternatives have been drafted with the fiscal 
responsibility I've spent the last two years fighting for. I urge my 
colleagues to support them and pass a budget that is good for American 
families.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my grave concern 
regarding the proposed veterans' budget for Fiscal Year 2000. Currently 
veterans are facing a medical emergency. Unless the veteran health care 
system receives significant increases in funding, critical services 
will be cut, health care will be denied, facilities closed, and 
dedicated employees will be out of work.
  The Republican budget provides a modest $900 million increase in 
funding. However, this increase is a one-time addition that is not 
carried over to the next fiscal year. The Republican budget actually 
proposes to decrease funding for veterans. In fact, over five years, 
the budget resolution cuts funding for veterans by $300 million. And 
over ten years, their resolution cuts veterans' funding by $3 billion 
below the 1999 level.
  During consideration of this budget, while in committee and on the 
House floor, the majority refused an attempt to increase veterans' 
funding. This important issue, which affects millions, deserves the 
change to be considered. Representative Clement's proposed amendment to 
the budget would increase veterans' benefits by $1.9 billion over last 
year's request, and by $1 billion above the Republican proposal. 
Specifically, this increase would provide: $100 million more for mental 
health care to reverse the trend of eliminating psychiatric, substance 
abuse and other effective mental health programs; $271 million more for 
long-term care initiatives to increase options for elderly and disabled 
veterans; and $681 million more for the Montgomery GI Bill to increase 
coverage for tuition, fees and stipends to service members who are 
enlisted for at least three years. Over 10 years, the budget proposal 
offered by Democrats would provide over $40 billion more for veterans' 
programs. I support this amendment and am very upset that we were 
prevented from providing an increase to such an underfunded and 
important program.
  It is our duty to provide the care and service promised to our 
heroes, and the proposed Republican budget fails to give veterans the 
benefits they need and deserve. For the fourth consecutive year, the 
Veterans Administration budget has been essentially stagnant. This 
pattern has to end. To refuse consideration of an increase in funding 
for veterans who have given so much to their country is an outrage.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this 
budget resolution.
  This budget, contrary to the President's proposal, is a responsible 
approach to funding the Federal government without turning our backs on 
our 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement, an agreement that means so much to 
the American public and to our nation's economic future.
  And perhaps more than ever, this budget is about providing security 
for America's future. We can continue to set the course for a sound 
Federal fiscal policy and a strong economy, or we can set up our 
children for a future of paying our debts--the President's budget 
saddles our children with more national debt, more taxes, fewer 
educational opportunities, a bigger government and shaky retirement 
prospects.
  As we vote to pass this budget, I say to my colleagues who have 
joined the President in criticism of our efforts, for a moment, take a 
step back from the podium, and imagine you are not immersed here in the 
politics of our nation's capital.
  For a moment, think of yourself not standing before your colleagues 
in debate, but rather, being with your constituents at a town meeting.
  Would you still argue to enact the President's budget, the largest in 
our nation's history, a budget which grows the size of our government 
and breathes more life into a bureaucracy we've been struggling to 
contain? Or do you think your constituents would rather know that you 
have voted for a Federal budget that keeps our government in check and 
may possibly even shrink that once sprawling bureaucracy?
  Could you speak passionately to them about the need to pass the 
President's budget which only devotes 62 percent of our projected 
budget surpluses to preserving and protecting Social Security and 
allows him to spend $146 billion of the Social Security surplus over 
five years.

[[Page 5710]]

  Or might you inspire more confidence from your constituents if you 
told them the budget you want locks away $100 billion more than the 
President to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, a total of $1.8 
trillion over a decade, with the guarantee that Washington can't touch 
the Social Security surplus--your constituents' payroll taxes--ever?
  Again, the families you represent may want to know whether you 
support the President's budget, or our Congressional budget plan that 
will pay down the national debt by $450 billion more than the President 
over the next ten years.
  The hard-working Americans you represent might be interested to know 
whether you voted for tax increases or tax cuts. The President's budget 
raises taxes by $172 billion in the next decade, but our budget 
provides $800 billion in tax relief for the same period.
  Would the veterans of your District salute you for passing the 
President's flat-lined VA budget which raises serious questions about 
the quality of care our veterans receive in VA medical facilities, or 
do America's heroes of the past deserve the $1.1 billion increase we 
gave them in our budget proposal?
  To the young men and women in uniform who now serve our nation--what 
would you tell them? Could you look a young enlisted man or woman in 
the eye, one of our brave Americans who has joined NATO forces in 
Kosovo, and tell them to do their job even though you voted for the 
President's budget which falls $8 billion short of the budget we 
propose for our nation's defense?
  Improving the education of our young people is not only important to 
all of us, it is a critical element of our nation's ability to remain 
competitive in the 21st Century. For America's children, do you vote 
party or conscience? On your next school visit, do you tell the 
students you voted for the President's budget which cuts special 
education funding, or do you teach them that principle is above 
politics, and you voted for our budget which increases education 
funding $1.2 billion more than President Clinton proposes. It includes 
more funding for Pell grants, and more flexibility for states to decide 
how best to spend this funding. Our budget, $22 billion total for 
education, will improve the quality of elementary, secondary, and 
special education. Parents and children with special needs may question 
your vote for the President's budget because it amounts to a cut in 
Federal special education funding. Our budget contains a $1 billion 
increase for Federal funding of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act. While this is not the full funding I and 75 of my House 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle requested, it is a step in the 
right direction. In my state of New Jersey alone, if the Federal 
government would keep its promise to pay 40 percent of the costs 
associated with providing special education, $300 million at the state 
level would become available each year--real money that could be used 
to hire more teachers, build more classrooms or reduce local property 
tax rates.
  Our budget proposal provides security for American people and their 
future--retirement security, fiscal security, education security, 
national security and economic security. But it won't be easy to 
achieve these important goals, and is closing. I offer a word of 
caution.
  Keeping within the confines of our balanced budget is our ultimate 
goal, and the Appropriations Committee works hard to balance the needs 
of our nation and our government while doing so. As a Member of this 
Committee, I can tell my colleagues that there will be sacrifices. We 
must understand this at the outset and prepare ourselves for the tough 
choices with which we all will be confronted. When the time comes, we 
will need to ask ourselves, ``is a future of peace, prosperity, 
achievement and financial security for our children worth the sacrifice 
and effort today?'' The answer is always ``yes.'' We will need to 
remember this in the months ahead.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican budget resolution. This budget is a blueprint for another 
budgetary train wreck.
  The Majority's budget is irresponsible. It is simply wrong to move 
ahead with a $778 billion tax cut before taking action to assure the 
long-term financial health of Social Security and Medicare. The budget 
surplus gives us a unique opportunity to address these programs and we 
must not squander it. We should save the entire surplus until we've 
taken care of Social Security and Medicare.
  No one believes the House can approve the appropriation bills that 
would be drawn from this budget template. Do we want a repeat of last 
year's budgetary derailment when Congress was unable to complete action 
on eight of the thirteen regular appropriation bills? But that's 
exactly where we're headed with the Majority's budget resolution.
  Under the resolution, non-defense discretionary appropriations would 
be cut by $46.4 billion next year, a full 16 percent below this year's 
funding level. Which programs does the Majority propose to cut? Energy 
assistance for the elderly? Maternal and child health care? Head Start? 
Law enforcement? The GOP budget resolution doesn't give any specifics.
  The Republican budget also does nothing to shore up Medicare. All of 
us know that Medicare is projected to run short of funds in just eight 
more years. If Medicare's solvency is the price for the GOP's tax cuts, 
that price is too high.
  I will support the Democratic substitute that will be offered by 
Representative Spratt. The Spratt substitute is a responsible 
alternative to the budgetary gridlock that will surely follow adoption 
of the Majority's budget resolution. The Spratt substitute fulfills our 
obligations to Social Security and Medicare. It reserves 100 percent of 
the Social Security surplus for Social Security and extends Medicare's 
solvency until 2020.
  I want to speak to the issue of legal immigrants. The Spratt 
substitute also restores vital benefits for legal immigrants that were 
wrongly taken away under the 1996 welfare law. I led the fight last 
year to restore food stamp eligibility to the children of legal 
immigrants as well as elderly legal immigrants who entered the country 
before enactment of the 1996 welfare bill. The Spratt substitute would 
permit states to cover legal immigrant pregnant women and children with 
Medicaid, restore SSI eligibility for legal immigrants who entered the 
country after August 22, 1996 and were subsequently disabled, and would 
assure food stamps to legal immigrants who were residents as of August 
22, 1996 and are over the age of 65. This is a step in the right 
direction.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this irresponsible budget resolution 
and support the Spratt substitute.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman. I rise to oppose the priorities as expressed 
in this budget.
  I strongly oppose this Republican budget because its priorities are 
wrong. A substantial number of us, five and a half million, are ill-
housed. 42 million of us are without health care coverage. Our schools 
need more teaches and better-trained teachers; our school buildings 
need to be rehabilitated.
  If we maintain the caps on discretionary spending, as proposed in 
this Republican budget, as well as increase the military budget, and 
give about $780 billion in tax cuts, the result will be to squeeze out 
essential programs that affect the daily well-being of a significant 
sector of our society.
  The Republican Budget does not adequately protect our elderly. One of 
our most important programs, Social Security, has kept one of every two 
elderly Americans from falling into poverty. Social Security must be 
extended and protected. Likewise, Medicare is widely recognized and 
appreciated as an essential program by all of us because of its benefit 
to the elderly and the families of the elderly. Medicare must be 
extended and protected.
  The Republican budget allocates, over a ten-year period, just $1.77 
trillion to extend Social Security, half of the Democrats' proposal, 
which calls for $3.4 trillion. The Democrats' much greater investment 
in Social Security is essential to ensure its security.
  The difference in budgetary priorities is even greater with Medicare. 
The Republican budget, over a ten-year period, sets $14 billion for 
Part A, compared with the Democrats' proposal to invest $397 billion in 
Medicare, an investment 28 times, greater than the Republicans' 
inadequate propositions.
  This Republican budget does not protect and invest in our children. 
It ignores the needs of our children.
  The retention of the budget cap, coupled with the $18.1 billion 
increase in defense spending, means that Republicans cut Head Start by 
$501 million; Republicans cut by $425 million, they cut Job Corps by 
$142 million; they cut child care funding by $120 million; they cut 
low-income heating assistance by $109 million; they cut summer youth 
employment by $95 million; they cut homeless youth programs by $4.7 
million; they cut abandoned infants assistance by $1.3 million.
  These are the programs that will suffer deep cuts if this Republican 
budget is approved. Of course, there is no money in this Republican 
bill for more and better-trained teachers in America's classroom.
  This budget is not a responsible, adult budget because it fails to 
take care of the basic needs of the nation's families. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise with many concerns about the 
majority's budget resolution before us today. Because of the strong 
economy and prudent fiscal policies of the past few years, we are on 
track towards achieving our first non-social security budget surplus in 
a generation. When I first came to Congress in 1995, even the thought 
of achieving an on-budget surplus by the year 2000 or 2001 seemed 
completely unrealistic.

[[Page 5711]]

  That is why I believe we must not waste this historic opportunity to 
ensure the long-term solvency of the social security system which will 
be threatened due to the large number of baby-boomers who will begin 
retiring in the next 10-15 years. While the majority's plan ensures 
that money dedicated to the social security program should go to the 
program, this so-called ``lock box'' approach does nothing more than 
ensure that the system will go broke on schedule. A more responsible 
approach would be to dedicate surplus funds to the social security 
system in preparation for the increased number of retirees early in the 
next century.
  I am also disappointed that the majority's plan does nothing to 
reduce the federal debt. The proposal uses nearly all of the projected 
surplus for a yet to be specified $778 billion tax cut that relies on 
future revenue projections. Economists have repeatedly stated that 
reductions in the public debt would result in lower interest rates 
which leads to increased economic growth and opportunities for all 
American families.
  This proposal represents the type of budget gimmickry that has made 
the American people cynical about the entire federal budget process. I 
believe the American people understand they aren't being told the full 
truth when they hear proposals such as this which claim to cut taxes, 
dramatically increase defense spending, protect social security and 
stay within the 1997 budget caps. Believe me, they are smart enough to 
realize that schemes like this just don't add up. We were elected to 
make the tough choices necessary to keep our fiscal house in order. I 
believe the American people deserve better than this type of smoke-and-
mirrors budgeting that relies solely on future unreliable projections.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this proposal and seize 
this rare opportunity to dedicate the surplus to protecting the long 
term solvency of social security and to paying down the federal debt.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to explain my priorities as we 
debate the budget resolution for FY 2000.
  I am a cosponsor of a Constitutional Amendment to Balance the Budget 
and have introduced budget enforcement legislation in the past. As 
such, I am pleased that we balanced the nation's budget in FY 1998. 
However, we should not be complacent.
  Before we talk of new spending or new tax cuts, we should keep our 
eye on one goal, and that is maintaining a balanced budget: a balanced 
budget for our current fiscal year and for FY 2000. Moreover, we should 
recognize that trust fund surpluses from Social Security, Medicare, the 
Highway Trust Fund and other federal trust funds totaled $150 billion 
last year and masked our true situation by making our budgetary 
position appear more favorable than it really was. Hence, I feel our 
second priority should be to really balance the budget without the use 
of any trust fund surpluses.
  Thereafter, I believe that we should begin to pay down the national 
debt, which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, has reached 
an all-time high of $5.5 trillion. By using all the surplus to pay down 
the debt, we as taxpayers would save a significant amount of money in 
future interest payments. Today those payments total $231 billion. For 
every $1 billion in debt that we can retire, we save an average of $70 
million in annual interest payments. This savings would benefit every 
American regardless of their economic status and I believe it 
represents the best tax cut we can give to the American people. 
Furthermore, this debt retirement would provide us with more 
flexibility in addressing how best to secure Medicare and Social 
Security for future generations while maintaining our ability to also 
invest in solid programs that can make our economy more productive.
  Several budget resolutions have been introduced which take different 
approaches to maintaining a surplus and allocating our financial 
resources. I favor the resolution proposed by a coalition of 
conservative Democrats, since it provides the most fiscally sound 
approach. It would reserve 100% of the Social Security surplus for the 
Social Security Trust Fund. It also pays down more debt than any other 
proposal before the House, thereby providing for lower interest 
payments in the future and more flexibility to address unforeseen 
problems. Conservative projections indicate that this budget would save 
us $113 billion in interest payments on our debt over the next five 
years.
  Although I am primarily concerned about maintaining fiscal discipline 
and believe a tax cut could be detrimental to sustaining a balanced 
budget, the tax cut provided for in this proposal is minimal and can be 
targeted towards the hard-working middle class families who need it 
most.
  Mr. Chairman, I close by adding that maintaining the public trust is 
the single most important issue we face today. I ask my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to weigh the impact that the budget resolution 
will have on future generations.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to give my 
enthusiastic endorsement for the Democratic Substitute to the Budget 
Resolution offered by the Ranking Member on the Budget Committee, John 
Spratt.
  This substitute takes a responsible approach to government. It takes 
the surplus from this year, and reinvests it back into Social Security 
and Medicare. However, what is important is the manner in which this is 
accomplished. Unlike the Republican Budget Resolution, this amendment 
takes those surplus funds and directly deposits the money into the 
Social Security Trust Fund and the Medicare Trust Fund. The Republicans 
cannot tell you they are doing that--because they are not. They swear 
to put 100% of the surplus aside, but they do not guarantee the 
American people what they will do with that surplus once the smoke 
clears. On the other hand, this substitute puts its money where its 
mouth is--back into the accounts that will extend the life of Social 
Security for another 18 years, and Medicare another 12.
  And the Democratic budget extends these programs without a loss of 
benefits for the people who rely upon them. Earlier this week, I met 
with several groups of seniors in my district in Houston. Without 
exception, the most pressing concern of theirs as it related to the 
budget was the loss of benefits. Under the Democratic Resolution, their 
concerns are answered--but we cannot say the same under the Republican 
plan, because it set forth how Medicare and Social Security funds will 
be spent. We can close the door on the Republican plan of Social 
Security privatization today if we pass this substitute--and I urge all 
of you to support it.
  The Democratic proposal also does more to reduce the debt than the 
Republican plan. This budget contains out-year debt reduction that 
totals over 474 billion dollars over fifteen years. The Republicans 
cannot tell you the same. In fact, if they can pass their budget, you 
will much more likely see tax cuts than debt reduction.
  However, that does not mean that the Democratic budget does not 
contain tax cuts, because it does. Indeed, the Democratic substitute 
contains targeted tax cuts of the sort that bring the most relief to 
the American family. Those tax cuts adjust the marriage penalty, help 
pay for child and healthcare, and extend work opportunity credits. Do 
we need anything more than this? I believe that these are the tax cuts 
that the American people have been waiting for, and I am happy to 
support this budget so we can bring it to them.
  This substitute simply does more for children and families than the 
budget offered by the Republicans. It contains funding for important 
programs like Women, Infants and Children (WIC), Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families (TANF), Job Corps, and Head Start that are ignored 
in the Republican plan. At the same time, it provides a bedrock 
foundation so we can rebuild our schools and reduce class sizes across 
the country. In addition, the Democratic plan includes the funds 
necessary to hire 100,000 skilled new teachers so our children will be 
prepared for the 21st Century.
  The Democratic substitute also follows the lead of the President by 
increasing the funding for the Department of Defense and the Veterans' 
Administration. These increases go above and beyond what the Republican 
budget offers--by including higher-than-baseline pay raises for our 
service members and a repeal of the Retired Pay Repeal Act (REDUX).
  I urge each of my colleagues to do what is right and vote for a 
balanced budget, for our seniors, for our future, and for the 
Democratic substitute.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise today in proud 
support of the Republican Fiscal Year 2000 Budget. Once again my 
colleagues and I will continue to give American citizens tax relief 
while paying down the national debt and protecting Social Security.
  The simple fact is that the American people are over-taxed. President 
Clinton's budget calls for $100 billion in tax increases, while our 
budget offers $800 billion in tax relief over ten years. The truth is a 
surplus is nothing more than an overpayment by America's taxpayers. It 
does not belong to Washington and we should return it in the form of 
tax relief. In addition, our budget will continue to re-pay the debt by 
placing over $1.8 trillion towards the debt over the next decade. 
That's $450 billion more than the President's budget.
  While the President talks about saving Social Security for the next 
generation, his budget actually spends 42% of the Social Security 
Surplus. The Republican budget will lock up

[[Page 5712]]

every penny of the Social Security Surplus over the next ten years. The 
American public has made it clear that Washington has no right to spend 
away a surplus, which does not belong to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm tired of Washington having their hands in the 
pockets of the American taxpayer. Let's pass this historic budget for 
the new millennium and provide a better and more prosperous future for 
all Americans.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the Republican budget 
resolution because I believe it emphasizes exactly the wrong priorities 
for America's future and does little to make our communities more 
livable. By approving this document, we are ignoring the negative 
effects this budget would inflict on the health of our communities, our 
infrastructure, and our economy for the next decade.
  If I had my way, I would place more priority on paying down the debt, 
saving Social Security and Medicare, avoid costly new tax cuts and 
unnecessary. Unfocused defense spending, and develop a capital budget 
to account for infrastructure investments for a more livable future. 
However, this budget resolution doesn't extend the solvency of those 
trust funds by a single day, and instead of paying down the debt, 
offers tax cuts that primarily benefit those who need help the least. 
It also calls for unfocused increases in some aspects of our military 
spending without assurances that any of this spending will increase our 
overall security. An example of this is the call for new ``Star Wars'' 
spending, an unproven system on which we've already spent over $60 
billion in research with nothing to show for it.
  It fails to give America's communities the tools they need to improve 
their quality of life. The ``Building Livable Communities'' initiatives 
embodied in the Administration's budget offered increased choices for 
citizens in the areas of transportation, housing, regional planning, 
open space preservation, education, and crime control. The Democratic 
alternative recognizes the importance of these initiatives through a 
Sense of the House resolution. I believe we have a responsibility to do 
all we can to have the federal government be a better partner with 
communities and citizens in their efforts to improve very basic 
components of everyday life--getting to work and school safely, 
ensuring the quality of the water we drink and the air we breathe, and 
having economic opportunities for the future.
  It should also be noted that long-term budget projections are nearly 
always miscalculated, and have been overly optimistic by over $200 
billion on average over the last 15 years. Even small errors and 
changes in the economic picture can drastically alter what the 
government collects and spends. A forecasting error of as little as 2% 
can alter the budget balance by as much as $70 billion annually. Future 
military conflicts, slower economic growth, stock market fluctuations, 
decisions by the Federal Reserve, currency values, natural disasters, 
and any number of other variables can also radically alter what the 
government spends and takes in.
  Therefore it is unwise to push massive tax cuts years down the line, 
when it is impossible to know what our economic situation will be. Only 
by remaining fiscally cautious now and investing in America's 
infrastructure can we make this a budget that helps make our 
communities more livable.
  This proposed budget would be a disaster if it were implemented. It 
siphons nearly a trillion dollars into tax cuts paid for with painful 
and unnecessary budget cuts, while ignoring key investments that need 
to be made in education, Social Security, and health care. The good 
news is that it won't be adopted in this form because even the 
Republicans have no intention of implementing it. The bad news is that 
it is a license to avoid responsible budgeting. I urge my colleagues to 
vote no and instead strive to produce a budget that promotes livable 
communities and fiscal stability.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
GOP's Budget Resolution. Again, the Republicans have sent to the House 
floor a resolution which abandons older Americans needs by ignoring the 
Medicare challenge, fails to protect satisfactorily and extend the 
solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds, shortchanges important 
health care benefits and services earned by our Nation's veterans, 
creates an illusionary increase in education spending, drastically cuts 
important funding and investment in our Earth's natural resources and 
before the budget surplus is realized, proposes to expend it with a 
$779 billion 10-year tax expenditure that will grow even larger and 
larger with time and could eventually eliminate the projected on-budget 
surplus by dipping into the Social Security Insurance revenues.
  Republicans are quick to defend this budget by declaring credit for 
spending increases for such programs as defense and education without 
ever specifying the severe cuts necessary to meet their overall 
spending totals. In this resolution, the GOP would underfund much-
needed people programs by $27 billion for fiscal year 2000. This is 
completely unrealistic as it all but ensures a confrontation and 
guarantees yet another disastrous appropriations fight this fall. 
Modest increases in elementary and secondary education are proposed 
while a significant reduction is exacted from post-secondary education.
  This resolution fails to save the surplus for Social Security 
Insurance. The GOP proposed ``lock-box'' initiative claims to save all 
of the Social Security Insurance surplus to pay down government debt. 
The facts are clear: this proposal stipulates that the surplus could be 
used to set up private individual retirement accounts as a substitute 
for Social Security Insurance. This represents a serious threat to the 
future solvency of the most successful domestic program ever 
established. What kind of message are we sending to the baby boomers 
soon to retire and our older Americans who are guaranteed a defined 
Social Security Insurance benefit? If the resources already committed 
to Social Security beneficiaries under current law are diverted to 
private accounts, benefits will eventually have to be cut. Or, workers 
will be taxed double to pay for current beneficiaries insurance and 
again to divert to such individual accounts. In addition, the GOP's 
``lock-box'' proposal would not ensure that the debt held by the public 
is reduced. Overall, all this proposal does is ensure that Social 
Security goes broke on schedule and not extend its solvency by one day. 
Advocates may well speculate that the intent is to create a crisis with 
Social Security benefits to justify radical privatization schemes.
  While Social Security Insurance benefits are projected to be in 
problems by 2032, Medicare is projected to run short of funds by 2008. 
Given this Medicare pressing and more urgent problem, our efforts 
should be more focused on the stability and solvency of this much-
needed Medicare program. The GOP's insistence of $779 billion in tax 
cuts over 10 years would surely come at the expense of Medicare. The 
Administration initiated a proposal to reserve 15 percent of projected 
budget surpluses to address and close the long-term funding gap of the 
Medicare program. By ignoring Medicare, the Republicans have decided to 
provide a huge tax expenditure and a significant defense spending 
increase. Frankly, the GOP budget lyrics do not match the music and is 
unable to face up to the facts. The GOP budget sets in place a 
political document which is unworkable and unfair.
  The Administration has indicated a willingness not to ``recoup'' the 
Federal share of the recent tobacco settlements if there are safeguards 
which ensure that Federal contributions are used for public health and 
awareness programs. The Republican resolution assumes the Federal 
Government relinquishes both the right to recoup funds from the multi-
State tobacco settlement as well as the authority to direct the States 
how to use those funds. Frankly, I believe that the national dollars 
recovered ought to be directed to health care concerns, not a rebate. 
These are Federal funds and we have a responsibility to exact 
accountability.
  Under the Republican resolution, discretionary veterans programs are 
funded at $20.2 billion. While this represents less than a $1 billion 
increase over last year's funding levels and a one-time addition. Over 
five years, the GOP resolution would cut veterans' funding by $300 
billion below the 1999 freeze level. This is completely unacceptable. 
After years of inadequate funding levels, many VA employees and veteran 
service organizations in my State of Minnesota have joined a national 
consensus to push for a substantial funding increase for the VA, 
especially for the health care function. This budget does far too 
little in 2000 and beyond to address the understaffed VA medical 
centers across the nation and the hard working, underpaid VA employee's 
that provide veterans the health care and other benefits and services 
they have earned. We can not overlook this today. According to the 
Independent Budget group, comprised of most of the major veterans 
service groups recommended an additional $3 billion more than the 
Administration's VA proposal. In this budget resolution, the GOP has 
ignored such concerns and requests. A substantial increase is 
critically needed to avoid deep cuts in VA's medical care budget. We 
owe our veterans adequate health care and services that we promised to 
them.
  The Republicans boast that their budget blueprint has a strong 
commitment to education, which time and again has been promoted by the 
American people as a top priority for federal tax dollars. And we can 
all see that this resolution does increase funding for elementary and 
secondary education. However, in taking a closer look it is apparent 
that

[[Page 5713]]

this is a true case of robbing college student Peter to pay grade 
schooler Paul; in order to showcase the $1.2 billion increase over the 
President's request for primary and secordary education funding, this 
budget severely shorchanges all other education programs. Deep cuts in 
higher education initiatives, such as Pell Grants and Work Study, and 
reductions in funding for programs which help preschoolers, such as 
Head Start, is extremely shortsighted. Education is a continuous 
journey, therefore, the idea of focusing entirely on K-12 and ignoring 
the needs of students who are preparing to enter school or those who 
wish to continue on to higher education opportunities is shallow and 
illusionary. A pea and shell game without the pea. Additionally, even 
with the increase in funding for elementary and secondary programs, 
this resolution leaves no room for full funding of special education 
programs, unless other programs for these grade levels are cut. In 
addition, the Republicans have decided to do nothing on the President's 
and a majority of Congress's initiative of hiring 100,000 more teachers 
and reducing class size that will provide our young people the much 
needed attention and focus they deserve to succeed in school and in 
life.
  Many of the environmental programs that our state and local 
governments rely on, such as grants to wastewater and drinking water 
plants, will receive unacceptable cuts in funding as a result of the 
Republican budget. America's greatest natural treasures, our National 
Parks, Forests, and the like, will continue their severe backslide in 
maintenance and upkeep. And despite Interior's efforts to cure these 
ills with what little money they have secured, employees will still be 
fired and furloughed in an effort to stay within the spending caps as 
proposed by the Republican majority. Many in Congress have seen a grand 
vision for the future in preserving greenspace, and making life for 
everyone in the Union more in tune with the land in which they reside 
as seen in the President's proposed Lands Legacy Initiative. Despite 
overwhelming support for this exciting program, the majority has failed 
to fund any initiative with this objective. We've heard the arguments 
against this program, that there is too much of a maintenance backlog 
in our parks to further expand them, but the GOP budget blueprint has 
come full circle--the GOP budget has nothing for maintenance 
conservation and restoration of our national treasures and nothing new 
for the preservation of America's remaining greenspace. Such a 
greenspace that we are losing each passing day. Apparently only useful 
as rhetoric to shoot down the President's land legacy initiative.
  According to HUD's estimations, the Republican budget has a negative 
impact on several important housing programs. The reduction of 6.8% in 
outlays in FY 2000 for the section 8 voucher and project-based programs 
means 195,000 fewer households, or 478,000 fewer individuals, will be 
served. In addition, the reduction in outlays for public housing will 
result in under-funding 86,700 units, or 201,000 needy individuals.
  If these reduction initiatives are enacted, HUD projects that $1,335 
billion (83%) of HOME program's FY 1999 budget authority would have to 
be rescinded and the Congress would be unable to appropriate any budget 
authority to the program in FY 2000. HUD assumes that in FY 1999, 
78,000 families, or 177,000 individuals, will be assisted by HOME 
funds. If we were to rescind this budget authority for HOME, however, 
not one of the families or individuals would be served.
  Again, the Republican budget fails to provide for the growing number 
of homeless or near-homeless individuals. If funds are reduced as under 
this GOP resolution, HUD projects that $975 million (96%) of last years 
funding levels would have to be rescinded. Such a reduction would 
freeze dollars for future investment and spending for our homeless 
populations. This would result in a loss of 10,000 beds in transitional 
housing and 7,125 permanent beds for the disabled who are homeless.
  Because of the extremely slow spend-out rates in these programs, 
Congress would have to halt current funding and all carry-over budget 
authority from previous years to meet the Republicans outlay reduction 
target. In FY 1999, HUD expects to develop 11,300 housing units (8,000 
elderly and 3,300 disabled). All of those units would be lost. 
Furthermore, if outlays are reduced 6.8% in FY 2000 as required under 
this budget, HUD projects that $125 million of the programs' current 
funding levels would have to be rescinded. Again, this leaves Congress 
without the resources to address and meet future spending needs. This 
would result in eliminating aid to 42,000 persons in FY 1999 and 79,000 
persons in FY 2000. As a result of this totally inadequate GOP 
resolution, the number of persons who would lose housing assistance is 
estimated to be almost 1 million Americans.
  The inaction on restoring and protecting the solvency of Medicare and 
the Social Security Insurance systems, ignoring special and higher-
education programs and reduction in class room size initiatives, 
shortchanging our veterans health care, all but eliminating public 
housing funding to needy persons, abandoning our existing commitment to 
much needed environmental cleanup and protection efforts of our natural 
resources all result from one overriding GOP priority: passing a huge 
package of tax expenditures. Once again, the GOP has insisted to 
increase an allready over budgeted defense department and provide an 
untimely $779 billion tax expenditure that will in reality raid the 
Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. This budget does not provide 
adequate investment in people programs and truly undermines our 
existing federal commitments by underfunding much needed resources and 
programs by $27 billion in fiscal year 2000.
  I urge all Members to vote no on this GOP budget resolution that 
comes up way short of meeting the needs and investments in people 
programs.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Republican 
budget resolution that is before us today.
  This budget sets the wrong priorities for Congress. It proposes a 
massive tax cut, substantial cuts in domestic spending programs, and no 
significant action on Social Security and Medicare--whereas I believe 
that Congress should be taking action now to preserve Social Security 
and Medicare, to address the difficult problems our nation still faces, 
and to invest in education and other programs that will improve all 
Americans' quality of life in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans have much for which to be grateful. The 
economy is growing, unemployment is down, and real incomes for working 
families are increasing--ableit at too slow a rate. We all know, 
though, that these good times cannot last indefinitely. At some point, 
the economy will stall. At some point there will be a recession. And in 
a few years, the Baby Boom generation will start to retire--and place a 
heavy new burden on programs like Social Security, Medicare, and 
Medicaid.
  Many of the Republicans in Congress are saying that now is the time 
for the American people to relax and enjoy the fruits of our labors. 
Well, no one denies that the American people work hard and deserve a 
break. And no one wants to turn down a tax cut. But our debate today 
should not focus on what we deserve, or even on what we would like to 
do; that would be irresponsible. Rather, today's debate should focus on 
what we ought to do.
  Today, twenty years of deficit spending are over, and budget 
surpluses are projected for at least the next ten years. But our fiscal 
troubles are not at an end. At best, we have only a dozen or so years 
of projected surpluses before dramatic increases in outlays for Social 
Security and Medicare--to pay for the Baby Boomers' retirement--
submerge the federal budget again in a sea of red ink. A good economist 
will tell you that we cannot even be certain that the projected 
surpluses will materialize at all. So I say, let's prepare for the hard 
times ahead--not celebrate prematurely.
  What steps should we take to prepare for the future challenges that 
we can already anticipate? What can we do to ensure that future 
Americans can face the prospect of retirement with pleasant 
anticipation and without fear? What can we do to ensure that all 
Americans have access to safe, affordable health care? And what can we 
do to promote our country's future economic growth and provide a better 
standard of living for all Americans?
  I believe that Congress should be taking this opportunity to restore 
the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, and to invest in 
education, infrastructure and research that will increase our 
productivity and improve our standards of living. Consequently, I 
oppose the resolution before us today.
  I oppose this budget resolution because I believe that it would 
devastate dozens of important federal programs, programs like 
educational assistance, veterans' programs, crime-fighting programs, 
scientific and biomedical research programs, public works projects, and 
anti-poverty programs.
  I oppose this budget because it does nothing to help the Americans 
who, even in these boom times, are struggling just to keep their heads 
above water.
  I oppose this budget because it fails to invest in the programs and 
projects that would make America more productive and more competitive 
in the global economy.
  I oppose this budget because it would provide unwise and 
irresponsible tax cuts which would be paid for with a surplus that has 
not yet materialized--and which in fact, may never materialize.

[[Page 5714]]

  I oppose this budget because it does nothing to save Medicare from 
insolvency.
  And finally, I oppose this budget resolution because it does nothing 
to save Social Security.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this short-sighted, 
self-indulgent budget--and to work together to draft a prudent, 
fiscally conservative budget that addresses the American people's 
future needs, not just someone's misguided desires.
  Mr. McGovern. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the cuts in higher 
education in the Republican budget resolution. While some of us are 
working to extend the opportunity for higher education through vital 
programs like Pell Grants, the Republicans have introduced a budget 
which cuts all non-elementary and secondary education, training and 
social service programs by $16.6 billion over the next 5 years. Over 
the next ten years, the Republicans call for a 12.2% across the board 
cut for these same programs. This at a time when increasing tuition 
costs are burdening families nationwide.
  At a time of anticipated future surpluses and significant increases 
in military spending already underway, it is critical that federal 
funding for education take its place as a national priority. Making 
college more affordable is one of the most important investments we can 
make in our country's future prosperity. This year, the maximum Pell 
Grant award will provide funding that only covers 35% of the average 
costs of attendance at a four-year state college. For a four-year 
private college, the Pell Grant barely covers 13% of average annual 
costs. Yet the Republicans want to further deny access to higher 
education by cutting this important program. Support access to higher 
education.
  Vote no on the GOP budget resolution.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition of the 
rule to H. Con. Res. 68 which blocks a vote on Representative Clement's 
amendment to increase funding for veterans health care.
  The Republican Leadership's FY 2000 Budget fails miserably to protect 
our Nation's veterans. While their budget resolution provides a $900 
million increase in budget authority for veterans, this is a ONE time 
addition. Over the next 5 years, the Majority's budget resolution cuts 
discretionary spending for veterans by $300 million. Over 10 years, 
veterans funding will be cut by $3 billion below this year's funding 
levels. The Republican leadership should be ashamed to submit a budget 
which slashes funding for the men and women who fought for our freedom.
  This Republican-led Congress has flat-lined the veterans budget for 
the last 4 years. As our veterans continue aging, they face more 
medical emergencies. Unless funding for veterans' health care is 
significantly increased services will be cut and health care will be 
denied.
  Mr. Chairman, how can you propose several new health care initiatives 
without providing the necessary funds to support them? The message you 
send to our veterans when the promises made to them are broken is that 
the sacrifices they made for our country are meaningless. 
Representative Clement's amendment would have increased the Veterans 
Affairs budget by $1 billion over the Republican increase of $900 
million. This amendment was supported by the Veterans of Foreign War, 
Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America and the 
American Legion.
  Give our nation's veterans what they deserve. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose the rule and the Republican budget.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support H. Con. Res. 68, 
the Budget Resolution. This resolution continues the hard work of 
balancing the budget and putting our fiscal house in order that we 
began in 1997.


                               priorities

  The priorities that we should establish in this new ``age of 
surplus.'' Those are providing retirement security by saving Social 
Security and Medicare, paying down the debt, and reforming the tax 
code. These reforms are essential for our future. At the same time, we 
must be realistic and fair about maintaining adequate support for all 
domestic programs, most specifically education and health care.


                            social security

  Of primary concern is Social Security. As we all know Social Security 
is the most popular and important program in the nation's history. It 
touches almost every family in America. This budget saves ALL of the 
Social Security Trust Fund surplus for Social Security. That is close 
to $1.8 TRILLION over the next ten years. But this money must be made 
SAFE! Upon passage of a Conference Report on a joint budget resolution 
passed by both the House and Senate, we should act immediately to 
create a real lock box that through law saves the Social Security Trust 
Fund surplus. This money will be used to strengthen and secure Social 
Security and Medicare when bipartisan reform legislation beginning 
signed into law. We must protect Social Security through law not 
legislative shadow boxing. When it comes to Social Security, this 
program must be sacrificed to tax cuts or extra spending. I look 
forward to the day when we engage in the debate on reform with the 
knowledge that every cent in the Social Security Trust Fund is safe.


                          paying down the debt

  Priority must be given to paying down the debt. The National debt is 
currently over $5.6 TRILLION. The debt has increased by $95 BILLION in 
FY 1999 alone. In 1998 we have spent about 15% of all federal revenues 
just on interest on the debt. That is money NOT spent on our children, 
on education, or health care. It is money that goes into the fiscal 
black hole created by our continued indebtedness. We must reduce the 
debt in order to spend less money on interest payments and more on our 
future. We must make the commitment to debt reduction. It is immoral 
for us to continue to write checks that our children will have to cash.


                               tax reform

  Tax reform not necessarily tax cuts must be a priority over the next 
ten years but as I said before not at the sacrifice of Social Security. 
Tax reform creates a fairer, flatter, and simpler tax code that results 
in a lower tax burden for all Americans. Tax reform includes 
eliminating the marriage penalty, rewarding savings and investment so 
families can send their kids to school, buy a home, or start a 
business, and does not punish their success. A significant portion of 
the non-Social Security surplus must be returned to American families 
because they know how to spend money better than most in Washington.


                        blueprint for the future

  It is important to remember that this Resolution is a blueprint. It 
is not the endstate but the beginning of a process of what I hope is 
thoughtful debate on America's future. It is our responsibility, in 
this Congress, to ensure the visibility of worthy federal programs and 
to create a strong and vibrant economy in which our children and 
grandchildren can thrive, succeed, and enjoy the promise of what 
America has to offer.
  There are going to be difficult decisions ahead. To stay within the 
budget caps will not be easy. In some cases, I believe that we should 
revisit those caps through the appropriations process to address 
priority spending investments in education, health care, and veterans. 
While we should not turn the surplus into a spending spree, we must be 
sensitive to fair treatment for all domestic programs affecting 
families--our children as well as our families.
  The next decade will be the best opportunity for us to give our 
children the future we hope for them. We must be wise, judicious, and 
fair when it comes to spending the surplus. We must not count our 
surplus eggs before they hatch and we can not squander this 
opportunity. We must set priorities. We owe that to our children.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly oppose 
this amendment. This budget contains a net tax increase over the next 
five years, a time in which we are realizing surpluses.
  This tax increase comes largely from one source: regressive, excise 
taxes leveled on those least able to afford them. Americans are 
overtaxed. The government does not need more of our money to carry out 
its spending plans, lengthening the era of big government. Contrary to 
what we have been told, this era is far from over.
  Nearly have of these new taxes, $35 billion worth, come from a 200-
percent tax increase on tobacco products, 55 cents on a pack of 
cigarettes. This tax increase hurts hard-working family tobacco farmers 
in my district and all of Kentucky. These taxes will take away the 
livelihood of these working families, who depend on their tobacco crops 
to pay for their farms, their homes and their children's education.
  But this excise tax increase issue is not confined to states with 
tobacco farmers. It has a negative impact no matter what your opinion 
is on the use of tobacco products. This huge tax increase in all states 
falls most heavily on those least able to afford it.
  Who will pay these new regressive excise taxes? Working families who 
earn $30,000 or less will pick up nearly half the tab, even though they 
account for just 16 percent of total national family income. According 
to the Federal Trade Commission, legal adults purchase 98 percent of 
all cigarettes. New regressive taxes on these adult products are not 
acceptable in this budget.
  This administration has stated it wants to help bring prosperity back 
to the family farm.

[[Page 5715]]

So do I. But I do not understand how taxing our family farmers out of 
business will achieve this goal. I urge all of my colleagues to join 
with me and oppose all attempts by this administration to finance its 
big-government budget on the backs of tobacco farmers and other working 
families.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican's budget resolution. I am truly disappointed that the 
Majority has not put forth a more reasonable, workable proposal that 
could garner true bipartisan support.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when this Congress has a unique opportunity 
to build upon the economic success of recent years under the leadership 
of President Clinton, we are presented with a document that is 
political in its origin and regressive in its policies. At this crucial 
juncture in our Nation's history, we are being asked to look backwards, 
not forward. Rather than working together to develop and implement an 
economic policy for the new millennium, we are presented with a back 
room, cut-and-paste deal that simply can not deliver on its promises 
and would set us on a course which can only result in further 
escalating the astronomical national debt run-up during the 1980s.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been down this road before and it is a dead-
end. We cannot afford to take this route again.
  Mr. Chairman, we should be working together to set our Nation's 
economic policy on a path that will ensure continued surpluses while 
saving Social Security, strengthening Medicare, and paying-down our 
debt. We have the ability to achieve a balanced budget for years to 
come, while still providing for the needs of our country--education, 
health care, and Social Security. We should not, indeed, must not, 
pass-up this once in a lifetime opportunity to establish a sound and 
lasting budgetary policy.
  Unfortunately, the document before us today falls far short of these 
worthwhile and obtainable goals. The proposal borders on being reckless 
in its approach to our budgetary needs and disingenuous in its 
promises. Indeed, some have even referred to this measure as the ``meat 
ax'' approach to budgeting.
  Mr. Chairman, we are presented with unrealistic spending levels, 
under-funding almost every major program in order to once again provide 
tax relief for the most well-off in our society. I seriously doubt that 
many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle realistically 
believe that the requirements of this proposal can be met.
  Under the Republican plan, Medicare and Social Security are left 
unprotected. We all know that Medicare will become insolvent in 2008 
and Social Security will become insolvent in 2032, if this Congress 
does not enact meaningful, sensible reform in the near future. This 
budget proposal fails to address this looming problem and seriously 
weakens our ability to face the economic challenges of the next 
century.
  At a time when we should be moving forward, looking to the future, 
this proposal hearkens back to the days of isolationism and poor 
houses. I ask my friends in the Majority, where is their oft-touted 
commitment to the war on drugs, to fighting crime and making our 
streets safe, to education, to health care, to the environment and our 
natural resources, to science and technology, to our men and women in 
the armed services, and to the so many other vital programs which seek 
to take care of the less fortunate and ensure a better life for the 
American middle class? Where is their commitment to a balanced budget 
and paying-down the debt?
  Mr. Chairman, under the very able leadership of Ranking Member 
Spratt, the Democrats want to keep prosperity on track and protect the 
American family. Our plan would preserve 62 percent of the total 
estimated budget surplus for Social Security, ensuring the Social 
Security Trust Fund remains solvent for many decades to come. Our plan 
also transfer 15 percent of these surpluses to shoring-up Medicare, 
extending its solvency for at least a decade to grant us the time we 
will need to develop and implement a bipartisan fix for this valuable 
social program.
  Education, one of the most crucial underpinnings of our great country 
is barely paid lip-service under this proposal. Many of my colleagues 
may ask why the Federal Government needs to become involved in school 
renovation and construction issues, which are historically local 
concerns. The simple answer is that the problem has grown so large that 
localities and States alone do not have the resources or the programs 
to address their overwhelming needs. For instance, a recent survey by 
the Division of School Facilities in New York City concluded that, in 
my district alone, 19 new schools were needed to alleviate 
overcrowding. Additionally, to bring schools in the Seventh 
Congressional District of New York up to standards deemed ``fair'' by 
school facilities' engineers, New York City would have to fund $218.65 
million in exterior modernization projects and $53.18 million in 
interior modernization projects.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget does not ring true. It has a harsh sound 
that is indicative of it being out of tune with our current economic 
conditions and good government. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this proposal. If you support the working men and women of this 
country, if you support our Nation's children, you must oppose this 
budget resolution and support the Democratic alternative.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, our Federal budget should be a statement of 
our national values. How we spend our money should reflect what is 
important to us. The budget should address our current needs and 
capitalize on opportunities in the future.
  The budget should recognize the strength of our country, not only in 
terms of our military might, but also measure our strength in terms of 
the health, education, and well-being of American families.
  I cannot think of two better measures of a budget than its attention 
to educating our children and improving the health status of all 
Americans. This budget turns away from both these urgent priorities, 
putting tax cuts ahead of all else.
  The preschool education program Head Start is one example. Head Start 
is one of our success stories. It offers early education and nutrition 
services to lower income children and it has been proven effective. 
Within 10 years, this budget would decimate Head Start, cutting funding 
by nearly one-third. One hundred thousand low-income children would 
lose Head Start services.
  The Republican budget chooses a tax cut over Head Start funding.
  In the area of health, the Republican budget is just as short-
sighted. This country faces many challenges in health care. Forty-four 
million Americans are living without health insurance. And at the same 
time, we face tremendous opportunities to improve and extend lives with 
health research. It is our obligation to act on these challenges and 
opportunities. This Republican budget turns away from them.
  The budget proposal cuts discretionary health spending by 31 percent 
over 10 years without spelling out what will be cut. Will it be health 
promotion at the Centers for Disease Control? Health care for the 
uninsured at the Health Resources and Services Administration? Health 
research at the National Institutes of Health? The answer is that all 
these vital areas would suffer under the Republican budget, and that 
would have a direct impact on the health status of people across the 
country.
  This budget also ignores Medicare, calling for unspecified Medicare 
``reforms,'' and proposing no tangible resources to shore up the health 
care program on which tens of millions of seniors depend.
  The Republican budget chooses a tax cut over health care and health 
research. This Republican budget is dangerously out of step with our 
values. It is short-sighted and it makes its biggest cuts where the 
poor will feel them most directly. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Republican budget resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment printed in part 1 of House Report 
106-77 is adopted and the concurrent resolution, as amended, is 
considered as having been read for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of House Concurrent Resolution 68, as amended by the 
amendment printed in part 1 of House Report 106-77, is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 68

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

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2000.

       The Congress declares that this is the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000 and that the 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2001 through 
     2009 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2009:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
     Fiscal year 2000: $1,408,500,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2001: $1,435,300,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2002: $1,456,300,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2003: $1,532,600,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2004: $1,584,100,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2005: $1,651,000,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2006: $1,684,400,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2007: $1,733,200,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2008: $1,802,800,000,000.

[[Page 5716]]

     Fiscal year 2009: $1,867,500,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
     Fiscal year 2000: $0.
     Fiscal year 2001: -$9,800,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2002: -$52,000,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2003: -$30,700,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2004: -$50,000,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2005: -$59,900,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2006: -$106,300,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2007: -$138,200,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2008: -$153,400,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2009: -$178,200,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,426,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,456,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,487,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,558,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,611,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,665,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,697,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,752,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,813,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,874,400,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,408,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,435,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,455,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,532,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,583,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,638,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,666,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,715,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,781,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,841,300,000,000.
       (4) Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $0.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $12,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $18,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $17,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $21,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $26,200,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $5,627,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $5,707,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $5,791,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $5,875,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $5,954,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $6,019,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $6,075,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $6,128,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $6,168,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $6,198,100,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2009 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $276,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $303,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $308,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $291,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $318,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $327,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $313,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $328,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $316,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $329,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $315,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $330,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $313,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $332,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $317,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $333,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $318,000,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,000,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $12,100,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, -$700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,100,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,700,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.

[[Page 5717]]

       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,200,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,800,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,100,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,300,000,000.
       (10) Elementary and Secondary Education, and Vocational 
     Education (501):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,900,000,000.
       (11) Higher Education, Training, Employment, and Social 
     Services (500, except for 501):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,500,000,000.
       (12) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $156,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $153,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $164,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $162,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $173,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $173,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $184,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $185,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $197,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $198,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $212,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $212,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $228,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $228,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $246,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $245,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $285,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $284,900,000,000.
       (13) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $208,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $208,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $222,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $222,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $230,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $230,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $250,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $250,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $268,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $295,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $295,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $306,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $306,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $337,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $337,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $365,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $365,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $394,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $394,200,000,000.
       (14) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $244,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $248,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $250,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $262,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $277,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $276,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $286,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $298,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $298,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $304,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $305,200,000,000.

[[Page 5718]]

       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $310,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $311,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $323,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $325,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $334,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $335,700,000,000.
       (15) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,200,000,000.
       (16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,700,000,000.
       (17) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,400,000,000.
       (18) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       (19) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $275,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $271,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $271,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $263,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $263,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $261,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $261,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $258,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $257,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $254,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $254,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $252,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $252,700,000,000.
       (20) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$8,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$10,100,000,000
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$8,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$12,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$20,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,900,000,000.
       (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$34,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$34,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$43,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$43,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$37,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$37,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$40,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$40,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$40,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$40,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$41,800,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       Not later than September 30, 1999, the House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report to the House a reconciliation 
     bill that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     such that the total level of revenues is not less than: 
     $1,408,500,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 2000, 
     $7,416,800,000,000 in revenues for fiscal years 2000 through 
     2004, and $16,155,700,000,000 in revenues for fiscal years 
     2000 through 2009.

     SEC. 5. SAFE DEPOSIT BOX FOR SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the social 
     security trust funds are off-budget for purposes of the 
     President's budget submission and the concurrent resolution 
     on the budget;
       (2) the social security trust funds have been running 
     surpluses for 17 years;
       (3) these surpluses have been used to implicitly finance 
     the general operations of the Federal government;
       (4) in fiscal year 2000, the social security surplus will 
     exceed $137 billion;

[[Page 5719]]

       (5) for the first time, a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget balances the Federal budget without counting social 
     security surpluses; and
       (6) the only way to ensure that social security surpluses 
     are not diverted for other purposes is to balance the budget 
     exclusive of such surpluses.
       (b) Point of Order.--(1) It shall not be in order in the 
     House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any 
     concurrent resolution on the budget, or any amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that sets forth a deficit for 
     any fiscal year. For purposes of this subsection, a deficit 
     shall be the level (if any) set forth in the most recently 
     agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for that fiscal 
     year pursuant to section 301(a)(3) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974. In setting forth the deficit level 
     pursuant to such section, that level shall not include any 
     adjustments in aggregates that would be made pursuant to any 
     reserve fund that provides for adjustments in allocations and 
     aggregates for legislation that enhances retirement security 
     or extends the solvency of the medicare trust funds or makes 
     such changes in the medicare payment or benefit structure as 
     are necessary.
       (2) Paragraph (1) may be waived in the Senate only by the 
     affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members voting.
       (c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) beginning with fiscal year 2000, legislation should be 
     enacted to require any official statement issued by the 
     Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget 
     Office, or any other agency or instrumentality of the 
     Government of surplus or deficit totals of the budget of the 
     Government as submitted by the President or of the surplus or 
     deficit totals of the congressional budget, and any 
     description of, or reference to, such totals in any official 
     publication or material issued by either of such offices or 
     any other such agency or instrumentality, should exclude the 
     outlays and receipts of the old-age, survivors, and 
     disability insurance program under title II of the Social 
     Security Act (including the Federal Old-Age and Survivors 
     Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance 
     Trust Fund) and the related provisions of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       (2) legislation should be considered to augment subsection 
     (b) by--
       (A) taking such steps as may be required to safeguard the 
     social security surpluses, such as statutory changes 
     equivalent to the reserve fund for retirement security and 
     medicare set forth in section 6; or
       (B) otherwise establishing a statutory limit on debt held 
     by the public and reducing such limit by the amount of the 
     social security surpluses.

     SEC. 6. RESERVE FUND FOR RETIREMENT SECURITY AND, AS NEEDED, 
                   MEDICARE.

       (a) Retirement Security.--Whenever the Committee on Ways 
     and Means of the House reports a bill, or an amendment 
     thereto is offered, or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted that enhances retirement security, the chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget may--
       (1) increase the appropriate allocations for each of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2004 and aggregates for each of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2009 of new budget authority and outlays 
     by the amount of new budget authority provided by such 
     measure (and outlays flowing therefrom) for such fiscal year 
     for that purpose; and
       (2) reduce the revenue aggregates for each of fiscal years 
     2000 through 2009 by the amount of the revenue loss resulting 
     from that measure for such fiscal year for that purpose.
       (b) Medicare Program.--Whenever the Committee on Ways and 
     Means or the Committee on Commerce of the House reports a 
     bill, or an amendment thereto is offered, or a conference 
     report thereon is submitted that extends the solvency or 
     reforms the benefit or payment structure of the medicare 
     program including any measure in response to the National 
     Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget may increase the appropriate 
     allocations and aggregates of new budget authority and 
     outlays by the amounts provided in that bill for that 
     purpose.
       (c) Limitation.--(1) The chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may only make adjustments under subsection (a) or (b) 
     if the net outlay increase plus revenue reduction resulting 
     from any measure referred to in those subsections (including 
     any prior adjustments made for any other such measure) for 
     fiscal year 2000, the period of fiscal years 2000 through 
     2004, or the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009 is not 
     greater than an amount equal to the projected social security 
     surplus for such period, as set forth in the joint 
     explanatory statement of managers accompanying this 
     concurrent resolution or, if published, the midsession review 
     for fiscal year 2000 of the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office. For purposes of the preceding sentence, 
     revenue reductions shall be treated as a positive number.
       (2) In the midsession review for fiscal year 2000, the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office in consultation 
     with the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability 
     Insurance Trust Fund shall make an up-to-date estimate of the 
     projected surpluses in the social security trust funds for 
     fiscal year 2000, for the period of fiscal years 2000 through 
     2004, and for the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009.
       (3) As used in this subsection, the term ``social security 
     trust funds'' means the Federal Old-Age and Survivors 
     Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance 
     Trust Fund.

     SEC. 7. RESERVE FUND FOR PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE 
                   INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.

       (a) In General.--In the House, when the Committee on 
     Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution, or an 
     amendment thereto is offered, or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted that provides new budget authority for fiscal 
     year 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, or 2004 for programs authorized 
     under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may increase the 
     appropriate allocations and aggregates of new budget 
     authority and outlays by an amount not to exceed the amount 
     of new budget authority provided by that measure (and outlays 
     flowing therefrom) for that purpose up to the maximum amount 
     consistent with section 611(a) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411(a)(2)).
       (b) Adjustments.--The adjustments in outlays (and the 
     corresponding amount of new budget authority) made under 
     subsection (a) for any fiscal year may not exceed the amount 
     by which an up-to-date projection of the on-budget surplus 
     made by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office for 
     that fiscal year exceeds the on-budget surplus for that 
     fiscal year set forth in section 2(4) of this resolution.
       (c) CBO Projections.--Upon the request of the chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget of the House, the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall make an up-to-date estimate 
     of the projected on-budget surplus for the applicable fiscal 
     year.

     SEC. 8. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND 
                   AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and 
     aggregates made pursuant to this resolution for any measure 
     shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in 
     this resolution.

     SEC. 9. UPDATED CBO PROJECTIONS.

       Each calendar quarter the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office shall make an up-to-date estimate of receipts, 
     outlays and surplus (on-budget and off-budget) for the 
     current fiscal year.

     SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL 
                   RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) persecution of individuals on the sole ground of their 
     religious beliefs and practices occurs in countries around 
     the world and affects millions of lives;
       (2) such persecution violates international norms of human 
     rights, including those established in the Universal 
     Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on 
     Civil and Political Rights, the Helsinki Accords, and the 
     Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance 
     and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief;
       (3) such persecution is abhorrent to all Americans, and our 
     very Nation was founded on the principle of the freedom to 
     worship according to the dictates of our conscience; and
       (4) in 1998 Congress unanimously passed, and President 
     Clinton signed into law, the International Religious Freedom 
     Act of 1998, which established the United States Commission 
     on International Religious Freedom to monitor facts and 
     circumstances of violations of religious freedom and 
     authorized $3,000,000 to carry out the functions of the 
     Commission for each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) this resolution assumes that $3,000,000 will be 
     appropriated within function 150 for fiscal year 2000 for the 
     United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 
     to carry out its duties; and
       (2) the House Committee on Appropriations is strongly urged 
     to appropriate such amount for the Commission.

     SEC. 11. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DOLLARS 
                   TO THE CLASSROOM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) strengthening America's public schools while respecting 
     State and local control is critically important to the future 
     of our children and our Nation;
       (2) education is a local responsibility, a State priority, 
     and a national concern;
       (3) working with the Nation's governors, parents, teachers, 
     and principals must take place in order to strengthen public 
     schools and foster educational excellence;

[[Page 5720]]

       (4) the consolidation of various Federal education programs 
     will benefit our Nation's children, parents, and teachers by 
     sending more dollars directly to the classroom; and
       (5) our Nation's children deserve an educational system 
     that will provide opportunities to excel.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House 
     that--
       (1) the House should enact legislation that would 
     consolidate thirty-one Federal K-12 education programs; and
       (2) the Department of Education, the States, and local 
     educational agencies should work together to ensure that not 
     less than 95 percent of all funds appropriated for the 
     purpose of carrying out elementary and secondary education 
     programs administered by the Department of Education is spent 
     for our children in their classrooms.

     SEC. 12. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ASSET-BUILDING FOR THE WORKING 
                   POOR.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) 33 percent of all American households have no or 
     negative financial assets and 60 percent of African-American 
     households have no or negative financial assets;
       (2) 46.9 percent of all children in America live in 
     households with no financial assets, including 40 percent of 
     caucasian children and 75 percent of African-American 
     children;
       (3) in order to provide low-income families with more tools 
     for empowerment, incentives which encourage asset-building 
     should be established;
       (4) across the Nation numerous small public, private, and 
     public-private asset-building initiatives (including 
     individual development account programs) are demonstrating 
     success at empowering low-income workers;
       (5) the Government currently provides middle and upper 
     income Americans with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax 
     incentives for building assets; and
       (6) the Government should utilize tax laws or other 
     measures to provide low-income Americans with incentives to 
     work and build assets in order to escape poverty permanently.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     any changes in tax law should include provisions which 
     encourage low-income workers and their families to save for 
     buying their first home, starting a business, obtaining an 
     education, or taking other measures to prepare for the 
     future.

     SEC. 13. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ACCESS TO HEALTH INSURANCE AND 
                   PRESERVING HOME HEALTH SERVICES FOR ALL 
                   MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.

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

     SEC. 14. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON MEDICARE PAYMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) a goal of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was to expand 
     options for medicare beneficiaries under the new 
     Medicare+Choice program;
       (2) Medicare+Choice was intended to make these choices 
     available to all medicare beneficiaries; and unfortunately, 
     during the first two years of the Medicare+Choice program the 
     blended payment was not implemented, stifling health care 
     options and continuing regional disparity among many counties 
     across the United States; and
       (3) the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 also established the 
     National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare to 
     develop legislative recommendations to address the long-term 
     funding challenges facing medicare.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     this resolution assumes that funding of the Medicare+Choice 
     program is a priority for the House Committee on the Budget 
     before financing new programs and benefits that may 
     potentially add to the imbalance of payments and benefits in 
     Fee-for-Service Medicare and Medicare+Choice.

     SEC. 15. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON ASSESSMENT OF WELFARE-TO-WORK 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--It is the sense of the House that, 
     recognizing the need to maximize the benefit of the Welfare-
     to-Work Program, the Secretary of Labor should prepare a 
     report on Welfare-to-Work Programs pursuant to section 
     403(a)(5) of the Social Security Act. This report should 
     include information on the following--
       (1) the extent to which the funds available under such 
     section have been used (including the number of States that 
     have not used any of such funds), the types of programs that 
     have received such funds, the number of and characteristics 
     of the recipients of assistance under such programs, the 
     goals of such programs, the duration of such programs, the 
     costs of such programs, any evidence of the effects of such 
     programs on such recipients, and accounting of the total 
     amount expended by the States from such funds, and the rate 
     at which the Secretary expects such funds to be expended for 
     each of the fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002;
       (2) with regard to the unused funds allocated for Welfare-
     to-Work for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999, identify 
     areas of the Nation that have unmet needs for Welfare-to-Work 
     initiatives; and
       (3) identify possible Congressional action that may be 
     taken to reprogram Welfare-to-Work funds from States that 
     have not utilized previously allocated funds to places of 
     unmet need, including those States that have rejected or 
     otherwise not utilized prior funding.
       (b) Report.--It is the sense of the House that, not later 
     than January 1, 2000, the Secretary of Labor should submit to 
     the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Ways and 
     Means of the House and the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate, in writing, the report described in subsection (a).

     SEC. 16. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PROVIDING HONOR GUARD SERVICES 
                   FOR VETERANS' FUNERALS.

       It is the sense of Congress that all relevant congressional 
     committees should make every effort to provide sufficient 
     resources so that an Honor Guard, if requested, is available 
     for veterans' funerals.

     SEC. 17. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CHILD NUTRITION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) both Republicans and Democrats understand that an 
     adequate diet and proper nutrition are essential to a child's 
     general well-being;
       (2) the lack of an adequate diet and proper nutrition may 
     adversely affect a child's ability to perform up to his or 
     her ability in school;
       (3) the Government currently plays a role in funding school 
     nutrition programs; and
       (4) there is a bipartisan commitment to helping children 
     learn.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the 
     Committee on Agriculture should examine our Nation's 
     nutrition programs to determine if they can be improved, 
     particularly with respect to services to low-income children.

  The CHAIRMAN. No further amendment is in order except the amendments 
printed in part 2 of that report. Each amendment may be offered only in 
the order printed in the report, may be offered only by the Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
  After conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
amendment, there shall be a final period of general debate which shall 
not exceed 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part 2 of 
House Report 106-77.


  Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Coburn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.

[[Page 5721]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment No. 1 in the nature of a substitute printed in 
     part 2 of House Report 106-77 offered by Mr. Coburn:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2000.

       The Congress declares that this is the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000 and that the 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2001 through 
     2004 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2004:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
     Fiscal year 2000: $1,406,000,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2001: $1,445,300,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2002: $1,507,900,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2003: $1,562,800,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2004: $1,631,800,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
     Fiscal year 2000: $11,000,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2001: $10,600,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2002: $10,600,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2003: $10,000,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2004: $9,500,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,549,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,588,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,648,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,717,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,798,500,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,535,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,564,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,634,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,702,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,780,600,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $129,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $119,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $126,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $139,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $148,800,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $5,778,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $5,999,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,242,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $6,497,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $6,764,500,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2004 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $280,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $283,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $300,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $302,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $293,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $312,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $321,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $313,800,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,600,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,200,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-200,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,000,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,000,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $545,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,600,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $50,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,800,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,700,000,000.
       (10) Elementary and Secondary Education, and Vocational 
     Education (501):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,800,000,000.
       (11) Higher Education, Training, Employment, and Social 
     Services (500, except for 501):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:

[[Page 5722]]

       (A) New budget authority, $46,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,700,000,000.
       (12) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $157,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $153,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $166,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $165,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $176,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $177,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $188,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $189,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $202,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $202,800,000,000.
       (13) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $207,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $207,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $220,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $220,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $228,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $228,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $248,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $249,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $266,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $266,900,000,000.
       (14) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $256,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $259,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $268,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $271,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $291,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $295,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $301,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $304,000,000,000.
       (15) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $99,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $84,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $107,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $107,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $106,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $106,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $126,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $126,000,000,000.
       (16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,300,000,000.
       (17) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,000,000,000.
       (18) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
       (19) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $278,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $278,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $279,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $279,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $286,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $291,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $291,900,000,000.
       (20) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $1,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.
       (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $-35,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-35,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $-39,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-39,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $-43,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-43,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $-38,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-38,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $-38,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-38,500,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       Not later than September 30, 1999, the House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report to the House a reconciliation 
     bill that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     such that the total level of revenues for that committee is 
     not less than: $1,406,000,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 
     2000 and $7,553,900,000,000 in revenues for fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to raise a parliamentary point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, do the rules of the House require that an 
offeror of the amendment be a supporter and proponent of the amendment 
that he offers and proposes to the House?
  The CHAIRMAN. House Resolution 131 explicitly makes it in order for 
the gentleman from Oklahoma to offer this amendment. The Chair does not 
assess the attitude of the gentleman from Oklahoma toward the 
proposition.
  Mr. SPRATT. Would it be in order to ask if the gentleman does indeed 
support this, or if he is offering it for dilatory purposes?
  The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Oklahoma rise?
  Mr. COBURN. To speak in favor of my amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason I am offering this amendment is because 
millions of dollars and nearly 1,000 people in the executive branch 
spent time preparing this budget. The President spoke in his State of 
the Union speech. He outlined the plans that he would submit.
  The reason I am offering this budget is because it is fair to the 
President to debate his issues. It is ironic that nobody from his party 
would submit his budget.
  There is no question I have great disagreements with many aspects of 
the budget, but the American people deserve to hear his budget outlined 
as scored by the CBO, as every other budget that will be presented on 
this floor, and what it actually says, because it is my contention that 
the budget that is presented does not go along with what the President 
said in his State of the Union speech. I hope through this discussion 
and with the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, that we 
will find out where that is.
  There is no intention to deceive anybody. It is an honest and sincere 
desire to make sure that this budget is considered. But I think it is 
also implicit on us to use the same scoring mechanisms, assuming all 
the assumptions in his budget, that we would do that.

[[Page 5723]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is 
recognized for 20 minutes in opposition to the amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry.

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) state his 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Yes. Is the gentleman who has claimed the time in 
opposition to this amendment opposed to the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already established that he is in 
opposition to the amendment. He is entitled to 20 minutes of debate.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is recognized.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would first like to say that we have a letter from 
Jacob J. Lew, director of the Office of Management and Budget, saying 
that he is informed that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) will 
be offering a substitute to the budget resolution today.

       This amendment is being characterized as the President's 
     budget. The Administration has not been consulted in the 
     development of this amendment. It is our understanding that 
     it is based on a set of assumptions that is quite different 
     from those presented in the President's budget. Therefore, we 
     do not support the amendment.

  While we are talking about the President's budget, though, and 
drawing comparisons and contrasts, let me take just a minute to point 
out a very significant difference between the Republican budget and the 
President's budget.
  The President sent up early this year a request to increase defense 
by $84 billion over the next 6 years, $68 billion of which would fall 
in the next 5 years. As Members can see, the President has proposed a 
pretty robust defense budget starting this year and continuing through 
the 10-year time frame of the budget to the point where it reaches 
nearly $385 billion.
  Let me point out two factors in the Republican budget which really 
work against the claim, undercut the claim, that their budget is 
supportive of national defense.
  First of all, in the first 5 years of their budget they offer $29 
billion more than the President, $29.6 billion in budget authority. 
Members can only use budget authority, as the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks) earlier said, if it has outlays to back it up. Outlays are 
money we can spend.
  In giving spending authority to the Pentagon, their budget in the 
first 5 years matches the $30 billion increase in defense spending 
budget authority. With only $5.2 billion, only one-sixth of the money 
they are putting up can actually be used in this period of time. So in 
the first 5 years, while they sort of beat their breast and say, look 
what we are doing for defense over and above the President, in truth, 
they pull this punch by not providing the outlays to back it up.
  In the second period of time this chart very graphically shows what 
happens to their defense budget and where they put their preferences. 
Because in the year 2004 their defense budget peaks, and thereafter it 
is the black line on this chart, it is flat as a pancake. It never 
increases in the next 5 years more than $1 billion.
  What is wrong with that? That is the period when the procurement 
holiday is over. That is the period when the F-22 and the V-22 and the 
joint strike fighter and missile defense and everything else is going 
to be procured. That is when we need the money more than ever.
  What happens in the Republican budget? It bottoms out. Why does it 
bottom out? Because when they were forced to choose between national 
defense and tax cuts, they opted clearly for tax cuts, so much so that 
they plotted an out year budget that is totally unrealistic.
  I asked the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) on the floor the other 
day, when he came to speak in support of missile defense, how in the 
world was he going to pay for it? Because that is the time frame when 
he would be deploying missile defense, putting the satellites in space, 
the ground interceptors in place.
  He said, I can say that our numbers are real. That is the thing that 
worries me, this is a real number. Their tax cut will make impossible 
any increase in defense in those years to do the things they say and 
purport they want to do for national defense. Their budget is a 
disaster for national defense compared to the President's budget.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, our staff was in contact with one Elizabeth Gore and 
outlined our plans. She had no objections to the assumptions that we 
made on that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we have this debate. As 
the gentleman from Oklahoma mentioned, the President and his team spent 
literally $1 million putting their budget together. I think it deserves 
careful consideration by the Members of this body.

                              {time}  1530

  First of all, I want to point out a chart we have used all day, and I 
think it is important because there are clear distinctions and 
differences between our plan and the President's plan.
  We believe that every penny of Social Security taxes should go only 
for Social Security. There is a difference there between us and the 
President. If my colleagues look at the difference in the plan, and 
again these are not our numbers, these are from the Congressional 
Budget Office, we secure $1.8 trillion for Medicare and Social Security 
over the next 10 years. The President is somewhere in the neighborhood 
of $1.65 trillion.
  I want to give some credit to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt), the Democrats and the Blue Dog budget. In fact, in some 
respects, we should feel honored because, in many respects, their 
budget looks a lot more like our budget than it does the President's 
budget.
  But one of the biggest differences between the various budget plans 
that are being offered here today is we believe that, once we have 
saved Social Security, once we have said that every penny of Social 
Security taxes will only go for Social Security, and then, secondly, we 
say we are going to live by the spending caps that we and the White 
House agreed to. I was there for the bill signing, and I think the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) was there as well. It was a 
glorious day out on the White House lawn. We said we are going to live 
by these spending caps, and we are going to keep our word even if the 
President does not.
  The President has in his budget exceeded the spending caps by about 
$30 billion. Again, to the credit of the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) and the Blue Dogs, I think they do a better job of living 
by those spending caps.
  But I think the biggest difference between our budget, the Blue Dog 
budget, and more importantly the President's budget is the President 
imposes about $45.8 billion, depending on whose scoring we use, but 
over the next 5 years, we are looking somewhere in the neighborhood of 
$46 billion in new taxes.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on Budget, for doing 
a yeoman's job today.
  Mr. Chairman, the Coburn alternative is a sham, and the Republican 
budget is a failure. It fails our future retirees, it fails our 
veterans, it fails our families, and it fails our children and their 
education.
  The Republican budget increases military spending, yet fails to 
itemize

[[Page 5724]]

veterans' pay and retirement benefits and at the same time cuts funding 
for Head Start and after-school programs.
  What is worse, now the Republicans are failing to use the projected 
$2.8 trillion surplus to extend the solvency of Social Security by even 
one day. Instead, the Republicans' plan gambles with the guarantee we 
have made to our seniors, our women, and our families by proposing tax 
cuts for the wealthiest in the Nation.
  Do not forget, the Republican budget fails to use one red cent for 
Medicare, which benefits mainly the middle income folks and retirees in 
this Nation.
  A responsible budget will save Social Security and Medicare, invest 
in our children and their education, support our veterans and our 
farmers, and give targeted tax relief to working Americans. The 
Republican budget fails in all of these areas and must be defeated.
  Vote against the Coburn amendment. Vote against the Republican 
budget. Vote for the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just make mention of the fact that, in this 
budget, there are no specific targeted tax cuts for anyone. To continue 
to speak on this House floor about tax cuts for rich people, which is 
not our intention in the first place, but to say that is erroneous.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler).
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution was established to 
provide for the common defense. However, at a time when the threat of 
rogue nations with nuclear weapons remain strong and the administration 
has ordered an unprecedented number of deployments, our troops and 
military are not as well equipped or as well provided for as yesterday.
  Consider: For the first time in decades, we are failing to meet 
recruitment goals. For example, in 1998, the Navy missed its recruiting 
goals by 12 percent. Additionally, there is a 13\1/2\ percent wage gap 
between civilian and military pay. In fact, many military families need 
the assistance of food stamps just to survive.
  My colleagues may be pondering this weakened state of U.S. military 
forces and feel alarmed about our current level of national security, 
but there is hope. The same President who has overseen this tremendous 
decline in our military has proposed a solution to undo the 
devastation.
  First, the President proposes defense spending over the next 6 years, 
which is as much as $70 billion below the Defense Chiefs' requirements 
to maintain our current level of national security.
  Second, the President realizes that the U.S. House, which declared 
that the U.S. should deploy a national missile defense system to 
protect our Nation and troops, is mistaken. That must be why he would 
rescind $230 million in funding for the development of a national 
missile defense.
  To improve the financial condition of our military families, the 
President has slashed military construction funding, including money 
for military family housing, by $3.1 billion.
  For those of my colleagues who desire to improve national security by 
inadequately funding our armed services, by stealing pledged funds from 
our national missile defense program, and by severely reducing 
construction for our military and its families, I urge their support 
for the Clinton-Gore budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for yielding me this time.
  There has been a lot of complaints about the President's budget and 
how it treats the National Institutes of Health. As members of the 
committee know, I have been the author in the past of an amendment to 
double the size of our commitment to medical research through the 
National Institutes of Health. In fact, the committee defeated the 
amendment last year. They defeated it this year. In fact, the 
Republican controlled committee at one point, and the Republican House, 
wanted to cut the NIH by 5 percent.
  Let us talk about the Republican budget that is before us today. If 
my colleagues look at what they have in the health function, they tell 
us in the very little detail they give us about their budget that they 
are going to double the size of the National Institutes of Health, but 
they actually cut the level below the baseline in the health function, 
which means that we are going to have to choose between community 
health centers, between WIC, Women and Infant Children programs. We are 
going to have to decide between nutrition programs and the NIH.
  That is the problem with the Republican budget. They do not tell us 
where the cuts come from. They lock in $1 trillion tax cut on surpluses 
that we do not know whether they are going to come true or not. They 
bust the caps because they know that $28 billion in nondefense 
discretionary cuts they want to make just are not there. That is the 
problem with the budget.
  So we can engage in theatrics today of writing up a budget that is 
not going to be given any real consideration because we do not want to 
look at the truth behind the majority's budget.
  At the end of the day, we all know sometime in August or September or 
October we will get down to business and write a real budget. But a 
two-page budget like that that was put before the Committee on Budget 
with no detail, and the chairman, a good friend of mine, saying my 
Members do not want to talk about where we are going to make the cuts 
right now, is not a real budget.
  The Republicans' budget is not a real budget. It does not increase 
NIH. If we were to follow this budget, we would be cutting community 
health centers, we would be cutting WIC, nutrition, all those programs 
that a bipartisan majority of Members of this body have supported in 
the past.
  We can engage in theatrics, but at the end of the day, we are going 
to have to write a real budget like the Democratic budget.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on 
both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has 14 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 12 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a note that, last year, NIH 
was increased 14.5 percent in our budget. I would also like to make a 
note that WIC is not in the category that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bentsen) just referred to and is not at risk at all under this budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I find there is much to disagree with in 
the Clinton budget, but I want to focus on two areas just in the 60 
seconds that I have.
  First of all, when the President's budget came before the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs of which I serve and I am chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the 
ranking member, said it was a pack of cards, house of cards. He 
recognized as well as all of the Republicans and Democrats that 
basically it was underfunded.
  The second point is that, not only was it underfunded, but the whole 
budget process in terms of where they thought they would get the money 
to pay for the items they were talking about was not really there. 
Smoke and mirrors.
  So the Republicans on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs supported 
increasing the amount of money for veterans, and we proposed an almost 
$2 billion increase. The Democrats on this side said they want to do $3 
billion. We thought it out, and we decided that the compromise was $2 
billion. We put forth that, and we passed it out of our committee. It 
passed with bipartisan support. There were about four Democrats who 
voted for the Republican position.
  So I think the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) and others 
were courageous in their attempt to increase the veterans budget, and I 
am glad we did.

[[Page 5725]]

  Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment my colleague from Ohio, Chairman 
Kasich, for bringing his FY 2000 budget resolution to the floor today.
  Thomas Jefferson stated:

       The same prudence which in private life would forbid our 
     paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in 
     the dispensation of the public money.

  These words still hold today.
  I support the Kasich budget because it does what I believe needs to 
be done. It establishes a ``safe deposit box'' so that Social Security 
funds cannot be raided, it provides for debt reduction, controls 
spending while increasing defense spending, and provides much-needed 
tax relief. Furthermore, it increases funding for education and 
provides an increase of more than 1 billion for veterans health care 
over the President's budget.
  I am troubled by the President's FY 2000 budget because it would 
increase domestic spending by $200 billion, increase taxes by over $100 
billion, it would create 120 new government programs, and it would 
break the spending caps put in place in the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997. Ironically, the President, who talks a good game when it comes to 
education, has proposed cutting special education (title VI block 
grants) by $375 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that passage of the President's budget would 
erode all the hard work and effort it has taken to cut wasteful 
spending and reduce the size of government.
  While I find there is much to disagree with in the President's 
budget, I want to focus on two areas in his proposal that I find 
particularly intolerable.
  As a veteran I find the administration's budget to be short of 
support for our Nation's men and women who served their country in time 
of need.
  The President's budget is a mockery and I believe that he must be 
held accountable for sending us such a woefully inadequate VA budget, 
especially as it relates to VA medical care.
  As chairman of the Veterans Subcommittee on Health, I know all too 
well how difficult it is to meet the health care needs of our Nation's 
veterans. In fact, when VA Secretary Togo West presented the 
administration's budget, I suggested that he might want to resubmit a 
new one because the one he was submitting seeks no funding increase for 
VA medical care above the 1999 baseline level. That makes our job even 
more difficult.
  The President's budget doesn't address how the VA will find the money 
to pay for fixed cost increases of $870 million for inflation and 
salaries, at least $135 million in new costs for hepatitis, and 
estimated $250 million to meet emergency care obligations, increased 
medication and prosthetics of $150 million, and a shortfall of $100 
million in medical collections. I have long believed that these third 
party payer collections should be a supplement to and not instead of 
guaranteed health care dollars.
  The other area of concern I have is with how the President deals with 
Social Security. During the last election we heard a lot about saving 
Social Security. The President criticized Congress for not doing enough 
to save the Social Security program. He pledged to and I quote, ``save 
Social Security first'' and to dedicate 100 percent of the surplus for 
that purpose.
  However, as is so often the case, what he says and what he does are 
sometimes at odds. The budget he presented to Congress uses not 100 
percent of the surplus for Social Security. Not 90 percent, not 80 
percent, not 70, but 60 percent of future surpluses would go to the 
trust fund. Now, Mr. President, which is it all of the surplus, 60 
percent of the surplus, or will you change your mind again at some 
future date.
  I don't think we should play politics with the budget, especially 
when it comes to our Nation's veterans and seniors. They made our 
country what it is today and I, for one believe we owe them a debt of 
gratitude. Smoke and mirrors to pay for your new programs is one thing, 
but breaking a pledge we made with these individuals is another.
  I'm committed to making sure that our Nation's veterans and our 
seniors are treated with the dignity they deserve.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to start off with a 
simple question; and that is, how do we get $778 billion worth of tax 
cuts if we do not have someplace to look at in the budget?
  So I am reminded, probably back in 1995, that we are back at the same 
issue. We are hitting the very same people that lose every time; that 
is the veterans, that is the elderly, the children, and the disabled. 
The facts are there.
  I just heard the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). We are putting 
$3 billion in. They are adding $1 billion. But the fact of the matter 
is ours keeps the money in there, and theirs would actually cut 
veterans over the next 5 years.
  I want to know what happened to the promise to our veterans. I simply 
cannot believe, also, that we are looking at low income women and 
children and the disabled. We are going to cut, and 1 million low-
income women, infants and children would lose nutrition assistance. In 
Florida, we found that to be the most successful program to have 
healthy children.
  We do welfare reform. These people have to have places to take their 
children. What happens? We are looking at the fact of cutting, and 
50,000 low-income children will lose their child care assistance under 
the Child Care and Development Block Grant.
  But here is one that absolutely I do not get. I spend half of my time 
in the district with people that come in to talk to me that are trying 
to apply for SSI. They want to cut administrative expenses. Let me tell 
my colleagues, it is taking 2, 3, 4 years for these folks already to 
get their claims done. These people are losing their homes. Their 
children cannot go to college. We ought not to be slashing 
administrative expenses in this area. We ought to be bolstering this 
area. Then on top of that, we are going to cut and reduce Meals On 
Wheels, congregate dining sites.
  Then I just hope that my colleagues can go home and talk to their 
constituents about this budget.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak about a feature of the 
budget being offered by the Blue Dog Coalition and the budget that is 
being offered at this point by the majority.
  The budget being offered by the majority, which is the President's 
budget, is using the Social Security surplus twice and claiming that 
this extends the life of the Social Security system to the year 2050. I 
am surprised that the majority would offer that type of a budget. I 
understand this is the President's budget. I must say that this is a 
point at which the Blue Dog Coalition disagrees with the President.
  We feel that, if we are going to reform the Social Security system, 
it is incumbent upon us to do so on a forthright fashion, recognizing 
we have some very difficult decisions to make, and not assuming that we 
can extend the life of that system by simply giving it a pipeline into 
the general funds.
  For this reason, we would like to urge that there be bipartisan 
support of the Blue Dog budget as opposed to the budget that is 
currently being advocated.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for 
yielding me this time, and I thank him for his outstanding leadership 
as we debate the budget.
  This has been a very good debate because I think it highlights the 
differences between the two parties, and it gives the American people 
an opportunity to make some very fundamental choices.
  On the one hand, the Democrats are saying that there are some very 
real and large problems in this country that need attention, problems 
like Social Security and extending the solvency of the Social Security 
program, problems like Medicare, extending solvency there, and problems 
like education, which needs our serious national attention.
  On the other hand, the Republicans offer us the panacea of tax cuts, 
tax cuts that largely go to the wealthy. What happens in the Republican 
budget is this, the poor and the middle class count their tax breaks in 
terms of tens and hundreds. The wealthy count their tax breaks in terms 
of 10,000s.
  These tax breaks that they talk about do not add to the solvency of 
Social Security by one day. They do not add to the solvency of Medicare 
by one

[[Page 5726]]

day, nor do they address any of the education problems we have in this 
country. These tax cuts do not give us a single teacher. They do not 
give us a single additional classroom.

                              {time}  1545


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Point of Order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I believe the speaker is off 
the subject at this time, and I do not believe that is proper.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Will the gentleman repeat the point of 
order?
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Sure. The gentleman is talking off subject.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) will 
speak to the amendment pending.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I understand the objection. I 
think it is more the gentleman does not like what I am saying as 
opposed to the relevancy of what I am saying.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will remind all Members that they 
will speak to the amendment pending.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair specify what is the objection 
of the gentleman to the statement I am making?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman must maintain a nexus to the 
budget amendment pending and the President's budget overall.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, the point I was making is that in the context 
of debate on national policy, there must be areas of comparison and 
contrast. I was attempting to establish a contrast between the 
Democratic approach and the Republican approach.
  They have now brought up a straw man and claimed this is what they 
are advocating, when actually they wanted to use the President's budget 
as a vehicle upon which to punch, a vehicle that we Democrats are not 
talking about. We Democrats are talking about a specific vehicle which 
I am in fact addressing, a vehicle that addresses Medicare, Social 
Security and education.
  Now, I do not see how that is not relevant, but I can see how it 
might be disturbing to my Republican colleagues. The point is we have 
an important opportunity today to make a choice: a Republican approach 
that wants to hit a straw man and produce tax benefits for the very 
wealthy; or a Democratic approach that is fundamentally sound and 
addresses the key problems of America today.
  I think we ought to opt for the Democratic approach.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the 
gentleman who just spoke said we are not talking about the Clinton-
Gore, the President's, budget. Quite frankly, he candidly said we do 
not want to talk about the Clinton-Gore budget. In reality, this is the 
Clinton-Gore budget and it is, in fact, what we are offering at this 
time on the floor.
  Our position is this deserves to be discussed and to be debated. 
Millions of dollars were spent to develop this budget. If the Democrats 
do not want to offer it, we want to offer it and at least have some 
discussion of what is in it. So I understand the gentleman's 
embarrassment about not wanting to talk about the President's budget, 
but the facts are the facts.
  So let us talk about that budget. My colleague, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge), on the other side, pointed out that the 
President's budget double counts the Social Security surplus and 
actually spends that amount of money twice. Let us talk about what the 
Republican budget versus the Clinton-Gore budget does with Social 
Security.
  We save, as my colleagues understand, I hope, by now, 100 percent of 
that surplus. Beyond that, the President, by contrast, as scored by 
CBO, spends $158 billion of that surplus. I do not know how anyone can 
tell the American people they are saving it when they are spending $158 
billion of it.
  The second point I want to make is that one of my colleagues who just 
spoke on the other side said, well, I think the Republicans are 
ultimately going to bury the budget caps, after all, I do not think 
they are really going to live within the budget that they proposed.
  I simply want to make the point that he can speculate all he wants 
about the Republican budget. In point of fact, this chart right here 
shows quite clearly the Republican budget on the floor today does not 
break the budget cap. We entered into negotiations in 1997, and we set 
statutory spending caps. Our budget on the floor today does not break 
those caps.
  So my colleagues can speculate, but the fact is the President's 
budget does break the caps by $31 billion.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, there is a good bit of 
rhetoric being spoken here today. I think our Republican friends would 
understandably like to do anything other than compare straightforwardly 
the Democratic alternative and the Republican alternative that are 
before us today.
  The facts are that in at least five critical aspects the Democratic 
product is vastly superior, and I do not think really anyone has 
challenged that effectively today.
  First, the Democratic alternative extends Social Security solvency 
until 2050 and Medicare solvency to 2020. The Republican budget does 
not extend that one day.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. COBURN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. COBURN. I believe the discussion is to be focused on the 
amendment at hand. The amendment at hand is the President's budget.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members that the 
President's budget is pending, however the President's budget extends 
to everything affecting the United States budget.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Absolutely. Every item that I am 
addressing is touched on by all these budget proposals. Again, 
parliamentary maneuvers, anything to avoid a direct comparison of the 
Democratic and Republican alternatives that are before us.
  The second point of comparison: Over 10 years the Democratic budget 
pays down $146 billion more in public debt than the Republican budget.
  Third point of comparison, education. Over 5 years, $10 billion more 
in the Democratic alternative for education, making it possible to 
reduce class size, to bring on 100,000 new teachers; making it possible 
to get our children out of trailers. And I speak as someone from a 
district where thousands of children are going to school in hundreds of 
trailers. In low-income areas, in high-growth areas, we simply must 
give our children the modernized facilities, the good equipment they 
deserve.
  The fourth area of difference, tax cuts. The Democratic budget 
provides for targeted tax cuts; long-term care tax credits, child care 
tax credits, research and experimentation tax credits, and tax credits 
to let local school authorities get ahead of the curve in issuing 
school bonds.
  Fifth, Veterans and veterans' health care. We discussed that earlier 
today. The Republican budget makes a show of boosting veterans' health 
care, does it in the first year only, and then actually cuts, cuts, 
veterans' health care $400 million below the freeze level over the next 
5 years.
  We could go on and on. There is no question the Democratic budget is 
fiscally responsible. There is no question it is targeted at areas of 
urgent national needs. It is far superior to the majority proposal, and 
I urge its adoption.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will acknowledge that the

[[Page 5727]]

amendment pending is the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and in the future will refrain from 
characterizing it as the President's amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey).
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear the Democrat Members of this body do not 
want to talk about the President's budget proposal, because the 
President's budget proposal is the proposal to increase taxes on the 
American people.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SPRATT. Point of Order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. SPRATT. The Chair just stated it should be referred to as the 
Coburn resolution rather than as the President's budget.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Members may debate the content of the 
amendment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder that the proposal that is 
presented by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) that was 
presented to Congress on behalf of the White House----


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) will 
suspend for one moment, please.
  The Chair will clarify his statement. The Chair will refrain from 
referring to the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
as the President's budget, however, the Members have every right to do 
so.
  Mr. ARMEY. The President of the United States is proud to say that he 
is trying to set money aside for Social Security and Medicare and, yes, 
he does try, but he tries with some reservation because of his 
commitment to increase taxes and spending.
  The fact is the Republicans set more money aside for Social Security 
and Medicare than the President does in his budget. After these funds 
are set aside, we discover that the American people will still, over 
the next decade, on average, pay over $5,000 in increased taxes beyond 
that which is necessary. We in the Republican Party believe we ought to 
give that money back to the people who earned it in the first place, 
but the President and the Democrats do not want to do that.
  In fact, in a recent speech in Buffalo, President Clinton told us 
that we could, he says, ``We could give it all back to you and hope you 
might spend it right, but,'' but he does not believe the American 
people can do that. We, however, believe the President should 
understand that we can spend our own money that we earn wisely and that 
he should not take more than what is necessary. So, after we set aside 
more money for Social Security and for Medicare than the President 
does, we think we ought to have a tax reduction.
  The President says let us raise taxes, 80 different taxes, for a net 
of $52 billion over 5 years. And then, on top of everything else, the 
President raises taxes on whom? As this chart shows, precisely on the 
least income-earning Americans in the country. That is to say, the 
President wants to build government so badly that he is willing to hold 
back part of the payroll taxes of our young working Americans, who pay 
for the retirement security of America's seniors, so the President can 
instead use it for new government programs. And, in addition to that, 
levy $52 billion worth of increased taxes on the poorest of these 
working Americans.
  I must say, I must say, given this inability to in fact save Social 
Security taxes for Social Security, to in fact restrain the growth of 
government, in the face of all the liberal demands of his constituency, 
and to in fact cut taxes instead of raising them as he does, and indeed 
raising them on the poorest of Americans, given the President's 
inability to do something other than these compulsive things, it is no 
wonder my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle do not want to 
talk about the President's budget. I would not want to either.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I think my friend the majority leader is a little bit confused. The 
President has identified some revenue adjustments. The difference is 
the Republicans, through their Committee on the Budget Chair, admit 
that the Republicans are going to have them but they are not laying out 
what they are in terms of the offsets and the pre-increases.
  I think, however, the more fundamental point is that they have it 
precisely wrong in terms of, unlike the President's proposal, they do 
not give tools to our communities to help them build more livable 
communities. Their budget fails to give the tools that communities need 
to help improve the quality of life, like the administration's budget 
does when it offers increased choices for citizens in areas of 
transportation, housing, regional planning, open space preservation, 
education and crime control. The Democratic alternative recognizes the 
importance of these initiatives.
  The proposal from the Republicans would be a disaster, if there was 
any chance that it would ever be implemented. It siphons off nearly $1 
trillion in tax cuts and pays for them with unnecessary and painful 
budget cuts, while ignoring key investments that are needed to make 
communities more liveable.
  The good news is that it will not be adopted in this form, because 
even the Republicans have no intention of implementing it. The bad news 
is it is simply a license to avoid responsible budgeting.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and, instead, strive to produce a 
budget that promotes livable communities and fiscal stability.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
has 8\1/4\ minutes, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, listening to my colleague talk about tools 
to build livable communities, I would point out in the Clinton-Gore 
budget some things they do for tools for livable communities.
  The Clinton-Gore budget cuts State and local law enforcement 
assistance by $758 million. It reduces funding for State prison grants 
from $729 million to only $75 million.

                              {time}  1600

  It eliminates local law enforcement block grants. And here is a great 
one. On January 28, 1999, Vice President Al Gore announced the 
Department of Justice would provide $28 million to help law enforcement 
agencies hire more police officers, the Community Oriented Police 
Services, COPS. Three days later, on February 3, President Clinton's 
budget, the budget we are debating right now, cut funding for COPS by 
$155 million. It does not seem to me that that is going to create more 
livable communities.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Coburn amendment.
  It is very often in these debates we have a great number of charts 
and a great deal of interpretation on what we are going to call the 
budget and how we are going to contour its label. But, in fact, there 
are certain fundamental differences that I think all Americans are 
starting to see in this debate.
  One is that the President and those of us on the Democratic side of 
the aisle believe that Medicare is an important Federal program that 
aids many seniors and it should be shored up, it should be expanded, 
and we should cover prescription drugs. That is what we believe. That 
is not what the opponents believe.
  We believe that schools are important, education is important, 
teachers

[[Page 5728]]

are important, new construction for overcrowded schools. That is what 
we believe. This is what is in our value systems. That is what we 
believe the other side will not speak about because it is not what they 
believe.
  We believe that it is important to pay down, to retire some of our 
Federal debt because every dollar that we pay into interest are dollars 
we cannot spend for all of the things that all of us here support, 
whether it be tax cuts, whether it be defense, whether it be education 
or anything else. These are fundamental dividing lines between us.
  And they can hold up charts all they like, but we will never see the 
sponsors of this amendment talk about those three fundamental issues. 
It makes us wonder, do they not realize that these are the issues that 
motivate Americans?
  Right now seniors pay more out of their own pocket than when the 
Medicare program was created in the 1960s, more today than at that time 
we declared a health care emergency. That is a shame and we should 
reverse that.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that the gentleman raised 
the Medicare issue. Because, in fact, the statements of the President 
in his State of the Union do not match the budget, and that is one of 
the reasons his budget needs to be compared to.
  As a physician who cares for Medicare patients, let me tell my 
colleagues what the President's budget does for Medicare. It freezes 
inpatient hospital payments. That is the first thing it does. So what 
that is going to do is shift the cost for everybody that is not 
Medicare, raise their cost for health care. So it is an indirect tax on 
everybody else in the country.
  The second thing it does is it reduces laboratory services payments. 
They are all making a ton of money. It reduces prices paid for durable 
medical equipment, which has already been reduced by about 50 percent 
over the last 5 years. It imposes $194 million next year, $970 million 
over 5 years, and $1.94 billion over 10 years in new user fees on 
Medicare.
  We cannot get doctors to care for a lot of our Medicare patients. Now 
we are going to charge them something every year if they are going to 
be a Medicare provider. We now are having trouble getting HMO firms to 
give care under the Medicare Plus Choice Plan. He has a charge, a tax 
on everybody that is a provider in a Medicare Plus Choice Plan.
  So as we go through the things that the President said he wants to 
help save Medicare, in fact it is very, very different from that.
  There is a total cut of $3.3 billion in Medicare, according to the 
CBO, over the next 10 years. This next year $1 billion is cut from 
Medicare by President Clinton through these and other things. That is 
not to mention the reduction in drug payments. The whole Medicare 
Commission failed over the fight over prescription drug benefits. And 
yet in his budget that he submits, which I am submitting so we can 
debate it, he cuts the Medicare prescription benefit that is out there. 
He cuts the drug payment for cancer drugs to keep people alive that are 
on Medicare.
  So it is important that we talk about what is really in the 
President's budget. I understand why it was not offered, but it is 
still very important that we discuss what is in the budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me simply make clear that that is not in our budget, not in the 
Spratt substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I wonder why there is such a desire to 
discuss the President's budget when it is not before us. I know there 
is no merit. I gather there is great delight in discussing irrelevant 
things. I cannot imagine why we would do that.
  Let me tell my colleagues why I support the Democrat alternative. The 
Democrat alternative stands up for families, stands up for children, 
stands up for seniors, stands up for rural communities. It indeed cuts 
taxes. But it does not do what the Republican budget does. Now that is 
before us. The Republican budget is before us, and it cuts taxes using 
the greatest amount of resources to give the least amount of benefit to 
taxes.
  We target our tax cut to make sure that we respect child care needs, 
we respect long-term care in terms of needing health care for our 
seniors. All of those are part of our targeted tax reduction. What we 
do in our spending and what we do in our tax laws says a lot about who 
we are. Our priorities for spending, our tax policy says to the world 
what things are important.
  I submit to my colleagues that the Republican budget says it does not 
care for children, it does not care for schoolchildren in the way that 
it should, it does not care for seniors in the way it proposes to do, 
it does not care for rural families in the way that they claim they do.
  Indeed, my colleagues should support the Democrat alternative, which 
does what it says, and not discuss the President's budget, which is not 
relevant in this discussion.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, what is amazing to me is that despite the 
record high taxes on the American people and unprecedented surpluses, 
what does the President's budget propose? More taxes, over $100 billion 
in new taxes and fees. And what does he propose to do with these new 
taxes? More big government programs and more spending.
  Now, usually I try to illustrate my points with legible charts. But I 
am afraid that the only way I could fit all of the President's new 
taxes and fees and all of his new spending programs was to do it on 
these charts. I ask my colleagues to do the best they can to read them.
  But the point is, how does the President pay for all of this new 
spending? He spends over $100 billion of the Social Security surplus 
during the next 5 years, eliminates or underfunds programs like special 
education and NIH research, reduces Medicare payments, and again 
proposes over $100 billion in new taxes and fees.
  In conclusion, I just want to urge my colleagues to vote against the 
President's budget, vote against the new spending and new programs made 
possible by raiding Social Security and raising taxes.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) who wishes to rise and speak in 
support of the President's budget, who was the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget when the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 was 
passed which has brought us to this point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Sabo) is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
the time.
  First let me say that I think the most irresponsible budget that I 
have ever seen on this House floor by a majority is what we have before 
us today.
  Secondly, I am going to vote for this misinterpretation of the 
President's budget for one fundamental reason. I have differences with 
it and many things. He is over-optimistic about what we can do in the 
year 2000. The budgets that we have are unrealistic for dealing with 
any legitimate need. But the President did put forward before us a 
realistic proposal to deal with the funding of Social Security and 
Medicare.
  His program adds significantly to the reserves of the Social Security 
trust fund. Yes, he does. He adds significantly to the reserves for 
Medicare. It does not solve the problems in total, but it is an 
important beginning step to deal with them.
  The Republican proposal adds penny zero to the Social Security trust 
fund, adds penny zero to the Medicare trust fund.
  The President is on the right track. And as a symbolic vote for the 
real leadership that he has provided, I will vote for this 
misinterpretation of his budget.

[[Page 5729]]


  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just add that the GAO reports the President's 
proposal to strengthen the hospital insurance program is more perceived 
than real. In reality, nothing about the program has changed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. DeMint).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, as a new Member of Congress, it is 
refreshing today to hear some honesty. I have heard the Members of the 
President's own party call his budget a straw dog that we are 
embarrassed to even talk about.
  It is embarrassing when the President talks about saving Social 
Security yet continues to spend the Social Security Trust Fund. It is 
embarrassing when he talks about saving Medicare when he cuts the 
Medicare budget. It is embarrassing when he raises taxes and makes 
promises he cannot keep.
  Now, I know this does not represent the values of my colleagues. It 
does not represent our values. We need to call this budget what it is. 
Vote it down and move on to some honest debate with their budget and 
ours on the table.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining. The time of the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has expired.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is easy to understand why 
most of my colleagues do not want to vote for this President's budget. 
As a veteran, I have looked at it. And the President flat-lines 
benefits for veterans. The Republican budget actually increases it by 
$1 billion.
  Let me just tell my colleagues a few things. The President's budget 
busts the spending caps by $30 billion. We hold them. The President's 
budget raids Social Security money for more and more spending. Our 
budget protects Social Security and Medicare. The President's budget 
cuts $11 billion in Medicare, cuts the Republican budget. The 
Republican budget protects Medicare. The President's budget raises 
taxes by $172 billion.
  To quote President Reagan, ``There they go again, spending more 
money.'' In fact, the President has said Congress should not even 
consider providing tax relief for 15 years. Let us not let that happen. 
Vote this budget down.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding me this time.
  We have a very hard time in agriculture today, and the fix that we 
need is some type of revenue insurance, some way of farmers insuring 
their risk. The Secretary of Agriculture came before our Subcommittee 
on Appropriations and said, ``We cannot do it on the cheap to fix this 
problem.''
  Well, let us look at the President's budget. What does he have for 
crop insurance to fix the problem? A big fat goose egg. What does the 
Republican budget have in it? $6 billion to help our farmers. And also, 
in the President's budget, the livestock producers are going to have 
their taxes increased by $504 million right out of their hides.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, it is important that the President's 
proposals be put forward. It is important to contrast what was stated 
in the State of the Union with the actual numbers coming through in his 
budget. It is important for us to give his budget a comparison to the 
other budgets on this floor. It is important for us all to remember 
that, while he is saying he is saving Medicare, he cuts it $1 billion 
this year, $11 billion over the next 5 years. While it is important 
that he says he is saving Social Security, he spends all but 58 percent 
of it this next year and all but 62 percent of it the next 4 years.
  Vice President Gore, in the Clinton-Gore budget, one of the things 
that he said in his book, and I quote from Earth and Balance, ``Look at 
the budget where we are borrowing a billion dollars every 24 hours and 
in the process endangering the future of our children. Yet nobody is 
doing anything about it.''
  Well, I would propose to my colleagues that the Clinton-Gore budget 
does nothing about that, that in fact it increases the debt on our 
children $1.5 trillion between now and the year 2005.

                              {time}  1615

  It runs a budget deficit of $663 billion over the next 5 years. The 
budget of the majority runs a surplus.
  If this vision for America is appealing to my colleagues, higher 
taxes, more debt for our grandchildren, stealing money from Social 
Security, cuts in Medicare, then I would encourage them to support my 
resolution which is the Clinton-Gore budget and vote for it. But if 
they want to begin easing the debt burden on our grandchildren, save 
100 percent of the Social Security trust fund surplus and actually 
increase spending for Medicare, then I encourage them to oppose my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 2, noes 
426, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 74]

                                AYES--2

     Rush
     Sabo
       

                               NOES--426

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach

[[Page 5730]]


     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (1NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Filner
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Burton
     Owens
     Pelosi
     Stupak

                              {time}  1635

  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, and Messrs. METCALF, CLYBURN, COOKSEY and Mrs. 
NORTHUP changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained for 
rollcall No. 74. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in part 2 of House Report 106-77.


   Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered By Mr. Minge

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

       Amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute printed in 
     part 2 of House Report 106-77 offered by Mr. Minge:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2000.

       The Congress declares that this is the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000 and that the 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2001 through 
     2004 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2004:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
     Fiscal year 2000: $1,405,900,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2001: $1,441,600,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2002: $1,496,500,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2003: $1,551,100,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2004: $1,613,600,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
     Fiscal year 2000: -$0.
     Fiscal year 2001: -$3,900,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2002: -$11,500,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2003: -$11,900,000,000.
     Fiscal year 2004: -$14,300,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,418,785,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,316,307,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,493,021,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,546,516,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,608,848,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,405,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,436,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,468,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,527,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,583,300,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: -$900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$5,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$28,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: -$23,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: -$30,300,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $5,620,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $5,704,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $5,763,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $5,802,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $5,828,600,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2004 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,773,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $274,595,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $305,158,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,949,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $308,046,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $297,646,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $314,507,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $306,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $316,033,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $316,593,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,746,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,052,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,651,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,111,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,765,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,550,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,623,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,483,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,323,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,977,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,257,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,865,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,934,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,865,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,934,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,743,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,208,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,682,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$618,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$141,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$152,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,178,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$76,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,282,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$315,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,419,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,809,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,669,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,057,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,463,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,391,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,484,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,555,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,470,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,483,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2000:

[[Page 5731]]

       (A) New budget authority, $16,340,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,294,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,884,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,764,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,893,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,233,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,304,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,501,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,851,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,848,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,573,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,711,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,166,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,872,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,874,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,438,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,744,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,846,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,992,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,718,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,807,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,248,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,806,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,278,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,298,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,407,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,642,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,355,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,111,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,288,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,081,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,650,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,067,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,475,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,302,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,557,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,338,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,496,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,107,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,053,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,375,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,543,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,833,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $156,176,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $152,988,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $165,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $163,179,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $174,521,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $174,884,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $186,343,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $186,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $201,010,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $201,317,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $208,663,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $208,707,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $222,115,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $222,269,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $230,604,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $230,239,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $250,754,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $250,888,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $268,569,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,755,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $246,479,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $248,070,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $248,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,020,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $264,339,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $266,555,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $276,831,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $276,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $285,569,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,429,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,455,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,556,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,134,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,034,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,249,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,149,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,335,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,235,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,023,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,536,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,693,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,289,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,632,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,236,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,987,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,447,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,363,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,939,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,385,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,335,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,622,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,114,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,128,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,548,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,301,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,709,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,463,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,940,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,148,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,946,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,639,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,079,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,328,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,093,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,159,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,147,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,815,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,815,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $266,827,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $266,827,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $262,680,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $262,680,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,806,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $258,806,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $262,799,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $262,799,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$8,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$8,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$10,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$14,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$15,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$14,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$12,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$7,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$9,600,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$34,260,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$34,260,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,876,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$43,626,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$43,626,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37,004,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$37,004,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37,089,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$37,089,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Reconciliation.--Not later than September 30, 1999, the 
     House Committee on Ways and Means shall report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill that consists of changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction such that the total level of revenues for 
     that committee is not less than: $0 in revenues for fiscal 
     year 2000 and $41,600,000,000 in revenues for fiscal years 
     2000 through 2004.
       (b) Tax Cut Contingent on Saving Social Security.--It shall 
     not be in order in the

[[Page 5732]]

     House to consider a reconciliation bill reported pursuant to 
     subsection (a) unless the chairman of the House Committee on 
     the Budget has received a certification from the Board of 
     Trustees of the social security trust funds that the funds 
     are in actuarial balance for the 75-year period used in the 
     most recent annual report of that Board pursuant to section 
     201(c)(2) of the Social Security Act.

     SEC. 5. SAVING THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the social 
     security trust funds are required to be off-budget for the 
     purposes of the President's budget submission and the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget;
       (2) the social security trust funds have been running 
     surpluses for 17 years;
       (3) these surpluses have been used implicitly to finance 
     the general operations of the Government;
       (4) in fiscal year 2000, the social security surplus will 
     exceed $137,000,000,000;
       (5) for the first time in 24 years, a concurrent resolution 
     on the budget balances the Federal budget without counting 
     social security surpluses; and
       (6) the only way to ensure social security surpluses are 
     not diverted for other purposes is to balance the budget 
     exclusive of such surpluses.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the social security surplus should not be used to fund 
     other operations within the Government;
       (2) the budget of the Government should balance without 
     relying on social security trust funds to hide a deficit or 
     inflate a surplus; and
       (3) surpluses in the social security trust funds should be 
     reserved, to be used exclusively by the social security 
     system.
       (c) Point of Order.--(1) It shall not be in order in the 
     House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any 
     concurrent resolution on the budget, or any amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that sets forth a deficit for 
     any fiscal year. For purposes of this subsection, a deficit 
     shall be the level (if any) set forth in the most recently 
     agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for that fiscal 
     year pursuant to section 301(a)(3) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974. In setting forth the deficit level 
     pursuant to such section, that level shall not include any 
     adjustments in aggregates that would be made pursuant to any 
     reserve fund that provides for adjustments in allocations and 
     aggregates for legislation that enhances retirement security 
     or extends the solvency of the medicare trust funds or makes 
     such changes in the medicare payment or benefit structure as 
     are necessary.
       (2) Paragraph (1) may be waived in the Senate only by the 
     affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members voting.

     SEC. 6. REMOVAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY FROM BUDGET 
                   PRONOUNCEMENTS.

       It is the sense of Congress that any official statement 
     issued by the Office of Management and Budget, the 
     Congressional Budget Office, or any other agency or 
     instrumentality of the Federal Government of surplus or 
     deficit totals of the budget of the United States Government 
     as submitted by the President or of the surplus or deficit 
     totals of the congressional budget, and any description of, 
     or reference to, such totals in any official publication or 
     material issued by either of such Offices or any other such 
     agency or instrumentality, shall exclude the outlays and 
     receipts of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance 
     program under title II of the Social Security Act (including 
     the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and 
     the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund) and the related 
     provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ALLOCATION OF ON-BUDGET 
                   SURPLUSES.

       As reflected in this resolution, it is the sense of 
     Congress that all on-budget surpluses should be distributed 
     as follows:
       (1) 50 percent to debt reduction.--It is the determination 
     of Congress that the national debt is too high. In a time of 
     peace and prosperity, debt reduction is a top national 
     priority. This reduction of debt will better position the 
     Government to finance anticipated depletions of the social 
     security and medicare trust funds. However, the Congress 
     determines that such a reduction in debt shall not be 
     construed as a substitute for needed substantive reforms of 
     those programs to assure their long term financial integrity.
       (2) 25 percent to tax reduction.--Congress determines that 
     4 types of tax reduction should be accommodated within this 
     budget:
       (A) Extensions of current temporary provision of the tax 
     code.
       (B) Targeted tax reduction in settings in which changes are 
     needed for fairness and sound economic planning.
       (C) Tax reform and simplification to eliminate complicated 
     features of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (D) Consideration of across-the-board tax cuts.
       (3) 25 percent to investment in priority areas.--Congress 
     recognizes that the budget caps have imposed severe 
     constraints on Government operations for fiscal year 2000, 
     and without relief, programs may be difficult to administer 
     in the ensuing fiscal years. As a result, investments in many 
     priorities will be deferred or not made. The 25 percent of 
     surplus allocated to priority programs is designed to offer 
     opportunity to strengthen these programs in the years ahead. 
     Congress finds that priorities include agriculture, defense, 
     education, and veterans' programs, and others that may be 
     from time-to-time determined.

     SEC. 8. SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Social Security 
     and Medicare programs are vital to our nation's health and 
     the retirement security of our citizens. Enactment of reforms 
     to strengthen and preserve these programs must be an urgent 
     priority.
       (1) Social Security.--After the Congress enacts legislation 
     to reform and extend the solvency of the social security 
     program, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may 
     adjust allocations for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 to 
     allow for general revenue transfers to the social security 
     trust fund, subject to the following limitations: Fiscal year 
     2001, adjustments not greater than $8,500,000,000; fiscal 
     year 2002, $16,500,000,000; fiscal year 2003, 
     $25,500,000,000; and fiscal year 2004, $34,000,000,000.
       (2) Medicare.--After the Congress enacts legislation to 
     reform and extend the solvency of the medicare program, the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget may adjust 
     allocations for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 to allow for 
     general revenue transfers to the medicare trust fund, subject 
     to the following limitations: Fiscal year 2001, 
     $2,800,000,000; fiscal year 2002, $5,500,000,000; fiscal year 
     2003, $8,500,000,000; and fiscal year 2004, $11,000,000,000.

     SEC. 9. UPDATING BASELINE PROJECTIONS AND PRIORITIES FOR 
                   FISCAL YEAR 2000.

       (a) Up-to-Date Estimates of On-Budget Surpluses.--Upon the 
     request of the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, 
     the Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall make an 
     up-to-date estimate of the projected on-budget surplus for 
     the applicable fiscal year.
       (b) Adjustments.--Upon receipt of an up-to-date estimate of 
     an on-budget surplus made pursuant to subsection (a), the 
     chairman of the House Committee on the Budget shall adjust 
     the aggregates of new budget authority, outlays, revenues, 
     and the public debt as follows:
       (1) Reduce the aggregates for public debt for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2001 by an amount equal to \1/2\ of 
     the increase (if any) in on-budget surplus projections above 
     the amounts provided in this resolution.
       (2) Increase the aggregates of new budget authority and 
     outlays for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004 by an 
     amount equal to \1/4\ of the increase (if any) in on-budget 
     surplus projections above the amounts provided in this 
     resolution.
       (3) Reduce the revenue aggregates for each of fiscal years 
     2000 through 2004 by an amount equal to \1/4\ of the increase 
     (if any) in on-budget surplus projections above the amounts 
     provided in this resolution.

     SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ENFORCEMENT.

       It is the sense of Congress that before October 1, 2000, 
     Congress should enact legislation to modify and extend the 
     pay-as-you-go requirement through 2009, increase the 
     discretionary spending limits set forth under section 251(c) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985 for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and extend those limits 
     to include fiscal years 2003 and 2004, to reflect the new 
     budget authority and outlays as set forth in this resolution.

     SEC. 11. INTENT OF THE COMMITTEE REGARDING CROP INSURANCE.

       It is the intent of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     House that function 350 for agriculture allow for the 
     implementation of a new, comprehensive, affordable, and 
     permanent crop and revenue insurance program. The cost of the 
     program is assumed to be $__ billion in this resolution; but 
     the program design has not been developed. When the program 
     is developed such committee will take all steps necessary to 
     work the crop and revenue insurance initiative into the 
     budget resolution and budget process.

     SEC. 12. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING THE MEDICARE+CHOICE 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the geographic disparity in payment rates for the 
     medicare managed care program is inherently unfair;
       (2) unfairness disproportionately effects rural areas and 
     efficient health care markets;
       (3) seniors in areas with higher reimbursement can receive 
     additional benefits that are unavailable to seniors in other 
     areas of the country.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Medicare+Choice payment rate must be addressed to correct 
     the current inequality, and any expansion of the medicare 
     program can be made only after this disparity is addressed.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Minge) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) each will control 20 
minutes.

[[Page 5733]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we have spent most of today debating what budget is 
best for the people of the United States of America. We have had 
conflicting budgets presented. The President's budget, or at least how 
it has been perceived by the other side, has just been voted upon, the 
majority budget will be voted on later in the day, I expect, and the 
democratic substitute will be voted on.
  The Blue Dog Coalition, a group of moderate to conservative 
Democrats, has developed a substitute budget proposal. That substitute 
budget proposal is summarized on the easel that is in the well, and I 
would like to ask that my colleagues direct their attention to this 
substitute summary because it is important to understand both what the 
differences are and what the similarities are to the other budgets that 
are receiving consideration today.
  Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog budget recognizes that 
we have a responsibility to the American people, a responsibility to 
ensure that the Social Security program is no longer treated like a 
regular part of the budget and used as a cash cow to finance other 
activities, whether they be new programs, expanded programs or tax 
reductions. We put that Social Security program off budget, and the 
money that is accumulated as a surplus is used to pay down on the debt 
and position this country to better handle the obligations that we will 
owe in future years in the Social Security program.
  Secondly, we recognize that we are blessed in this country with the 
prospect of a budget surplus without using Social Security.
  We recognize that we must be terribly responsible or we will be 
making terrible mistakes with respect to this anticipated surplus. We 
have a time of virtually unparalleled prosperity. We feel our first 
order of business ought to be to use at least half of this surplus to 
reduce the Federal debt. When the sun is shining, we ought to repair 
the roof. We have had leaks in the roof, we have been running deficits, 
we have built up an enormous debt; it is time to make those repairs.
  We also urge that we spend 25 percent on investment priorities and 
the other 25 percent returned to the American taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. John) to discuss our 5-year plan.
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me. I also appreciate the Committee on Rules for making the Blue Dog 
budget in order.
  The title of my remarks are: Honest Projections and No Phony Bones, 
and that may seem a little humorous to my colleagues, but I think it is 
very important that we go through this exercise.
  Mr. Chairman, I support wholeheartedly the Blue Dog budget for a 
myriad of reasons, and my remarks today are going to focus on what I 
think is one of the more important reasons to support the Blue Dog 
budget, and the issue concerns economic projections. I am referring to 
the fact that the Blue Dog budget is a 5-year budget with projections 
over 5 years, and the Republican budget is a 15-year budget.
  As a new Member of the 105th Congress, I came in during the balanced 
budget agreement, and the debate was about tackling the deficit before 
we tackle the debt. We have enjoyed a very strong economy since that 
point in time, even though back then the projection said that we would 
not reach the surplus that we have until the year 2002.
  While I am optimistic that the economy today will continue, we must 
prepare now for a downturn in our economy because it is realistically 
going to happen.

                              {time}  1645

  That is why I believe, the Blue Dogs believe, that it is 
irresponsible to rely on 15-year projections that no one really 
honestly believes will come to fruition.
  To give an example, in 1993, before I was even a Member of this body, 
the CBO projected that this year, 1999, that we would have a $404 
billion deficit. I think that it is very, very important to look at 
these projections. It is irresponsible to go out and look at the 
numbers over a 15-year period.
  The Blue Dog budget is about real numbers. It is no phony numbers, 
and I urge support for this budget because it is the fiscally 
responsible budget that we can deal with today.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, the President and the Republican 
leadership both face issues of what to do about the Social Security and 
Medicare programs, defense, education and the surplus, but the 
differences between our proposals are stark.
  Last year, the Republican proposal to set aside 90 percent of the 
surplus for Social Security was not good enough for the President. So 
this year we are locking away 100 percent of the Social Security 
surplus for retirement security and Medicare.
  The President was not able to live up to his own demands. His budget 
sets aside only 77 percent. We are proud to have locked away more money 
for Social Security and Medicare than the President does.
  The Congress and the President agreed to certain spending caps in 
1997. It is a simple concept but difficult to accomplish. Our 
resolution keeps our promise on caps. The President's budget creates 
new programs and busts the caps by some $30 billion.
  His budget raises taxes by $172 billion over the next decade, while 
our budget provides nearly $800 billion in tax relief over the next 10 
years.
  Mr. Chairman, right now our pilots are in Kosovo carrying out a 
dangerous mission. I support them and pray for their safe return. We 
must provide adequate resources for them and to all our men and women 
in uniform.
  It is unfortunate that the President is using questionable numbers 
for his defense budget. His budget boasts an increase of $12.6 billion 
in budget authority but the real increase is only $4.1 billion. The 
rest is primarily from funds that were already budgeted for the 
Department of Defense and just reshuffled around.
  The Republican budget provides an honest increase of, when it is 
passed, it will be $11.3 billion over fiscal year 1999. That is frankly 
less than what is truly needed and what the Joint Chiefs have testified 
they need, but it is a start and I am proud that we have taken an 
honest step towards reducing the undue burden on our military.
  Mr. Chairman, the differences in these budgets are clear. I ask my 
colleagues for their support of our budget resolution.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains for each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) has 15\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has 17\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, the budget we have constructed for fiscal 
year 2000 will be the first budget of the millennium, and under the 
leadership of my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), we 
are building a better budget than the one we received last month from 
the President. We are locking more than the President, locking it away 
for Social Security and Medicare.
  For the first time ever, we are locking away Social Security money 
for Social Security and ending Washington's practice of raiding Social 
Security for other spending.
  We are also maintaining the spending discipline that brought us the 
balanced budget.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, the debate at this point is on the budget 
resolution, the amendment in the nature of a substitute that is on the 
floor, and

[[Page 5734]]

the debate is being addressed to matters which are not currently under 
consideration.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will accord Members latitude to discuss 
matters related to the budget.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, our budget sticks to the spending caps 
signed into law by President Clinton in the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997; while the President's budget exceeds those caps, as does the 
budget we are considering on the floor, the proposal, by our Blue Dog 
friends.
  That is the critical difference, Mr. Chairman, is that this 
distinguishes our budget from the President's and our budget from the 
one that is under consideration by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Minge).
  The spending caps are the heart of the balanced budget both parties 
have worked hard to achieve in recent years, but they are also the 
heart of our pledge to strengthen Social Security and Medicare.
  Our budget sticks to those caps and locks away 100 percent of the 
Social Security surplus for Social Security, off limits for new 
Washington spending. After locking away funds for Social Security and 
Medicare, and only after that, we return the rest of the surplus to the 
American people in the form of tax relief.
  Unfortunately, it seems our colleagues on the other side are not 
prepared to make that kind of a commitment.
  Now, do not get me wrong, Mr. Chairman. Our colleagues have every 
right to seek higher spending, but understand that for every dime that 
they spend beyond the caps is a dime that they could have locked away 
for Social Security and Medicare. By saying yes to higher spending, 
they are saying no to Social Security and Medicare.
  When we get right down to it, budgets are about choices. The choice 
here is not between Social Security and tax cuts. The choice is between 
Social Security and new Washington spending.
  We Republicans, we have already made our choice. We have said no to 
new Washington spending and we are locking away 100 percent of the 
Social Security surplus. We are locking away $100 billion more for 
Social Security and Medicare than the President, who cuts Medicare by 
$11.9 billion and spends a chunk of the Social Security surplus on new 
Washington spending.
  Mr. Chairman, given a choice between Social Security and new 
Washington spending, Republicans have chosen to support Social Security 
and Medicare. Now it is up to our colleagues which one they will decide 
to choose.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, returning the debate to the Blue Dog budget, 
I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, this country owes, based on past 
consumption, over $5 trillion and nobody is talking about paying that 
back. This Blue Dog budget is the budget that if my colleagues believe, 
as I do, that when one borrows money as we have from our children and 
grandchildren, that the responsible, honorable thing to do is to try to 
pay it back, then my colleagues will vote for the Blue Dog budget.
  There are $3.8 trillion of debt that we pay interest on every year. 
Last year we paid almost $250 billion in interest. Now where I come 
from, if someone owes somebody some money and they come into money, and 
remember all of this surplus is projected, not here yet, and they come 
into some money and they go buy an airplane or new car and do not pay 
the man that they owe, that is considered very poor form.
  I think, as the Blue Dogs do, that if we save all of the Social 
Security surplus and pay down the debt, we save half of the real 
surplus, if it materializes, and pay it down on the debt, this country 
will be stronger, not weaker.
  There are events over which we have no control. As long as we are 
paying down debt, whatever happens there, this country, our children 
and our grandchildren, will be in a better financial position to deal 
with those unknowns when they occur.
  If my colleagues believe, as I do, that we ought to pay back some of 
this past consumption, then my colleagues will help us pass this Blue 
Dog budget today.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to 
address this matter. I want to speak just briefly about the budget in 
general and then talk some about Medicare and what we face and what the 
differences are that we have in looking at the budgets that have been 
presented.
  First of all, over the last several years, as I have gone around the 
district and talked to my constituents, one of the things I 
consistently heard was that we want to put away 100 percent of the 
Social Security surplus. We even heard the President say that last 
year.
  This year he came and said, no, I only want to put 62 percent of that 
surplus for this next coming year into Social Security. We are going to 
do the 100 percent that he wanted that time, and I think we are going 
to, for the first time, put away everything; instead of just putting 62 
percent we are going to put 100 percent away to save Social Security 
and Medicare; the first time in 40 years that we have not spent the 
surplus on wasteful Washington spending or larger and more government. 
I think this is really a change.
  We have another budget here presented. It seems to be a little bit 
more of a me-too budget, but it still has that same philosophy of 
growing government. When we talk to the people across this country, 
they are tired of wasteful Washington spending. They want to see the 
end of the era of big government. They want to make sure that we 
provide the kind of support and security that we need, but that we also 
secure the future of our children; that we return as much as we can to 
our families so they can invest it in the best way to ensure the future 
of their children and grandchildren.
  It may be saving for college. It may be providing other things that 
their children need. It may be providing or donating to community 
activities, but it is very important that we return as much as we can 
to the American people because that is what they want. It is the right 
thing to do.
  I think the budget that we have is very good, as opposed to the 
President's budget and the Blue Dog budget, that we are being more 
conservative in spending, that we are stopping wasteful Washington 
spending and we are going to return as much as we can to the people 
back home.
  Secondly, I would like to look at some of the President's cuts on 
Medicare. It is an issue I am very concerned about. We see possibly a 
quarter of the home health agencies looking at problems of possibly 
going out of business. In my district there are 10 counties where one 
home health agency provides the primary care there. That home health 
agency is having problems. They may go out of business here in the next 
few months and that will reduce the care that we can give to those 
individuals in that area.
  Rural hospitals are having problems. The President has talked about 
prescription drugs and increasing there, but let us look at the cuts 
that he has proposed in Medicare. He has proposed cutting the 
prescription drug payment by $2.3 billion. Many of these cuts are to 
the sickest patients. They are to those cancer treatment patients that 
might mean the difference between life and death.
  He talks about prescription drugs but he cuts at the very heart of 
our sickest patients, and I am glad that we are not going to do that; 
that we are taking 100 percent of that budget and putting it to shore 
up Medicare.
  Secondly, we see other things. When we look at some of the things 
that he is decreasing, the total decrease is $11.9 billion. He is 
talking about extending these cuts in payments beyond the years that 
were agreed with in the balanced budget amendment.
  What will that do to our rural hospitals? I have a hospital in 
Garrard County, Kentucky, right now. We worked with them to combine two 
hospitals so they could be more efficient and more effective.

[[Page 5735]]



                              {time}  1700

  That is not going to occur, though, for the next 6 to 12 months. In 
the interim, they are having to shut down the emergency room right now 
because they do not have the margins. We need to make sure that we have 
the kind of support we need, and we cannot afford to cut it $11.9 
billion.
  I am glad that we have a budget that is fiscally conservative, that 
provides tax relief, and provides for our senior citizens.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are pleased with the presentation. We know there is 
a problem. We want to cut taxes. At the same time we want to promote 
programs. That is what the Blue Dog budget does, it is a mix.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Cramer)
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Minnesota, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, let us return to the budget under debate here, the Blue 
Dog budget, no more phony debate about this other budget. If Members 
are serious about balancing the budget, if they are serious about debt 
reduction, if they are serious about focused tax cuts, if they want to 
support our veterans, if they want to give a commitment to the defense 
of this country, then this is the budget for all of us.
  We have been calling for a true balanced budget excluding the social 
security trust fund for years. There is no phony baloney here, this is 
the real thing. Members should wake up. They can take all day, and we 
have for years, but this is the budget for us.
  Finally, I want to compliment the leadership here. We have had a fair 
debate here today. We have had an opportunity to present this budget. I 
want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) for giving 
us this opportunity.
  The Blue Dogs have been calling for a true balanced budget excluding 
the Social Security trust fund for several years. We are glad to see 
that we have finally reached a point where everyone is agreeing with us 
that we should balance the budget without counting the Social Security 
trust fund.
  The Blue Dog budget sets out a responsible budgetary policy that 
achieves and maintains a true balanced budget without counting the 
Social Security trust fund.
  Because the Republican budget uses virtually all of the non-Social 
Security surplus for tax cuts, we could have a return of deficits in 
the non-Social Security budget if future budget conditions are not 
quite as positive as currently projected.
  Even if the current projections are correct, the tax cuts in the 
Republican budget would cause a deficit after 2010, because the 
exploding tax cuts would continue to grow, while the non-Social 
Security surpluses will be smaller.


           responsible use of the projected on-budget surplus

  Republicans want to commit all of the projected surpluses for 
exploding tax cuts, whether or not the surpluses actually materialize.
  The Spratt budget is a little more prudent than the Republican budget 
by saving some of the on-budget surplus, but is uses most of the 
projected on-budget surpluses for new spending and some tax cuts.
  The Blue Dog budget takes the position that the conservative thing to 
do with projected on-budget is to be conservative. The Blue Dog budget 
makes paying off the national debt the first priority for any projected 
budget surplus, dedicating approximately half of the on-budget surplus 
for debt reduction.
  The Blue Dog budget divides the remaining half of the on-budget 
surplus between tax reduction and shoring up the nation's commitment to 
priorities such as agriculture, defense, education, health care and 
veterans' programs.
  If CBO increases surplus projections, there will be additional funds 
for tax cuts and spending priorities. The Blue Dog budget provides that 
any increase in surplus projections be divided with the same allocation 
of one-half for debt reduction, one-quarter for tax cuts and one-
quarter for spending priorities.


                 paying off the debt held by the public

  By saving the entire Social Security surplus and using half of on-
budget surpluses for debt reduction, the Blue Dog budget will pay off 
nearly one-fourth ($857 billion) of the $3.6 trillion debt held by the 
public over the next five years.
  Saving non-Social Security surpluses for debt reduction will help 
make up for the years in which Social Security surpluses were borrowed 
for operating expenses instead of saving them for Social Security.
  The Blue Dog budget reduces the debt held by the public by $87 
billion more than the Republican budget over the next five years.


               strengthening Social Security and Medicare

  The Blue Dog budget calls on Congress to enact reforms of Social 
Security and Medicare to strengthen these programs and reserves 
additional funds that could be used to help finance the short term 
costs of Medicare and Social Security reform.
  The Blue Dog budget reserves the savings from the lower interest 
payments that will occur as a result of reducing the debt to be used 
for Social Security and Medicare reform.
  Congress would have $85 billion over the next five years that could 
be used as part of Social Security reform and an additional $28 million 
over the next five years that could be used as part of Medicare reform.
  The combination of saving the Social Security surpluses for Social 
Security and reserving the debt reduction dividend for Social Security 
and Medicare, the Blue Dog budget saves a total of $937 billion for 
Social Security and Medicare--more than 90% of total projected unified 
budget surpluses over the next five years.
  The Blue Dog budget does not contain the cuts in Medicare payments to 
hospitals that were included in the President's budget.


                     fiscally responsible tax cuts

  The Blue Dog budget allocates approximately 25% of on-budget surplus 
for tax relief providing room for a net tax cut of $41.7 billion over 
the next five years.
  Limiting tax cuts to 25% of the projected surplus is a prudent step 
to ensure that the tax cuts do not cause deficits in the non-Social 
Security budget if actual budget conditions are not as good as current 
projections.
  The tax cuts in the Republican budget will consume nearly 100% of the 
projected budget non-Social Security surplus over the next five years. 
If the current projections are too optimistic, the tax cuts in the 
Republican budget will result in on-budget deficits and a return to the 
practice of borrowing from the Social Security trust fund to meet 
operating expenses.
  The tax cuts in the Republican budget will continue to grow after 
2009, while the projected surpluses will be smaller. By 2013 or 2014, 
the tax cuts in the Republican budget will cause deficits.


           a genuine increase in funding for national defense

  The Blue Dog budget equips our military commanders with the tools and 
resources necessary to continue to field the world's preeminent 
fighting force for years to come. It maintains a general funding mix 
ensuring our immediate military readiness and long-term defense 
procurement needs are not neglected.
  The Republican budget makes hollow promises for defense, but does not 
give the Department of Defense the real resources to follow through on 
these commitments.
  The Blue Dog budget includes $13 billion more in defense funding than 
Republicans. The Republican budget is $21 billion short in outlays 
(real expenditures) needed to support their budget authority (the 
amount which may be committed or obligated).
  The Blue Dog budget provides for a much-needed pay raise for our 
troops and addresses the current retention problems by adequately 
funding vital personnel and quality of life programs. The Republican 
budget does not accommodate the pay raise, and could force the 
Department of Defense to shift resources away from personnel and 
quality of life programs.


             meeting critical needs in american agriculture

  The Blue Dog budget contains $3 billion more mandatory funding for 
crop insurance than the Republican budget resolution. The increased 
funding for crop insurance in the Blue Dog budget is permanent, as 
opposed to the Republican budget which eliminates the increased funding 
for crop insurance after 2004.
  The Blue Dog budget provides $3.4 billion more budget authority for 
discretionary agricultural programs than the Republican budget.
  The Republican budget contains 10% cut in discretionary agriculture 
programs in fiscal year 2000, which could force a 1500 person reduction 
in Farm Service Agency funding, further slowing down the delivery of 
vital farm programs. The Blue Dog budget does not force cuts in 
discretionary agriculture programs in fiscal year 2000.


                    meeting our promises to veterans

  The Blue Dog budget provides a total of $10 billion more budget 
authority and $5.1 billion more outlays than the Republican budget for 
discretionary veterans programs.
  The Blue Dog budget increases funding for veterans health care and GI 
bill benefits by $1.9 billion 2000, and continues this increased 
funding level with modest growth after 2000.

[[Page 5736]]

  The Republican budget provides a one-time $950 million increase in 
veterans programs in fiscal year 2000, but eliminates this increase 
after 2000 and cuts veterans programs below 1999 levels.


   increased funding for priority education and health care programs

  The Blue Dog budget provides $10 billion more total funding for 
education and $8.6 billion more for health care programs than the 
Republican budget does over the next five years.
  These higher funding levels will allow for increased funding for 
rural health care programs, health research, elementary and secondary 
education and other priority education and health care programs without 
making deep cuts in other programs within these functions.
  The Republican budget claims to provide increased funding for the 
National Institutes of Health and for some education programs, but cuts 
total discretionary spending for the health care and education 
functions below a freeze. Any promised increases for specific education 
or health care programs under the Republican budget would require 
deeper cuts in all other health care and education programs.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) remains the 
great gentleman that he is.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me. I appreciate the opportunity to share a few 
thoughts that I have on the budget proposals that are before us today.
  Mr. Chairman, I am thankful that we are not going to have to deal and 
live with the President's budget, because if we did, and he promised us 
that he was going to secure Medicare, but with the left hand he cut it. 
I am pleased that we have an alternative budget where we are saving 100 
percent of the social security surplus for social security and for 
Medicare.
  Our seniors have been misled by the President; double-speak at its 
best, when one talks about securing social security and Medicare when 
on the other hand one is actually cutting it. Prescription drug 
payments, hospital payment freezes.
  I represent a lot of smaller rural hospitals who are struggling with 
red ink today. With the proposed cuts that are coming, they are 
possibly going to go out of business without the President's budget 
cuts. There is a complete lack of sensitivity to rural health care in 
America by this President and by this administration, when the facts 
are in.
  It is obviously clear that rural health care in America is already in 
trouble because of the lower payment they receive from HCFA, from the 
urban and suburban centers, and we are going to cut them some more if 
we would follow the President.
  I think it is vital, when we pass a budget later today, that it is a 
budget that really secures social security and Medicare and is not a 
phony budget, as has been presented by this administration, that says 
one thing on the right hand but on the left hand is actually cutting to 
the very heart of real health care in America, and would deprive rural 
Americans of the quality care they depend on.
  I am pleased that we do not have to pass the President's budget.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog substitute I support today is 
a triumph of common sense over ideology. It reduces the budget debt 
more than any other plan, and therefore does more to shore up social 
security and Medicare. By design, it protects the Nation's priority 
needs, which common sense dictates that we cannot abandon.
  For farmers, we provide $3 billion more for crop insurance without 
additional reductions in county offices and employees. For the 
military, we provide $13 billion more to ensure that morale and 
readiness problems are addressed. For veterans, we provide $1.9 billion 
more so this Nation will not renege on its promise to those who 
sacrificed to keep our country great.
  For our children, we provide $10 billion more for critical education 
programs like school construction and repair, Internet access, and 
smaller class size. For health care in rural areas, we provide more. 
Finally, the Blue Dog budget cuts taxes by $41.7 billion over the next 
10 years, and provides for tax relief to increase as the surplus grows.
  Vote for the budget that will do more for America. Vote for the Blue 
Dog budget.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding time to me. I also want to compliment the Committee on the 
Budget, and notably the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
  The way I look at it, it is very simple. The Republican budget 
resolution has set forth a very simple and straightforward concept. I 
think what the American people really want from Washington is straight 
talk. For the first time ever, we have 100 percent of social security 
going for social security. I know over the years it has been seen as a 
slush fund, but once and for all the American people are getting 
straight talk and honesty.
  With respect to the budget caps, a couple of years ago everybody sat 
around here in Washington, and the President, and they smoked their 
peace pipe and they agreed to the budget caps. Some people think that 
was a game. The Republicans say it is for real. That is what the 
American people expect and deserve.
  What are the principles we set forth? A strong defense. Taking care 
of Medicare. We saw what the President's budget did to Medicare. Taking 
care of our veterans. Needed tax relief.
  That is the critical distinction here between the amendment before us 
and what the Republican budget resolution calls for, because every year 
since 1995 the President submitted his budget and the Republicans have 
done the responsible and appropriate thing and said, let us put the 
brakes on. Let us spend money appropriately and be responsible, but not 
have a party at taxpayers' expense.
  Once and for all, we are going to get that. The American people 
deserve that. I urge the rejection of this amendment and support for 
the Republican budget resolution.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, we, the Blue Dogs, are here 
today to blow the whistle on partisan wrangling and to act as a budget 
referee.
  Neither the Republican nor the Democratic alternatives have achieved 
a fiscally responsible approach to this budget. The Democratic budget 
uses most of the projected on-budget surplus for new spending and some 
tax cuts. On the other hand, the Republican budget will consume nearly 
100 percent of the projected budget non-social security surplus over 
the next 5 years.
  In an economic downturn, the Republican budget would result in 
deficits, a return to the practice of raiding the social security trust 
fund. That is just not right.
  Our backlog budget allocates 25 percent of the on-budget surplus for 
tax relief, a net cut of $41.7 billion over the next 5 years. It is 
time to do the right thing.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let me just compliment my friends in the 
Blue Dog Coalition. They have, I think, moved this process in a very 
constructive way, but nevertheless, I am forced to have to reluctantly 
and softly oppose the Blue Dog budget for three basic reasons.
  One is, in the year 2001 they break the discipline of the 1997 budget 
agreement. We believe it is essential to not break the discipline of 
the 1997 budget agreement. We just made that agreement. We ought to 
stay within that agreement. Unfortunately, in the Blue Dog budget, that 
agreement is not adhered to in 2001.
  Secondly, there is $7 billion less in budget authority than the GOP 
plans

[[Page 5737]]

in the fiscal year 2000, and $2 billion less in outlays. We do believe, 
as I know many of the Blue Dogs believe, that we do need to add more in 
the area of defense. In fact, our budget has a significantly greater 
amount of money in defense than the Blue Dog budget.
  Finally, while I can admire the Blue Dogs' position on the issue of 
paying down debt, they only have $41 billion in tax cuts over the next 
5 years. I want to compliment them for that. However, the Republican 
budget has approximately $150 billion in tax cuts.
  I would very much like to think that we could allow money to sit 
around in Washington to be used to pay down a debt. We in fact are 
going to pay down the largest amount of the publicly-held debt out of 
the money we are reserving for social security. But when this on-budget 
surplus comes, as sure as God made little green apples, if there is 
money sitting around on the table in this town, I believe it will be 
used to create bigger government and more spending. The single biggest 
way to resolve that is to put ourselves in a position of being able to 
cut taxes and get that on-budget surplus out of town.
  I want to personally thank the Blue Dogs, and particularly the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) for his efforts to drive the 
debate on taking all of the social security and Medicare trust funds 
off-budget. He was a pioneer in that.
  I want to compliment them on their $41 billion in tax cuts, but it 
falls short in the area of breaking the spending caps, breaking the 
budget agreement in 1997, spending too little on defense, and not 
providing the tax relief that Americans really need and deserve to 
prevent the growth of big government, to empower people, and to run 
America from the bottom up.
  So for that reason, I must reluctantly oppose the Blue Dog 
substitute.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we had high hopes that the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget would be supporting our budget until that last statement. We 
obviously need to talk to them a little more.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me. I, too, am sorry that my good friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) cannot support our budget, but I am 
here today to support a budget that I believe in and I think the 
American people believe in.
  This budget does what needs to be done. It gets the social security 
trust fund off-budget. It starts paying down the debt. It funds the 
priorities that we need funded in this country.
  I come from a district that has a lot of problems in agriculture. 
This budget puts extra money into mandatory spending and into 
discretionary programs that we need if we are going to have any chance 
of pulling this agriculture economy out.
  The thing I want to talk about, I serve on the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs. Some know we have had a real commotion going on down there 
over the budget. All of the veterans groups came in and asked for $3.3 
billion extra to make things work. Some of us tried to get that 
accomplished. In this budget we have an additional $1.9 billion for 
veterans, and then we extend that through the whole period.
  The Republicans only have $900 million for the next year. Then they 
go back to the same level as the President. We cannot meet our 
commitments to veterans. We cannot keep our contract with veterans with 
that kind of a budget. Support the Blue Dog budget.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, both the President's budget plan and the 
Republican budget plan are disastrous for our Nation's veterans. The 
Blue Dog budget plan is the only budget proposal that meets the needs 
of our Nation's deserving veterans.
  We are in critical need of more health care dollars for our veterans. 
We need to expand our health care to veterans suffering from Hepatitis 
C-related illnesses and who are needing emergency care and long-term 
care. We need to expand care for homeless veterans. We need to provide 
more outpatient centers.
  Although the President acknowledges these needs, he has not provided 
for any new dollars in his initiatives. In fact, the VA budget freezes 
funded levels to what they were last year.
  Meanwhile, Republicans, on the other hand, are using doubletalk. 
Republicans claim their budget increases funding for veterans, but 
anyone who looks at the budget sees that they get a $900 million 
increase in 2000, but then it decreases back to the original budget of 
1999 levels. What is worse, the next 5 years, they cut it $2.4 billion. 
The Blue Dog budget provides over $10 billion over this period of time 
in outlays of more than $5.1 billion.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), our defense expert.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Blue Dog budget. I want to take time to 
explain why on defense.
  Last Monday, this past Monday, I was in Norfolk, Virginia, at the 
Norfolk Naval Station. The Admiral of the Atlantic Fleet remarked at 
how good they are doing now, that the Theodore Roosevelt carrier was to 
leave Norfolk on Friday at a 92 percent complement. The last carrier 
that left there had 86 percent.

                              {time}  1715

  We have problems in defense. There is no doubt that the Republican 
budget is not going to solve it. Why is it not going to solve it? It 
all has to do with outlays versus authorization.
  The Blue Dog budget is $11 billion more than the Republican budget. 
It was $13 billion, and now it is $11 billion, and of course $18 
billion more than the President. It is evenhanded. It is mostly on 
outlays. That is what is important. I would ask this body, please 
support the thing.
  I have a memo here, and we can put that in. ``Conservatives should 
not accept this phony increase and should insist on a new program.'' 
This came from the New American Century, Bill Crystal's group.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
yielding me this time.
  First of all, I want to thank Speaker Hastert and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Chairman Kasich) and the gentleman from California (Chairman 
Dreier) for allowing us to have this open debate. We did not get that 
last year.
  Most of the speakers that are opponents of the Blue Dog bill, the 
budget, have spent their time addressing a budget which received two 
votes about an hour and a half ago. The reason they do not talk about 
this budget is because they cannot. They cannot in good conscience 
compare it to their own.
  There are three good reasons. Number one is that this budget, 
contrary to what the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) said, spends 
$11 billion more in defense over the next 5 years. Secondly, it spends 
$6 billion more in agricultural outlays over the next 5 years. Thirdly, 
it spends $10 billion more in veterans spending over the next 5 years.
  I would implore my colleagues to take a good, close look at the 
tricks and the smoke and the mirrors and vote for the Blue Dog budget.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Minnesota for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the work he has 
done on this budget.
  I rise today in support of the Blue Dog budget. It is an honest and 
fair budget. The Republicans say they want to help America's farmers. 
Who are we kidding? The Republican bill slashes the funding to farmers 
by 10 percent at the time when they need it most.

[[Page 5738]]

  The Republican bill does nothing to pay down the national debt. It 
spends and spends and spends. Every last drop of the surplus it spends, 
driving our country further into debt, rising interest rates, 
bankrupting our farmers and their children.
  The Blue Dog budget contains $7 billion more for agriculture and 
recommends a sensible tax cut that will help our farmers. The Blue Dog 
budget devotes 50 percent of the surplus to deficit reduction, 
strengthening our economy, and saving for the future.
  I challenge any Republican who votes for their leadership's budget 
resolution to go home, look their farmers in the eye and tell them, ``I 
support agriculture.'' Do not be surprised if they do not believe you.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, health care is a front burner issue this 
year, and it does not matter what one's race or age or sex or where one 
is from or even what one's party affiliation is. If we do not have good 
health care, we cannot do any of the other things that people have been 
up here talking about.
  In the Blue Dog budget, we provide $8.6 billion more than the 
Republican budget over the next 5-year period. Our budget preserves 
funding for discretionary programs through the year 2002 and then 
allows for increases after 2002, whereas the Republican budget makes 
deeper cuts in discretionary spending for health care. The health and 
well-being of our Nation cannot stand for that.
  The Blue Dog budget would allow increases for research, for funding, 
for NIH, and make sure that our rural health care areas of concern are 
not left on the back burner. These higher increases are made within the 
context of a balanced budget and do not cut other health programs like 
the Republican budget does. Let us not overlook or undercut the very 
health and well-being of our country. Without good health, we cannot do 
anything else.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am pleased to note that we agree with the gentleman on the other 
side about the importance of taking care of health care services in 
this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to start by 
complimenting the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) on the budget 
proposal that he has put forth and the rest of the Blue Dog Coalition.
  There are two budgets that will be up for consideration today that I 
would have to suggest to my colleagues are not phony. The Republican 
budget and the Blue Dog budget are very similar.
  There are a couple of things where we differ. As I think the Blue 
Dogs will readily admit, they bust the caps in fiscal year 2001. That 
is where they are coming up with all of these, whether it is for health 
care, and out of respect, I suggest they are correct, their budget does 
spend a little bit more for health care, a little bit more for 
veterans. But they do it by busting the caps.
  So we want to suggest that, do they want to do that? It is a choice. 
Do they want to bust the caps which got us to fiscal discipline, got us 
to balance in the first place, or do they not? That is the first issue. 
But I commend them. They are exactly right. That is what they are 
doing.
  The other budget, the Clinton budget, is totally phony when it double 
counts Social Security; and the same is exactly true for the Spratt 
budget. But at least we have got two budgets to consider.
  The second big issue that we have got to consider today is what to do 
with the surplus. The surplus, I would suggest to my colleagues, it 
comes to us in two different ways. One is the Social Security surplus. 
The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) and the Republicans, the Blue 
Dogs and the Republicans, say set it all aside. Amen. Finally we have 
gotten to that point. The gentleman and I have worked on that for many 
years. Both budgets do that.
  The real issue, though, is what do we do with the rest? What do we do 
with the rest? There we have a choice. It is an honest choice. Choice 
number one, the Blue Dogs say spend a little bit of it, and tax relief 
a little bit of it, and debt reduction a little bit of it. That is 
fine. I respect that. That is a good choice that people can decide on.
  What the Republicans say is this is not our money. We always talk 
about Federal dollars as if they are in our pockets out here and they 
are like our money. They are not. People work hard every single day of 
the week in order to send us that money. What they know is that they 
have sent enough, if not too much.
  What they are hoping for is that once we have done the responsible 
thing, once we have met the priorities of the government, once we have 
set aside Social Security, then and only then, which is what our budget 
does, only when we have set aside Social Security this year, this year 
do we look out and do we say the surplus ought to go back to the people 
that sent it here in the first place.
  That is why I reluctantly oppose the budget of the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge), because of that choice.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Phelps).
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota for the opportunity to speak today.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise to support the Blue Dog budget because it 
represents responsible budget policy while still providing critical 
funding for education and health care programs.
  This budget provides $10 billion more for education and $8.6 billion 
more for health care than the Republican budget.
  In my district, let me tell my colleagues, these funds are critical, 
not only to close the disparity gap for those disadvantaged children, 
but also just making the tools available for those who try to make it 
in the real world.
  In my district, home health and rural health centers are the only 
point of access to health care for many people. Funding of these 
programs, which are included in the Blue Dog alternative, literally can 
mean life or death for these programs and the patients they serve.
  In 1997, with the balanced budget amendment, we asked our citizens to 
accept cuts to put us on a fiscally secure future. Now we are fiscally 
responsible and we have a surplus. It is our duty to also use the 
surplus responsibly by investing in kids' education and providing 
access to necessary health care to our citizens. The Blue Dog 
alternative best meets these goals.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher) to discuss our continuing commitment to 
education.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, America's working families, farmers, and 
businesses know that we must approach the Nation's budget the same way 
they approach their own, with a balanced view.
  Our Blue Dog budget alternative is balanced. It protects Social 
Security, offers targeted tax cuts, reduces the national debt, and most 
importantly recommits our Nation to educating our children.
  If America hopes to maintain our status as the world's economic 
superpower, we cannot continue to send off our kids to schools with 
inadequate facilities and outdated technology.
  Our Blue Dog budget provides $10 billion more for education and 
training than the Republican budget. It allows for an increase in 
elementary and secondary education without forcing cuts in other 
education programs. It allows for spending on discretionary and 
training programs to grow by an average of 3.6 percent a year through 
2004.

[[Page 5739]]

  This balanced, fiscally responsible approach to the budget is the 
same formula for success that American families want. I urge my 
colleagues to support our Blue Dog budget alternative.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota for yielding me this time.
  Back in the 1980s, back home in Indiana, I saw Congress make a 
mistake, and that mistake was embracing the idea of supply side 
economics and offering a huge tax cut in this country.
  Some would say that it fueled the economy but at a great expense. 
Back in the 1980s, the budget deficit or budget debt was $1 billion. It 
grew to over $4 trillion.
  Now as a Member of this Congress, I see the Congress about ready to 
make another mistake and offer huge tax cuts to the people of Indiana 
or to the people of this country. I think this is a serious mistake in 
light of the fact that we have a tremendous debt to pay off.
  Our priority ought to be paying off the debt first. That is what we 
should do as well as saving Social Security. If we do this, we will be 
doing the responsible thing for the people of this country, the 
responsible thing for our kids and our grandchildren.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), who has been an outstanding leader in the Blue 
Dog Coalition and worked effectively with us on budget and tax policy.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, let me sum up the Blue Dog budget this 
way: First, let me say that for the 21st consecutive year I have been 
allowed to oppose and vote against a President's budget because it 
spends too much, nine times with Democrats, 12 times with Republican 
presidents.
  The Blue Dog budget before us cuts taxes over the next 5 years by 
$41.2 billion. Anyone that suggests anything else is not being factual. 
The Blue Dog budget maintains the spending caps until we balance the 
budget without counting the Social Security surplus.
  To those who choose to criticize us because we spend too much on 
defense in 2001 and 2002, be prepared to live with those numbers within 
my colleagues' own caucus because they will find it is going to be very 
difficult to do it.
  Also with agriculture, be prepared to live with those numbers my 
colleagues advocate in criticizing our budget. If my colleagues are, 
they are honest, and I respect that. Be prepared to live with the 
veterans numbers and stay with them all the way through, if my 
colleagues criticize our budget for recognizing those priorities.
  Now, let us talk about our main priority, debt reduction. Our budget, 
at the end of 5 years, produces $85 billion less debt than the 
Republican budget. If we take it for 10 years, it is $450 billion. I 
submit to my colleagues, the Blue Dog budget is better for our country 
by reducing debt than the Republican budget.
  Finally, in summation, let me say the Blue Dogs give first priority 
to reducing the $5 trillion plus national debt. As a result, the Blue 
Dog budget is not able to provide as much spending as some would like 
to see on both sides of the aisle.
  So I ask my colleagues to join in thanking the leadership for 
allowing us to have this vote today. I appreciate the kind remarks that 
have been made by the other side recognizing the credibility. I believe 
what I have stated is factual and should warrant some overwhelming 
support from both sides of the aisle.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time; 
and as did the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, I too want to add my thanks and my 
appreciation to the Blue Dogs for coming forward with this budget.
  As I look across the aisle there and individually see the ones coming 
forward to speak in support of this, most of those Members are my close 
friends on that side of the aisle, and they are also the same 
individuals that talk like I do, who, with the exception of the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), come from my part of the country. 
And I have a great appreciation for that fact also.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a couple of things in closing here. 
While the Blue Dog budget takes huge steps in the right direction, I 
think it is flawed in a couple of areas. The two primary areas that I 
have concerns about are:
  Number one, defense. We do spend more in both budget authority as 
well as budget outlay in defense. With our manager's amendment, it 
increases the defense spending from our original numbers. And, 
obviously, that is what we are talking about, the final numbers.
  Secondly, the thing that really concerned me when I ran for Congress 
in 1994, and the thing that concerns me today, and the thing that my 
good friends on the other side who are supporting this budget have 
continually said is, we have to pay down that debt.
  And what has caused that debt? What has caused that debt is too much 
Federal spending. The Blue Dog budget calls for 25 percent of the 
surplus to go to spending. I have a problem with that.
  My friend, the gentleman from Arkansas, was very critical of the Ag 
portion of the Republican budget. I have in my hands letters from eight 
national farming organizations, from the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, to the National Cotton Council, the Farm Credit Council, 
the American Soybean Association, the National Peanut Council, the 
Southern Peanut Farmers Federation, and several others, endorsing the 
Republican budget.
  All of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are Blue 
Dogs, particularly those on the Committee on the Budget, know that when 
the President came out with zero dollars for crop insurance reform, 
Republicans led the fight to put money in the budget. I am appreciative 
that they followed suit with that, but for those reasons, I 
respectfully say that we are going to have to vote against this budget. 
But I do thank them, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 134, 
noes 295, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 75]

                               AYES--134

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Baird
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coburn
     Condit
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Ford
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Green (TX)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kind (WI)
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Minge
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Reyes

[[Page 5740]]


     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Scott
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Wexler
     Wise
     Wynn

                               NOES--295

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Burton
     Pelosi
     Stupak
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1752

  Messrs. FOSSELLA, BECERRA, BLAGOJEVICH, HULSHOF, TOWNS, ROTHMAN, Ms. 
MILLENDER-McDONALD, and Ms. McKINNEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. WISE, DEUTSCH, SHERMAN, NEAL of Massachusetts, and Mrs. 
CLAYTON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained for 
rollcall No. 75. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Camp). It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
3 printed in Part 2 of House Report 106-77.


  Amendment No. 3 in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. Spratt

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

       Amendment No. 3 in the Nature of a Substitute printed in 
     Part 2 of House Report 106-77 offered by Mr. Spratt:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2000.

       The Congress declares that this is the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000 and that the 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2001 through 
     2014 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       (a) Special Rule.--In this resolution, all references to 
     years are fiscal years and all amounts are expressed in 
     billions.
       (b) On-Budget Levels (Excluding Social Security and Other 
     Off-Budget Agencies.--The following budgetary levels are 
     appropriate for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2014:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
     Fiscal year 2000: $1,408.5.
     Fiscal year 2001: $1,439.2.
     Fiscal year 2002: $1,497.3.
     Fiscal year 2003: $1,552.0.
     Fiscal year 2004: $1,622.2.
     Fiscal year 2005: $1,697.5.
     Fiscal year 2006: $1,775.9.
     Fiscal year 2007: $1,855.9.
     Fiscal year 2008: $1,940.0.
     Fiscal year 2009: $2,029.3.
     Fiscal year 2010: $2,115.9.
     Fiscal year 2011: $2,207.4.
     Fiscal year 2012: $2,300.8.
     Fiscal year 2013: $2,396.6.
     Fiscal year 2014: $2,494.4.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
     Fiscal year 2000: $0.0.
     Fiscal year 2001: -$5.9.
     Fiscal year 2002: -$11.0.
     Fiscal year 2003: -$11.3.
     Fiscal year 2004: -$11.9.
     Fiscal year 2005: -$13.4.
     Fiscal year 2006: -$14.8.
     Fiscal year 2007: -$15.5.
     Fiscal year 2008: -$16.2.
     Fiscal year 2009: -$16.4.
     Fiscal year 2010: -$17.8.
     Fiscal year 2011: -$17.8.
     Fiscal year 2012: -$17.8.
     Fiscal year 2013: -$17.8.
     Fiscal year 2014: -$17.8.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,425.8.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,481.9.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,507.9.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,573.5.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,630.3.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,708.3.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,754.5.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,825.0.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,902.2.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,979.8.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,054.8.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,135.6.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,218.1.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,321.2.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,420.5.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,408.0.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,432.3.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,495.8.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,551.6.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,621.7.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,684.8.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,735.3.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,803.9.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,882.9.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,958.2.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,045.1.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,134.8.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,226.3.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,338.4.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,442.0.
       (4) Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $0.5.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6.9.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1.5.
       Fiscal year 2003: $0.2.
       Fiscal year 2004: $0.5.
       Fiscal year 2005: $12.9.
       Fiscal year 2006: $40.7.
       Fiscal year 2007: $52.1.
       Fiscal year 2008: $57.0.
       Fiscal year 2009: $71.0.
       Fiscal year 2010: $70.8.
       Fiscal year 2011: $72.6.
       Fiscal year 2012: $74.6.

[[Page 5741]]

       Fiscal year 2013: $58.2.
       Fiscal year 2014: $52.4.
       (c) Unified Budget Levels (Including All Federal 
     Programs).--The following budgetary levels are appropriate 
     for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2014:
       (1) Federal revenues.--(A) The recommended levels of 
     Federal revenues are as follows:
     Fiscal year 2000: $1,876.5.
     Fiscal year 2001: $1,927.0.
     Fiscal year 2002: $2,003.6.
     Fiscal year 2003: $2,079.4.
     Fiscal year 2004: $2,172.1.
     Fiscal year 2005: $2,274.3.
     Fiscal year 2006: $2,377.7.
     Fiscal year 2007: $2,484.2.
     Fiscal year 2008: $2,594.4.
     Fiscal year 2009: $2,710.6.
     Fiscal year 2010: $2,826.5.
     Fiscal year 2011: $2,948.5.
     Fiscal year 2012: $3,073.2.
     Fiscal year 2013: $3,201.0.
     Fiscal year 2014: $3,331.6.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
     Fiscal year 2000: $0.0.
     Fiscal year 2001: -$5.9.
     Fiscal year 2002: -$11.0.
     Fiscal year 2003: -$11.3.
     Fiscal year 2004: -$11.9.
     Fiscal year 2005: -$13.4.
     Fiscal year 2006: -$14.8.
     Fiscal year 2007: -$15.5.
     Fiscal year 2008: -$16.2.
     Fiscal year 2009: -$16.4.
     Fiscal year 2010: -$17.8.
     Fiscal year 2011: -$17.8.
     Fiscal year 2012: -$17.8.
     Fiscal year 2013: -$17.8.
     Fiscal year 2014: -$17.8.
       (2) New budget authority.--The appropriate levels of total 
     new budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,752.9.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,821.4.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,857.6.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,935.8.
       Fiscal year 2004: $2,005.7.
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,097.8.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,159.2.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,245.6.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,340.5.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,439.3.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,540.2.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,648.4.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,762.9.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,903.0.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,044.0.
       (3) Budget outlays.--The appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,735.1.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,771.9.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,845.4.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,914.0.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,997.2.
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,074.5.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,140.1.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,224.7.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,321.2.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,417.9.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,530.5.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,647.5.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,771.2.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,920.2.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,065.5.
       (4) Surpluses.--The amounts of the surpluses are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $141.4.
       Fiscal year 2001: $155.1.
       Fiscal year 2002: $158.1.
       Fiscal year 2003: $165.3.
       Fiscal year 2004: $174.9.
       Fiscal year 2005: $199.9.
       Fiscal year 2006: $237.7.
       Fiscal year 2007: $259.5.
       Fiscal year 2008: $273.2.
       Fiscal year 2009: $292.7.
       Fiscal year 2010: $296.0.
       Fiscal year 2011: $301.0.
       Fiscal year 2012: $302.0.
       Fiscal year 2013: $280.8.
       Fiscal year 2014: $266.1.
       (d) Debt Held by the Public.--The appropriate levels of the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $3,500.4.
       Fiscal year 2001: $3,361.3.
       Fiscal year 2002: $3,219.2.
       Fiscal year 2003: $3,070.3.
       Fiscal year 2004: $2,910.7.
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,725.0.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,500.6.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,253.4.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,991.7.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,710.2.
       Fiscal year 2010: $1,426.2.
       Fiscal year 2011: $1,137.3.
       Fiscal year 2012: $847.2.
       Fiscal year 2013: $577.5.
       Fiscal year 2014: $322.4.
       (e) Transfers From the General Fund to the HI and OASI 
     Trust Funds.--
       (1) Amounts transferred to hi trust fund.--The amounts to 
     be transferred from the General Fund to the HI Trust Fund are 
     as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $26.2.
       Fiscal year 2001: $28.2.
       Fiscal year 2002: $29.9.
       Fiscal year 2003: $31.5.
       Fiscal year 2004: $33.3.
       Fiscal year 2005: $37.8.
       Fiscal year 2006: $44.2.
       Fiscal year 2007: $47.8.
       Fiscal year 2008: $50.2.
       Fiscal year 2009: $53.1.
       Fiscal year 2010: $54.3.
       Fiscal year 2011: $54.9.
       Fiscal year 2012: $54.9.
       Fiscal year 2013: $51.6.
       Fiscal year 2014: $49.3.
       (2) Amounts transferred to oasi trust fund.--The amounts to 
     be transferred from the General Fund to the OASI Trust Fund 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2000: $108.5.
       Fiscal year 2001: $116.7.
       Fiscal year 2002: $123.5.
       Fiscal year 2003: $130.1.
       Fiscal year 2004: $137.7.
       Fiscal year 2005: $156.2.
       Fiscal year 2006: $182.8.
       Fiscal year 2007: $197.7.
       Fiscal year 2008: $207.4.
       Fiscal year 2009: $219.6.
       Fiscal year 2010: $224.3.
       Fiscal year 2011: $226.8.
       Fiscal year 2012: $226.9.
       Fiscal year 2013: $213.2.
       Fiscal year 2014: $203.7.
       (3) Resulting on-budget deficits.--The on-budget deficits 
     resulting from this resolution including the transfers under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) are the following:
       Fiscal year 2000: -$110.3.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$118.0.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$136.7.
       Fiscal year 2003: -$151.8.
       Fiscal year 2004: -$167.0.
       Fiscal year 2005: -$182.1.
       Fiscal year 2006: -$191.5.
       Fiscal year 2007: -$207.1.
       Fiscal year 2008: -$225.4.
       Fiscal year 2009: -$238.1.
       Fiscal year 2010: -$258.9.
       Fiscal year 2011: -$276.3.
       Fiscal year 2012: -$292.1.
       Fiscal year 2013: -$313.1.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$327.9.
       (4) Resulting off-budget surpluses.--The off-budget 
     surpluses resulting from this resolution including the 
     transfers under paragraphs (1) and (2) are the following:
       Fiscal year 2000: $251.8.
       Fiscal year 2001: $273.0.
       Fiscal year 2002: $294.8.
       Fiscal year 2003: $316.9.
       Fiscal year 2004: $341.9.
       Fiscal year 2005: $382.1.
       Fiscal year 2006: $429.2.
       Fiscal year 2007: $466.7.
       Fiscal year 2008: $498.5.
       Fiscal year 2009: $530.8.
       Fiscal year 2010: $554.9.
       Fiscal year 2011: $577.3.
       Fiscal year 2012: $594.1.
       Fiscal year 2013: $593.8.
       Fiscal year 2014: $594.0.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2009 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $280.4.
       (B) Outlays, $273.6.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $300.2.
       (B) Outlays, $281.6.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $302.1.
       (B) Outlays, $291.7.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $312.5.
       (B) Outlays, $303.6.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $321.4.
       (B) Outlays, $313.5.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $326.0.
       (B) Outlays, $318.0.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $330.7.
       (B) Outlays, $322.5.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $335.4.
       (B) Outlays, $327.1.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $340.2.
       (B) Outlays, $331.8.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $345.0.
       (B) Outlays, $336.5
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12.5.
       (B) Outlays, $14.8.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12.8.
       (B) Outlays, $15.4.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12.0.
       (B) Outlays, $14.8.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $13.6.
       (B) Outlays, $14.4.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $15.0.
       (B) Outlays, $14.5.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $16.3.
       (B) Outlays, $15.1.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $17.2.
       (B) Outlays, $15.5.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $17.8.
       (B) Outlays, $15.8.

[[Page 5742]]

       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $18.6.
       (B) Outlays, $16.3.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $19.3.
       (B) Outlays, $16.4.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $18.0.
       (B) Outlays, $18.2.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $18.7.
       (B) Outlays, $18.4.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $18.8.
       (B) Outlays, $18.7.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $18.9.
       (B) Outlays, $18.8.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $19.2.
       (B) Outlays, $19.1.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $21.7.
       (B) Outlays, $21.1.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $22.4.
       (B) Outlays, $22.1.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $23.3.
       (B) Outlays, $23.0.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $25.5.
       (B) Outlays, $24.2.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $27.7.
       (B) Outlays, $25.8.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.0.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.7.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.0.
       (B) Outlays, -$1.8.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.2.
       (B) Outlays, -$1.2.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.1.
       (B) Outlays, -$1.2.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$0.0.
       (B) Outlays, -$1.2.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.1.
       (B) Outlays, -$1.0.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.5.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.6.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.7.
       (B) Outlays, -$0.3.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $1.1.
       (B) Outlays, $0.0.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $1.2.
       (B) Outlays, $0.1.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $24.5.
       (B) Outlays, $23.6.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $24.4.
       (B) Outlays, $24.0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $24.4.
       (B) Outlays, $23.9.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $24.5.
       (B) Outlays, $24.1.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $25.4.
       (B) Outlays, $25.0.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $27.6.
       (B) Outlays, $26.5.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $28.6.
       (B) Outlays, $27.8.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $28.9.
       (B) Outlays, $28.2.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $30.4.
       (B) Outlays, $29.7.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $32.3.
       (B) Outlays, $30.6.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14.7.
       (B) Outlays, $13.3.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14.1.
       (B) Outlays, $12.2.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12.4.
       (B) Outlays, $10.6.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $12.7.
       (B) Outlays, $11.0.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $13.4.
       (B) Outlays, $11.8.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $14.2.
       (B) Outlays, $12.5.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $15.2.
       (B) Outlays, $13.4.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $16.0.
       (B) Outlays, $14.2.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $16.9.
       (B) Outlays, $14.9.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $17.3.
       (B) Outlays, $15.1.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $98.
       (B) Outlays, $4.5.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12.0.
       (B) Outlays, $7.1.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16.3.
       (B) Outlays, $11.9.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $16.3.
       (B) Outlays, $12.6.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $16.2.
       (B) Outlays, $12.8.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $14.7.
       (B) Outlays, $11.4.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $14.6.
       (B) Outlays, $11.1.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $14.7.
       (B) Outlays, $10.9.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $14.6.
       (B) Outlays, $10.5.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $14.4.
       (B) Outlays, $9.9.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $50.6.
       (B) Outlays, $45.8.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $52.2.
       (B) Outlays, $47.7.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $52.6
       (B) Outlays, $47.2.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $54.2.
       (B) Outlays, $48.5.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $54.2.
       (B) Outlays, $48.7.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $54.2.
       (B) Outlays, $50.6.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $54.6.
       (B) Outlays, $53.9.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $54.8.
       (B) Outlays, $55.1.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $55.3.
       (B) Outlays, $56.4.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $55.5.
       (B) Outlays, $56.7.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $8.6.
       (B) Outlays, $10.6.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $7.8.
       (B) Outlays, $9.3.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8.8.
       (B) Outlays, $8.8.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $8.9.
       (B) Outlays, $9.2.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $9.1.
       (B) Outlays, $9.3.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $10.8.
       (B) Outlays, $10.0.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $11.8.
       (B) Outlays, $10.7.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $12.8.
       (B) Outlays, $11.6.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $13.8.
       (B) Outlays, $12.8.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $14.8.
       (B) Outlays, $13.8.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services:
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $68.6.
       (B) Outlays, $64.3.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $67.3.
       (B) Outlays, $66.1.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $67.5.
       (B) Outlays, $66.7.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $69.9.
       (B) Outlays, $68.5.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $71.8.
       (B) Outlays, $70.7.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $74.1.
       (B) Outlays, $72.5.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $76.3.
       (B) Outlays, $75.3.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $80.2.
       (B) Outlays, $78.4.

[[Page 5743]]

       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $83.5.
       (B) Outlays, $82.5.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $87.5.
       (B) Outlays, $86.1.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $157.1.
       (B) Outlays, $153.4.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $167.3.
       (B) Outlays, $163.9.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $177.2.
       (B) Outlays, $177.1.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $188.9.
       (B) Outlays, $189.0.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $203.5.
       (B) Outlays, $204.2.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $220.8.
       (B) Outlays, $220.0.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $238.7.
       (B) Outlays, $238.7.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $259.3.
       (B) Outlays, $258.7.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $280.1.
       (B) Outlays, $279.2.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $303.2.
       (B) Outlays, $302.2.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $208.8.
       (B) Outlays, $208.8.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $222.2.
       (B) Outlays, $222.3.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $231.0.
       (B) Outlays, $230.7.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $251.2.
       (B) Outlays, $251.4.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $269.1.
       (B) Outlays, $269.3.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $269.3.
       (B) Outlays, $295.9.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $307.6.
       (B) Outlays, $307.8.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $338.5.
       (B) Outlays, $338.7.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $366.7.
       (B) Outlays, $366.3.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $395.3.
       (B) Outlays, $395.5.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $245.7.
       (B) Outlays, $248.4.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $257.2.
       (B) Outlays, $258.5.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $267.3.
       (B) Outlays, $268.3.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $276.8.
       (B) Outlays, $277.8.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $286.1.
       (B) Outlays, $287.8.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $300.6.
       (B) Outlays, $301.6.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $307.3.
       (B) Outlays, $309.0.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $313.8.
       (B) Outlays, $316.1.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $327.7.
       (B) Outlays, $330.7.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $338.4.
       (B) Outlays, $341.8.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14.2.
       (B) Outlays, $14.3.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13.8.
       (B) Outlays, $13.8.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15.6.
       (B) Outlays, $15.6.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $16.3.
       (B) Outlays, $16.3.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $17.1.
       (B) Outlays, $17.1.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $18.0.
       (B) Outlays, $18.0.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $19.1.
       (B) Outlays, $19.0.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $20.2.
       (B) Outlays, $20.1.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $21.4.
       (B) Outlays, $21.4.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $22.7.
       (B) Outlays, $22.6.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $45.6.
       (B) Outlays, $45.5.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $46.3.
       (B) Outlays, $46.4.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $46.8.
       (B) Outlays, $46.7.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $48.1.
       (B) Outlays, $48.3.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $48.4.
       (B) Outlays, $48.8.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $53.5.
       (B) Outlays, $53.9.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $52.1.
       (B) Outlays, $52.5.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $53.5.
       (B) Outlays, $51.9.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $54.7.
       (B) Outlays, $55.2.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $57.0.
       (B) Outlays, $57.4.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $23.4.
       (B) Outlays, $25.3.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $24.7.
       (B) Outlays, $24.9.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $24.7.
       (B) Outlays, $24.9.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $25.9.
       (B) Outlays, $25.7.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $27.7.
       (B) Outlays, $27.6.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $29.9.
       (B) Outlays, $29.3.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $31.2.
       (B) Outlays, $30.2.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $32.9.
       (B) Outlays, $32.5.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $34.5.
       (B) Outlays, $34.0.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $35.5.
       (B) Outlays, $35.2.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12.3.
       (B) Outlays, $13.5.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12.1.
       (B) Outlays, $12.6.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12.1.
       (B) Outlays, $12.3.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $12.1.
       (B) Outlays, $12.2.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12.4.
       (B) Outlays, $12.4.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $13.2.
       (B) Outlays, $12.8.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $14.0.
       (B) Outlays, $13.7.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $.
       (B) Outlays, $.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $.
       (B) Outlays, $.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $.
       (B) Outlays, $.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $.
       (B) Outlays, $.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $.
       (B) Outlays, $.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $.
       (B) Outlays, $.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $265.2.
       (B) Outlays, $265.2.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $263.3.
       (B) Outlays, $263.3.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $260.6.
       (B) Outlays, $260.6.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $257.7.
       (B) Outlays, $257.7.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $254.8.
       (B) Outlays, $254.8.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $250.7.
       (B) Outlays, $250.7.
       Fiscal year 2009:

[[Page 5744]]

       (A) New budget authority, $246.7.
       (B) Outlays, $246.7.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$9.3.
       (B) Outlays, -$9.5.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4.5.
       (B) Outlays, -$4.4.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4.3.
       (B) Outlays, -$5.7.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4.1.
       (B) Outlays, -$4.3.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4.4.
       (B) Outlays, -$4.4.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4.5.
       (B) Outlays, -$4.4.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4.3.
       (B) Outlays, -$4.3.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4.3.
       (B) Outlays, -$4.3.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4.4.
       (B) Outlays, -$4.3.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4.2.
       (B) Outlays, -$4.2.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$35.1.
       (B) Outlays, -$35.1.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37.9.
       (B) Outlays, -$37.9.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$44.9.
       (B) Outlays, -$44.9.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38.3.
       (B) Outlays, -$38.3.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38.6.
       (B) Outlays, -$38.6.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$39.8.
       (B) Outlays, -$39.8.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$40.8.
       (B) Outlays, -$40.8.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$42.5.
       (B) Outlays, -$42.5.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$43.6.
       (B) Outlays, -$43.6.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$44.8.
       (B) Outlays, -$44.8.
       (21) Multipurpose (970):
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.0.
       (B) Outlays, -$19.0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.0.
       (B) Outlays, $10.0.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.0.
       (B) Outlays, -$1.0.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.0.
       (B) Outlays, $10.0.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.0.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.0.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.0.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.0
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.0
       (B) Outlays, $0.0.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) First Reconciliation Bill.--Not later than July 1, 
     1999, the House Committee on Ways and Means shall report to 
     the House a reconciliation bill that consists of changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction necessary--
       (1) to ensure (A) that the surplus of all trust fund 
     receipts over outlays of the social security trust funds is 
     invested in special purpose bonds backed by the full faith 
     and credit of the United States, and (B) that such funds are 
     applied by the Treasury solely to pay off the outstanding 
     debt of the United States held by the public; and
       (2) to ensure further that the Treasury shall issue bonds 
     backed by the full faith and credit of the United States 
     Government to the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age, 
     Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds and to the 
     Board of Trustees of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust 
     Fund in an amount specified in this resolution which equals 
     the public debt retired through fiscal year 2014. 81\1/2\ 
     percent of such bonds shall be issued to the social security 
     trust funds and 19\1/2\ percent to the Medicare Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund.
       (b) Second Reconciliation Bill.--If the reconciliation bill 
     referred to in subsection (a) is enacted, then, not later 
     than the 20th calendar day beginning after the date of such 
     enactment, the House Committee on Ways and Means shall submit 
     its recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the 
     House. After receiving those recommendations, the Committee 
     on the Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill 
     carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive 
     revision.
       (1) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     revenues as follows: -$40.1 in the period of fiscal years 
     2000 through 2004 and -$116.5 in the period of fiscal years 
     2000 through 2009.
       (2) The policy of this concurrent resolution is that the 
     bill reported under section 4(b)(1) accommodate high priority 
     tax relief of approximately $62 billion over five years, $166 
     billion over ten years, and $295 billion over fifteen years 
     upon enactment of legislation that extends solvency of the 
     Social Security trust funds until 2050 and solvency of the 
     Medicare Trust Fund until at least 2020. Of these amounts, 
     $22 billion over five years, $50 billion over ten years, and 
     $90 billion over fifteen years would fully offset revenues 
     lost by closing or restricting unwarranted tax benefits. Such 
     tax relief should--
       (1) expand tax credits to alleviate the costs of child care 
     for working families;
       (2) reduce financing costs for primary and secondary public 
     school modernization;
       (3) mitigate ``marriage penalties'' in the tax code;
       (4) ensure that working families eligible for child tax 
     credits are unaffected by the Alternative Minimum Tax;
       (5) create tax incentives for working families to establish 
     savings accounts for retirement;
       (6) extend long-supported and previously renewed tax 
     benefits that soon will expire, such as the Work Opportunity 
     and Research and Experimentation credits;
       (7) accommodate the revenue effects of enacting the Dingell 
     bill (H.R. 358), legislation improving rights for medical 
     patients and providers in managed care health plans;
       (8) provide tax relief to assist working families with 
     long-term care needs; and
       (9) provide tax credits to purchasers of Better American 
     Bonds which will support State and local environmental 
     protection initiatives.

     SEC. 5. EXTENDING THE SOLVENCY OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND 
                   MEDICARE.

       Until enactment of the legislation required by this 
     section, none of any budget surplus shall be obligated or 
     expended. Upon enactment of this legislation, the on-budget 
     surplus may be used to increase programs or to offset tax 
     reduction, subject to the discretionary spending caps and the 
     pay-as-you-go rules as enacted by H. Con. Res. 67 (105th 
     Congress) or as subsequently amended. It is the objective of 
     this resolution to extend the solvency of Social Security at 
     least until 2050 and the solvency of Medicare at least until 
     2020, and to prohibit obligation or expenditure of any budget 
     surplus until these objectives are met. The Balanced Budget 
     Agreement of 1997 set discretionary caps for fiscal years 
     1998 through 2002 based upon explicit funding levels for 
     national defense (Function 050) for fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002. The President's budget for fiscal year 2000 requests a 
     baseline increase in Function 050 amounting to $84 billion in 
     budget authority for each of the next 5 years. The purpose of 
     the increase is to address problems of readiness and 
     retention and to meet requirements for modernization of 
     forces, which were not anticipated in the Balanced Budget 
     Agreement of 1997. This request changes fundamentally the 
     assumptions on which the agreement was made; therefore, 
     baseline spending should be increased in order to provide 
     sufficient funds for nondefense discretionary spending needs 
     while meeting the President's request for additional defense 
     spending. Therefore, upon enactment of legislation making 
     Social Security and Medicare solvent, as required by section 
     4(a), the discretionary spending caps applicable to fiscal 
     years 2001 and 2002 should be adjusted upward to reflect the 
     additional defense spending request from the President's 
     budget.

     SEC. 6. UPDATED CBO PROJECTIONS.

       Each calendar quarter the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office shall make an up-to-date estimate of receipts, 
     outlays and surplus (on-budget and off-budget) for the 
     current fiscal year.

     SEC. 7. RELINQUISHING THE FEDERAL SHARE OF MEDICAID FUNDS 
                   RECOUPED AS A RESULT OF TOBACCO SETTLEMENTS 
                   BETWEEN THE STATES AND TOBACCO COMPANIES.

       The resolution assumes the Federal share of Medicaid funds 
     recouped as a result of tobacco settlements between the 
     States and tobacco companies will be relinquised to the 
     States. The resolution assumes that the release of the 
     Federal Government's claim to these funds in favor of the 
     States will be made by law, and will be subject to certain 
     conditions and activities prescribed by law including, but 
     not limited to, programs which improve public health, 
     programs designed to prevent youth smoking, other health 
     activities or education, and compensation for tobacco 
     farmers.

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL 
                   RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--

[[Page 5745]]

       (1) persecution of individuals on the sole ground of their 
     religious beliefs and practices occurs in countries around 
     the world and affects millions of lives;
       (2) such persecution violates international norms of human 
     rights, including those established in the Universal 
     Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on 
     Civil and Political Rights, the Helsinki Accords, and the 
     Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance 
     and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief;
       (3) such persecution is abhorrent to all Americans, and our 
     very Nation was founded on the principle of the freedom to 
     worship according to the dictates of our conscience; and
       (4) in 1998 Congress unanimously passed, and President 
     Clinton signed into law, the International Religious Freedom 
     Act of 1998, which established the United States Commission 
     on International Religious Freedom to monitor facts and 
     circumstances of violations of religious freedom and 
     authorized $3,000,000 to carry out the functions of the 
     Commission for each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) this resolution assumes that $3,000,000 will be 
     appropriated within function 150 for fiscal year 2000 for the 
     United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 
     to carry out its duties; and
       (2) the House Committee on Appropriations is strongly urged 
     to appropriate such amount for the Commission.

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ASSET-BUILDING FOR THE WORKING 
                   POOR.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) 33 percent of all American households have no or 
     negative financial assets and 60 percent of African-American 
     households have no or negative financial assets;
       (2) 46.9 percent of all children in America live in 
     households with no financial assets, including 40 percent of 
     caucasian children and 75 percent of African-American 
     children;
       (3) in order to provide low-income families with more tools 
     for empowerment, incentives which encourage asset-building 
     should be established;
       (4) across the Nation numerous small public, private, and 
     public-private asset-building initiatives (including 
     individual development account programs) are demonstrating 
     success at empowering low-income workers;
       (5) the Government currently provides middle and upper 
     income Americans with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax 
     incentives for building assets; and
       (6) the Government should utilize tax laws or other 
     measures to provide low-income Americans with incentives to 
     work and build assets in order to escape poverty permanently.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     any changes in tax law should include provisions which 
     encourage low-income workers and their families to save for 
     buying their first home, starting a business, obtaining an 
     education, or taking other measures to prepare for the 
     future.

     SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ACCESS TO HEALTH INSURANCE AND 
                   PRESERVING HOME HEALTH SERVICES FOR ALL 
                   MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.

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

     SEC. 11. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON MEDICARE PAYMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) a goal of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was to expand 
     options for Medicare beneficiaries under the new 
     Medicare+Choice program;
       (2) Medicare+Choice was intended to make these choices 
     available to all Medicare beneficiaries; and unfortunately, 
     during the first two years of the Medicare+Choice program the 
     blended payment was not implemented, stifling health care 
     options and continuing regional disparity among many counties 
     across the United States; and
       (3) the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 also established the 
     National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare to 
     develop legislative recommendations to address the long-term 
     funding challenges facing medicare.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     this resolution assumes that funding of the Medicare+Choice 
     program is a priority for the House Committee on the Budget 
     before financing new programs and benefits that may 
     potentially add to the imbalance of payments and benefits in 
     Fee-for-Service Medicare and Medicare+Choice.

     SEC. 12. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON ASSESSMENT OF WELFARE-TO-WORK 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--It is the sense of the House that, 
     recognizing the need to maximize the benefit of the Welfare-
     to-Work Program, the Secretary of Labor should prepare a 
     report on Welfare-to-Work Programs pursuant to section 
     403(a)(5) of the Social Security Act. This report should 
     include information on the following--
       (1) the extent to which the funds available under such 
     section have been used (including the number of States that 
     have not used any of such funds), the types of programs that 
     have received such funds, the number of and characteristics 
     of the recipients of assistance under such programs, the 
     goals of such programs, the duration of such programs, the 
     costs of such programs, any evidence of the effects of such 
     programs on such recipients, and accounting of the total 
     amount expended by the States from such funds, and the rate 
     at which the Secretary expects such funds to be expended for 
     each of the fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002;
       (2) with regard to the unused funds allocated for Welfare-
     to-Work for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999, identify 
     areas of the Nation that have unmet needs for Welfare-to-Work 
     initiatives; and
       (3) identify possible Congressional action that may be 
     taken to reprogram Welfare-to-Work funds from States that 
     have not utilized previously allocated funds to places of 
     unmet need, including those States that have rejected or 
     otherwise not utilized prior funding.
       (b) Report.--It is the sense of the House that, not later 
     than January 1, 2000, the Secretary of Labor should submit to 
     the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Ways and 
     Means of the House and the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate, in writing, the report described in subsection (a).

     SEC. 13. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PROVIDING HONOR GUARD SERVICES 
                   FOR VETERANS' FUNERALS.

       It is the sense of Congress that all relevant congressional 
     committees should make every effort to provide sufficient 
     resources so that an Honor Guard, if requested, is available 
     for veterans' funerals.

     SEC. 14. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE PRESIDENT'S 
                   LIVABILITY AGENDA AND LANDS LEGACY INITIATIVE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) States and localities across the country are taking 
     steps to address the problems of traffic congestion, urban 
     sprawl, the deterioration of recreational areas, and the 
     disappearance of wildlife habitat and open space;
       (2) the Government should be a strong partner with States 
     and localities as they strive to address these problems and 
     build livable communities for the 21st century;
       (3) the Government can and should also take independent 
     actions to protect critical lands across the country and to 
     preserve America's natural treasures; and
       (4) the President's Lands Legacy Initiative and Livability 
     Agenda represent two comprehensive proposals that advance 
     these goals.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the President's Land Legacy Initiative and Livability Agenda 
     should be considered high priorities by the Appropriations 
     Committees as they make spending decisions for fiscal year 
     2000 and beyond.

     SEC. 15. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CHILD NUTRITION.

       It is the sense of Congress that both Democrats and 
     Republicans understand that an

[[Page 5746]]

     adequate diet and proper nutrition are essential to a child's 
     general well-being. Furthermore, the lack of an adequate diet 
     and proper nutrition may adversely affect a child's ability 
     to perform up to his or her ability in school. Because of 
     this fact, as well as the current Federal role in school 
     nutrition programs and the commitment on behalf of both 
     Republicans and Democrats to helping children learn, it is 
     the sense of Congress that the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce and the Committee on Agriculture of the House 
     should examine our Nation's nutrition programs to determine 
     if they can be improved, particularly with respect to 
     services to low-income children.

     SEC. 16. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING STATES' FLEXIBILITY TO 
                   HELP LOW-INCOME SENIORS MEET MEDICARE'S COST 
                   SHARING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) Congress and the States through Medicaid have 
     established two vital programs to help senior citizens pay 
     medicare premiums, deductibles, and copayments through the 
     Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) and the Specified Low-
     Income Medicare Beneficiary (SLMB) programs;
       (2) a recent Families, USA study found that between three 
     and four million low-income seniors are not getting the help 
     to which they are legally entitled, which is nearly 40 
     percent of those eligible for these programs; and
       (3) for many senior citizens with limited means, these 
     medicare premiums, deductibles, and copayments can be a 
     significant burden on their monthly budgets.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     these low-income seniors be enrolled in Medicaid by allowing 
     the Social Security Administration to automatically assume 
     that these seniors are eligible for Medicaid, while States 
     make final determinations.

     SEC. 17. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON EQUITABLE REIMBURSEMENT FOR 
                   FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTERS.

       The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 contained a provision to 
     phase out Medicaid cost-based reimbursements from States to 
     FQHC's beginning in August of 1999 and phasing out completely 
     by 2002. It is anticipated that the phase-out of these 
     reimbursements will put a tremendous strain on the ability of 
     FQHC's to meet the healthcare needs of Medicaid beneficiaries 
     and the uninsured, particularly in rural areas of the United 
     States. It is the sense of Congress that a fair and equitable 
     Medicaid reimbursement policy should be developed for FQHC's 
     in recognition of their unique patient and service mix.

     SEC. 18. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING STATES' FLEXIBILITY TO 
                   PROVIDE CHILDREN WITH HEALTH INSURANCE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) according to the 1997 current population survey data 
     from the United States Census Bureau, 11.3 million children 
     are uninsured and 4.4 million of them are eligible for 
     Medicaid;
       (2) under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, States have a 
     new option under Medicaid to grant ``presumptive 
     eligibility'' to children through pediatricians, community 
     health centers, other health providers, Head Start centers, 
     WIC agencies, and State or local child care agencies that 
     determine eligibility for child care subsidies; and
       (3) it is more cost effective to enroll these children in 
     Medicaid and ensure that they are receiving preventive care 
     through a family doctor, rather than through an emergency 
     room where children are sicker and taxpayers will end up 
     paying more through higher Medicaid expenditures, local 
     taxes, or insurance premiums.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     these low-income children be enrolled in Medicaid by allowing 
     schools, child care resource and referral centers, child 
     support agencies, workers determining eligibility for 
     homeless programs, and workers determining eligibility for 
     the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to 
     automatically assume that these children are eligible for 
     Medicaid, while States make final determinations.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) each will control 
20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) the ranking Democrat on the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if we were voting on final passage on the 
Spratt amendment, I would vote against it, because it and all other 
budgets before us today pretend that both parties will make deep cuts 
in health, environment, education, international responsibilities, and 
defense that in the end neither party, in my view, will accept.
  But this vote is not to pass the Spratt amendment. It is to 
substitute the Spratt amendment for the Republican budget, and I will 
vote to do that. Because, with all of its false premises, it is far 
less reckless, far more balanced and responsible than the Republican 
alternative that it amends.
  Now, why do I say that? It is because I was here in 1981 and I 
remember the Republicans and a lot of conservative Democrats ramming 
the disastrous Reagan budgets through this House, which promised that 
we could double defense spending, provide huge tax cuts aimed at the 
wealthy, and still balance the budget.
  Instead, those budgets tripled the deficits and tripled the national 
debt. And it took us some 19 years to dig out of that hole to the point 
where a President could finally present a balanced budget to the 
Congress.
  I vowed never again will I cooperate in that kind of outrageous 
activity. But now the Republicans in their approach bring us the same 
patent medicine snake oil that they gave us in 1981.
  The Spratt amendment does not. The Spratt amendment extends the 
solvency of Social Security and Medicare. It is better for veterans. It 
is better for education. It is better for health care. And in the 
future, it makes some of the investments that we will need to create 
greater opportunity for all of our American families.

                              {time}  1800

  But I caution all of my colleagues. After the budget resolution 
passes today, they will then face the appropriations process. In that 
process, I predict that neither party will be willing to vote for the 
cuts in education, in health care, in agriculture, in veterans, in 
environmental cleanup, in defense that all of these resolutions promise 
today.
  I really believe that Members fundamentally misunderstand what is 
happening in the budget process, and I would ask this question: Does 
anybody on this floor really believe that in the end in the 
appropriations process they will cut 10 percent below current services 
this year, or 20 to 25 percent below current services in the coming 5 
years in some of the program areas I have just described? The answer is 
very simple. They simply will not do it.
  The budget process in my view has become fundamentally flawed and 
phony. It politically rewards phonies. It allows Congress to pretend 
that it is making cuts at the macro level, which it will never deliver 
at the micro program level. And we desperately need to change it if we 
want to bring reality back to the process and integrity back to the 
debate about budgeting. Unless we do that, the public will not 
understand a single thing we do here on budgets, and in a democracy, 
that is unacceptable.
  And so I would simply say in closing, while I would not support the 
Spratt amendment if it were final passage because I believe all of 
these budgets before us today are fundamentally phony, this is by far 
the most balanced, the most equitable, the most thoughtful in terms of 
providing the long-term investments that we will eventually need in 
this country, and I would urge its adoption as a substitute to the 
Republican vehicle now before us.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to say, and I hope all my colleagues 
share this view, the gentleman from Wisconsin, who is the ranking 
member of the Committee on Appropriations and has to deal most 
pointedly with the reality as opposed to the rhetoric, invariably in my 
opinion speaks the truth not only to us but to the American public. I 
voted for the Blue Dog and I am going to vote for the Spratt budget, 
but those of us who serve on the Committee on Appropriations know that, 
in the final analysis, Members are not going to pass bills within their 
constraints that we now have on the floor, and that is what the 
gentleman from Wisconsin is talking about. I want to congratulate him 
for his leadership, for his honesty and for his service in this 
institution. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the gentleman for the 
time.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to

[[Page 5747]]

the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to the Spratt amendment.
  I rise in opposition to the Spratt amendment and in support of the 
Republican resolution which secures Social Security and Medicare, and 
increases education. The Republican resolution is the only budget that 
takes the first steps necessary toward improving benefits for veterans 
and restoring the health of national defense.
  As I stand here today, our dedicated service men and women who are 
deployed throughout the world, are unselfishly putting their lives at 
risk in support of our national security interests--in Kosovo, Iraq and 
North Korea to name a few.
  The Subcommittee on Military Personnel, which I chair, has had very 
good hearings concerning pay, retirement, retention and health care. 
The concerns that are affecting our soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
marines are real!
  During these investigations I received a letter, which I would like 
submitted for the Record, from a young officer in the Navy. He, like 
the rest of the outstanding military personnel loves what he does and 
takes great pride in supporting and protecting our country. He only 
asks that we provide him with qualified people, tools and training to 
complete their mission and to pay them an honest day's wage for an 
honest day's work. These men and women and their families deserve 
better than this--there is no excuse that they do not have the proper 
tools and equipment, work and live in substandard facilities and are 
paid so poorly they have to work two jobs to support their families. 
Our force is undermanned and overworked. The operation tempo is so high 
that many of these men and women have spent the last two Thanksgivings 
and Christmases away from their families. This is insulting to them and 
to this country which they so unselfishly support.
  I heard one of my colleagues from across the aisle say ``We have a 
moral obligation to support defense and that he would support the 
proposal that provides the most for defense.'' We do have a moral 
obligation to support defense and the Republican budget resolution with 
the manager's amendment takes the first steps necessary toward 
providing for defense. It will provide more dollars in fiscal year 
2000, (3 billion more than the Spratt amendment or the President's) 
than any other proposal.
  In addition, the Republican budget provides over $1 billion for the 
veterans who have also sacrificed so much for this country.
  Unlike the Spratt amendment the Republican budget resolution will 
fulfill our promise to veterans and work toward maintaining a strong 
national defense.
  I strongly oppose the Spratt amendment and support the Republican 
budget and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:
     To whom it may concern:

       For the last 17 years I have served my country as a sailor 
     in the United States Navy. I have seen what I believe to be 
     the decline in discipline reach an all time low in the last 2 
     years. I believe that boot camp has become too lax and fails 
     to produce sailors that could go immediately into combat and 
     survive. We also take those same sailors and send them to 
     Pensacola for follow on training where they live better than 
     most senior fleet sailors. They are cuddled the whole time 
     they are in school. They arrive in the fleet with little or 
     no concept of discipline. After they complete training they 
     show up at various stations around the world and live in what 
     is little more than a slum. We always say, ``if you take care 
     of your sailors, then they will take care of you.'' Taking 
     care of them may be in the form of a good ass chewing to get 
     them back on track. If we coddle them as airmen then what is 
     there to look forward to?
       It takes a special breed of person to stay in the Navy. 
     Sailors that stay in the Navy are, for the most part, not in 
     it for fame or fortune. They stay in the Navy because they 
     love what they do, pride in the hardest job in the world, 
     well done. There is no greater satisfaction than watching the 
     fruits of your labor launch off the pointy end of an aircraft 
     carrier loaded with all the ordnance it can possibly carry 
     and go take a piece of American policy to those who need it 
     most. They stay because of camaraderie. They stay because of 
     honor, courage and commitment.
       Honor, courage and commitment are words that are often used 
     in jest. What they should say is honor the sailor and respect 
     the job and sacrifice that he endures. Have the courage to 
     give those who risk their life every day in the defense of 
     our country and democracy the proper equipment to do their 
     job. Make the commitment to the basic human needs that every 
     human being, even sailors, need for themselves and their 
     families.
       Most sailors are held to an even higher standard than the 
     people who send them to their deaths in battle. Many have a 
     hard time living with the double standard that they are held 
     to. If our Commander-in-Chief can admittedly lie to Congress 
     about his improprieties, then why must an active duty 
     military person have their lives ruined and be forced from 
     the service of his country, because he went to a convention 
     that honors all of those who have ever landed an aircraft on 
     the pitching deck of an aircraft carrier.
       We need to provide the fleet with all the tools to maintain 
     all our assets. Just in time manning and ramping up for 
     deployment is ludicrous, people and assets need to be in 
     position and onboard to benefit from the rigors of the 
     training cycle. Sailors need to be properly trained. They 
     need to have the proper support equipment to test the 
     systems, be it on a ship or aircraft. They need publications 
     that are up-to-date. They need the various hand and automated 
     tools to actually perform the maintenance and maintain the 
     equipment. They need adequate space to perform their 
     maintenance and stow their gear. Recently it took us 2 days 
     to complete what should have been a 2-hour procedure for all 
     of these reasons: We could not get a hydraulic test stand 
     that worked correctly. The support equipment people could not 
     fix the hydraulic test stand because they did not have the 
     correct publications. The publications had not been updated 
     to reflect the new tool requirements. Nobody knew how to 
     operate the new test equipment. If we do not have the people 
     or tools to fix the aircraft then the aircraft can not fly. 
     Aircrews need to fly to stay proficient. Aircrews love to fly 
     and that is their job.
       We must fulfill the basic human needs of every sailor in 
     order for them to continue to be happy at their job. Pay them 
     an honest day's wage for an honest day's work. A sailor that 
     works on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, the most 
     dangerous work place in the world, gets $3 a day (before 
     taxes), provided the ship or squadron has enough billets to 
     pay him. Pay them for the sacrifices that they make by 
     providing adequate housing (when ashore), quality health care 
     for them and their families. We need to provide affordable 
     (pay grade based) 24 hour a day 7 days a week daycare.
       Manning is probably one thing that gets pinged on the most, 
     but just throwing a body at a problem will not fix it, if it 
     is not the right body. It does not matter if I have 10 
     mechanics if I have an electrical problem. Of the 200 people 
     assigned to the maintenance department, 25 are temporarily 
     assigned duties outside the command. 140 people are actually 
     assigned to production work centers. The 140 people include 7 
     in corrosion, 17 ordies, 5 tarpies, 3 PR's, and 28 line rats. 
     This leaves 80 people to perform 97% of the scheduled and 
     unscheduled, documented, direct maintenance on the aircraft. 
     However, on any given day we lose approximately 15 of the 75 
     people from these work centers due to leave, school, watch, 
     SIQ, LIMDU, appointments, etc. This all means that on an 
     average day we have 65 maintainers performing maintenance on 
     our aircraft. Currently the average direct maintenance man-
     hour per flight hour, for the F-14 is 60.5. Based on an 
     eight-hour day, five days a week we would perform 11,960 hour 
     of on aircraft maintenance per month. This would equate to 
     198 flight hours per month or 99 sorties, which would break 
     down to approximately 16 flight hours, or 8 sorties per month 
     for each pilot. This is not enough to stay proficient. This 
     also does not account for any of the other ``collateral'' 
     duties, administrative requirements or additional tasking 
     these sailors have. What do you think is not gonna be done?
       I don't know what the fix is and I don't know all the 
     answers but I will tell you I have never seen the Navy in 
     such a sad state of affairs. I love this business and have 
     always believed that there was honor in my chosen profession. 
     Where else in the world can a high school dropout become an 
     Officer and a key person in a maintenance department with 
     $500 million of assets. We have created most of the problems 
     ourselves through inflated decrees of readiness and 
     continually providing more with less, but at what cost? 
     Sailors are ingenious and will find ways to put ``hot steel 
     on target'' no matter what it takes, because that is our job. 
     When we have to work harder to get the job done, then some 
     other program is not getting the attention it needs. In many 
     cases those are the paper programs that the bureaucracy has 
     created in order for someone to ``cover their ass'' or have a 
     ``claim to fame.'' So every cutback has a cost. In this case 
     I think we cut too deep. Unfortunately we elected those 
     bureaucrats that created those paper programs. We are 
     WARRIORS and our job is to be prepared to fight wars.
                                        Rocky A. Riley, LTJG, USN.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I must confess a certain degree of 
confusion. Last month, the author of this amendment, this alternative 
budget, praised the President's budget with a glowing review. Today he 
proposes a budget that is diametrically opposed to and

[[Page 5748]]

completely incompatible with the President's budget, so I am confused. 
I do not know in which direction my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle really want to go. I suppose we will find out soon. But in the 
meantime, I want to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support the obvious alternative, the best budget, the Republican budget 
proposal.
  I came to Congress just 3 months ago as a small businessman, 
accustomed to the discipline that the free market imposes on business 
budgets and frustrated by the irresponsible lack of discipline we have 
often seen in many government budgets. Perhaps the most egregious 
example of this irresponsibility has been the raid on the Social 
Security trust funds. I am proud to be a member of the Republican 
Committee on the Budget that is bringing an end to that irresponsible 
practice.
  The Republican budgets saves 100 percent of Social Security funds, 
every penny of payroll taxes, every penny of interest owed to the 
Social Security trust fund. That is $1.8 trillion over the next 10 
years, considerably more than the President's budget. In addition, the 
Republican budget spends more on elementary and secondary education, 
more on defense, more on Medicare, and then after those priorities are 
addressed, the Republican budget, unlike any of the Democratic 
alternatives, provides meaningful tax relief for overtaxed working 
Americans, all of this accomplished within the context of the 1997 
budget agreement.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for senior citizens, to stand up for 
our students, to stand up for our soldiers and for our taxpayers. 
Reject the Spratt alternative and vote ``yes'' on the Republican 
budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt 
amendment and in opposition to the Kasich bill. Our amendment provides 
for the next generation rather than just the next election.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Mr. Spratt for crafting a substitute 
that will save all of the surplus until we ensure the solvency of 
Social Security and Medicare. Congress must exercise fiscal discipline 
and save Social Security first.
  I also want to thank committee Democrats for adding my bill, the 
Etheridge School Construction Act, to the Spratt Substitute. This 
legislation will provide critically needed help for local schools like 
those in my District that are bursting at the seams. As the former 
Superintendent of my state's schools, I call on this Congress to make 
the education of our children our top priority.
  Despite the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle, the Kasich 
budget does nothing for school construction and abandons the 100,000 
new teachers initiative. The Kasich budget cuts higher education by 
$36.3 billion over ten years. As the first member of my family to 
graduate from college, I know firsthand that affordable access to a 
quality education is the key to the American Dream, and Congress must 
not cut financial aid.
  This is a question of our values and our priorities. A budget should 
be about the next generation not just the next election. Vote for the 
future and the Spratt Substitute.

                House Budget Committee Democratic Caucus

       The Democratic alternative requires the enactment of 
     legislation extending the solvency of the Social Security 
     Trust Fund to 2050 and the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) 
     Trust Fund for 12 additional years prior to the enactment of 
     net new tax cuts or net new spending initiatives. If the 
     solvency of the Social Security and Medicare HI Trust Funds 
     is extended, the Democratic alternative provides for 
     education, training, and social services initiatives.


                republicans devastate education funding

       Despite Republican rhetoric about supporting education, the 
     House Republican budget resolution drastically cuts funding 
     for education, employment and training, and social service 
     programs.
       Republicans Cut Education by $1.2 Billion in 2000--The 
     House Republican budget cuts education funding for 2000 by 
     $1.2 billion below a freeze at the 1999 level.
       Republicans Cut Purchasing Power by 18.1 Percent by 2009--
     These cuts in education funding translate into a 6.9 percent 
     decrease in purchasing power by 2004, and an astounding 18.1 
     percent decrease in purchasing power by 2009.


     higher education, employment and training, and social services

       The Republicans deeply cut funding that provides higher 
     education assistance, college preparation, social services 
     (such as Head Start), and job training in order to increase 
     spending for elementary and secondary education. (The 
     Republicans do not say which education programs they 
     eliminate.)
       Republicans Cut Higher Education and Social Services by 
     $16.7 Billion over Five Years--The Republican budget cuts 
     funding for higher education, training, and social services--
     programs such as Pell Grants and Head Start--by $1.7 billion 
     for 2000, by $16.7 billion over five years, and by $36.3 
     billion over ten years compared with the 1999 freeze level.
       Republicans Cut Education by 5.7 Percent for 2000, 16.2 
     Percent for 2009--The magnitude of cuts in the Republican 
     budget requires an across-the-board cut of 5.7 percent for 
     2000 in programs other than those for elementary and 
     secondary education. By 2009, the Republican budget cuts 
     these programs by 16.2 percent compared with the 1999 freeze 
     level.


                   democrats boost education funding

       The Democratic budget rejects the Republicans' damaging 
     cuts in education programs. It provides $2.6 billion more for 
     education for 2000 than the Republican budget. Over time, the 
     difference between the Democratic and Republican budgets gets 
     even greater; the Democratic budget provides $10.2 billion 
     more than the Republicans over five years (2000-2004), and 
     $51.4 billion more over ten years (2000-2009).
       Protect Higher Education, Employment and Training, and 
     Social Services--Unlike the Republican budget, the Democratic 
     alternative does not cut higher education, training, and 
     social services to increase elementary and secondary 
     education programs. The Democratic alternative increases the 
     overall education budget.
       Hire 100,000 Teachers--The Democratic budget increases 
     spending by enough to continue the President's initiative to 
     hire 100,000 new teachers over seven years in order to reduce 
     the average class size in first through third grade. Congress 
     funded 30,000 new teachers last year, and the Democratic 
     alternative supports those teachers and allows the hiring of 
     8,000 more.
       Modernize Schools--The Democratic budget includes new tax 
     credits starting in 2000 to pay the interest on almost $25 
     billion in bonds to build and modernize up to 6,000 public 
     schools. It also continues welfare-to-work and employer-
     provided post secondary education tax credits.
       Increase Special Education--Because the Democratic budget 
     provides $2.6 billion more for 2000 than the Republican 
     budget, Democrats have more room to increase funding for 
     special education. The Republicans increase elementary and 
     secondary education funding by only $500 million above a 
     freeze. Unless they cut other elementary and secondary 
     education programs, they can only increase funding for 
     special education by the same amount.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt 
amendment. I voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1997 
because I knew it was unrealistic. I knew that when we got to this 
backloaded end of this process, we would be facing absolute 
impossibilities in meeting the needs of this country. We are there.
  The gentleman from South Carolina has written a budget within the 
rules. Those rules are caps on spending that Members are going to find 
impossible to appropriate within between now and the end of this 
session. I know everybody on the other side is waiting for the June 
estimates from CBO, hoping that God will come with billions more 
dollars to spend and that suddenly we will have some relief. But the 
fact is that what is happening in this House, and the American people 
have to understand it, is that those people who want to reduce the size 
of government are using a very interesting technique. The technique is, 
erode the tax base so that there is no money and then put social 
programs and defense head to head. We are headed for some very serious 
problems.
  Now, my belief was that all the mistakes that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin talked about were very real back in the 1980s, but now we 
have $5 trillion worth of debt. The gentleman from South Carolina says, 
``Let's deal with Social Security, let's deal with Medicare, let's pay 
down the debt.'' The Republican alternative is, ``Let's figure out some 
way to shuffle it around on a two-page document, smoke and mirrors, and 
come to the Committee on Ways and Means and give away billions of 
dollars in taxes again.''

[[Page 5749]]

  Now, if you will not pay your credit card debt, you deserve to lose 
your credit card. What is happening in this budgeting process is you 
have all this credit card debt that you have built up all those years, 
you now have a surplus, and you say, ``Let's go on another spending 
spree.'' This budget that the gentleman from South Carolina has says, 
``We're going to take care of the essentials.'' What people worry about 
is their security when they are old, their Social Security, their 
Medicare. Yes, when the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) gets old, 
he will worry about his Medicare, too, and so will his mother and so 
will everybody else's mother and uncle and aunt if we do not deal with 
those issues.
  The Republican alternative has not one single penny of additional 
money in the budget for dealing with the problems of Medicare. It 
should fail. The Spratt amendment should pass.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence) the very distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. SPENCE. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, when it comes to national security, there is no debate 
about which plan under consideration best provides for our men and 
women in uniform. Over the President's objection and under threat of 
veto, the Republican budgets in fiscal years 1996 through 1998 
increased defense spending by more than $20 billion over the 
President's budget in an effort to address some of our military's most 
critical unfunded quality of life, readiness and modernization 
shortfalls. The funds were desperately needed, but it was not enough.
  Last fall, the Nation's military leadership indicated that the 
President's defense budget was short by at least $150 billion in 
critical areas, like pay, housing, modernization, spare parts, 
maintenance funding and on and on and on. What was the President's 
response? His budget provides for only about 50 percent of what the 
Joint Chiefs said was needed. And even that 50 percent is explicitly 
held hostage to the President's domestic political agenda, while also 
assuming that the spending caps are broken.
  The military's needs are real. The President's defense budget, which 
itself falls short of meeting the military's minimum requirements, is 
not. Under the leadership of the Speaker and with the support of our 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kasich), the Republican budget goes a long way towards addressing the 
Joint Chiefs' unmet requirements. Under the leadership of the Speaker 
and with the support of the gentleman from Ohio, the Republican budget 
adds $30 billion to the defense budget, including more than $8 billion 
next year. And contrary to earlier accusations made by our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, the Republican budget will provide $3 
billion in additional outlays just next year alone. These extra funds 
will provide for everything from a 4.8 percent pay raise to better 
family housing, to more robustly modernized and dramatically improved 
readiness.
  So contrary to concerns expressed by some of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, again the Republican budget will take care of 
the troops, will take care of their families, will take care of 
readiness and will take care of modernization shortfalls far more 
effectively than the President's budget will. There is no contest.
  Support the troops. Support the Republican budget.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate 
myself with the gentleman's remarks and express my appreciation for his 
leadership dealing with our national defense.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Spratt 
alternative and in opposition to the Republican budget resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt Alternative and in 
opposition to the budget resolution before us because I call it the 
Fable of three evils.
  This budget will continue and even accelerate trends away from a 
progressive tax system. We rely more and more on payroll and property 
taxes and are less dependent on a progressive income tax. This budget 
offers tax relief for the rich and uncertainty for everyone else.
  Secondly, only as this process moves into appropriation reality will 
the American people understand the basic unfairness, the cold-
heartedness which lie at the base of these numbers presented here 
today.
  This budget calls for $200 billion dollars in discretionary cuts in 
future years. Imagine what this could mean for veterans, senior 
citizens, children, schools and hospitals.
  Thirdly, this budget is built on forecasts which may or may not 
become real. The Congressional Budget office warns that if economic 
conditions change, the budget deficit or surplus projections could be 
off by more than $85 billion dollars and become a political football.
  This budget does not reflect the needs of my district where the 
median income is $25,250. This budget cuts the heart out of senior 
citizens with the $9 billion Medicare cuts and puts healthcare at risk 
for millions with the $1.2 billion cut in Medicaid.
  I fully support a pay raise for our soldiers in the military; 
solvency for the social security trust fund; food stamps for elderly 
immigrants, medicaid for children, pregnant women and legal immigrants 
with disabilities. Therefore, I support the Spratt Alternative and urge 
its passage.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, many American children go to school each 
morning in crumbling schools with poor heating in winter, leaky pipes 
and paint peeling off the ceiling. Our children deserve better than 
this.
  Many American children are in classrooms with one teacher for 30, 35 
or 40 students. Our children deserve better than this.
  Our future is only as bright as the education we provide for our 
children today. I know people are used to Members of Congress talking 
about the importance of educating our children, but actions speak 
louder than words. The Democratic budget provides for 100,000 new 
teachers so that our children get more individualized attention in the 
classroom. The Democratic budget has an initiative to modernize our 
aging public schools. The Democratic budget invests in higher education 
so that everyone who earns a place in college can go to college. We 
Democrats believe that education needs to be a top priority.
  Republicans have a different set of priorities. They cut $16.7 
billion over 5 years for higher ed and social services. They cut 
education by 16 percent by the year 2009. They would rather give a big 
tax break to someone earning $200,000 a year or more than provide a 
good school for a child to realize their God-given capabilities. They 
would rather spend $775 billion on a tax cut than use that money to 
make sure our schools provide for a world-class education. Of course it 
is tough to know exactly how they will fund their tax cuts for the 
wealthy because they do not tell us. Will it come from Head Start? From 
college student loans and aid? Or maybe they will do what they first 
tried to do when they became the majority and eliminate the entire 
Department of Education.
  Their budget is like playing Russian roulette with our children's 
future. That clearly is the difference between Republicans and 
Democrats, having a different vision of the future. The one that we 
need is the Spratt Democratic substitute. It provides for the type of 
vision that educates our children in the next century.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey).
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just get to the point of matter. This is really 
very simple.
  Every young Member, every young working man and woman in this 
country, young couple with their own children, their own family, their 
own hopes

[[Page 5750]]

for their own life, is paying a very heavy payroll tax, many times on 
both incomes. Doing what they can to support their family but paying 
that heavy payroll tax; for what? For what they believe is the Social 
Security, retirement security, Medicare, health security of their 
grandma and their grandpa, and bless their hearts. These little guys, 
these young men and women, they make that payment. They make that 
payment because they believe this government is being honest. They 
think this government is taking that money for grandma and grandpa's 
retirement, and now they found out that has not been the case.
  As late as 1994, the last year the Democrats were in the majority, 
$100 billion of their hard-earned tax dollars did not go to grandma and 
grandpa's retirement security or to their health security but to other 
welfare programs, for all kinds of things. That is not only a betrayal 
of grandma and grandpa, but that is a betrayal of each and everyone of 
those young working men and women, these young parents that are working 
so hard and making such a sacrifice.
  How do we change that? The first thing we did was get rid of the 
deficit. We reformed welfare, we saved Medicare from insolvency, we 
reformed five major entitlement spending programs, and today for the 
first time in their life we have an opportunity to tell every young 
working man and woman in this country that every dime that they pay in 
payroll taxes will go for the purpose that they pay it, to support 
grandma and grandpa's and then, yes, some day their own retirement 
security through Social Security and Medicare. The Democrats are 
pretending to that, but they compromise it. They cut it off. They cut 
back because they cannot give up their big spending programs.
  But what makes this budget different that the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich) and this Republican committee has brought to the floor is 
right here: $200 billion more. To Mr. Young Working America: ``Those 
payroll taxes that are such a burden in your family are in fact being 
saved for your retirement security through Social Security than what is 
done by the President. Two hundred billion dollars more of that money 
that you pay for that purpose that you are promised by this government 
will be used for that purpose.''
  It is time, Mr. Chairman, that this government get honest with the 
working people of this country and pay the respect to their grandmother 
and grandfather that they paid when they pay those payroll taxes. The 
one fundamental thing we must know about this, every dime of those 
payroll taxes goes to Social Security and Medicare. We set more of 
their hard-earned tax dollars aside for Social Security and Medicare 
than the President, and for the first time we are being honest with 
both the grandma and the grandpa and the young 20 and 30 year-old young 
parent that is struggling for their children.
  This is our chance to do the one thing we never thought would get 
done in our lifetime. Let us do it tonight. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for having yielded the time to me.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Dunn).
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the House budget 
resolution sponsored by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). This 
budget is a solid step forward in the idea of limited government, of 
fiscal discipline and protecting Social Security and tax relief. By 
setting aside 1.8 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, the entire 
Social Security surplus plus interest, the Republican budget provides 
more money for the protection of Social Security and Medicare than does 
the President's budget. In addition, it locks this money away so it can 
only be used for reforming these important programs or for paying down 
the national debt. This is a great signal of our commitment to 
preserving the quality of life and income security of our Nation's 
seniors that they so richly deserve.
  Mr. Chairman, retirement should be a time to enjoy things, the 
company of friends and family. It should not be spent worrying about 
where our money is going to come from to retire, about access to health 
care, about paying the rent.
  The Republican budget also provides $800 billion worth of tax relief 
over the next 10 years.
  The Congressional Research Service recently reported that the average 
American family will end up paying $5,307 more in taxes over the next 
10 years than is necessary to operate government, and this is over and 
above the Social Security surplus. This represents a direct overpayment 
in taxes on the part of hard-working Americans. Incredibly the 
President's budget actually increases taxes on working Americans. 
According to the Tax Foundation 38.5 percent of his budget, the 
President's tax increase, will be born by individuals who earn less 
than $25,000 a year. Mr. President, how much is enough?
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of a better way to begin the new 
millennium than by reestablishing trust with the taxpayers whom we 
represent by letting them keep more of their hard-earned dollars. I 
urge my colleagues to reject this alternative and accept our commitment 
to taxpayers, to the seniors, and support the Republican budget. It is 
their money; let us give it back.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding this time to 
me.
  Our folks in the Armed Services need more ammunition, they need spare 
parts for readiness, they need better equipment, and they need better 
pay. They have told us what we need and what they need, and we should 
give it to them. There is not a budget here that gives them everything 
that they have requested for this year. Nobody's budget does that. But 
the Republican budget comes closer than anybody else. It gives $8 
billion more in spending authority for the troops, and it gives $3 
billion more in outlays.
  Mr. Chairman, that means if my colleagues vote for the Republican 
budget, we are going to have better pay for our troops, we are going to 
have more spare parts, we are going to have a better chance of them 
coming home alive.
  My colleagues should vote for the Republican budget if they care 
about defense.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our Minority Leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Democratic 
alternative and against the Republican budget, and I want to say 
tonight that I think we have to look at this issue from the viewpoint 
of people sitting around their kitchen table at home tonight looking at 
the issues that are involved in this budget.
  It is not about charts, it is not about graphs, it is not about 
statistics, it is not about numbers. It is about ideas that make sense 
to ordinary Americans, working families who are sitting around the 
breakfast table or the dinner table talking about the problems that 
they face. What would they like to see happen in this budget?
  First of all, they want Medicare and Social Security stabilized and 
extended, probably the two most important programs in peoples' lives. 
They are popular programs, important programs on an everyday basis. The 
Democratic budget extends the life of Medicare by 12 years and the life 
of Social Security by 18 years.
  We have a letter from the actuaries that say that our budget does 
that. They are not Republican actuaries or Democratic actuaries. They 
are actuaries, and their job is to give us information about ideas, and 
the Democratic idea they say extends the life of those two programs; in 
the one case, by 12; in the other case, by 18 years.
  The Republican budget does not have that letter from the actuaries, 
so if our colleagues are worried about Medicare and Social Security, 
then they ought to vote for the Democratic budget.
  The second thing people, I think, would like to do is pay down debt, 
pay down back debt so that we pass along

[[Page 5751]]

less back debt to our children and grandchildren and we have less 
carrying cost or interest cost in future budgets. The Democratic budget 
is much better on that score.
  The third thing they would like is targeted tax cuts, tax cuts that 
go to their problems. What are their problems? Long term care for their 
parents; that is a problem. We can have a targeted tax cut under the 
Democratic budget for that. They want tax cuts that have to do with 
U.S.A. accounts. I think the idea of being able to put more savings 
behind their Social Security so that they can have additional moneys to 
live on in their retirement is a very attractive idea that is in our 
budget.
  The fourth thing that I think they are interested in is being able to 
have more funds available for education, for smaller class size, for 
more teachers, for health care, for housing, for the needs that people 
have on an everyday basis.
  To me this whole issue is very simple. If we look at it through the 
eyes of ordinary American families who are out there tonight sitting 
around a table, if we are looking at the things that they care about, 
what I call kitchen table, everyday problems, this Democratic budget is 
far superior to the Republican budget on those issues, on those 
grounds.
  This is a simple choice that Members have to make tonight.
  I urge Members to vote for the Democratic alternative. If we get the 
votes to pass it tonight, it will be the budget of the United States, 
and I think it should be the budget of the United States because it is 
the budget of working families in this country.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Minority Leader summed it up very nicely. Every 
time that the majority has wanted a budget to target, to tackle, today, 
they have pulled out the President's budget and dragged it like a red 
herring across the path of this debate. Well, this is not the 
President's budget. It is like it in some respects, but different in 
other respects. This is a different piece of work.
  But there is a key aspect to it, the crowning aspect to it, that is 
like the President's budget. We Democrats created Social Security, and 
for the last 65 years we have been its guardians, and now that it faces 
the strain and stress it will face the next 25 years, we are not going 
to fail it.
  So, if our colleagues look at our budget, by golly, we extend the 
life of Social Security until the year 2050, and we have a letter from 
a chief actuary of the Social Security Administration to prove it.
  Secondly, next in pride and importance to us is one of our creations, 
Medicare. In 1968 we created it, and we have sustained it and protected 
it. The actuaries at the Health Care Finance Administration tell us it 
will run dry in the year 2008. The Republican budget leaves it in the 
lurch. Notwithstanding this warning from the actuaries, they do not put 
one thin dime. Out of all the billions that we see on the rise in the 
way of surpluses, not a nickel for Medicare. We, on the other hand, put 
several billions of dollars into this trust fund to sustain and extend 
its life until the year 2020.
  That is what we do first. We do not rush into tax cuts until we have 
first protected Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues something else we do. Now 
that we are in the position to do it, we treat the trust funds 
generated, the surpluses generated by Social Security with sanctity. We 
do not touch them, we do not use any of the money, and we provide in 
our resolution reconciliation instructions that call for a real 
lockbox; no, a strong box; not something that rests on a thin reed of a 
point of order, the kind that gets overridden around here every week, 
they are honored in the breach. No, we have got statutory instruction 
to the Treasury that will ensure that this money is used only for the 
security and benefit of the Social Security Administration.

                              {time}  1830

  The proof of all of this is on the bottom line. There is the bottom 
line. If Members vote for the Republican resolution, the Social 
Security trust fund will have a balance of $1.8 trillion 10 years from 
now. Now, that is not chump change.
  Look what happens if Members vote for the Democratic resolution. Ten 
years from now, the trust fund will have a balance of $3.4 trillion and 
it will keep growing through the year 2014.
  What about Medicare? Vote for the Republican resolution and in 10 
years it will be scraping bottom, $14 billion, barely enough to operate 
on in the trust fund.
  We will have a $400 billion balance still left to ensure its solvency 
into the year 2020. Those are the differences between our budget and 
their budget. These are significant differences.
  We have got a letter from the Health Care Financing Administration 
also certifying we extend the life of this program until the year 2020.
  Furthermore, we spent some money doing this, but we pay down the debt 
more than my Republican colleagues do. Over 10 years, we pay down the 
debt $146 billion more; over 15 years, by our calculation, $474 billion 
more.
  What does that mean? That these two programs which will depend upon a 
treasury not burdened with debt, not overwhelmed with debt service, 
will be in better condition than ever. Even though we save more, we 
also spend more. We understand what my colleagues on the Republican 
side are saying about tax cuts. We do some in our own budget and, in 
time, if these surpluses materialize, I think we will come back and do 
more tax reduction.
  In this particular budget, we say we believe in people to the extent 
of wanting to invest in people because we think the investment in human 
resources and education and housing, in the environment and health is 
absolutely critical. If we are going to save Social Security and 
Medicare, when we have 2.13 people working for every person retired, 
then they have got to be productive citizens, and we invest in the 
productive citizenry.
  What do my friends on the other side do? At every turn, they opt for 
a tax cut. Now, there is nothing wrong with tax cuts but this budget is 
fixated on them, and a lot of the problems that we have been able to 
poke holes in today arise from the fact that my Republican colleagues 
are so totally committed to that and nothing else. In the area of 
health care, they brag about plussing up NIH but in truth they diminish 
the function for health.
  In the case of the veterans, their own chairman said they needed $1.9 
billion. The committee spurned him, gave him $900 million one year and 
nothing, $500 million less than the freeze for the next 5 years. In the 
case of agriculture, they set up a crop insurance program. So do we. $6 
billion a year. In the year 2004, they quit funding it. About the time 
it gets established they pull the pumps out. We put $9 billion more in.
  Why do my Republican colleagues do that? Why do the cuts get so big 
in the outyears? Because they have to make room for this enormous tax 
cut that keeps growing and growing and growing.
  Let me say what the consequences are. This tax cut is $779 billion 
over 5 years. By our extrapolation, if we extend it forward at the rate 
of growth in the economy, it will be $1.11 trillion in the period 2009 
to 2014.
  Now, why is that period significant? That is the very time when the 
Social Security trust fund will start taking in less payroll taxes than 
it pays out in benefits, and at that point in time the budget of my 
Republican colleagues, their tax cut, takes its heaviest toll on the 
treasury, placing the treasury in jeopardy of securing these two 
programs.
  No, my friends on the other side do not cut them. They do not cut 
Medicare and they do not cut Social Security but they cut taxes in a 
way that could very well jeopardize their future because of that huge, 
mounting, swelling tax cut in those outyears when the money is needed 
most.
  Are there differences between these two budgets? We better believe 
there are differences. This is a better budget.

[[Page 5752]]

We save more. We spend more. We spend it more responsibly, and we can 
go down our checklist to see.
  We would like to put more teachers in the classrooms in the 
elementary years. Talking about investing in people, that is when it 
really pays off. I believe in that. We provide for it. We would like to 
build better schools, better structures, and we want to help those 
districts that are poor districts and cannot do it. So we put in the 
Tax Code some tax credits to help them float school bonds.
  We think working mothers deserve better child care credit. We expand 
them. On down the list, this is a better budget. It is better for 
Democrats, better for Republicans, better for the country. I suggest 
everybody vote for it.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all compliment the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). He is a great gentleman. He is also a very 
smart man and an incredible father of children who are, frankly, 
accomplishing more than he has accomplished here. They are doing great. 
They are all doctors.
  Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman for his compliment.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the gentleman for about four 
or five reasons. Number one, it spends $515 billion more over the next 
10 years than the Republican budget. Secondly, it provides almost $30 
billion less for defense than the Republican budget over the next 5 
years. It provides only $115 billion of net tax relief over 10 years, 
less than a penny on the dollar, and it also breaks the caps, the 
spending authority, the proposal we passed in 1997 to balance the 
budget, by $23 billion in budget authority and $16 billion in outlays. 
It increases our national debt to about $8.5 trillion by 2009.
  So I would ask the Members of the House to oppose the Spratt budget. 
It spends too much. There is too little for defense, too little in tax 
relief for Americans. It unfortunately breaks down the discipline of 
the 1997 budget agreement and adds to our national debt. For those 
reasons, while I have great respect for the gentleman from South 
Carolina I would ask the Members to reject the Spratt amendment, and 
then we will move on to final passage in a short period of time.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic 
Budget Alternative.
  Given the great amount of time we have paid over the past several 
years to the critical issues of paying down the national debt, ensuring 
the solvency of Medicare and Social Security, and targeting tax cuts in 
a fiscally responsible manner, I am pleased that the Democratic 
Alternative embodies these important priorities.
  In my view, a comparison of the Democratic and Republican budget 
proposals clearly indicates who has been listening to the American 
people and who has not. The annual budget is meant to serve as a 
barometer of what our country needs to thrive and be successful now and 
in the future. While the Democratic Alternative provides thoughtful 
guidelines to keep our country on course, the Majority's proposal can 
be likened to an uncontrollable storm that threatens to decimate the 
significant amount of progress that has been made in getting our 
nation's financial house in order.
  Let's take a quick look at some of the differences.
  The Democratic Alternative provides $40 billion in targeted tax cuts 
for those in need of dependent-care credits, long-term care credit, and 
school bond credits.
  The Republican Proposal has $143 billion in tax cuts in the next four 
years--and $636 billion in tax cuts in the four years after that. In 
total, a whopping $1 trillion dollars in tax cuts in ten years. These 
figures are so staggering that by FY 2009, these ill-advised tax cuts 
would become so large that they would exceed the entire non-Social 
Security surplus projected for those years.
  The Democratic Alternative extends the solvency of Social Security to 
2050 and the solvency of Medicare to 2020.
  The Republican Proposal does not add one day of extended solvency to 
either of these critical programs.
  And the Democratic Alternative pays down $146 billion more debt than 
the Republican Proposal.
  I also want to express my serious concerns about adequate funding for 
our nations veterans. I am troubled that those of us who sit on the 
Veterans Affairs Committee were prevented from even speaking about our 
alternative which included $3.2 billion more for critical veterans 
programs than the Administration's funding levels. Representative 
Clement's efforts on behalf of veterans were treated equally as poorly 
by Republicans on the Budget Committee and Rules Committee. It is 
absolutely disingenuous what Republicans today have said about their 
concern for veterans, and quite frankly is a slap in the face of all 
veterans and a blatant slam to their intelligence.
  Again, putting rhetoric aside and looking at the cold facts that the 
numbers illustrate--the Democratic Alternative provides an increase of 
$2 billion in FY 2000 discretionary spending for veterans and $106 
billion in budget authority over 5 years. The Republican Proposal on 
the other hand offers our veterans the paltry crumbs of a $900 million 
increase in FY 2000--which doesn't even cover the costs of inflation 
and pay for hard working VA employees. And then they turn around and 
slash funding for veterans by $1.1 billion in FY 2001.
  Mr. Chairman, the numbers speak for themselves. The Democratic 
Alternative reflects the priorities and needs of the American people. I 
urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 250, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 76]

                               AYES--173

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--250

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing

[[Page 5753]]


     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Barcia
     Brown (CA)
     Burton
     Cooksey
     Dingell
     Hostettler
     Metcalf
     Pelosi
     Smith (TX)
     Stupak

                              {time}  1853

  Messrs. PHELPS, EHLERS, and CAMPBELL changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for 
rollcall No. 76. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
  The CHAIRMAN. The final period of general debate is now in order.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think I will need to take the 5 minutes 
allotted me. Before Members make the decision to vote for this 
resolution and put the country potentially on this fiscal path for a 
number of years to come, I want to suggest that Members think twice. I 
want to point out the consequences of it.
  I am not opposed to tax cuts. Members will find in our budget 
resolution $62 billion in the first 5 years, $164 billion in the second 
5 years.

                              {time}  1900

  As I said in the debate, when we find whether or not these surpluses 
are for real, whether these billions of dollars are actually going to 
materialize out in time, then we can revisit tax reduction and do it on 
a sensible basis and not bet on the come, bet as if everything 
projected on paper is going to take place, and we can do a $779 billion 
tax cut with no consequences to the budget.
  These are the tax cuts that we plotted here: $143 billion in the 
first 5 years, $436 billion in the next 5 years. Then, if we 
extrapolate those tax cuts at the rate of growth of the economy, in the 
third 5-year period, between 2009 and 2014, they will grow, by our 
calculation, to a loss of revenues of $1.11 trillion.
  What does that mean? It means, first of all, that in the years we are 
talking about, 2009 to 2014, when the Social Security program may need 
assistance because the administrator of the Social Security 
Administration will be taking in less in payroll taxes than he is 
paying out in benefits, my colleagues' tax cut will take maximum toll 
on the Treasury.
  Indeed, if these surpluses do not materialize, my colleagues may 
indeed be cutting into the Social Security surpluses to bite their 
protestations that they will not touch them. This tax cut may lead 
inevitably to that. That is somewhat speculative, but I think it is a 
real risk. This is not a risk.
  The reciprocal of these tax cuts is a matching decline in 
discretionary spending. So while my colleagues have talked about doing 
more for education, if they look at their budget, when they get to the 
out years, starting in 2005, they do $50 billion less than we provided.
  If my colleagues go through the budget, there are all kinds of 
anomalies in the budget. These are the reasons for it. When my 
colleagues get to NIH, both in the Senate and in the House, the 
Republicans touted the National Institutes of Health, said we were 
going to do more. We looked to see how they did it, only to find that 
the health function was shrinking.
  NIH is 52 percent of the health function in this budget. How in the 
world are my colleagues going to enlarge NIH while they shrinking the 
function is a mystery to me. It certainly comes out of the hide of 
other important public health programs.
  Look at veterans programs. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), 
the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, wrote the 
committee, the Committee on Budget, after a vote taken by his Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs and said, I need a minimum of $1.9 billion to keep 
the promises we have made to our veterans every year.
  What my colleagues did in their budget was give him $900 million, not 
$1.9 billion, but $900 million. Then, in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, it 
disappeared. It did not recur. As a consequence, over that 5-year 
period of time, instead of giving veterans more to meet the benefits of 
the World War II population, which is getting older and older, they 
gave them less, $500 million less than a 1999 freeze.
  Why did my colleagues do it? They are trying to accommodate this tax 
cut. This budget is fixated on a tax cut. There is nothing wrong with 
going with tax reduction, particularly when we see these surpluses, but 
that is all they have got in this budget.
  Let me take the case of agriculture. My colleagues' committee put $6 
billion in the budget for the creation of a crop insurance program. 
That is a centerpiece of what agriculture wants this year. Six billion 
dollars over a 5-year period of time. We matched it.
  But guess what happens in 2005, about the time my colleagues are 
getting this crop insurance program up and running and well 
established? The funding disappears. My colleagues tell the Committee 
on Agriculture, go find mandatory sources to offset the cost, which 
will be $9.1 billion. We were able to squeeze it in our budget. My 
colleagues were not because of their fixation on doing the biggest tax 
cut since Kemp-Roth. Throughout the budget, that holds true.
  Let me tell my colleagues where it really holds true: national 
defense. My colleagues went to the trouble of putting $29.6 billion in 
this budget for national defense. They did not fund the out years. They 
are lower than the President. They have got a flat budget. In the near 
term, the $30 billion that they put up is not matched by outlays. All 
of it because this is an unbalanced budget. It is not a balanced budget 
is not a balance. It ought to be rejected.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this majority took control in 1995. The first budget 
that we saw in our majority was from the President that showed deficits 
as far as the eye could see. We fought very hard. We took some real 
political hits because we wanted to deal with programs that had never 
been dealt with before.
  In the process of dealing with Medicare, something that we paid a 
high political price for, not only did we deal

[[Page 5754]]

with the problems of Medicare, but we extended the life of the program 
for 13 years. We are very proud of that.
  In addition to that, we got to 1997, and we stayed on our path 
towards a balanced budget. Because of our persistence and because of 
some of the bipartisan support from people on the other side of the 
aisle, we joined together, and we worked with the President, and we 
created a historic agreement in 1997.
  Now we take a look at the situation in regard to the future and now, 
rather than having deficits as far as the eye could see, we have 
surpluses as far as the eye can see.
  We want to use those surpluses to do several things, things that we 
never thought were possible in 1995 when we won the majority. For the 
first time, we are going to keep our mitts off the money that we 
collect from Social Security and Medicare. Politicians have only been 
talking about it.
  Frankly, there were some on the other side of the aisle that said 
that we ought to move it off budget, and I pay tribute to them. But do 
my colleagues know what? We have been able to be intellectually honest 
to take the money from Social Security, the payroll taxes, and lock it 
up and keep our fingers off of it.
  In the meantime, we are going to pay down some of the national debt. 
Many of my colleagues who have served here for 25 years, did they ever 
think, did they ever think, not only would we have a balanced budget, 
but we begin to reduce the publicly held debt last year by $50 billion. 
We all should take credit for that. Then this year, under our proposal, 
we will reduce the publicly held national debt by an additional $125 
billion. Unthinkable in the past.
  We intend to save the $1.8 trillion. Do my colleagues know what we 
really want to do with it? We not only, all of us, not only want to 
protect the programs for our mothers and fathers, but we want to use 
the surplus as a leverage to transform Social Security and Medicare so 
that it will use this surplus to, not just save the programs for our 
parents, the elderly who does not want the rug pulled from under them, 
but do my colleagues know what else we can do with this surplus? We can 
use the power of the American system, the American economy, to set 
ourselves free so that, not only mom and dad are going to get the 
benefits, but there will be hope for the baby boomers and their 
children.
  We must not squander this opportunity to transform these programs, to 
make them more personal, and to make sure, not only mom and dad, but 
all of us and our children will have the same kind of retirement 
security that we all hope and dream for.
  At the same time, we have decided not to walk away from the 1997 
budget agreement. We want to live within the spending caps. But within 
those caps, we want to emphasize defense. We want to say that our 
troops need more, that we need better readiness, we need better 
training, that we can buy the needed equipment.
  Over these next 5 years, we are going to struggle to do it, and we 
were going to work with the Committee on Armed Services to make sure 
that our military is second to none.
  At the same time, we are going to prioritize education. Maybe at some 
point we will actually be able to look at the special education 
programs that we have mandated on local schools and say that we will 
keep our promise to those school districts.
  Does that mean some tough choices have to be made? Let me tell my 
colleagues, with my friends on the Committee on Appropriations, they 
are not walking around the floor winking at one another. I know they 
are ready to start the job to make some choices.
  I do not think we want to abandon the 1997 agreement. It is too 
important to all of us. We all have a stake in it. If we can stay with 
it, we will not get in the way of this economic growth.
  Then, finally, Mr. Chairman, as it relates to tax relief, look, we 
are going to have on budget surplus aside from Social Security and 
Medicare. I would love to tell my colleagues that we could just leave 
it here and use it to pay down more debt. But we have all been here 
long enough to know that the temptations of spending that money to 
create bigger government are inevitable.
  So what we really want to do, if we want to return power to people, 
if we really want to emphasize the dignity and power of the individual 
in the next century, we want people to have more power, more control 
over their lives; and tax cuts are the best manifestation of it. Do my 
colleagues know why? Because the more one has in one's pocket, the more 
one's children has in their pockets, the more one's parents has in 
their pockets, the more they can pursue their destiny and the American 
dream.
  Every day, we ought to work to meet the challenges that the 
government must meet, but at the same time empower people.
  What this resolution does is historic. It begins to transform the 
programs that provide retirement security while maintaining fiscal 
discipline while returning a big chunk of the revenue of the Federal 
Government back in the pockets of the taxpayers. Approve the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent resolution (H. 
Con. Res. 68) establishing the congressional budget for the United 
States Government for fiscal year 2000 and setting forth appropriate 
budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2009, pursuant 
to House Resolution 131, he reported the concurrent resolution, as 
amended by the adoption of that resolution, back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the concurrent resolution, as amended.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 208, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 77]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spence

[[Page 5755]]


     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Burton
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Smith (TX)
     Stupak

                              {time}  1924

  So the concurrent resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for 
rollcall No. 77. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the 
vote for final passage of H. Con. Res. 68.

                          ____________________